• Thanks to each and every one of you for being part of the Golf Monthly community! We hope you have a joyous holiday season!

WHS doesn't work

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
13,023
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
WHS is now bonkers complicated, too complicated. The previous system and WHS are easy to manipulate. So there's the problem. I think the old system was better, but take out the buffer zone rubbish, why complicate? How to stop the fiddlers? I've said it before, but I'll say it again. If anyone puts a net score in that's below par, then their H/C should be reduced down to what they have just scored, assuming it is lower than their current H/C. Any increase in handicap is only point one per game played that does not have a net score lower than par for the course played.
I think that is a terrible idea. As soon as a player scores a round of their life (and we all have them), then it may take them 40 or 50 rounds to get a handicap that enables them to play to handicap again. That could take years.

I shot a 72 gross 3 years ago, but haven't got close since. I'd probably still be getting 0.1's back to this day, to account for that one round everything went right.
 

jim8flog

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
16,069
Location
Yeovil
Visit site
What do you mean here ?

In a comp with a booked start sheet the person checking the scores will be able to see which players went out together and virtually all players record their own score in the markers column.
So it is a simple case of comparing scores in the markers column on one card with another card to see who was the marker and cross checking the gross score between the two cards.
 

Backsticks

Assistant Pro
Banned
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,852
Visit site
In a comp with a booked start sheet the person checking the scores will be able to see which players went out together and virtually all players record their own score in the markers column.
So it is a simple case of comparing scores in the markers column on one card with another card to see who was the marker and cross checking the gross score between the two cards.
Gotcha. Do many really do that though ? I only mark the scores for the person whose card I have. But yes, if people do it, its a useful check, but surely the signed card is the 'master'. When HC Sec, I dont think I once did this kind of cross check.
 

clubchamp98

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Jan 23, 2014
Messages
18,195
Location
Liverpool
Visit site
Gotcha. Do many really do that though ? I only mark the scores for the person whose card I have. But yes, if people do it, its a useful check, but surely the signed card is the 'master'. When HC Sec, I dont think I once did this kind of cross check.
I do it as many markers have got my score wrong in the past.
I cross check the gross scores before I sign it.
But I would not expect an overworked h/cap sec to do it if I can’t even sign my own card.
 

Imurg

The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
37,874
Location
Aylesbury Bucks
Visit site
Gotcha. Do many really do that though ? I only mark the scores for the person whose card I have. But yes, if people do it, its a useful check, but surely the signed card is the 'master'. When HC Sec, I dont think I once did this kind of cross check.
If I'm marking your card and I only mark your score and not mine...how do I check my scores on my card are correct before signing it.....?
If I haven't put them in the Marker's box then I've got nothing to check, against.....
 

Backsticks

Assistant Pro
Banned
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,852
Visit site
If I'm marking your card and I only mark your score and not mine...how do I check my scores on my card are correct before signing it.....?
If I haven't put them in the Marker's box then I've got nothing to check, against.....
Against your memory? You know what scores you had, and probably the gross and/or stableford total. Its enough to spot an error on your markers card before you sign.
 

Imurg

The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
Joined
Mar 15, 2008
Messages
37,874
Location
Aylesbury Bucks
Visit site
Against your memory? You know what scores you had, and probably the gross and/or stableford total. Its enough to spot an error on your markers card before you sign.
And if I didn't want to tot up scores at the turn I've now got to remember all 18 holes?
No problem for me but an awful lot of people can't remember what ball they're using....
You can't rely on memory.
 
D

Deleted member 29109

Guest
And if I didn't want to tot up scores at the turn I've now got to remember all 18 holes?
No problem for me but an awful lot of people can't remember what ball they're using....
You can't rely on memory.

Some people struggle to remember how many shots they’ve hit on the hole they’ve just played.
 

Backsticks

Assistant Pro
Banned
Joined
Aug 7, 2012
Messages
3,852
Visit site
Presumably, whe WHS committee looked at a sea of such data. If the above were correct, it looks like 0.85 would be the singles competition factor. Is it known if they chose 0.95 because the quoted data is wrong and WHS has the correct data, or, because WHS decided that they must discriminate against low handicappers, and skew the system so that 30+ hc are given a two shot advantage.

