WHS doesn't work

[clubchamp98]

I've just read through this again (only glanced at the graph before). Unless I am misinterpreting it, this is scary.

The graph appears to show the average Stableford score for each category of golfer. This is now fairly balanced, but before WHS the average score was better for lower handicappers.

But surely you'd expect the average score to be better for lower handicappers, as their bad scores are not as bad. If all players now get a similar average score, it is going to mean that high handicappers get even higher scores on their best days

My personal experience of very high scores it’s not very high cappers who are doing it.
It’s the middle guys who have gained a few shots back under WHS then shoot the lights out on their day.
But we’re getting a bit lost in high vs low men argument.

 

[Swango1980]

My personal experience of very high scores it’s not very high cappers who are doing it.
It’s the middle guys who have gained a few shots back under WHS then shoot the lights out on their day.
But we’re getting a bit lost in high vs low men argument.

Well, WHS also definitely helps the inconsistent compared to the consistent. From a personal level, that has definitely worked to my advantage, although whether it should is another fair argument. My Index was as low as 6.6 in Sep 2021 and was up to 10.3 in Apr 2022 (bearing in mind we could not submit scores between Nov-Apr). So, my course handicap went from 8 to 13. Back down to 8.2 Index now, with some minor fluctuations in between. But, when I get myself out of a bad spell, then I'm sure I can shoot better scores than guys that just submit very consistent scores.

 

[clubchamp98]

Well, WHS also definitely helps the inconsistent compared to the consistent. From a personal level, that has definitely worked to my advantage, although whether it should is another fair argument. My Index was as low as 6.6 in Sep 2021 and was up to 10.3 in Apr 2022 (bearing in mind we could not submit scores between Nov-Apr). So, my course handicap went from 8 to 13. Back down to 8.2 Index now, with some minor fluctuations in between. But, when I get myself out of a bad spell, then I'm sure I can shoot better scores than guys that just submit very consistent scores.

Yes a very similar thing for me.
I was 5.6 and went up to 8.7. ( in my defence I had surgery on my wrist )
But even at that higher HI I could never shoot 50+ points
The best I have ever shot in 40yrs playing is 44 pts with a 68 gross.
So when I see 48/49/50 pts now it just makes me laugh.
We have started looking for opens instead of playing in stableford comps at our home course.
That’s a sad reflection on the system imo.

 

[jim8flog]

Does anyone have an example of a course where the slope is rated around 113 off the whites/back tees? I'm curious what such a course looks like

(113 rating is the neutral Slope Rating, or a course with a 'standard' playing difficulty)

Our 9 hole whites only is 114 course rating 65.2
The same course played as 18 is white out yellow home 112 CR 64.5

 

[Swango1980]

Yes a very similar thing for me.
I was 5.6 and went up to 8.7. ( in my defence I had surgery on my wrist )
But even at that higher HI I could never shoot 50+ points
The best I have ever shot in 40yrs playing is 44 pts with a 68 gross.
So when I see 48/49/50 pts now it just makes me laugh.
We have started looking for opens instead of playing in stableford comps at our home course.
That’s a sad reflection on the system imo.

It makes you wonder why these mid handicappers can shoot up to 50 points. Assuming CR is not massively below Par, if any regular golfers can shoot this score after getting a few shots back, it implies their lowest handicap never even reflected their "ability". They may only get a max of 5-6 shots back on their course handicap generally, so if they are shooting 50 points once they get all those shots back, they'd have still been capable of shooting well into the 40's at their lowest handicap.

Their low handicap may never reflect their "potential" if they are hugely inconsistent, and so even when they are at that low handicap, there are still several pretty poor scores within their top 8 bring that Index up. Or, they are intentionally submitting poor scores once it is obvious after so many holes they will not win something that round (or they mentally collapse and give up)

 

[rulefan]

Everything that I heard or had presented to me and that I can currently still see on websites about the introduction of WHS talked about having a new portable global handicap, the ease of recording scores and a system that was quicker to respond to form. The only talk of ‘levelling’ was between harder and easier courses. Can someone can point me in the direction of information distributed during the transition that said or even inferred “UHS is fundamentally flawed and is biased in favour of better players, so we are going to introduce a system that reverses this and, if anything, will favour the higher handicappers”?

'You need to read the 'Myths & Misconceptions' reports that used to be on the old CONGU site.
WHS does not favour higher handicappers. It simply balances thing (nearly).

