WHS doesn't work

[Backsticks]

No, the probabilty is factored into this stats. It was the main reason low handicaps used to complain about UHS, but ststistically they were wrong. Now under WHS though they are correct

But nevertheless, its an improvement on its predecessor as far as levelling the field goes.
Surely, improvement is good, even if not to perfection, and so to be welcomed. I dont see how you can deny that.
If a less perfect version was acceptable to golf here for 40 years, a better version cannot be painted as a problem.

 

[patricks148]

The main thing I miss with the new system is that there is no longer a buffer so if you are having a poor round people now just give up and nr more than withbthe old system. I quite enjoyed still trying to make buffer on the back 9, but now it doesn't matter if its not having to be one of your better scores or isn't knocking a good score off.

 

[wjemather]

The main thing I miss with the new system is that there is no longer a buffer so if you are having a poor round people now just give up and nr more than withbthe old system. I quite enjoyed still trying to make buffer on the back 9, but now it doesn't matter if its not having to be one of your better scores or isn't knocking a good score off.

We have seen the opposite. Previously there would be lots of NRs with no hole scores recorded after a bad hole even if the card was returned (which was almost never), whereas now almost every score is returned and players are correctly recording their hole scores following an NR hole.

Since any score can ultimately end up in the best 8, every non-counting score provides a buffer.

 

[Backsticks]

The main thing I miss with the new system is that there is no longer a buffer so if you are having a poor round people now just give up and nr more than with the old system. I quite enjoyed still trying to make buffer on the back 9, but now it doesn't matter if its not having to be one of your better scores or isn't knocking a good score off.

I find that motivation is still there. I see my buffer-zone type number as my worst counting score of my 8.
Its usually 3 or 4 above my HI, so it is equivalent to the buffer zone challenge I use to play against myself, like you, in the UHS days.

And mathematically is similar.

If you can get close to, or into that best 8, then your hc will be more stable. If you let your round collapse, it can be even more increasing of your hc than a 0.1 of old.

 

[tobybarker]

When I’m king no adult will be allowed more than one shot per hole in any kind of competition.

Where can I vote for you?

 

[Banchory Buddha]

A fair proportion have second homes and/or have dual membership. Many of those that haven't play in local competitions but now with the 'correct' handicap.

OK you're talking about a very small minority of the population. There is nobody in my club in this situation

 

[patricks148]

Stableford scores have def gone up at my club since whs. If you shot 37 points or more before you would be in with a high chance of winning. Now it's low to.mid 40 and at times high 40s. Tbh I don't really play in the Stableford comps as they are on a Sunday and I don't play that often on a Sunday if I can help it. Anyway. None of our comps are dominated by over 20 handicaps as far as I know, it's been more mid handicaps if anything, most of the handicap comps are being won by mid teens, but all the strokeplay comps have a gross prize anyway, so low guys are still able to win those. I havnt checked this year but last year of the 10 silver trophy handicap comps which are our equivalent to a board comp 9 we're won by higher mid teen handicaps. Not checked this year tbh.

 

[IanM]

136 players in our comp yesterday. My 37 points would have been a prize or just outside previously. I wasn't inside top 30. Make of that what you will ?

 

[Backsticks]

Without knowing the SSS in those two examples or number of entrants, 37 winning seems like there was a problem beforehand WHS, which WHS has now normalised with other clubs. But taking SSS as 36 points for example, and 100 players, 37 points should not normally have won. Congu UHS would have expected 40-42 typically, if working correctly. Similar to WHS.
Maybe the clubs that think WHS isnt working, are actually ones where UHS wasnt working, they didnt know it, but now things have corrected themselves with the improvements brought by WHS ?

 

[D-S]

Without knowing the SSS in those two examples or number of entrants, 37 winning seems like there was a problem beforehand WHS, which WHS has now normalised with other clubs. But taking SSS as 36 points for example, and 100 players, 37 points should not normally have won. Congu UHS would have expected 40-42 typically, if working correctly. Similar to WHS.
Maybe the clubs that think WHS isnt working, are actually ones where UHS wasnt working, they didnt know it, but now things have corrected themselves with the improvements brought by WHS ?

Again, if UHS wasn’t working why weren’t we told? Why wasn’t something done to improve it?

Perhaps that might be what is happening now, WHS isn’t working but we are not being told and nothing is being done about it.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Again, if UHS wasn’t working why weren’t we told? Why wasn’t something done to improve it?

Perhaps that might be what is happening now, WHS isn’t working but we are not being told and nothing is being done about it.

Maybe the intention for UHS was how it was working, ie to favour towards the lower end of the handicap scale.

