WHS - current GM article

[Deleted member 29109]

Our course lacks too many hazards but is quite long at 6600 yards. 6 par 4s are over 400 yards. Par 3s are 165 - 185.
Fairways are reasonably wide but rough is punitive.
CR is only 114 though. I was under the impression that there isn't that much emphasis on length in course rating.
Visitors tend to describe it as a punishing slog. And it's quite hilly too.

And it was ever thus.

The problem is the increase in handicaps. Which a lot of people still think is related to WHS.

 

[Backsticks]

?

Sorry. Slope.

 

[doublebogey7]

Absolute cobblers

Great contribution to ther debate

 

[ColchesterFC]

Surely it's obvious that in golf low handicap golfers are consistently more consistent and high handicap golfers are more consistently inconsistent? Due to injury I haven't played in several years but I always played off around 18. During my Uni years I shot a gross 78 around the Old Course in St Andrews and then followed that up in the next round with a gross 98 round the New Course. High handicappers have a much wider fluctuation in their scores than low handicap golfers, therefore there is a much higher chance of an 18 handicapper shooting a gross 82 for 44 Stableford points than there is a scratch golfer shooting a gross 64 for the same score (assuming Par 72). Even under the old system this was true. This doesn't mean that the system is wrong or that someone is cheating or managing their handicap (although there are some people that will do that), it's simply that to be a good golfer and achieve a low handicap you have to have the natural talent and commitment to play and practise a lot more than social golfers or those with less ability. Is it fair to expect high handicappers to pay into the 2's pot when it's obvious that a scratch golfer has a much higher chance of a 2 than someone off 28?

Low handicap golfers seem to get overly annoyed by losing to someone playing off a much higher handicap. Where's the cutoff for that annoyance? If you're a scratch golfer that shoots level par but loses to someone off 28 that shoots 2 under their handicap does that annoy you? Does it still annoy you if it's an 18 handicapper? Or a 10 handicapper? What is the cutoff? The example in the original article about losing on the 17th green when a golfer was one over gross playing off 2 surely just emphasises that their handicaps were about right in that the match was so close that it went to the 17th hole. The woman playing off 2 doesn't seem to think that WHS is wrong because she was 1 under her handicap but suggests it's wrong because her higher handicap opponent was presumably 2 under her handicap. She says that she "had played immaculate golf". Well in that case her opponent, playing off 22, had also played immaculate golf relative to her 25 handicap.

 

[doublebogey7]

There are some strange conclusions in this. The decrease in points scored looks suspicious and exactly like the omission of CR-Par.

There are other issues too. Cat 5 golfers look to have been massively incorrect at inception and shouldn’t be used to conclude 13 point difference.

Not all golfers were adjusted from Congu to WHS equally. Not all golfers even submitted 20 cards in one year, so aren’t stabilised in the sample size equally.

But yeah, blame bad conclusions on reader bias if you want.

Sorry but I made no comment on the value of that particular analysis as I am aware of its floors. I posted because so many were claiming that no one independent of the authorities had been given any data to carry out their own study.

I was blaiming those on here who have neither read that analysis or carried out their own and use their bias to of thier experiences to critisise the authorities implementation of a system which whilst not perfect is an improvement in its aims on the old system.

 

[RichA]

?

Good point. Slope rating is 114. CR is 71.9 (par 71).

 

[AussieKB]

Surely it's obvious that in golf low handicap golfers are consistently more consistent and high handicap golfers are more consistently inconsistent? Due to injury I haven't played in several years but I always played off around 18. During my Uni years I shot a gross 78 around the Old Course in St Andrews and then followed that up in the next round with a gross 98 round the New Course. High handicappers have a much wider fluctuation in their scores than low handicap golfers, therefore there is a much higher chance of an 18 handicapper shooting a gross 82 for 44 Stableford points than there is a scratch golfer shooting a gross 64 for the same score (assuming Par 72). Even under the old system this was true. This doesn't mean that the system is wrong or that someone is cheating or managing their handicap (although there are some people that will do that), it's simply that to be a good golfer and achieve a low handicap you have to have the natural talent and commitment to play and practise a lot more than social golfers or those with less ability. Is it fair to expect high handicappers to pay into the 2's pot when it's obvious that a scratch golfer has a much higher chance of a 2 than someone off 28?

Low handicap golfers seem to get overly annoyed by losing to someone playing off a much higher handicap. Where's the cutoff for that annoyance? If you're a scratch golfer that shoots level par but loses to someone off 28 that shoots 2 under their handicap does that annoy you? Does it still annoy you if it's an 18 handicapper? Or a 10 handicapper? What is the cutoff? The example in the original article about losing on the 17th green when a golfer was one over gross playing off 2 surely just emphasises that their handicaps were about right in that the match was so close that it went to the 17th hole. The woman playing off 2 doesn't seem to think that WHS is wrong because she was 1 under her handicap but suggests it's wrong because her higher handicap opponent was presumably 2 under her handicap. She says that she "had played immaculate golf". Well in that case her opponent, playing off 22, had also played immaculate golf relative to her 25 handicap.

