WHS doesn't work

[clubchamp98]

Do you think WHS has removed any incentive to get better?

No I don’t ! That’s a mindset .
But it has definitely put a lot of people off playing in the comps.
The numbers playing now is about 30 below normal ,we used to get almost 200 now it’s 170ish
in such a field the low capper has almost no chance as you need 46+ to win.

 

[Golfist]

Why would there be any more or less incentive under UHS as opposed to WHS?

Because you don’t need to get better to be competitive. There is no reward for getting better apart from personal pride. Also, if WHS worked as intended with regards to submitting all your cards, any benefit of getting better would wiped out before you got to a comp. So, the Guy who works hard at his game and puts the hours in doesn’t get an advantage over someone who couldn’t give a toss. So what’s the point?

 

[clubchamp98]

Because you don’t need to get better to be competitive. There is no reward for getting better apart from personal pride. Also, if WHS worked as intended with regards to submitting all your cards, any benefit of getting better would wiped out before you got to a comp. So, the Guy who works hard at his game and puts the hours in doesn’t get an advantage over someone who couldn’t give a toss. So what’s the point?

Yes there is an element of truth in what you say.
a bit like firms treating new customers better than existing ones.( That’s been stopped I think)

The low men who work on their games seem to be forgotten or because they had a perceived advantage in the past this system is designed to address that.
But imho I think it’s gone to far the other way.
some of the silly scores we have had just didn’t happen before WHS.
Thats just a fact at my club , but some clubs havnt had this problem I can’t say why!

 

[jim8flog]

...or at least about the folk who run the game or those who think they do!

Virtually everyone I play with pretty much operates as you do, and have no general play scores on their record.

Every non comp round we play is 4BBB.

I play a lot of 4BBB but we always play it is a 4BBB stableford. It is something I introduced many years ago primarily because it means matches will often go all the way to the 18th

In one swindle I play in you cannot win the kitty unless you put in a GP card. There are often 4 players in a group and most want to play 4BBB with the stake being the kitty money. Players only pick up when they cannot score on a hole because the kitty is for a single player so all players will have a score for every hole. Their is normally no advice between pairs as each player is competing against their partner for the kitty.

 

[rulefan]

Because you don’t need to get better to be competitive. There is no reward for getting better apart from personal pride. Also, if WHS worked as intended with regards to submitting all your cards, any benefit of getting better would wiped out before you got to a comp. So, the Guy who works hard at his game and puts the hours in doesn’t get an advantage over someone who couldn’t give a toss. So what’s the point?

So how does anything you mention differ from UHS?

What reward for getting better was there in UHS?

if WHS worked as intended with regards to submitting all your cards - Supplementary Scores preceded WHS by some years - what's different?

So, the Guy who works hard at his game and puts the hours in doesn’t get an advantage over someone who couldn’t give a toss. - What advantage? Is a higher or lower cap the advantage?

 

[jim8flog]

The other side of it is most single figure guys have actually gone down.

In my experience of running the handicap committee this could well have been because a lot of the very low single figure players were 'very selective' about what scores went on their handicap record. Some people might have accused them of Handicap protection.

 

[clubchamp98]

So how does anything you mention differ from UHS?

The handicap system isn’t the real problem imo.
It’s the GP cards that can be used to manipulate your index And the ease of doing it on an APP that’s the problem.
If you’re that way inclined ,and some are it’s very easy to be 4/5 shots better off than you should be.
That imho is the main problem.

 

[RichA]

Because you don’t need to get better to be competitive. There is no reward for getting better apart from personal pride. Also, if WHS worked as intended with regards to submitting all your cards, any benefit of getting better would wiped out before you got to a comp. So, the Guy who works hard at his game and puts the hours in doesn’t get an advantage over someone who couldn’t give a toss. So what’s the point?

Depends if you only play recreational golf to win competitions.
Everybody I know wants to win, if they enter a comp. Everybody I know wants to see their handicap index going down, not up.
Ignoring the obvious jokey "handicap protection" comments, I don't feel I've ever seen anyone deliberately missing short putts or carding triple bogeys.

