WHS doesn't work

[IanM]

I’ve outlined in my previous post this morning the significant upside I have found. Indeed for me WHS has defused much of the pressure I used to feel when submitting a card in a ‘qualifying’ competition.

And absolutely 100% on the @wjemather post on deliberate misunderstanding and what I consider to be confected confusion. It’s easy and very simple. I write down my gross score and next day check results and my HI.

My wife also adopted the "I don't need to know any of this, I just key in my gross score," mentality, very quickly.

Most of the folk i play with are very similar. It's only Forum Dewellers who seem to need to debate the bejaysers out of it, who lose any sleep over it.

Ultimately, if it causes that much anxiety, don't bother with it. You can play golf without organised comps and qualifiers.

There's several groups of old boys I know of, who play their regular 4bbb games, still using their pre whs handicaps. ( and probably still stymies too) Never going near a club comp...

 

[Backsticks]

To the positive? Slope, for a start.

Before WHS, I may be a member of a very tricky course, and perhaps give another member, high handicappers, 20 shots. And that may be fine. However, if we then both played a very easy and shorter course I'd still be giving them 20 shots, which would be a joke. At least with WHS and Slope, I'm probably only giving them 16 to 18 shots.

Slope ? It doesnt. Slope modifies the for different handicaps playing a given course. Effectively - and yes, a positive I will agree - removing the advatage lower hcers used to have here. But Congu golfers certainly werent up in arms at the injustice that lower hcs had a competition winning advantage over high ones. If anything, levelling the playing field has opened the can of worms and low men are complaining they cant win any more - even though they can of course. But just not at the unfair rate they used to.

But there is the confusion and misunderstanding.
SSS and CSS already catered for difference course difficulty, so we already had that function.

 

[Swango1980]

Slope ? It doesnt. Slope modifies the for different handicaps playing a given course. Effectively - and yes, a positive I will agree - removing the advatage lower hcers used to have here. But Congu golfers certainly werent up in arms at the injustice that lower hcs had a competition winning advantage over high ones. If anything, levelling the playing field has opened the can of worms and low men are complaining they cant win any more - even though they can of course. But just not at the unfair rate they used to.

But there is the confusion and misunderstanding.
SSS and CSS already catered for difference course difficulty, so we already had that function.

SSS and CSS accounted for absolute course difficulty, exactly as Course Rating and PCC do now.

Slope is an additional term to account for relative difficulty between players of different ability, which we didn't have before.

 

[wjemather]

Slope ? It doesnt. Slope modifies the for different handicaps playing a given course. Effectively - and yes, a positive I will agree - removing the advatage lower hcers used to have here. But Congu golfers certainly werent up in arms at the injustice that lower hcs had a competition winning advantage over high ones. If anything, levelling the playing field has opened the can of worms and low men are complaining they cant win any more - even though they can of course. But just not at the unfair rate they used to.

But there is the confusion and misunderstanding.
SSS and CSS already catered for difference course difficulty, so we already had that function.

The root of the problem, as you allude to, is that people simply weren't aware of the advantage low handicappers had at most courses under UHS.

 

[Backsticks]

SSS and CSS accounted for absolute course difficulty, exactly as Course Rating and PCC do now.

Slope is an additional term to account for relative difficulty between players of different ability, which we didn't have before.

We agreeing there I think.

Slope only became relevant with the increasing hc ceiling. There was no need for such a concept when we had the 24 limit. We didnt need such a root and branch change to congu to implement an allowance for that.

What makes the authorities look silly is that their 'sell' for WHS has convinced nobody. Probably themselves included. Their unwillingness to acknowledge that handicap golf here was getting along fine, and that the WhS transition turbulence to out it mildy, has brought nothing to have made that worthwhile. It is the ultimate change for change sake.

