My point is that they wouldnt have had the 48 or 49 before in the first place. High hcs were underhandicapped.
WHS doesn't work
- Thread starter Captain_Black.
- Start date
Swango1980
Well-known member
So, what you are saying, before WHS nobody ever scored 48-49 points. They either scored low to mid 40's, or broke 50?
WHS inflates scores due to slope. As such, more people will score above 20 points, 25 points, 30 points, 35 points, 40 points, 45 points, 50 points, etc.
What do you mean high handicaps were underhandicapped? Are you saying the WHS system gives lower handicaps than before, when the opposite is shown to he true?
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
Need a little help (in layman's terms if possible) from those with practical experience (@rulefan and @wjemather spring to mind, sorry I cant recall the others) and also interested in general thoughts
The table shows 4 courses; 2 local to me and 2 in the UK and I can't fathom why my Course handicap is same (or similar) for these 4 courses given the differences in distance alone
Help please ...
edited as I had an old scorecard for one course showing different course length
The table shows 4 courses; 2 local to me and 2 in the UK and I can't fathom why my Course handicap is same (or similar) for these 4 courses given the differences in distance alone
- I've played courses 1, 2 & 3 many dozens of times so I know course 3 plays very (very) much easier than courses 1&2
- Course 4 is an example from this thread in a similar slope rating range and is reported as easy by a member
- I used ncrdb.usga.org to verify the information for course handicap
- There is a difference of 600 yards between course 1 & 3 for no difference in course handicap
- there is a massive difference of 1,200 yards between course 1 & 4 for a single shot difference in course handicap
- par on course 3 & 4 is also lower than 1&2
Help please ...
edited as I had an old scorecard for one course showing different course length
Attachments
Last edited:
D-S
Well-known member
We are now appear to being told is that under UHS higher handicappers received significantly too few shots and that they in fact needed 2,3 or 4 more shots to be competitive. Why we were not told this at the time, why the authorities seemed to think that this was ok and so they did nothing about it or that this key factor of the move to WHS was never mentioned in all the information given out remains a mystery.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Course handicap is only different if there is a difference in relative difficulty between low and high handicappers. It does not account for absolute difficulty between courses.
Simply put, if you were playing to handicap at each course, you'd need 37 points at Course 1, 38 points at Course 2, 37 points at Course 3 and 38 points at Course 4. In the US, they account for the difference between CR and Par in the Course Handicap calculation, so you may see the change in course handicap you were expecting.
The other factors to consider, which we will not know from that table, are where the obstructions are positioned generally. Are some longer courses quite open, while shorter courses got a lot of trees. Are bunkers and penalty areas in areas that are more likely to bother lower handicappers (generally bigger hitters), or in areas that bother higher handicappers and shorter hitters (more likely the former with lower Slopes)
My course is a good example, where the white tees are harder than the yellow tees in a direct comparison, as one would expect. Therefore the CR is higher for whites. However, the Slope is higher for yellows, because the white tees present a relatively harder challenge to lower handicappers than higher ones.
Swango1980
Well-known member
When I first went to England Golf Workshops, you could tell that there was a reluctance from some, if not many of them, in moving to WHS. It was almost like their hand was forced, and they just had to go along with it (I'm sure it created a lot of internal debates). However, once that decision was made, the marketing departments had to then do their best to highlight every possible factor that could show WHS as being better. And, now that UHS was being left behind, they could tear that to shreds (something they clearly would not have done before the decision was made to go to WHS.
Any complaint about WHS, I suspect the instinctive reaction to supporters and the authorities is to defend it rigorously. An easy argument is to simply say "UHS had it wrong, WHS is better, trust us". They will hope that line ends most arguments (and there may well be truth in it for some issues). However, if some of the issues continue to complained about, then they may well investigate behind the scenes, and then find ways of improving WHS in the future. They made changes to UHS plenty of times. So, I expect WHS authorities to continue to say "it is not a problem" right up until the point they make a change, and then they'll say the change is to fix a problem that they said wasn't a problem previously
wjemather
Well-known member
This is nothing new. Nor was it a secret or a key selling point of WHS (however, it is a key selling point of Slope - keep reading). It used to be generally accepted that handicaps systems should give lower handicappers an advantage; and systems were intentionally designed to so just that, assisted by crippling allowances for higher handicappers (3/4, 3/8, etc.). Even though many still think lows should be significantly favoured, things change, and the system became more equitable - allowances were gradually increased (over the course of 30+ years!), and adopting Slope was to be the next step (UHS would then have looked similar to the EGA system). With adoption of Slope would have seen similar changes in course/playing handicaps under UHS, as have been seen with the transition to WHS.
