WHS doesn't work

[rulefan]

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.

The only communication I had from EG's HoD re the difference between before and after was that virtually all changes were in the range -1 to +1.5 where there were 20+ scores in the player's record.

But Slope doesn't account for 13 or 10 under par. Nor does "the system" ((post #966). Now that is where I would like to see that player's CONGU handicap.

 

[D-S]

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!

It is obvious that, as the slope of the average course was in the region of 125 to 128, the multiplier on course handicaps on handicap indexes was commonly around 12% - so a scratch received 0 increase , a 5 handicapper received 0.6 of a shot and a 20 handicapper 2.4 shot increase etc..
Additionally the amount of plus handicappers in our County increased threefold during transition which shows that the lower UHS handicappers went down in transition to WHS.
Anecdotally the 15+ handicappers tended to increase although no one has published evidence to prove or disprove this but this was reported commonly across our County.

 

[D-S]

The only communication I had from EG's HoD re the difference between before and after was that virtually all changes were in the range -1 to +1.5 where there were 20+ scores in the player's record..

If the changes were -1 in lower Handicappers and +1.5 in higher handicappers then this plus the slope effect would have a considerable effect on scores, although the amount reported does not seem to account for the significant decrease we saw at the low end of the spectrum. Shame there is no actual data on this.

 

[MiurasFan]

It is obvious that, as the slope of the average course was in the region of 125 to 128, the multiplier on course handicaps on handicap indexes was commonly around 12% - so a scratch received 0 increase , a 5 handicapper received 0.6 of a shot and a 20 handicapper 2.4 shot increase etc..

Thanks for the 125-128 though. My guestimate was a little lower. But you are confusing 'changes to HIs' and 'the effect of changes to SIs'!

 

[MiurasFan]

If the changes were -1 in lower Handicappers and +1.5 in higher handicappers then this plus the slope effect would have a considerable effect on scores, although the amount reported does not seem to account for the significant decrease we saw at the low end of the spectrum. Shame there is no actual data on this.

Where did Rulefan suggest that was how the changes were spread! To me, it would more likely be a scatter across all divisions, possibly because of course changes that hadn't been re-rated!

 

[D-S]

Thanks for the 125-128 though. My guestimate was a little lower. But you are confusing 'changes to HIs' and 'the effect of changes to SIs'!

I never mentioned anything to do with SI’s that has nothing to do with this discussion.

 

[Backsticks]

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.

The 95% is to level the field, not a bonus for excellence. There is no longer a bias favouring of low handicappers. I think the bonus for excellence was more of an observation than a deliberate building in of favouritism for low hcs. Its handicap golf, there should be no favouring of any group, so it is good there is no such factor in WHS.

How about : restore the max handicap of 28 ?

 

[D-S]

Where did Rulefan suggest that was how the changes were spread! To me, it would more likely be a scatter across all divisions, possibly because of course changes that hadn't been re-rated!

There was a common conception that lower players got lower and higher got higher and I believe this is what the question to EG was based upon, this has nothing to do with the rating of courses.

 

[MiurasFan]

I never mentioned anything to do with SI’s that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Doh!!! HIs!

There was a common conception that lower players got lower and higher got higher and I believe this is what the question to EG was based upon, this has nothing to do with the rating of courses.

Common conceptions are often mis-conceptions! My very limited survey (a few members of different clubs) found the opposite to that conception!

 

[clubchamp98]

Was sceptical on the whole whs system but I’m no convinced it’s flawed. 27hc come in with 47points and gets cut 2 last week, he now shoots 48 points off 25!

36 points in todays comp would face earned you 32-40th place.

we have a guy off +1 and based off recent scores he needs to shoot 57 gross to be in with a chance of a top 3 based on the last few weeks scores

Just another normal day in golf club land.
but don’t worry it’s not the system!

 

[clubchamp98]

It's not WHS that's flawed! It's the way the club runs comps that's flawed! Easy solution - Divisions; Divisions; Divisions!
The issue has been around, for any club that doesn't use divisions, for eons!
The solution is a trivial!

You can have as many divisions as you like but in a competition there is only one winner who gets the trophy or their name on the board.!

 

[Captain_Black.]

You can have as many divisions as you like but in a competition there is only one winner who gets the trophy or their name on the board.!

Exactly.
That is why the 95% allowance needs to be cut.
At the moment it undoubtedly favours the higher handicappers.

 

[MiurasFan]

You can have as many divisions as you like but in a competition there is only one winner who gets the trophy or their name on the board.!

Thus my reasoning re handicap board comps!

 

[clubchamp98]

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.

To many on here use the “ improving players” reason all the time .
It’s the established players at mine that got a few shots back that are shooting the big scores, not new players.
The low men are shunning the comps and have their own sweep.
EG have admitted with the elite comps that GP cards can’t be trusted,
but us more common golfers have to put up with it.

 

[clubchamp98]

Thus my reasoning re handicap board comps!

That almost erases the history of the club ,unless all board comps are off scratch.
or they have four boards for every major comp.

 

[Imurg]

31st October 2020 - Fragger's handicap was 22.4.......so he got 22 shots
1st November 2020 - Fragger's Handicap Index is 22.5
But...because Slope is now working, pour Slope of 138 gives him 27 shots.
The 95% still gives him 26 - 4 shots more.
So, on his good day, his 42 points becomes 46.
Bear in mind that his handicap pre WHS consisted of scores on the same course.
Overnight, on the same course his handicap has gone from 22 to 26....
Multiply that by however many high handicappers you have and on many weeks you're going to get someone in the high 40s.
I remember Kaz had her handicap cut from 3 something to 1 something at transition.
Again multiply that by the number of low players....
It happened.
Low players went down, mid players stayed more or less the same, high players went up.

 

[rulefan]

Where did Rulefan suggest that was how the changes were spread! To me, it would more likely be a scatter across all divisions, possibly because of course changes that hadn't been re-rated!

That was my understanding of the conversation I had.

 

[rulefan]

Low players went down, mid players stayed more or less the same, high players went up.

You have hard evidence for that? Certainly not so at my club and not consistent with my conversation with EG. But as D-S has said, there is no published data. However Slope does have an effect.

 

[Backsticks]

So, on his good day, his 42 points becomes 46.

This is the flaw in the thinking. While true, WHS considers the chance of him having 42 too low. And the extra shots are to enable him to score 42 in the first place - which otherwise would have been only 38 on his good day.

 

[MiurasFan]

That almost erases the history of the club ,unless all board comps are off scratch.
or they have four boards for every major comp.

Only the relatively unimportant history! The really important comps such as Scratch Matchplay or Club Champs would still be there! I'm on boards at 2 different clubs for such 'unimportant' comps, but that was purely due to timing of improvements. The result I've been most proud of didn't result in a win because a couple of other big improving (significantly) higher cappers pipped me!