 

[clubchamp98]

In my experience of running the handicap committee this could well have been because a lot of the very low single figure players were 'very selective' about what scores went on their handicap record. Some people might have accused them of Handicap protection.

Yes I don’t disagree.
I know several players who joined a second club because the buffer zone there was usually higher.

But I still havnt met a single figure golfer that has shot sub 60 or 50+ points.

 

[jim8flog]

Because you don’t need to get better to be competitive. There is no reward for getting better apart from personal pride. Also, if WHS worked as intended with regards to submitting all your cards, any benefit of getting better would wiped out before you got to a comp. So, the Guy who works hard at his game and puts the hours in doesn’t get an advantage over someone who couldn’t give a toss. So what’s the point?

My club experience appears to be somewhat different to yours.
E.g. In our recent senior club champs the guy who came 1st in round one and second overall puts in a card nearly every time he plays. Current H.I. 3.4

I would repeat my question- does your club have divisions for comps?
If yes are you annoyed that you are not beating players with handicaps similar to yours?

 

[Swango1980]

Because you don’t need to get better to be competitive. There is no reward for getting better apart from personal pride. Also, if WHS worked as intended with regards to submitting all your cards, any benefit of getting better would wiped out before you got to a comp. So, the Guy who works hard at his game and puts the hours in doesn’t get an advantage over someone who couldn’t give a toss. So what’s the point?

In my personal opinion, I'd always prefer a system that, by some sort of small margin, benefited lower handicappers. No-where near to the level where high handicappers would have no chance of doing well in events, but just to the point where they get some sort of edge. The purpose of my thinking is not to discriminate against high handicappers, but to give that extra bit of incentive for golfers to improve, and make it feel even more worthwhile. Of course, I also know that some will react to this statement as if I have said something seriously politically incorrect.

Perhaps that would be using a factor of 85%, or something similar. Would this make tragic difference to high handicappers. A 40 course handicapper currently gets 38 shots in a stroke play comp, using 85% they'd get 34. If 90% was used, they'd get 36. For a player who currently gets 38 shots, would a reduction in 2-4 shots be a huge deal? I can only put myself in the shoes of such a player, and imagine how I'd feel? Would I be complaining that I can only play off 34-36 instead of 38, and how that harms my chances in a comp? Unlikely, I'd feel embarrassed, knowing I already get a huge number of shots. However, if my handicap was at that level, my main incentive would be to try and improve, invest in lessons and time on the course, and thus improve my chances in competitive golf going forward. And, when I reach my potential, know I am in a stronger position than I was when I started, and that is was all worthwhile.

Again, the above is just a personal opinion, and I know others will completely disagree. And, as the system is what it is at the moment, so the authorities obviously agree that this is the best way it should work at this time.

 

[clubchamp98]

In my personal opinion, I'd always prefer a system that, by some sort of small margin, benefited lower handicappers. No-where near to the level where high handicappers would have no chance of doing well in events, but just to the point where they get some sort of edge. The purpose of my thinking is not to discriminate against high handicappers, but to give that extra bit of incentive for golfers to improve, and make it feel even more worthwhile. Of course, I also know that some will react to this statement as if I have said something seriously politically incorrect.

Perhaps that would be using a factor of 85%, or something similar. Would this make tragic difference to high handicappers. A 40 course handicapper currently gets 38 shots in a stroke play comp, using 85% they'd get 34. If 90% was used, they'd get 36. For a player who currently gets 38 shots, would a reduction in 2-4 shots be a huge deal? I can only put myself in the shoes of such a player, and imagine how I'd feel? Would I be complaining that I can only play off 34-36 instead of 38, and how that harms my chances in a comp? Unlikely, I'd feel embarrassed, knowing I already get a huge number of shots. However, if my handicap was at that level, my main incentive would be to try and improve, invest in lessons and time on the course, and thus improve my chances in competitive golf going forward. And, when I reach my potential, know I am in a stronger position than I was when I started, and that is was all worthwhile.