wjemather
Well-known member
In your table, to calculate your course handicap, you have used the formula CH = (HI * Slope/113) + (CR - Par); which is correct in Mauritius but not in GB&I, where CR-Par is not included, but for ease of comparison, I'll use this to begin with:
- Your 'play-to-handicap' score is 36 Stableford points, or adjusted nett par, on every course; i.e. adjusted gross 88, 88, 86, 84. So this means playing two strokes lower at course 3 than either course 1 or 2 - as the course handicaps are the same, it can be thought of as simply the difference in pars. It also means playing four strokes lower at course 4 - the difference in pars, plus the difference in strokes received.
- Your course handicaps would be 17, 18, 17 and 17, with 'play-to-handicap' scores (as detailed by Swango1980) of 37, 38, 37 and 38 Stableford points (or nett -1, -2, -1, -2), i.e. adjusted gross 88, 88, 86, 84.
- So for courses 1 and 2 your CH is as per your table (16, 16), but for courses 3 and 4, they are as per the GB&I example above (i.e. 17, 17). 'Play-to-handicap' scores are 36, 36, 37, 38 Stableford points (or nett E, E, -1, -2), and these translate to the same adjusted gross scores, of 88, 88, 86, 84.
Note: there can be variance in the results from each method due to rounding, but thankfully not in this case.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Out of interest, of all the WHS jurisdictions in the world, which ones incorporate CR-Par into the course handicap, and which do not?
wjemather
Well-known member
I have sourced WHS manuals from over a dozen jurisdictions and the only one I've found that doesn't is CONGU.
Captain_Black.
Well-known member
So now, after yet another weekend high level banditry whereby our Sat & Sun comps were won by 22 & 31 handicappers & anyone under a 16 h/c didn't get a look in, I give up.
From now on I'll just enter the Board comps where the handicaps are restricted.
Otherwise it'll be just social golf from here on in.
From now on I'll just enter the Board comps where the handicaps are restricted.
Otherwise it'll be just social golf from here on in.
wjemather
Well-known member
Why so accusatory? What evidence do you have that their handicaps are (were) questionable?
Would be interesting to have more details of the course & comps in order to analyse some of the results you are so incensed with.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Interesting…my best Stableford score in the last 12months, and by a margin, was my 45 or whatever it was at Camberley Heath the dayB4 H4H last year. My HI had drifted up and the Slope Rating of 136 (IIRC) gave me 13 shots…and at the time I was effectively playing steady to 9 or 10. I thought Christmas had come early…?, and steady off the tee with decent short game (nothing special) saw me rack up most points I‘ve ever posted. And of course it won the day.
As we will only have front 9 as qualifying course over winter it will be interesting to see if there is any difference in the stableford points being scored for that 9 as the Slope Rating is 117 cf SR of 125 for full course.
Last edited:
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
Thanks @Swango1980 and @wjemather I wont quote the posts in order to keep the size of this reply down
I have a better understanding but still don't understand why they are anywhere near so closely rated since distance is one of the primary measures in setting the slope
Knowing them as I do, If I played the same standard of golf on courses 1 & 3 there will be a helluva lot more difference than one stableford point for the round score and I can't help thinking that if exactly the same rating team did both courses 1 & 3 tomorrow would the results differ from the current slope rating
(I'm probably doing a huge disserve to the ratings teams saying the above but that's honestly not my intention. I just wonder if its possible that a course in a territory/area in the UK could be given a particular slope rated when compared (even subconsciously) to the slope rating calculated at other nearby courses rated by the same team and might it get a different slope rating compared to more difficult courses worldwide? i.e is it possible to rate a course solely on pre-defined criteria/measures and entirely in isolation to, and excluding all other courses rated by that team?)
I have a better understanding but still don't understand why they are anywhere near so closely rated since distance is one of the primary measures in setting the slope
Knowing them as I do, If I played the same standard of golf on courses 1 & 3 there will be a helluva lot more difference than one stableford point for the round score and I can't help thinking that if exactly the same rating team did both courses 1 & 3 tomorrow would the results differ from the current slope rating
(I'm probably doing a huge disserve to the ratings teams saying the above but that's honestly not my intention. I just wonder if its possible that a course in a territory/area in the UK could be given a particular slope rated when compared (even subconsciously) to the slope rating calculated at other nearby courses rated by the same team and might it get a different slope rating compared to more difficult courses worldwide? i.e is it possible to rate a course solely on pre-defined criteria/measures and entirely in isolation to, and excluding all other courses rated by that team?)