Played recently and shot 1 over for 40 points to lose to someone I had to give 30 plus shots too, yes it annoyed me but over the years of WHS in OZ I have come to expect it.

Not sure what the solution is, but know that high handicappers will continue to win majority of events here, I play with a few guys on 25-26 handicap and they always have at least one 4 point score, over the past year their handicap has moved down a stroke and then back up in the next round or two, so no change, they are quite happy staying there so they can win our 4bbb matchplay that we incorporate, we play every Wednesday and it amazes me the shots they take on, Seve wold chip out, but because it is Stableford they can blow the hole and then make a par on a double shot hole for 4 points.

If they get lucky then it is a par for 3-4 points where the low marker it's par for 2 points, we just cannot risk wiping holes as it is so hard to make a 4 pointer to get it back, so naturally chip out and hope to one putt for par and 2 points.

There is no chance the system will change much, as the USGA and R&A have invested too much into it and to back track now would make them look like fools.

 

[Jimaroid]

Sorry but I made no comment on the value of that particular analysis as I am aware of its floors. I posted because so many were claiming that no one independent of the authorities had been given any data to carry out their own study.

Sorry, to be clear I did appreciate you posting it, hadn’t seen it before. I was frustrated at the article not you. It’s a poor analysis and further emphasises a desire for more rigorous verification.

 

[Hobbit]

Are there really big glaring errors in the system? Look at the potential score each player can make. If a 5 h’capper can shoot 7 under handicap, why not a 25 h’capper shooting the same or a few more. The system can never legislate for those sort of rounds.

We must all know someone who has played off whatever handicap, bobbing a little bit either way, who has suddenly shot a fantastic score for them. Maybe that one score has been in the middle of a purple patch, and their handicap has reduced considerably, or maybe it’s just been a one off and they’ve been nowhere near that since.

We know the above happens, and those of us who been around the sun a good number of times know it’s been happening under every handicapping system there’s ever been. What tweak can be done to any system that can legislate for those scores? There isn’t one. Take 5 shots off a 25 handicapper who’s had a one off - hardly fair. Take 5 shots off the 5 handicapper who’s shot the same score? That’s just silly

Out of curiosity I’ve just looked at my rounds going back to July 2011. Obviously I’ve not looked at all of them but there’s a number in there that I remember and I’ve specifically looked at the rounds either side of the stellar round. Low handicappers do shoot rounds that a full field, including those off 20+, don’t beat. It’s rarer because there are far fewer low handicappers.

Each system, irrespective of its foibles, has worked. You just can’t legislate for that human element of the stellar round off whatever handicap.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Surely it's obvious that in golf low handicap golfers are consistently more consistent and high handicap golfers are more consistently inconsistent? Due to injury I haven't played in several years but I always played off around 18. During my Uni years I shot a gross 78 around the Old Course in St Andrews and then followed that up in the next round with a gross 98 round the New Course. High handicappers have a much wider fluctuation in their scores than low handicap golfers, therefore there is a much higher chance of an 18 handicapper shooting a gross 82 for 44 Stableford points than there is a scratch golfer shooting a gross 64 for the same score (assuming Par 72). Even under the old system this was true. This doesn't mean that the system is wrong or that someone is cheating or managing their handicap (although there are some people that will do that), it's simply that to be a good golfer and achieve a low handicap you have to have the natural talent and commitment to play and practise a lot more than social golfers or those with less ability. Is it fair to expect high handicappers to pay into the 2's pot when it's obvious that a scratch golfer has a much higher chance of a 2 than someone off 28?

Low handicap golfers seem to get overly annoyed by losing to someone playing off a much higher handicap. Where's the cutoff for that annoyance? If you're a scratch golfer that shoots level par but loses to someone off 28 that shoots 2 under their handicap does that annoy you? Does it still annoy you if it's an 18 handicapper? Or a 10 handicapper? What is the cutoff? The example in the original article about losing on the 17th green when a golfer was one over gross playing off 2 surely just emphasises that their handicaps were about right in that the match was so close that it went to the 17th hole. The woman playing off 2 doesn't seem to think that WHS is wrong because she was 1 under her handicap but suggests it's wrong because her higher handicap opponent was presumably 2 under her handicap. She says that she "had played immaculate golf". Well in that case her opponent, playing off 22, had also played immaculate golf relative to her 25 handicap.