It still deserves all the criticism it is getting. That will abate, as things do. But not becuase it will prove to be better, or people are behind the curve and just not understanding how good a progress it is (thats just insulting). But because people become tired and settle for the new inferior system. That doesnt change that it was still a totally unnecessary, self inflicted, clusterputt.

 

[woofers]

It seems to me that with the slope rating calculation my handicap is adjusted to reflect a course difficulty before I start my round, but with CSS / SSS my handicap remained the same no matter where I played and the course difficulty was only reflected in my handicap after the round. I know I prefer the new way.

 

[Swango1980]

We agreeing there I think.

Slope only became relevant with the increasing hc ceiling. There was no need for such a concept when we had the 24 limit. We didnt need such a root and branch change to congu to implement an allowance for that.

What makes the authorities look silly is that their 'sell' for WHS has convinced nobody. Probably themselves included. Their unwillingness to acknowledge that handicap golf here was getting along fine, and that the WhS transition turbulence to out it mildy, has brought nothing to have made that worthwhile. It is the ultimate change for change sake.

It still deserves all the criticism it is getting. That will abate, as things do. But not becuase it will prove to be better, or people are behind the curve and just not understanding how good a progress it is (thats just insulting). But because people become tired and settle for the new inferior system. That doesnt change that it was still a totally unnecessary, self inflicted, clusterputt.

24 limit. Do you not mean 28, and then that limit was increased before WHS anyway.

Slope has a big impact anyway, with people of handicaps mid 20's. Just think of the difference a Slope of 110 compared to 150 would have on their handicap

 

[Backsticks]

24 originally, then 28. Or did the 24 become 28 from the start of UHS, I forget ?

They didnt need to burn the house down to implement a slope type correction.

 

[nickjdavis]

We agreeing there I think.

Slope only became relevant with the increasing hc ceiling. There was no need for such a concept when we had the 24 limit. We didnt need such a root and branch change to congu to implement an allowance for that.

The concept of bogey rating, course rating and slope rating preceded the WHS by over 30 years and was statistically very relevant in the regions where it was used. It is not a new thing that was spawned by the WHS implementation.

 

[rulefan]

The concept of bogey rating, course rating and slope rating preceded the WHS by over 30 years and was statistically very relevant in the regions where it was used. It is not a new thing that was spawned by the WHS implementation.

Scotland (and I think Ireland) adopted the USGA Course Rating system (including Slope) many years before the rest of CONGU but couldn't use it with the old UHS because the then EGU refused to contemplate it. They thought their (no Slope) system was sufficient. I believe Scotland (and Ireland) made the Slope information available for US (and other overseas) visitors.

 

[Backsticks]

The concept of bogey rating, course rating and slope rating preceded the WHS by over 30 years and was statistically very relevant in the regions where it was used. It is not a new thing that was spawned by the WHS implementation.

It was a new thing spawned by WHS for the UK though. Its not that we had nothing - Sss was an ostensibly cruder precision with the same aim. Slope is more precise in being 3 significant figures rather than 1, sure. Whether that translates to a real world improvement in handicap equity is less clearcut.

The key question is, was the trouble worth the gain ?

 

[D-S]

The bottom line is whether competition is now on a fairer and more equal basis, if it is then it is a success. If this could have been achieved with a few tweaks to UHS, that would have been a simpler way forward. If that wasn't possible then WHS was the only way forward to achieve a more level playing field.

Transportability around the world is a 'nice to have' but affects a very small % of golfers - most people from the UK, when they are overseas, are competing with fellow travellers in their group with their UK based handicaps.

Whatever some may say, the administrative burden has increased on volunteers with, in a growing number of cases, paid positions being created to handle the workload, these are being paid for from members subscriptions.

There are many things in WHS that I like and much prefer to UHS but has it been worth it? I am on the fence.

 

[Backache]

Slope ratings are about the only thing in the WHS system that seem logical and an improvement on the old system as different courses are now more comparable for the mid -high handicapper. The rest of it seems to be bureaucratic and more open to manipulation.