Captain_Black.
Well-known member
As in my original post.
It's been season long, I've gone back through the results & they make shocking reading.
I've read all the posts on this subject, both in favour of WHS & those who see the problem.
My mind is made up on this subject.
It heavily favours the higher handicapper who are regularly shooting scores that are unachievable by lower handicappers.
I play qualifiers 2 or 3 times a week in the summer, so my handicapper is pretty spot on.
I'm very cheesed off with seeing stupid scores coming in, always from players in the 22 to 32 handicap range.
It's absolutely pointless me entering qualifiers, so from now on it'll be just restricted h/c Board comps for me.
wjemather
Well-known member
You aren't really answering the question, but I suspect it's expectations that are awry rather than having a club full of handicap manipulators.
Again, it would be interesting to have more details of the course & comps in order to analyse some of the results you are so incensed with.
Captain_Black.
Well-known member
Not really prepared to divulge my coarse specifics other than to say it's a very long par 73.
I've personally witnessed one individual getting cut 2 shots for exceptional scoring, who after comparing & getting nowhere, then proceeded to enter as many minor qualifiers as possible which he wouldn't normally play in to not only restore his previous h/c, but to actually gain an additional 2 shots.
I seen players doing a (Brown) not his real name, whereby when playing in a minor qualifier they would throw the last 2 holes to avoid a cut.
I played a guy the other week in a ko comp, he was off 30.
He was 30 yards short of our stroke 1 par 5 for 2.
He tapped it on & sunk the putt.
He proceeded to play to about 12 for the rest of the round.
The Seniors section at my club is about 200 strong, there are probably about 20 or so players under a 15 h/c
There is probably a similar number who have a h/c of 15 to 24.
The rest are 24 to 45
I detect a mindset where once a player has a h/c higher than 15 or so, they loose all interest in getting any lower & their focus shifts to gaining shots to compete.
Quite a few of them are at it, & the scores coming in support my observations.
This mindset to a lesser degree I think is also creeping in to certain individuals within the Men's section as well.
Unfortunately we are going to end up with non Board comps just consisting of very high handicappers where the top 5 scores will be in excess of 45 points or a medal of up to 10 below par.
I've personally witnessed one individual getting cut 2 shots for exceptional scoring, who after comparing & getting nowhere, then proceeded to enter as many minor qualifiers as possible which he wouldn't normally play in to not only restore his previous h/c, but to actually gain an additional 2 shots.
I seen players doing a (Brown) not his real name, whereby when playing in a minor qualifier they would throw the last 2 holes to avoid a cut.
I played a guy the other week in a ko comp, he was off 30.
He was 30 yards short of our stroke 1 par 5 for 2.
He tapped it on & sunk the putt.
He proceeded to play to about 12 for the rest of the round.
The Seniors section at my club is about 200 strong, there are probably about 20 or so players under a 15 h/c
There is probably a similar number who have a h/c of 15 to 24.
The rest are 24 to 45
I detect a mindset where once a player has a h/c higher than 15 or so, they loose all interest in getting any lower & their focus shifts to gaining shots to compete.
Quite a few of them are at it, & the scores coming in support my observations.
This mindset to a lesser degree I think is also creeping in to certain individuals within the Men's section as well.
Unfortunately we are going to end up with non Board comps just consisting of very high handicappers where the top 5 scores will be in excess of 45 points or a medal of up to 10 below par.
wjemather
Well-known member
So what have your handicap committee done about this "manipulation"/failure to fulfil player responsibilities by not attempting to make the best score on each hole? (I am, of course, assuming someone else has fulfilled their responsibilities by reporting it)
You have about 80% of players above 24 handicap, and 90% above 15 - it shouldn't be any surprise that they are returning the vast majority of the best scores and winning a huge proportion of competitions, even moreso if significant numbers of the lower handicappers are no longer entering.
Last edited:
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
Well someone won at our place on Saturday 2 under gross, 7 under nett and WON!
A big win for the low boys at our club! Hopefully more over winter
A big win for the low boys at our club! Hopefully more over winter
HampshireHog
Assistant Pro
Bandit ?
I can’t begrudge a high handicap the win anymore than I can take pleasure in the low handicap winning.
Fella at our place won the order of merit, handicap didn’t drop more 2 shots over the period. Plenty of general play rounds contributing to that. That really grinds.