Again, the above is just a personal opinion, and I know others will completely disagree. And, as the system is what it is at the moment, so the authorities obviously agree that this is the best way it should work at this time.

I agree with most of what you say.

But think the threshold now for “ competitive “ handicaps is far too high.
But clubs can set their own limits so it’s not a impossible solution

 

[Swango1980]

Depends if you only play recreational golf to win competitions.
Everybody I know wants to win, if they enter a comp. Everybody I know wants to see their handicap index going down, not up.
Ignoring the obvious jokey "handicap protection" comments, I don't feel I've ever seen anyone deliberately missing short putts or carding triple bogeys.

I know of several people that have openly done that in the past. Guys who play in a fiddle every week, with decent money on offer and their own handicap system, many guys will put the brakes on when they know they have no chance to win. Make sure they get their handicaps up. With that sort of attitude, it is not that unreasonable to think they could so the same in a competition when they know they have no chance, especially with WHS allowing bigger increases. I should also point out, they now enter all their fiddle scores as GP rounds (albeit still having their own handicap system), so all this behaviour will be included in their handicap record. Another thing they do, is they can win small cash rewards from those in their group if they get birdies or sand saves. Players who know they are out of the individual reckoning, will sometimes intentionally hit their ball in a bunker, and see if they can get up and down for £1.

More generally, it is probably unlikely to know if someone has deliberately missed a putt, if they do not openly admit to it. You'll have played with people who have missed short putts or carded triple bogeys, but you won't know if that was purely down to a bad shot(s), or mentally the person simply didn't put their heart into scoring as best they could. Most of the time, I'm sure it is all legit, but I'm sure there are a few bad eggs out there that have other motivations.

 

[RichA]

I know of several people that have openly done that in the past. Guys who play in a fiddle every week, with decent money on offer and their own handicap system, many guys will put the brakes on when they know they have no chance to win. Make sure they get their handicaps up. With that sort of attitude, it is not that unreasonable to think they could so the same in a competition when they know they have no chance, especially with WHS allowing bigger increases. I should also point out, they now enter all their fiddle scores as GP rounds (albeit still having their own handicap system), so all this behaviour will be included in their handicap record. Another thing they do, is they can win small cash rewards from those in their group if they get birdies or sand saves. Players who know they are out of the individual reckoning, will sometimes intentionally hit their ball in a bunker, and see if they can get up and down for £1.

More generally, it is probably unlikely to know if someone has deliberately missed a putt, if they do not openly admit to it. You'll have played with people who have missed short putts or carded triple bogeys, but you won't know if that was purely down to a bad shot(s), or mentally the person simply didn't put their heart into scoring as best they could. Most of the time, I'm sure it is all legit, but I'm sure there are a few bad eggs out there that have other motivations.

Cheats will cheat any system unless they're challenged.
If somebody walks out of Tesco with a trolley full of vodka without paying, it's the fault of Tesco's security, not a loophole in the Theft Act.

Not disputing what you're saying, by the way, just relating the scenario to the "WHS doesn't work" proposition of the thread.

 

[rulefan]

In my personal opinion, I'd always prefer a system that, by some sort of small margin, benefited lower handicappers. No-where near to the level where high handicappers would have no chance of doing well in events, but just to the point where they get some sort of edge. The purpose of my thinking is not to discriminate against high handicappers, but to give that extra bit of incentive for golfers to improve, and make it feel even more worthwhile. Of course, I also know that some will react to this statement as if I have said something seriously politically incorrect.

Perhaps that would be using a factor of 85%, or something similar. Would this make tragic difference to high handicappers. A 40 course handicapper currently gets 38 shots in a stroke play comp, using 85% they'd get 34. If 90% was used, they'd get 36. For a player who currently gets 38 shots, would a reduction in 2-4 shots be a huge deal? I can only put myself in the shoes of such a player, and imagine how I'd feel? Would I be complaining that I can only play off 34-36 instead of 38, and how that harms my chances in a comp? Unlikely, I'd feel embarrassed, knowing I already get a huge number of shots. However, if my handicap was at that level, my main incentive would be to try and improve, invest in lessons and time on the course, and thus improve my chances in competitive golf going forward. And, when I reach my potential, know I am in a stronger position than I was when I started, and that is was all worthwhile.