 

[D-S]

Maybe the intention for UHS was how it was working, ie to favour towards the lower end of the handicap scale.

If that was how it was and this was considered to be unfair then fine.
But we were not informed that this bias (if it was there) was indeed wrong (or otherwise why hadn’t it been corrected), nor were we told pre transition that one of the goals of WHS was to ’right this wrong’. All people want is a bit of transparency which would have avoided a lot of doubt, confusion and suspicion.

 

[Backsticks]

Mentioned hereabouts in several threads recently (sorry, the graphs and tables didnt copy over, but the text tells the story nonetheless I think).
This stuff was from about 20 years ago. You have to love the title quote on the second one........somethings never change it seem. Just WHS the fall guy for people's misunderstandings this time ! Talk about deja-vu !




Myth …..'If all club handicap competitions were 'open' i.e. no handicap classes or divisions, the single figure handicap player would stand no chance of winning.'
Research
· The analysis covers 750 club handicap competitions reported in the Herald in the months May to September. The competitions selected had a minimum field size of 75 competitors. · All competitions were evaluated as 'open' i.e. there was one overall winner of the competition irrespective of handicap. · The winners of the 750 competitions were grouped into the four handicap categories. The distribution of winners by handicap category is shown below:

Outcome · The winners by handicap category were as follows:
Category 1 (Handicaps 5 or less)
10%
Category 2 (Handicaps 6-12)
33%
Category 3 (Handicaps 13-20)
38%
Category 4 (Handicaps 21-28)
19%
· On face value this would suggest that the probability of winning a club competition is heavily and unfairly biased in favour of Category 2 and 3 players. However, the story is incomplete ……….read on!
If the above findings are related to a typical club entry (average over a number of clubs in a range of competitions) a different picture emerges:
· When the distribution of winners by handicap category is related to their representation in the field, it can be seen that all handicap categories win in reasonable proportion to their entry i.e. Category 1 and Category 3 players typically comprise 8% and 40% of a club competition and in a 'single class' competition win 10% and 38% of the time. · This would suggest that handicapping is acceptably fair and equitable throughout the handicap range.
The distribution of 'Winners' with respect to playing handicap, assuming all competitions were run as a single class handicap event, can be looked at another way: · Club handicaps are typically distributed as below (aggregate of the handicap distribution of players playing in three or more competitions p.a. in a range of golf clubs) · The average playing handicap of the players in the sample was 14.
· Below is the distribution of winners by handicap derived from information published in the Herald Club Golf Returns over three years and embracing 2622 competitions (approximately 250,000 rounds of golf!)
· It can be seen from direct comparison of the two distributions that there is good correlation between the number of players at a given handicap and their winning frequency. · The average handicap of the winning player was found to be 13.3 which bears very
favourable comparison to the average club handicap of 14 (discounting those members playing less than three qualifying competitions p.a.)




Myth….'You require at return at least a nett 60 or 48 Stableford points to win a competition nowadays…..'
Research
· To examine this 'myth' winning scores in club competitions were analysed relative to the CSS. As before all competitions were considered to be 'open' i.e. overall lowest score irrespective of class, division or handicap category. (To qualify for inclusion in this analysis the competitions had to have a minimum of 75 competitors.) · The distribution of winning scores over a typical year (c. 750 competitions) is shown below:
· In the year shown winning scores ranged from 2 below the CSS to 11 below. · The average winning score in 1997 was 5.6 strokes below the CSS (This equates to 41-42 Stableford points). In the following year the average winning score was 5.5 strokes below the CSS. This shows remarkable consistency!
In the above figure it can be seen (LHS of bar chart) that a relatively small number of competitions are won with scores of 9 strokes or more below the CSS. It is these 'scandalous' winning scores that give the handicapping system a 'bad name' and to which critics frequently refer.
These 'scandalous' but infrequent very low winning scores prompted the following question:
Who are those players who return scores of nine or more under the CSS? (Sandbaggers – Bandits – Handicap Builders?)
Research
· The Herald newspaper until recently identified the 'Bandit of the Week' (in a kind and sympathetic manner!) from their weekly golf returns i.e. the player(s) returning the most 'scandalous' score(s). · With the co-operation of clubs and players, the playing records of a wide range of 'Bandits' were obtained. · Analysis of these returns identified that 'Bandits' fell into three fairly distinct and evenly spread categories. » Many displayed no previous 'form' and simply had a day 'in the golfing sun' playing beyond all reasonable expectation. (Group A) » With the benefit of hindsight the second group gave a fairly clear indication of their potential to score lower than their handicap. A more vigilant handicapping committee could perhaps have applied a Clause 19 (General Play) handicap reduction before the 'scandalous' score occurred (Group B) » Members of the third group were infrequent stroke play competitors and possessed handicaps that did not reflect their current improved ability. (Group C)
· Typical scoring patterns expressed as Nett Differentials for members of Groups A – C were as follows: Group A 11, NR, 15, 3, NR, 4, 5, 3, 9, 5, 8, 7, 0, 2, -9, 5, 8, 11, 6, 3, 10, 16. (Year starting h'cap 28. Closing h'cap 22.6. Clause 19 reduction of 2.4)
Group B -2, -2, -5, -2, 0, 5, NR, 6, NR, -10, 13, NR, 4, 0, 3, 6, 4, 3. (Year starting h'cap 16.3. Closing h'cap 10.3.)
Group C 1996 NR, 3 1997 NR, -1 1998 0, -8, 5, -11, 13, 7, -1, 3, 1, NR, 6, 5. (Year starting h'cap 17.3. Closing h'cap 8.5. Clause 19 reduction 3.8)