What is annoying is when you have to keep making birdies for a half.

 

[Backsticks]

I thnk rational analysis shows that the system is both working wrll, and an improvement on the previous one.
The issue is one of perception, amongst single digit his and lower, with UK golfers, who have had to change most, as they have lost a privileged advantage over the rest of golfers that they were accustomed to.

Misinformation of the type in the GM article is irrrsponsible and further deepening the mistake of low HIs. Its bad journalism.

Stepping up explanation and information targetted at this group would bring them back on board.

 

[IanM]

I agree perception is a massive part of it.

Sadly, I don't believe that the importance of managing that is seen as part of an implementation process.

Apparently you're all too stupid to properly understand it!

 

[AussieKB]

I thnk rational analysis shows that the system is both working wrll, and an improvement on the previous one.
The issue is one of perception, amongst single digit his and lower, with UK golfers, who have had to change most, as they have lost a privileged advantage over the rest of golfers that they were accustomed to.

Misinformation of the type in the GM article is irrrsponsible and further deepening the mistake of low HIs. Its bad journalism.

Stepping up explanation and information targetted at this group would bring them back on board.

OZ low handicap golfers have been killed, when WHS was first introduced at one club I am a member, a single handicap golfer did not win an event for a whole year.

There is no reason to get your handicap down and become less likely to win any comp, sorry but a disagree from several years of experiencing this system.

 

[rulefan]

Actually given the way that courses are rated, the easiest way to accrue a bunch of low differentials is to play long, wide open courses with no significant hazards. Lovely high CR due to the unreasonable emphasis on length.

For a number of years prior to WHS the SSS was in fact determined under the same USGA system. For many years prior to that, all courses in CONGU (except England men's) were rated under the USGA system. So when WHS came SSS was simply renamed CR.
But the old EGU system was also predominantly length based.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

OZ low handicap golfers have been killed, when WHS was first introduced at one club I am a member, a single handicap golfer did not win an event for a whole year.

There is no reason to get your handicap down and become less likely to win any comp, sorry but a disagree from several years of experiencing this system.

If winning shop credit in handicap comps is your reason for playing golf, then maybe the BiB is correct.

 

[AussieKB]

If you do not want to win....why keep score ?

 

[ColchesterFC]

What is annoying is when you have to keep making birdies for a half.

Isn't that balanced out by the holes you win with a bogey because your high handicap opponent has had a blow up or NR on that hole? To me it's a mindset thing. If you stand on the first tee and acknowledge that you're likely to lose 3/4/5 holes even if you make par but you're likely to win 3/4/5 holes with a bogey then you know that it's the other ten or eleven holes that will decide the match.

I might be talking nonsense. Having never been a very good golfer maybe that's not how it works for low handicappers.

 

[cliveb]

For a number of years prior to WHS the SSS was in fact determined under the same USGA system. For many years prior to that, all courses in CONGU (except England men's) were rated under the USGA system. So when WHS came SSS was simply renamed CR.
But the old EGU system was also predominantly length based.

Yes, agreed. My quibble with SS/CR being too heavily based on length is nothing to do with WHS.

I think WHS works well, and the problem for low handicappers is more to do with the raising of max handicap to 54.

But I also think the problem they perceive is largely illusiory. You only have to look at the honours boards in clubhouses to see that most of them are dominated by the lower handicap players.

 

[Slab]

Isn't that balanced out by the holes you win with a bogey because your high handicap opponent has had a blow up or NR on that hole? To me it's a mindset thing. If you stand on the first tee and acknowledge that you're likely to lose 3/4/5 holes even if you make par but you're likely to win 3/4/5 holes with a bogey then you know that it's the other ten or eleven holes that will decide the match.

I might be talking nonsense. Having never been a very good golfer maybe that's not how it works for low handicappers.

I spoke to a club pro about this very thing
While recapping a match I had I mentioned that (as the higher handicap player) it didn’t bother me going three down because I’d only lost holes I half expected/anticipated to lose anyway, which he found strange because off scratch his mindset was he could win every hole, so losing any hole would never be part of the plan

I also asked a ET pro how many times out of 10 he’d expect to birdie the stroke 1 looong par 4…. He said 10 times, any other mindset just wasn’t up for debate (he knows he wont get 10 birdies but that’s beside the point and separate to his aims)

 

[Backsticks]

OZ low handicap golfers have been killed, when WHS was first introduced at one club I am a member, a single handicap golfer did not win an event for a whole year.

Thats probably as it should be.
In my club, during the season, we have about 120 enriies in our weekend comp. I play 20-25 times a year in them. So I should win once every 4 or 5 years. To not win for 6 or 8 years in a row is perfectly likely.
How many many comps did your single figure man play that year, and how many play in the comps typically ?