Again, the above is just a personal opinion, and I know others will completely disagree. And, as the system is what it is at the moment, so the authorities obviously agree that this is the best way it should work at this time.

That's what the 95% Playing Handicap adjustment is for. The old USGA and Australian systems had them built in. It was sometimes called 'A bonus for excellence'

 

[rulefan]

The handicap system isn’t the real problem imo.
It’s the GP cards that can be used to manipulate your index And the ease of doing it on an APP that’s the problem.
If you’re that way inclined ,and some are it’s very easy to be 4/5 shots better off than you should be.
That imho is the main problem.

But as I said, Supp Scores preceded WHS by some years. Why was there no manipulation then?

 

[RichA]

That's what the 95% Playing Handicap adjustment is for. The old USGA and Australian systems had them built in. It was sometimes called 'A bonus for excellence'

I think the only way it could be made more equitable would be a sliding % based on field size.
Looking at the stats, if you have 50 mid-high handicappers playing, there's pretty much 100% probability that one of them scores 40+ points. You need 150 low handicappers to achieve 100% probability of 40 points.
That might be why it's less of an issue at smaller clubs.

 

[rulefan]

I asked our h'cap chair to examine the results of all this year's comps. We have had no outlandish scores. The top 6 in each comp has comprised a full range of h'caps. The only lower than 'expected' scores have unsurprisingly been from juniors. There have been no unusual (from the many) GP scores (again except for a few juniors).

 

[wjemather]

In my personal opinion, I'd always prefer a system that, by some sort of small margin, benefited lower handicappers. No-where near to the level where high handicappers would have no chance of doing well in events, but just to the point where they get some sort of edge. The purpose of my thinking is not to discriminate against high handicappers, but to give that extra bit of incentive for golfers to improve, and make it feel even more worthwhile. Of course, I also know that some will react to this statement as if I have said something seriously politically incorrect.

Perhaps that would be using a factor of 85%, or something similar. Would this make tragic difference to high handicappers. A 40 course handicapper currently gets 38 shots in a stroke play comp, using 85% they'd get 34. If 90% was used, they'd get 36. For a player who currently gets 38 shots, would a reduction in 2-4 shots be a huge deal? I can only put myself in the shoes of such a player, and imagine how I'd feel? Would I be complaining that I can only play off 34-36 instead of 38, and how that harms my chances in a comp? Unlikely, I'd feel embarrassed, knowing I already get a huge number of shots. However, if my handicap was at that level, my main incentive would be to try and improve, invest in lessons and time on the course, and thus improve my chances in competitive golf going forward. And, when I reach my potential, know I am in a stronger position than I was when I started, and that is was all worthwhile.

Again, the above is just a personal opinion, and I know others will completely disagree. And, as the system is what it is at the moment, so the authorities obviously agree that this is the best way it should work at this time.

You start from a faulty premise that all higher handicappers have the potential to measurably improve, when the reality is that many have already reached their potential and/or are declining.

And while obviously not tragic, 85% would be grossly unfair.

 

[Swango1980]

That's what the 95% Playing Handicap adjustment is for. The old USGA and Australian systems had them built in. It was sometimes called 'A bonus for excellence'

The 95% does, to some extent. However, it mainly makes up for the fact that the expected range of scores in a high handicappers top 8 is wider than the top 8 of a lower handicapper. It is more of a "necessity", certainly in larger fields, than it is a "bonus for excellence".

I do think "bonus for excellence" is a pretty poor name for it, as it can imply it is designed to give lower handicappers an advantage. That is definitely not what it is intended for, it is to ensure they are not at a disadvantage.