WHS doesn't work

[rulefan]

Unfair on the handicap Committee.

Before the first great competition result, what evidence would they have to give a player a lower Index than WHS was giving the player?

After the first great competition result, should the Committee give an extra cut, over and above what WHS decided to cut the player?

If the player was playing well outside if acceptable score submissions, and known to Committee, then fair enough. But don't think that was the case?

That's why we need to know what has happened since CONGU.
SSS was equal to what is now CR. The only new feature is Slope and that doesn't account for what we are being told are outlandish net scores.
The best 8 average should give a good idea of an established player's capability. The HI allocation for new players is not exactly generous.

 

[MiurasFan]

Divisions & reduction of the 95% allowance in stages until the lower handicappers can reasonably compete.
As it stands atm, the high handicappers are having a field day & in my view positively encouraging the more unscrupulous to increase their H/C when it should be every golfers aim to get as low as they can.

If Divisions exist, then lower handicappers will immediately be competitive - because they will only be competing against other low cappers! And the issue of rapidly improving high handicappers only exists in that high handicap division. Those who are improving rapidly should be congratulated as opposed to being castigated as seems to be the case here!

 

[MiurasFan]

Texas Scramble is now a complete and utter waste of time as a competition now. Unless you have a team with high handicappers.

Always was a 'not really a competition, just a bit of fun' as far as I'm concerned! More a way of getting folk who would otherwise not mix with each other to do so - thus perhaps becoming more aware of other members reasons for being members!

 

[Steve Wilkes]

There's no way any handicap system can work in all scenarios, If players handicaps are 'fairly accurate' then in a match between two players it doesn't matter what the range of the 2 players handicaps are, each of the 2 has a fair chance of winning, the same with a fourball of players playing a little points competition amongst themselves, but take an eighty+ field of players with all ranges of handicaps, then of course it will greatly hinder the chances of the lower handicap players coming out on top, this is because of the range or scope of scores possible from the higher players is far greater. No system can make it fair. So if you want fair competitions then they have to be divisions

 

[Swango1980]

That's why we need to know what has happened since CONGU.
SSS was equal to what is now CR. The only new feature is Slope and that doesn't account for what we are being told are outlandish net scores.
The best 8 average should give a good idea of an established player's capability. The HI allocation for new players is not exactly generous.

When we switched to WHS, I found that higher handicappers got more shots back on their course handicap, in comparison to pre WHS. For those with at least 20 scores on their record at my place, slope 133, on average their course handicap was 4-5 higher than previous handicap (I.e. guys who used to be high 20's and above).

So, if they had high handicaps before, they could well have shot crazy good scores on a good day. Now, they can get those a bit higher again.

Furthermore, they could potentially get their Index up quicker under WHS, ready to get an even better score once they have a great day. Of course, no idea of that also was a factor in this specific scenario

 

[Captain_Black.]

If Divisions exist, then lower handicappers will immediately be competitive - because they will only be competing against other low cappers! And the issue of rapidly improving high handicappers only exists in that high handicap division. Those who are improving rapidly should be congratulated as opposed to being castigated as seems to be the case here!

Divisions alone won't cure the problem entirely.
Especially where Board comps & Opens are concerned.
There can only be 1x outright winners, a reduction in the 95% allowance would go some way to addressing this.
Also, I would argue (certainly at my club) the issue with outrageous scores from high handicappers are not from improving players, but from established players.
If improving players were posting great scores, that would be understandable, but that is not the case.
Just to give a little taste of what I'm talking about.
Our Senior Championships, 36 holes over 2x days, one joker shot a net 60 - 13 under par
The next day he shot 63 - 10 under par
Not an improving player by any means.

 

[MiurasFan]

That's why we need to know what has happened since CONGU.
SSS was equal to what is now CR. The only new feature is Slope and that doesn't account for what we are being told are outlandish net scores.
The best 8 average should give a good idea of an established player's capability. The HI allocation for new players is not exactly generous.

Not 'equal'...'equivalent'! And it's less to do with WHS than the change to having a Cat 5, where a natural improvement can result in markedly better scores! As I posted earlier, having divisions mitigates the effect, but it's still up to H'Cap Secs to 'police' properly - something that WHS has allowed them to be less dedicated, to as it's largely 'self policing'!

 

[rulefan]

Not 'equal'...'equivalent'!

When USGA CR was introduced for all CONGU (except England Men) many years before WHS the SSS was simply the rounded CR value. When the EGU switched before WHS they also used the rounded value.

 

[wjemather]

Divisions & reduction of the 95% allowance in stages until the lower handicappers can reasonably compete.
As it stands atm, the high handicappers are having a field day & in my view positively encouraging the more unscrupulous to increase their H/C when it should be every golfers aim to get as low as they can.

Low handicappers already can reasonably compete. However, importantly they have to be scoring relatively well, whereas under UHS, they didn't - it seems to be this change that is (still) causing angst.

 

[Crow]

Texas scrambles should be drawn to give a mix of handicaps in each team, the best way of stopping a particular handicap from dominating.

I've always thought that scrambles favour a team of low handicappers as their handicaps are reduced less and they have three or four good chances on each shot, really handy on approaches and chips. Their putting is usually on another level too.

