WHS doesn't work

[Alan Clifford]

Had a very long email today from the hcap sec.

He stated he has been “inundated with complaints about caps being wrong.”

I read that as caps as in hats and was confused

 

[clubchamp98]

I read that as caps as in hats and was confused

So are most of our members join the club.

 

[harpo_72]

The 54 hcp was a point of discussion at the bar on Sunday as well. General consensus ban it, if you can’t play to a 28 then perhaps you need a lesson or take up another sport. Back in the day, the pro had to give you a few lessons and then state if your okay. If you had played before you were told to play with a couple nice old boys who would report back to the secretary whether you were a chomper or maestro

 

[rosecott]

Had a very long email today from the hcap sec.

He stated he has been “inundated with complaints about caps being wrong.”

Email read like a A level maths paper.
No wonder golfers just don’t engage with this it’s far to complicated.

Heard lots of “ this is crap the old system was better”

There is no need for anything complicated. Posted my message to members:

Just a clarification on Course Handicaps and Playing Handicaps.

The calculation used to convert CH to PH for singles strokeplay competitions uses the unrounded version of the CH which may result in two players with the same CH having a difference of 1 in their PH.

For strokes given/received in matchplay the rounded CH is used.

 

[D-S]

There is no need for anything complicated. Posted my message to members:

Just a clarification on Course Handicaps and Playing Handicaps.

The calculation used to convert CH to PH for singles strokeplay competitions uses the unrounded version of the CH which may result in two players with the same CH having a difference of 1 in their PH.

For strokes given/received in matchplay the rounded CH is used.

Unless it’s Greensomes matchplay.

 

[Alan Clifford]

There is no need for anything complicated. Posted my message to members:

Just a clarification on Course Handicaps and Playing Handicaps.

The calculation used to convert CH to PH for singles strokeplay competitions uses the unrounded version of the CH which may result in two players with the same CH having a difference of 1 in their PH.

For strokes given/received in matchplay the rounded CH is used.

Play a round. Calculate differential. Round or don't round.
Average best 8 differentials. Round or don't round.
Calculate course handicap. Round or don't round.
Calcualte playing handicap. Round.

It's not rocket science. It's not mathematics. It's just specifications. Harden the specifications. Problem goes away.

 

[Swango1980]

The 54 hcp was a point of discussion at the bar on Sunday as well. General consensus ban it, if you can’t play to a 28 then perhaps you need a lesson or take up another sport. Back in the day, the pro had to give you a few lessons and then state if your okay. If you had played before you were told to play with a couple nice old boys who would report back to the secretary whether you were a chomper or maestro

I see nothing wrong with it. I knew a few people, especially Seniors, that where on 28.0 for years before the limit was increased. I don't think lessons were going to help many of them get that much better.

Besides, I'm not sure I've ever seen too many people play comps of an Index 54.0, not even close. But, that is just my experience. Maybe people are getting annoyed unnecessarily?

 

[AussieKB]

I see nothing wrong with it. I knew a few people, especially Seniors, that where on 28.0 for years before the limit was increased. I don't think lessons were going to help many of them get that much better.

Besides, I'm not sure I've ever seen too many people play comps of an Index 54.0, not even close. But, that is just my experience. Maybe people are getting annoyed unnecessarily?

Have played with a 54 handicapper, do not know why he plays as he cannot play anywhere to it, not sure what sport anyone would play and be so bad at it, it does not help his playing partners who cringe when they are drawn to play with him.

Good for him to have a go, but think he should not play comps and impact on his playing partners,

 

[rulie]

I see nothing wrong with it. I knew a few people, especially Seniors, that where on 28.0 for years before the limit was increased. I don't think lessons were going to help many of them get that much better.

Besides, I'm not sure I've ever seen too many people play comps of an Index 54.0, not even close. But, that is just my experience. Maybe people are getting annoyed unnecessarily?

I think that many players were stuck at 28 and should have been higher, but the system didn’t allow it (I think Colin L had done an assessment of this at his club?). Once the WHS “released” these players, their handicaps rose to their rightful level. Now those players are more competitive and others are complaining about them!

 

[Swango1980]

I think that many players were stuck at 28 and should have been higher, but the system didn’t allow it (I think Colin L had done an assessment of this at his club?). Once the WHS “released” these players, their handicaps rose to their rightful level. Now those players are more competitive and others are complaining about them!