 

[wjemather]

It was a new thing spawned by WHS for the UK though. Its not that we had nothing - Sss was an ostensibly cruder precision with the same aim. Slope is more precise in being 3 significant figures rather than 1, sure. Whether that translates to a real world improvement in handicap equity is less clearcut.

The key question is, was the trouble worth the gain ?

Slope was already in the pipeline for introduction with UHS. The old EGA system shows how it would have worked.

The benefit of Slope can be seen very clearly when comparing wildly different courses (e.g. long and tight vs. short and open), where non-Sloped handicaps from big courses always "travelled well" and those from small courses didn't "travel well" at all.

 

[Voyager EMH]

It was a new thing spawned by WHS for the UK though. Its not that we had nothing - Sss was an ostensibly cruder precision with the same aim. Slope is more precise in being 3 significant figures rather than 1, sure. Whether that translates to a real world improvement in handicap equity is less clearcut.

The key question is, was the trouble worth the gain ?

Yes, it should have been worth the gain, and probably still is, but there was trouble with the trouble that it took.
If we had gone with something more akin to the Australian method there would have been less trouble with the trouble. (No Course Handicap in Australia)
But too many people latched on to Course Handicap as the one that replaced their old handicap and railed against "losing a shot" for Playing Handicap.

If England Golf had made a bold statement like, "Your old handicap was what you played off in medals and stablefords and that has been replaced with your Playing Handicap for individual strokeplay. Your Course Handicap is your measure of you against the course away from comparison or competition with other players." there might have been less trouble with the trouble that ensued.

 

[Orikoru]

So yesterday I played Royston and only received 14 shots off the yellow (14.7 index). Can anyone tell me what I would have received had we played it before April 1st? As 14 didn't feel like enough... Course rating 68.5, slope 122, par 70.

 

[PJ87]

So yesterday I played Royston and only received 14 shots off the yellow (14.7 index). Can anyone tell me what I would have received had we played it before April 1st? As 14 didn't feel like enough... Course rating 68.5, slope 122, par 70.

16 by my working

Index x (slope / 113)

 

[Orikoru]

16 by my working

Index x (slope / 113)

See that sounds a lot fairer.

One of the few appeals of going to WHS was getting more shots at harder courses. That made sense to me. Now they've changed it and that seems to be out the window, I'm back to just having the same PH everywhere. One step forward, two back.

 

[PJ87]

See that sounds a lot fairer.

One of the few appeals of going to WHS was getting more shots at harder courses. That made sense to me. Now they've changed it and that seems to be out the window, I'm back to just having the same PH everywhere. One step forward, two back.

I'm not complaining, I get more shots at my course than the local easier courses

 

[Swango1980]

It was a new thing spawned by WHS for the UK though. Its not that we had nothing - Sss was an ostensibly cruder precision with the same aim. Slope is more precise in being 3 significant figures rather than 1, sure. Whether that translates to a real world improvement in handicap equity is less clearcut.

The key question is, was the trouble worth the gain ?

I still get a little puzzled when you seem to compare SSS with Slope, when they are 2 different things.

SSS is comparable to Course Rating. They account for the absolute difficulty of a course, but with the limitation being that it compares all golfers scores to the expected score of a Scratch golfer. It meant that regardless of the course anyone played, the difference in handicap between every golfer would remain the same. That is a huge flaw. For example, if there is truly 20 shots different between 2 golfers at one course, if they went and played a shorter easier course, 20 shots is being too generous to the higher handicapper, who basically less yardage to cover to demonstrate his weaknesses. Vice versa, 20 shots difference between 2 golfers at a short easy course, if they then go to a tougher long course it is harsh on the high handicapper still only getting 20 shots.

Hence, Slope addresses the major flaw above.

Now, that is not me saying WHS is perfect, and that I can't think of ways I think it could personally be improved, which I've talked about before. But, I certainly will put Slope on the list of Plus points.