 

[rulefan]

Does anyone have an example of a course where the slope is rated around 113 off the whites/back tees? I'm curious what such a course looks like

(113 rating is the neutral Slope Rating, or a course with a 'standard' playing difficulty)

It's interesting that all the ones reported are relatively short courses which suggests that more players will reach the green in regulation. Length being a major factor in CR.

 

[Swango1980]

'You need to read the 'Myths & Misconceptions' reports that used to be on the old CONGU site.
WHS does not favour higher handicappers. It simply balances thing (nearly).

Does it balance the average stableford score (or nett score relative to CR) for ALL scores submitted (which is what HDID seems to show)? Or does it balance the average winning score?

 

[D-S]

'You need to read the 'Myths & Misconceptions' reports that used to be on the old CONGU site.
WHS does not favour higher handicappers. It simply balances thing (nearly).

So if this was a common problem under UHS why on earth wasn’t it addressed?
Also I seem to recall that this was produced to justify the move to 100% from 75% allowance in singles matchplay, so at least they had the courage of their convictions about that - obviously not so much with low handicappers winning ‘all’ the strokeplay tournaments apparently.

 

[IanM]

The fact it's called Myths and Misconceptions shows you the culture, the lack of customer focus and self awareness of those who produced it.

If your stakeholders don't understand something, you need to look at your comms and engagement activities.

 

[nickjdavis]

So...back in post 215 I posted some data relating to a set of comps played at my place pre/post WHS implementation.

A few posts back I made the off the cuff remark that, perhaps 90% might be a more appropriate allowance for an individual strokeplay allowance. Following that thought, I tried to put some approximation together as to what scoring and finishing positions might look like if 90% was the allowance.

Now....what I did was pretty rudimentary and I do not hold it up to be a cohesive statistical analysis...in order for it to have been anywhere near valid I'd have had to go through every individuals hole by hole scores* to determine what their stableford score would have been if their playing handicap was 90% of their course handicap instead of 95%....so....have some salt handy for what I'm about to present

So what I did was, for the comp scores in 2021 and 2022 I recalculated every players playing handicap as though they only got 90% (so divided the old PH by 0.95 to get back to their Course Handicap and then multiplied by 0.9....did not do any rounding between calcs). Where players then had a reduction in their whole number playing handicap I then reduced their Stableford score by the same amount to simulate a loss of shots. Now obviously this makes crass assumptions about players not having blobs on the holes where I've reduced their handicaps - revert back to * to see my previous disclaimer around this point and then grab yourself some more salt if you are so inclined.

What I found was that...

yes there was the expected reduction in the average handicap of the field
yes there were reductions in the average winning score and the average scores of those in positions 2-5 and 6-10
yes there were reductions in the handicaps of the winners and those finishing in the various places....largely this was just a mere 1-2 shots but in the case of the average winning handicap in 2022 it reduced from 25.4 when using 95% to 20.3 when using 90%

Pretty much all the above was predictable...folks have fewer shots...they score less, so all the numbers should go down...no rocket science involved there.

The drop of the average winning handicap in 2022 is quite significant and is obviously down to one or more higher handicappers who would not have won comps if 90% was being used.

There were marginal changes to the entry proportions of the various groups....no doubt caused by the players on the boundaries (15,22-23 and 29-30) dropping down into a lower group.

Looking at the average scores of the various handicap groups...

no change at all in the 1-7...they are not affected by any change from 95 to 90%
The three groups covering 8-28 however see typically around a 0.7 to 1-2 shot reduction
But the >28 cappers are suddenly 2.5 to 3.6 shots lower than they were.

So...how did all this translate into the relative finishing positions?

well....for the folks in handicap categories covering 8-28 it actually made sod all of sod all difference....just one or two positions in each group. For the lower handicaps (1-7) there was a consistent improvement of their average finishing position by 3 places. For the 28 cappers things were noticeably worse...typically finishing 13-15 places lower than they did using 95%.

So...putting aside the "high level nature" of this analysis I would say that a change from 95-90% allowance for an individual stableford comp would make an insignificant difference for the vast majority of golfers in terms of where they finished...low guys would benefit very slightly, very high players would be affected proportionally more.

If anything is demonstrated by this, it is the very delicate nature of trying to balance the allocation of shots so things are fair for all....what look like small changes on the surface can have significant effects on scoring patterns and the relative fairness of the handicapping system. I am absolutely sure that statisticians with far more knowledge than I or any of us, are analysing similar data and trying to see if there is anything hat can be done to tweak things.

Another thing....I beleive that the scoring/finishing patterns will be totally different for medal play as opposed Stableford. The higher handicappers inconsistency will be far more exposed in the more rigorous format of the game. Maybe 90% might be relevant for Stableford and some other % might be appropriate for medal?

