WHS doesn't work

[Bdill93]

Let's hope so
Meantime I can't see any chance @Bdill93 is gonna invite me round for a match

Welcome any time - not that I recommend it though

Thanks for taking the time, I'm no statistician but I'm not seeing a great deal of difference pre WHS . Also note guy who won in 2019 with a nett 63 off a 18 handicap is now off 14 with a nett 71 the other day.
I'd say and I think you've said it too but you've a easy course to score on so always going to get "Day in the sun " scores

I'm not either - but it is more common now than before that the top 10 is populated with 20+ handicaps and for sure, some belting scores too

I think handicaps rising quickly is the biggest difference maker at my club - alongside a weirdly rated track

 

[Backsticks]

and that is a major flaw, surely if there's any bias in the system it should reward skill over folks who get lot of shots?

IT shouldnt. Handicapped competitions arent about skill They are about performance on the day relative to your hc.

 

[Bdill93]

Thanks. Nice data.
Suggests WHS really has done a great job in levelling things.

To me this suggests that its made it easier for the higher handicap golfer? Average handicap of winner has gone from 15.2 to 25?!

Does appear that the average scores in general are closer though?

 

[nickjdavis]

To me this suggests that its made it easier for the higher handicap golfer? Average handicap of winner has gone from 15.2 to 25?!

Does appear that the average scores in general are closer though?

Indeed....but the average handicap of folks finishing 2nd to 5th or 6th to 10th has not increased appreciably.....that would suggest that rather than handing a blanket advantage to all higher handicappers (if that was the case we would see the "places" mainly populated by vastly higher handicappers....but that has not happened), what has happened is that the likelihood of one individual having a good day has increased.

 

[Bdill93]

Indeed....but the average handicap of folks finishing 2nd to 5th or 6th to 10th has not increased appreciably.....that would suggest that rather than handing a blanket advantage to all higher handicappers (if that was the case we would see the "places" mainly populated by vastly higher handicappers....but that has not happened), what has happened is that the likelihood of one individual having a good day has increased.

Ravenmeadow in a nutshell

 

[nickjdavis]

Ravenmeadow in a nutshell

But from what you are saying, such good days are utterly exceptional days by most other standards at other courses....which wouldn't point to the WHS being the issue per se, but more of the general managment of handicaps or perhaps as you suspect a quirk of your course or course rating that is giving higher handicappers more shots than perhaps they might need.

 

[rulefan]

Indeed....but the average handicap of folks finishing 2nd to 5th or 6th to 10th has not increased appreciably.....that would suggest that rather than handing a blanket advantage to all higher handicappers (if that was the case we would see the "places" mainly populated by vastly higher handicappers....but that has not happened), what has happened is that the likelihood of one individual having a good day has increased.

I was just going to post a comment re your last clause. There is a better chance of an individual higher capper having his 'day in the sun'.

 

[Swango1980]

You really can't use a junior who has only just started playing the game as a benchmark in this argument. He will still be getting used to playing and will obviously improve as he plays more. These outlying scores will level off as his handicap improves and settles down.

PS - if i have misunderstood why you posted this, then apologies.

I was simply using a Junior as an example of an improving golfer. I'm not sure what the improvement rate is between a 12 year old and a 30 year old, both starting the game from scratch. Maybe a child has a higher improvement rate. However, in both cases, both have a good chance of being able to improve at a fairly rapid rate, in general.

 

[IanM]

Of course it works!!

Donna's buddy got cut from 54 to 52.6 yesterday!

That's a course handicap of 60!

 

[rulefan]

Of course it works!!

Donna's buddy got cut from 54 to 52.6 yesterday!

That's a course handicap of 60!

That'll keep them interested and keep the subs of fellow members down.

 

[sunshine]

But my biggest bug is under the old system sub 60 nett / 50+ points just never happened.
Now it’s once a mouth.

I haven't seen this at my club or in discussion with any friends at other clubs. Scores don't seem different from pre-WHS days. Seems to be a forum myth. If it is genuinely happening at your club you have a challenge that your committee need to address.