I was handicap sec when the limit was raised, we looked at the previous scores of players on 28.0, and raised their handicap accordingly. Rather than just let it increase naturally, as this would have taken ages (at the time, it was only 0.1 increases per round).

One chap, who had not won a comp in years, managed to get a win in a medal. He was off around 32/33. All the other members were delighted for him. The good thing was, he suddenly felt so much more competitive and excited about playing golf, and slowly started to improve. He eventually got it down to about 25 or 26. I felt this a great example as to why it was a good idea to increase the limit.

 

[clubchamp98]

The 54 hcp was a point of discussion at the bar on Sunday as well. General consensus ban it, if you can’t play to a 28 then perhaps you need a lesson or take up another sport. Back in the day, the pro had to give you a few lessons and then state if your okay. If you had played before you were told to play with a couple nice old boys who would report back to the secretary whether you were a chomper or maestro

All about the money now.
Got the cash your in!

 

[clubchamp98]

I see nothing wrong with it. I knew a few people, especially Seniors, that where on 28.0 for years before the limit was increased. I don't think lessons were going to help many of them get that much better.

Besides, I'm not sure I've ever seen too many people play comps of an Index 54.0, not even close. But, that is just my experience. Maybe people are getting annoyed unnecessarily?

I agree it’s not 54 cappers that’s the problem.
It’s middle handicappers gaming the system and getting a few shots more than they really need.
There the ones shooting the silly scores.

 

[nickjdavis]

Back in post #215 I presented this analysis of scoring at my club for a limited number of stableford comps, looking at scores both pre and post WHS...

WHS doesn't work

Yup I gotta agree with you, something does not add up at your place I just checked another course here I played last weekend again with HI of 15.6 at a course rated 70.1/127 and had to play off 16 course handicap off tees measuring 6,300 yards and tough enough to be used as a European tour...

forums.golfmonthly.com

I've now updated the analysis to included 2023 results. My conclusions have not changed.

We are not seeing a raft of silly scores. You dont need 44+ points to win a competition and golfers with 40+ handicaps are not sweeping all before them. However WHS has helped level out the playing field and given higher handicaps a slightly more even chance of competing. Because there are generally more of them (higher handicappers), the chance of one of them having "one of those rounds" is more likely to occur and be reflected as an increase in the average handicap of a comp winner. with regards to the 5 scores >42 points in 2023...3 of them occurred in the same comp on a day when scoring was particularly good across the entire field (50% of the field scored 35 points or more).

However, if higher handicappers en-masse were all scoring significantly better you would expect the average handicaps of the golfers finishing in 2-10th places also to have risen significantly...this simply has not happened.

I'm posting here, rather than in the low handicapper GM article whinge thread, partly as to not give that thread any more room to breathe and partly because I posted the original analysis in this thread.

I personally think that the line graph showing the average finishing positions of golfers in various handicap groups across the last 5 years is telling. Post WHS there is far less variance in the typical finishing position of each group, the lines in 2021,22,23 are far more closely grouped which shows a more even level of competitiveness (the finishing positions have been "normalised" to represent a field of 100 golfers....in a perfect world, each handicap groups average finishing position would be 50th).

Note that there is an error with the data showing the finishing positions in 2020, as a total field the average finishing position is 60th which is too high and sits well outside of what variance might be caused by my rudimentary "normalising" process....unfortunately I dont have access to the raw data to check where the error occured. I have no doubt however from my memory of doing the analysis previously that 2020's figures showed a similar wider range, similar to 2019.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Back in post #215 I presented this analysis of scoring at my club for a limited number of stableford comps, looking at scores both pre and post WHS...

WHS doesn't work

Yup I gotta agree with you, something does not add up at your place I just checked another course here I played last weekend again with HI of 15.6 at a course rated 70.1/127 and had to play off 16 course handicap off tees measuring 6,300 yards and tough enough to be used as a European tour...

forums.golfmonthly.com

I've now updated the analysis to included 2023 results. My conclusions have not changed.

We are not seeing a raft of silly scores. You dont need 44+ points to win a competition and golfers with 40+ handicaps are not sweeping all before them. However WHS has helped level out the playing field and given higher handicaps a slightly more even chance of competing. Because there are generally more of them (higher handicappers), the chance of one of them having "one of those rounds" is more likely to occur and be reflected as an increase in the average handicap of a comp winner. with regards to the 5 scores >42 points in 2023...3 of them occurred in the same comp on a day when scoring was particularly good across the entire field (50% of the field scored 35 points or more).