Anyway....I hope your pile of salt hasn't gotten too big!!!! A couple of screenshots of the data and chart showing verage finishing positions for you to peruse...

 

[Backache]

'You need to read the 'Myths & Misconceptions' reports that used to be on the old CONGU site.
WHS does not favour higher handicappers. It simply balances thing (nearly).

With the greatest respect if it's a historical document about the planned change it is unlikely to address the concerns of those who are concerned about what the effect has been.

 

[Neilds]

Just to throw another possibility on why ‘high handicappers’ are winning all the comps, could it be because all the single figure players are not entering the comps, or NR’ing to protect their handicaps so they can enter opens, play county teams, etc?
Handicap ‘manipulation’ can be done by all ?

 

[wjemather]

Just to throw another possibility on why ‘high handicappers’ are winning all the comps, could it be because all the single figure players are not entering the comps, or NR’ing to protect their handicaps so they can enter opens, play county teams, etc?
Handicap ‘manipulation’ can be done by all ?

Not manipulation, but there is no doubt that some low handicappers who used to enter regular comps (prior to WHS) do so less frequently, choosing to submit GP scores instead - of course, this was never an option under UHS.
And then there are players at the other end of the spectrum, who regard GP scores as heresy.

 

[Backsticks]

Now you're getting it, but we're not all equal, duffers are being unequally rewarded.

I fully expect the first review to have a tweak that will address this, most likely as someone said above, making the allowance maybe 90%, with 4BBB getting a further equivalent % cut as well

Even without such a review though, you are pleased with WHS and that it is a more equal system than the old one, and a big step forward ?

 

[D-S]

Just to throw another possibility on why ‘high handicappers’ are winning all the comps, could it be because all the single figure players are not entering the comps, or NR’ing to protect their handicaps so they can enter opens, play county teams, etc?
Handicap ‘manipulation’ can be done by all ?

Or maybe they think when they shoot their round of the decade and are net 7 under, gross 2 under and get comfortably beaten by someone off 28, there is really little point in entering next time. This is even more of the case when it comes to matchplay competitions now.
By the way when who and why is anyone ‘Nr’ing to protect their handicaps’ and when did County Teams get selected on handicap alone?

 

[Backsticks]

Or maybe they think when they shoot their round of the decade and are net 7 under, gross 2 under and get comfortably beaten by someone off 28, there is really little point in entering next time.

Then they are just a sore looser, who doesn't understand the principle of handicap golf, mistakenly thinks his gross score has relevance to the matter, doesn't realise that there is nothing amiss if he looses despite his net 7 under, and sulks like a child by not entering future competitions.

 

[D-S]

Then they are just a sore looser, who doesn't understand the principle of handicap golf, mistakenly thinks his gross score has relevance to the matter, doesn't realise that there is nothing amiss if he looses despite his net 7 under, and sulks like a child by not entering future competitions.

Well you sound like a real bundle of fun.

 

[rulefan]

Who made rule saying the low handicappers must always win net competitions? I thought handicaps were to give all individual players an equal chance. As there are more players worse than 5 cap than better than 6, then more net comps will be won by higher cappers.

 

[Swango1980]

Then they are just a sore looser, who doesn't understand the principle of handicap golf, mistakenly thinks his gross score has relevance to the matter, doesn't realise that there is nothing amiss if he looses despite his net 7 under, and sulks like a child by not entering future competitions.

Seriously, we are not countering arguments now by calling people cry babies!?

There could well be something in the sort of club a player is at. My latest club is a pretty well established, and one of the better courses in the county (by reputation). Virtually everyone who enters competitions are regular golfers and competition players. Any new faces have likely come from other clubs, have a settled handicap, and probably just feel like they want to push themselves on. Also, the club has a 24 handicap limit in most comps. As such, the mens competitions are won with "modest" scores, not sure I've seen a score more than 5 or 6 better than CR (which is close to.par,). Many comps won with 36-39 points, or equivalent nett medal score. The biggest complaint around handicaps is in match play, with many more of the lower guys now refusing to enter those comps.

However, if you have a club with many newbies, and is a cheap and cheerful course for players to introduce themselves to game, then there are bound to be many more high handicappers, and this amazing nett scores. Some will he improving. This sort of club may also have a higher proportion of higher handicappers who have played for years, these high handicappers capable of great scores from time to time.

So, it might simply be that how much this is noticed by members depends on the profile of the players in comps. Some clubs might be lucky enough not to see any real issues, others might have seen a significant change since WHS (negative to the low handicap guys)