(and lets not confuse it with the 50-points-to-have-a-chance problem. Thats clearly a different issue, and specific to some problem clubs)?
 

Ian_George

Active member
Joined
Oct 26, 2022
Messages
312
Visit site
So higher H/C's are more likely to have great rounds?
Depends how you define 'great round'!
If 'great' = '8 shots or more under handicap', then Yes.
If great = 'Level Par or better', then No!
That chart demonstrates the reason why handicap competitions should have Divisions!
 
Last edited:

AussieKB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
1,227
Location
Australia
Visit site
And if I didn't want to tot up scores at the turn I've now got to remember all 18 holes?
No problem for me but an awful lot of people can't remember what ball they're using....
You can't rely on memory.
When I count over 80 then it doesn't matter.:)
 

wjemather

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
3,934
Location
Bristol
Visit site
Presumably, whe WHS committee looked at a sea of such data. If the above were correct, it looks like 0.85 would be the singles competition factor. Is it known if they chose 0.95 because the quoted data is wrong and WHS has the correct data, or, because WHS decided that they must discriminate against low handicappers, and skew the system so that 30+ hc are given a two shot advantage.

(and lets not confuse it with the 50-points-to-have-a-chance problem. Thats clearly a different issue, and specific to some problem clubs)?
I believe the quoted probabilities from Dean Knuth apply to the old USGA system, not WHS, so are likely to be slightly off. Further, over handicap rounds must also be considered when evaluating equity, so these figures cannot be used in isolation.

Additionally, the .95 allowance for individual stroke play is deemed equitable for medium sized fields but inequitable in larger fields when a lower allowance is suggested. It is therefore CONGU's mandate that skews the system against lower handicappers in larger fields.
 

D-S

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 31, 2020
Messages
4,074
Location
Bristol
Visit site
I believe the quoted probabilities from Dean Knuth apply to the old USGA system, not WHS, so are likely to be slightly off. Further, over handicap rounds must also be considered when evaluating equity, so these figures cannot be used in isolation.

Additionally, the .95 allowance for individual stroke play is deemed equitable for medium sized fields but inequitable in larger fields when a lower allowance is suggested. It is therefore CONGU's mandate that skews the system against lower handicappers in larger fields.
Can you define medium and larger fields? Also what is the suggested allowance for 'larger' fields?
 

wjemather

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
3,934
Location
Bristol
Visit site
Can you define medium and larger fields? Also what is the suggested allowance for 'larger' fields?
According to WHS, 30 is medium size. There is no specific suggested allowance, just advice that committees may want to reduce the allowances as field size increases.
 

Ian_George

Active member
Joined
Oct 26, 2022
Messages
312
Visit site
Can you define medium and larger fields? Also what is the suggested allowance for 'larger' fields?
I believe 30 is the boundary point https://www.golfmonthly.com/features/the-game/handicap-allowances-under-whs
FWIW, I seriously doubt applying 95% (1 shot for 11-30; 2 shots 31-50; 3 shots for higher) is actually going to have a noticeable effect on the ratio of 'great day' winners - I believe there'll still be loads of winners in the 31-50 range who have an 'outstanding score' simply because of improvement from practice after initial handicap allocation! Another (or the same) reason for running handicap comps in Divisions!
 

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
13,023
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
According to WHS, 30 is medium size. There is no specific suggested allowance, just advice that committees may want to reduce the allowances as field size increases.
I never remember reading that in the manual. Just the 30 limit, but nothing above it (maybe it is there, and I missed it)

However, that is marvelous. We can have fields over 100. I wonder if that is a large field. And, system just leaves it up to the comp sec to decide or not decide, with no real logic. I imagine none do this, as they are oblivious to it, or the software does not make it easy? But, are players who play in large fields now likely to be at a disadvantage if they are a lower handicap? Surely not, as they've been slammed every time they have tried to highlight this
 
Top