However, if higher handicappers en-masse were all scoring significantly better you would expect the average handicaps of the golfers finishing in 2-10th places also to have risen significantly...this simply has not happened.

I'm posting here, rather than in the low handicapper GM article whinge thread, partly as to not give that thread any more room to breathe and partly because I posted the original analysis in this thread.

I personally think that the line graph showing the average finishing positions of golfers in various handicap groups across the last 5 years is telling. Post WHS there is far less variance in the typical finishing position of each group, the lines in 2021,22,23 are far more closely grouped which shows a more even level of competitiveness (the finishing positions have been "normalised" to represent a field of 100 golfers....in a perfect world, each handicap groups average finishing position would be 50th).

Note that there is an error with the data showing the finishing positions in 2020, as a total field the average finishing position is 60th which is too high and sits well outside of what variance might be caused by my rudimentary "normalising" process....unfortunately I dont have access to the raw data to check where the error occured. I have no doubt however from my memory of doing the analysis previously that 2020's figures showed a similar wider range, similar to 2019.

View attachment 53239View attachment 53238

All very good Nick, but Fergus Bissett did a far larger sample size analysis with data provided by HDID showing that indeed low handicappers were being marginally disadvantaged now, as opposed to marginally advantaged under UHS. Surely if there's a bias at all it should be towards skill and not being rubbish?

 

[Deleted member 29109]

All very good Nick, but Fergus Bissett did a far larger sample size analysis with data provided by HDID showing that indeed low handicappers were being marginally disadvantaged now, as opposed to marginally advantaged under UHS. Surely if there's a bias at all it should be towards skill and not being rubbish?

Agreed, and I’ve said it before. The handicap system should be ever so slightly biased towards the lower end. Call it a reward for excellence.

 

[nickjdavis]

All very good Nick, but Fergus Bissett did a far larger sample size analysis with data provided by HDID showing that indeed low handicappers were being marginally disadvantaged now, as opposed to marginally advantaged under UHS. Surely if there's a bias at all it should be towards skill and not being rubbish?

I'll grant you that my data set is limited When I originally did the analysis I was really looking to see if higher handicappers were really sweeping all before them and to see if the claims that WHS now meant that you had to score mid 40 points to have a remote chance of winning anything...simply as a riposte to those who just wanted to bandy abut the same old unsubstantiated claims about WHS about WHS ruining comps for lower handicappers (to quote the GM article).

If low cappers want to have a moan then they need to provide some empirical data to back said claims of unfairness. The Carly Frost article from a few months ago had no substance behind it other than anecdote, and neither did the article from a few days ago.

With regards the change in bias towards low/high handicappers. I certainly think that the balance has changed towards the higher handicapper group as a whole...but not sure it is disproportional...unfortunately it is not easy to separate the effect of there being so many high handicappers and the effect of greater volatility of their scoring patterns. We are probably all aware that, if you look at any individual high handicapper in isolation you will see that he finishes well down in the positions, the vast majority of the time...it is only the isolated occasion when he wins, that he becomes visible. Unfortunately, when he doesn't win, often there is another high handicapper who takes his place to have his day in the sun....and that is the effect that the low guys are seeing and complaining about.

I think the system is so finely tuned/balanced that it would be easy to tweak it so it suddenly swings too far one way or the other....even a seemingly minor change, such as moving from 95% to 90% for an individual singles comp, might prove to be too much.

 

[D-S]

For info, there has been a lot of work going on re fixing all the problems that have occurred following the April 1st changes. The overview is:-
The technology is now working for:

• CR-PAR
• Unrounded Course Handicap™
• Expecting Score
  • Staff within England Golf are working to input all front and back 9s onto the WHS™ portal. We have completed 90% of this work.
• Four-ball scores
  • Fixes were implemented on the 10th May which included:
    • Removing four-ball scores from the PCC calculation
    • Adjusted gross scores being calculated appropriately.