 

[sunshine]

Yes, the other system was way too slow to react, perhaps this is too quick. Maybe best 10 out of 20 spreads it better? Whatever they do, someone wont be happy

Best 10 out of 20 would make it even more volatile. If you want to limit the pace of change then maybe best 5 or 6 out of 20 would target top end playing ability.

Fundamentally:
Old system: handicap based on potential
New sytem: handicap based on form

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Best 10 out of 20 would make it even more volatile. If you want to limit the pace of change then maybe best 5 or 6 out of 20 would target top end playing ability.

Fundamentally:
Old system: handicap based on potential
New sytem: handicap based on form

I think this pretty much sums it up.

The only problem is when players do not have sufficient cards in and their h/c is based on scores from 2-3 years ago, not a good guide of form. That is then up to clubs to manage that internally to keep comps legitimate.

 

[sunshine]

It'll about the scores. Nothing else .
Yes, if it's poor weather then scores are likely to be higher but not sufficiently to change PCC
Yet, on a calm, sunny day the scoring can be poorer and activate a PCC.
Its all about the scoring.

It's not just weather. Tricky pin positions, for example, could have a significant impact on scoring and threfore PCC.

 

[D-S]

Best 10 out of 20 would make it even more volatile. If you want to limit the pace of change then maybe best 5 or 6 out of 20 would target top end playing ability.

Fundamentally:
Old system: handicap based on potential
New sytem: handicap based on form

I think this hits the nail on the head. Of course, how current that form is depends on the frequency and proportion of golf played that is part of the body of evidence.
Also given the incredibly volatile performance levels of all golfers, especially higher handicappers, is this the correct basis to have as a handicapping measure in competitive ( i.e. playing for my money) club golf?

 

[Swango1980]

I haven't seen this at my club or in discussion with any friends at other clubs. Scores don't seem different from pre-WHS days. Seems to be a forum myth. If it is genuinely happening at your club you have a challenge that your committee need to address.

The way the slope works, you'll find that golfers pre-War with higher handicaps now have several more shots to play with, in comparison to low handicappers, and most courses. Therefore, it is inevitable scores will be better than before. If they won with 45 points before, it could be 2 or 3 shots better now, in general.

Also as you say handicap is based more on form now, that also adds to it. Form can vary wildly for all golfers, particularly higher handicappers. If the system allows them to increase at a higher rate when golfers play badly, they will shoot better nett scores than they would have done pre WHS once they hit some form again. Simply because their handicap would have increased a bit more during the bad times

 

[clubchamp98]

I haven't seen this at my club or in discussion with any friends at other clubs. Scores don't seem different from pre-WHS days. Seems to be a forum myth. If it is genuinely happening at your club you have a challenge that your committee need to address.

Just because it dosnt happen at yours “it’s a forum myth”
There are enough players on here to prove that’s not true.
So you think we’re lying.?

We have had 6 x59 and a 58 nett par 72 win comps since WHS.
You basically need 46 pts to get in the top three most stablefords.
It’s not just high handicappers either it’s guys who were off middle caps who have got several shots back.

 

[Backsticks]

'Several shots' back still doesnt explain it. For 58 nets and 52 points, thats 7 or 8 shots wrong. So WHS is not to blame for those scores.

 

[clubchamp98]

'Several shots' back still doesnt explain it. For 58nets and 52 points, that 7 or 8 shots wrong. So WHS is not to blame for those scored.

I have stated there are other factors ( no rough etc) but WHS has made a significant contribution to these scores.
These are exceptions I agree over three years nearly but 46/47 pts is commonplace now.

 

[Backsticks]

I have stated there are other factors ( no rough etc) but WHS has made a significant contribution to these scores.
These are exceptions I agree over three years nearly but 46/47 pts is commonplace now.

By no rough, do you mean the CR and Slope are now wrong ? If so, then the club is at fault for not rerating it. Thats not the fault of WHS either.