WHS - current GM article

[wjemather]

Sorry, I thought we'd established that higher handicaps gets the advantage now and you were saying that that was correct. I stand by what I said - it's impossible to make it not biased towards somebody, so if anyone, why not the better golfers? Fair play to them, they worked hard and got good at golf. The deserve a bit of benefit of the doubt.

Clubs don't play much in the way of 'gross golf' so that's a moot point.

Why do so many people keep saying things like this in relation to handicapping? It just makes no sense at all. Handicapping has nothing to do with how much time and effort someone puts into practicing, and never should. However, handicap competitions will always favour improving golfers, regardless of how much work they put in to try and improve.

You don't have to have scratch comps to have gross prizes.

 

[Orikoru]

Whatever you thought we'd (?) established, my understanding of handicapping was that it was to give every on a relatively even chance in a competition.

Handicapping, in sport and games, is the practice of assigning advantage through scoring compensation or other advantage given to different contestants to equalize the chances of winning.

Obviously that is the purpose of it yes. The point is it's impossible to create a perfect system. I'm sure they haven't deliberately benefitted one group or another.

 

[Orikoru]

Why do so many people keep saying things like this in relation to handicapping? It just makes no sense at all. Handicapping has nothing to do with how much time and effort someone puts into practicing, and never should. However, handicap competitions will always favour improving golfers, regardless of how much work they put in to try and improve.

You don't have to have scratch comps to have gross prizes.

I know, but they still don't.

Of course it benefits improving golfers, but it benefits them too much if their handicap is 2 or 3 shots too high in the first place.

 

[wjemather]

Obviously that is the purpose of it yes. The point is it's impossible to create a perfect system. I'm sure they haven't deliberately benefitted one group or another.

True.
What is also true, is that WHS is the most equitable handicap system we have ever had; and in GB&I, that's by a substantial margin.

 

[wjemather]

I know, but they still don't.

Of course it benefits improving golfers, but it benefits them too much if their handicap is 2 or 3 shots too high in the first place.

Why don't they? We do.

How do you know their handicap is too high before they post a good score? Or are you suggesting higher handicappers should be systematically disadvantaged (as they used to be) just in case they do?

 

[Orikoru]

Why don't they? We do.

How do you know their handicap is too high before they post a good score? Or are you suggesting higher handicappers should be systematically disadvantaged (as they used to be) just in case they do?

It just goes back to the topic of people going from high teens to mid twenties handicap when the WHS switchover took place (mentioned in the original article) that's all. I understand that this is because the old system was "you on a good day" whereas the current system is just a rough estimate of what your form was like in the last few months. I was just expanding upon the themes of the article really. To me it does feel like high handicappers are too high, because of that change in definition, and it will take a long time to get used to that and forget the old ways, perhaps.

 

[Captain_Black.]

True.
What is also true, is that WHS is the most equitable handicap system we have ever had; and in GB&I, that's by a substantial margin.

Simply not true.

 

[rosecott]

Simply not true.

And do you have any facts to back that up?

 

[wjemather]

Simply not true.

All the data says you are wrong.

 

[RichA]

Field size and probability matter.

I just scanned through the last 20 rounds of my MyEG "friends" who are a complete mix of handicap indexes. None are rapidly improving new golfers. Almost everybody has just 1 score that was 4 below their HI and would have given them about 40 points on that day.
Only one person had 2 such scores (HI 15).
Only one had none (HI 8)
The person who shot the most under their HI was a 7 handicapper with a gross par round in a comp for 43 points.

So from this small sample, each of these golfers has about a 1 in 20 probability of getting 40 points.

If any handicap group has a disproportionate number of members then they are obviously more likely to win more often. At recreational golf clubs that's generally going to be higher handicaps.
Add new and improving golfers who have a chance of legitimately going 10 under their HI and that wrecks any kind of system.

In a field of over 20 somebody will probably score 40 points. Any individual with a steady HI is no more or less likely to be the one, but it's most likely to be someone from the group with largest representation.

A golfer of low or high handicap who is consistently scoring within a shot or 2 of that handicap is unlikely to ever win in a big field.
But doesn't that also reflect elite golf? It's usually exceptional scoring that gets a win rather than attritional steady golf.

 

[ntommo]

I would rather come 10th in a stableford with a gross 75 than win a stableford with a gross 95. Its not like I would have won anything life changing. Just enter comps if you want or don't. Too much put on handicaps when you just want to go out and play and enjoy. If your 2 and below go and play scratch events, there are plenty about

 

[Captain_Black.]

All the data says you are wrong.

Experience says I'm right

 

[Jimaroid]

All the data says you are wrong.

Is the data available for research and analysis?

 

[wjemather]

Experience says I'm right

Experience should have told you to do your research and check your facts first.

 

[wjemather]

Is the data available for research and analysis?

Organisations don't generally give away their data.

 

[Crow]

Organisations don't generally give away their data.

That's a no then

 

[wjemather]

That's a no then

No, the data is available to the organisations that own it, and to any third parties they provide access to.
Some of those organisations and third parties have analysed data, and results have been published.

 

[SteveW86]

No, the data is available to the organisations that own it, and to any third parties they provide access to.
Some of those organisations and third parties have analysed data, and results have been published.

Have you seen the data?

 

[Captain_Black.]

Experience should have told you to do your research and check your facts first.

Experience tells me that data & statistics can & are manipulated to try to justify the unjustifiable.
Especially so, when said data & statistics aren't readily available to a third party for independent analysis.

 

[wjemather]

Experience tells me that data & statistics can & are manipulated to try to justify the unjustifiable.
Especially so, when said data & statistics aren't readily available to a third party for independent analysis.

It's all a conspiracy. Of course it is.
I should have known.