 

[MiurasFan]

Divisions alone won't cure the problem entirely.
Especially where Board comps & Opens are concerned.
There can only be 1x outright winners, a reduction in the 95% allowance would go some way to addressing this.
Also, I would argue (certainly at my club) the issue with outrageous scores from high handicappers are not from improving players, but from established players.
If improving players were posting great scores, that would be understandable, but that is not the case.
Just to give a little taste of what I'm talking about.
Our Senior Championships, 36 holes over 2x days, one joker shot a net 60 - 13 under par
The next day he shot 63 - 10 under par
Not an improving player by any means.

I can't really comment on the above without knowing far more than is, or can or should be, available here. I'm also not a huge fan of handicap associated board comps either.

 

[MiurasFan]

When USGA CR was introduced for all CONGU (except England Men) many years before WHS the SSS was simply the rounded CR value. When the EGU switched before WHS they also used the rounded value.

I didn't know that. Why was the massive Course Rating exercise required then? And SSS was always a whole number, whereas CR rarely is, so 'equivalent to, rarely equal to'. Apologies all for the rather off-topic diversion.

 

[rulefan]

Interesting extracts from an old CONGU report:

1) When the distribution of winners by handicap category is related to their representation in the field, it is suggested 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.

2) 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.

(Group A) Many displayed no previous ‘form’ and simply had a day ‘in the golfing sun’ playing beyond all reasonable expectation.
(Group B) 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 C) Members of the third group were infrequent stroke play competitors and possessed handicaps that did not reflect their current improved ability.

 

[rulefan]

I didn't know that. Why was the massive Course Rating exercise required then?

To determine the Bogey Rating and thereby give the Slope. All except the EGU already had that. In fact many US visitors used the Slope when playing in Scotland or Ireland.

 

[Swango1980]

Texas scrambles should be drawn to give a mix of handicaps in each team, the best way of stopping a particular handicap from dominating.

I've always thought that scrambles favour a team of low handicappers as their handicaps are reduced less and they have three or four good chances on each shot, really handy on approaches and chips. Their putting is usually on another level too.

That used to be the case, assuming the team handicap was the usual total divided by 8 or 10.

No longer however, WHS swings it the other way. I've played 4 or 5 scrambles since WHS. If a team of scratch golfers were to stand a chance, they'd need to finish around -24

 

[D-S]

“1) When the distribution of winners by handicap category is related to their representation in the field, it is suggested 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.”
If this was the case under CONGU why was there a need under WHS to increase the handicaps of higher handicappers by the increase they received from the Slope calculation?
It is well accepted that the HIs of the lower players stayed the same or reduced in the transfer to WHS and the higher handicappers tended to increase, then the slope effect further added to the differential.
If this CONGU report was true, aren’t competitions now therefore skewed in favour of higher handicaps?

 

[Crow]

That used to be the case, assuming the team handicap was the usual total divided by 8 or 10.

No longer however, WHS swings it the other way. I've played 4 or 5 scrambles since WHS. If a team of scratch golfers were to stand a chance, they'd need to finish around -24

Percentage handicap is where the differences can come and silly scores can arise.
At my last place, which was drawn as I suggest above, the percentage went something like 25%, 20%, 15%, 10% of the lowest to highest handicaps.
Example:
8 x 0.25 = 2
15 x 0.2 = 3
20 x 0.15 = 3
30 x 0.1 = 3
Team handicap = 11
Results were usually pretty close and no silly scores.

 

[rulefan]

“1) When the distribution of winners by handicap category is related to their representation in the field, it is suggested 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.”
If this was the case under CONGU why was there a need under WHS to increase the handicaps of higher handicappers by the increase they received from the Slope calculation?
It is well accepted that the HIs of the lower players stayed the same or reduced in the transfer to WHS and the higher handicappers tended to increase, then the slope effect further added to the differential.
If this CONGU report was true, aren’t competitions now therefore skewed in favour of higher handicaps?

To compensate for the % difference in the red figures ?
But more likely the 95% PH is intended to be the equivalent of the 'bonus for excellence' in the old US and Oz systems.

Incidentally, I haven't seen confirmation of the underlined comment but was told by EG there was no such evidence. Apocryphal ?

 

[D-S]

To compensate for the % difference in the red figures ?
But more likely the 95% PH is intended to be the equivalent of the 'bonus for excellence' in the old US and Oz systems.

Incidentally, I haven't seen confirmation of the underlined comment but was told by EG there was no such evidence. Apocryphal ?

Of course, as you are well aware, the 95% PH is only in singles strokeplay competitions so not of any benefit in all other formats.
EG have not published anything as far as I am aware on transition handicaps and the information is therefore apocryphal but is certainly considered to be so from the many clubs I have discussed this with, certainly the large increase in plus handicaps in the County post transition must be an indicator of this. The number of additional shots received due to the slope calculation by higher handicappers is obvious and must have skewed things in their favour.

 

[MiurasFan]

It is well accepted that the HIs of the lower players stayed the same or reduced in the transfer to WHS and the higher handicappers tended to increase, then the slope effect further added to the differential.

I'd like to see the evidence of the 2nd part of that. Certainly fine for low cappers (though need to check what is meant by 'low' and high) staying the same, but mid cappers (13 plus or minus 5) that I know tended to lose about 1, which meant their playing handicap after the change to WHS was pretty much the same as before. It wouldn't surprise me if it's simply a case of 'exceptional incidents' being deemed the norm and classic inertia. Handicap Secretaries that believe WHS removes the need to monitor results probably also contribute too!