All the Four-ball fixes implemented on 10th May has been retrospectively applied to ALL four-ball scores submitted since the 1st April, therefore, there is no action clubs need to be make.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I'll grant you that my data set is limited When I originally did the analysis I was really looking to see if higher handicappers were really sweeping all before them and to see if the claims that WHS now meant that you had to score mid 40 points to have a remote chance of winning anything...simply as a riposte to those who just wanted to bandy abut the same old unsubstantiated claims about WHS about WHS ruining comps for lower handicappers (to quote the GM article).

If low cappers want to have a moan then they need to provide some empirical data to back said claims of unfairness. The Carly Frost article from a few months ago had no substance behind it other than anecdote, and neither did the article from a few days ago.

With regards the change in bias towards low/high handicappers. I certainly think that the balance has changed towards the higher handicapper group as a whole...but not sure it is disproportional...unfortunately it is not easy to separate the effect of there being so many high handicappers and the effect of greater volatility of their scoring patterns. We are probably all aware that, if you look at any individual high handicapper in isolation you will see that he finishes well down in the positions, the vast majority of the time...it is only the isolated occasion when he wins, that he becomes visible. Unfortunately, when he doesn't win, often there is another high handicapper who takes his place to have his day in the sun....and that is the effect that the low guys are seeing and complaining about.

I think the system is so finely tuned/balanced that it would be easy to tweak it so it suddenly swings too far one way or the other....even a seemingly minor change, such as moving from 95% to 90% for an individual singles comp, might prove to be too much.

Nice, but the Fergus Bissett one did, good of you to entirely miss the point I made.

And just FYI, from an even smaller sample size at the club I'd HC Sec of, we had one single digit winner of any trophy year one of WHS, it's been better since, but still favouring those in their teens as a whole. Very high handicappers rarely post low rounds due to severity of deep rough which in summer is a virtually certain lost ball, and a couple of very punishing OOBs, so we're a bit of an outlier there.

 

[nickjdavis]

Nice, but the Fergus Bissett one did, good of you to entirely miss the point I made.

And just FYI, from an even smaller sample size at the club I'd HC Sec of, we had one single digit winner of any trophy year one of WHS, it's been better since, but still favouring those in their teens as a whole. Very high handicappers rarely post low rounds due to severity of deep rough which in summer is a virtually certain lost ball, and a couple of very punishing OOBs, so we're a bit of an outlier there.

I didnt miss any point. I read the Fergus Bisset article and thought there were big holes in that as well. I'm certainly not convinced that suddenly, as a result of WHS, cat 1 golfers are suddenly shooting 4.5 points less in Stableford comps...that just doesn't make sense.

The article contains the following...

The average handicap of winners in Category 1 has come down by some 0.5 of a point post WHS compared to only very minor changes in all other categories – see table below.
That might not seem like much. But 0.5 of a shot from 3.4 to 2.9 is a 15% decrease compared to changes of less than 1.5% in all other categories.
If those percentages in handicap reduction are indicative, it goes quite some way to explaining why the average competition Stableford score for Category 1 players has come down so dramatically since WHS – Their handicaps are indeed lower.

0.5 of a shot is still only 0.5 of a shot, the 15% change is irrelevant....if you change any small number then the proportional change in percentage terms is going to be big compared to a change of a similar amount in a large number. The leap of logic in the third sentence that postulates that a 15% reduction in a cat 1 players handicaps will result in them shooting 4 points worse in a comp is somewhat....well....wrong. A 28 handicapper who loses 15% of his shots (4.2) may well suffer such a change in scoring....but a 5 handicapper losing 0.75 shots....well, that is only going to make a marginal difference to his overall score. Its not going to take 15% off his total stableford points, as the writer seems to imply.

I do agree that mid teens/high teens are best placed to win stuff...they have the numbers in terms of comp entries and they are more likely to have that bit of relative consistency in their games that as a group gives them a good opportunity....but that was always the way under the UHS. The WHS has in my opinion balanced the two ends of the tail ...slightly harder for the low guys and slightly easier for the very high guys.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The 54 hcp was a point of discussion at the bar on Sunday as well. General consensus ban it, if you can’t play to a 28 then perhaps you need a lesson or take up another sport. Back in the day, the pro had to give you a few lessons and then state if your okay. If you had played before you were told to play with a couple nice old boys who would report back to the secretary whether you were a chomper or maestro

All of the gents comps at my place have for entry a max handicap index 28.0 must have been achieved and max shots allowance/strokes received of 28 - unless otherwise specified for any given comp. For ladies it 36.0 and 36.