 

[Steve Wilkes]

If that was how it was and this was considered to be unfair then fine.
But we were not informed that this bias (if it was there) was indeed wrong (or otherwise why hadn’t it been corrected), nor were we told pre transition that one of the goals of WHS was to ’right this wrong’. All people want is a bit of transparency which would have avoided a lot of doubt, confusion and suspicion.

I don't think UHS deemed their system to be unfair. We were not told one of the goals was to right a wrong because they didn't see a wrong to right.
They one main reason of the implementation of WHS was to make a Handicap Index transportable around the world.
I'm pretty sure they thought 95% and 90% reductions etc.. would bring the balance back to nearly as before.
In my opinion and in my experience, with players putting in cards (scoring with integrity), it seems a fair system, especially in one to one or 4 ball matches, but in large field club tournaments it will always favour those with a bigger scope in scoring and/or players with inaccurate indexes due to various reasons like not enough cards submitted and the obvious players who are a couple to a few shots higher because of the nature of the way they score when not in contention (known as sandbaggers or bandits back in the day)

 

[Backsticks]

Stableford scores have def gone up at my club since whs. If you shot 37 points or more before you would be in with a high chance of winning. Now it's low to.mid 40 and at times high 40s. Tbh I don't really play in the Stableford comps as they are on a Sunday and I don't play that often on a Sunday if I can help it. Anyway. None of our comps are dominated by over 20 handicaps as far as I know, it's been more mid handicaps if anything, most of the handicap comps are being won by mid teens, but all the strokeplay comps have a gross prize anyway, so low guys are still able to win those. I havnt checked this year but last year of the 10 silver trophy handicap comps which are our equivalent to a board comp 9 we're won by higher mid teen handicaps. Not checked this year tbh.

And so it should be. Handicaps are predominantly mid teens.

 

[clubchamp98]

Is it such a shock that low handicaps make only a small % of the field but still win now and again.
All that practice to hone their game .
Hours on the putting green.

But someone turns up and smashes the field with his shots. doesn't know where the practice ground is but can knock it round in 10 over off 18/19 cap.
Gets a cut then puts 20 cards in over a few weeks so he can do it again.
Fair system my a….

 

[IanM]

They one main reason of the implementation of WHS was to make a Handicap Index transportable around the world.

Seems a lot of work for just that!

 

[Backsticks]

Is it such a shock that low handicaps make only a small % of the field but still win now and again.
All that practice to hone their game .
Hours on the putting green.

But someone turns up and smashes the field with his shots. doesn't know where the practice ground is but can knock it round in 10 over off 18/19 cap.
Gets a cut then puts 20 cards in over a few weeks so he can do it again.
Fair system my a….

Practice time is not relevant to handicap allocation.
And the high handicap are cheats, low handicaps hardworking angels, is quite a prejudice.

 

[D-S]

Is it such a shock that low handicaps make only a small % of the field but still win now and again.
All that practice to hone their game .
Hours on the putting green.

But someone turns up and smashes the field with his shots. doesn't know where the practice ground is but can knock it round in 10 over off 18/19 cap.
Gets a cut then puts 20 cards in over a few weeks so he can do it again.
Fair system my a….

The better you get, the lower your chances of winning - seems a bit counter intuitive.
Perhaps we should revisit the famous Gary Player quote “the more I practice the unluckier I get”.

 

[clubchamp98]

Practice time is not relevant to handicap allocation.
And the high handicap are cheats, low handicaps hardworking angels, is quite a prejudice.

Where di I say he was a cheat!