WHS doesn't work

[Oddsocks]

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.

I’ll agree on this, what’s worse is a good percentage of people are also aware of scores coming off and I think this is where the system is flawed.

It was mentioned in another thread that a member is about to lose a low round therefore expecting a few back, I’ve just checked mine and my oldest counting score is due off in 2 rounds and will be replaced with a round done 7/8 shots higher. With the season fast approaching some in my position would have a few stinkers, gain a couple of shots back all ready for the first sweep of board comps.

 

[MiurasFan]

The rating for the higher cappers would change yes imo.
but for the scratch man it isn’t any different.

Translated into WHS-speak as...CR wouldn't change, but Slope might reduce slightly.

 

[Backsticks]

Further, the USGA Rating System (licensed by the USGA and used for all WHS ratings) requires that rating is done by a team of at least three trained and experience raters.

Necessary to reduce the subjectivity.

 

[jim8flog]

Do you need to enter a certain number of cards per year to effectively 'keep' your handicap?

No

You just need to be a member of an affiliated club.

 

[Backsticks]

No

You just need to be a member of an affiliated club.

Its overwhelmingly greatest failure.

A minimum of 10 cards a year or something to enable a handicap. 20 in order to compete in any form of competition other than friendly golf. Or something of that order.
It is preposterous to suggest a handicap can be credibly claimed to be in any way reflective of current playing level if cards are not being submitted.

 

[jim8flog]

Interesting. Not related to WHS, but beginning g to wonder if my club are doing the same. On 2nd hole there was a lot of heather and bushes to left of fairway. Pull a driver, you are in big trouble. No bail out right either, as there are big trees. So, you risk hitting a driver and leaving a wedge in to the green, or hit iron off tee (so if pulled, should still be OK), but leaving yourself 170-200 yards to green. This winter, the green staff have taken out pretty much all the trouble on the left, so a player can just tonk driver and not worry so much if they go left at all. On 14th, a par 3, there was a bunker (maybe our signature bunker) left of green, with a face about 6ft high. It was steep, but slopped enough that it shouldn't really be an issue. This winter, they've ripped it out, and flattened it, so the face is now going to be about 6 inches to a foot. I've heard that this was done because a few seniors didn't like the high face, though not sure how true that is.

But, yes, it does feel like the club are doing things to make the course easier. Perhaps to improve pace of play, although rounds always appear quicker at my club than the last one. 4 balls are often easily under 4 hours (3hr 30 yesterday), and 3 ball comps not much over 3 hours. At my last club, a short course, rounds could be upwards of 4hrs 30 minutes. Some very slow players, and silly hedges and rough bordering fairways.

I am reminded of what transpired at our club

The person who came to do the course rating did the original many years ago (say 30). In that intervening period we had planted literally 10s of 1000s of trees with a grant from the then Forestry Commission " where did all the trees come from" he exclaimed, having never been to the course since the original time.

The difference between the SSS rating without the tree and the Course rating with all the trees 1.8 whites and 1.4 yellows or just one shot if it was still SSS (we had built a few additional bunkers as well).

 

[Swango1980]

Its overwhelmingly greatest failure.

A minimum of 10 cards a year or something to enable a handicap. 20 in order to compete in any form of competition other than friendly golf. Or something of that order.
It is preposterous to suggest a handicap can be credibly claimed to be in any way reflective of current playing level if cards are not being submitted.

I doubt that is a failure of WHS. All those conditions can be set on a competition by competition basis.

It is probably better that WHS allows this flexibility, as some competitions may want a more strict criteria than others. Pre WHS, the 3 cards per year was overly simplistic.

Of course, it does put the onus on Comp Secs to set suitable conditions. I'd probably agree most don't. Also, if they do, not sure if the software automatically prevents players from entering who do not meet criteria, or if comp secs need to manually check?

 

[jim8flog]

Its overwhelmingly greatest failure.

A minimum of 10 cards a year or something to enable a handicap. 20 in order to compete in any form of competition other than friendly golf. Or something of that order.
It is preposterous to suggest a handicap can be credibly claimed to be in any way reflective of current playing level if cards are not being submitted.

It was the same for many years under the UHS.

The requirement to put in 3 cards to keep your handicap disappeared years before the WHS came in.

When I checked we had over 100 members who had not put in a single card in the 3 years prior to it coming in and I know that number has probably increased since.

 

[rulefan]

A comment from someone 'in authority' .
There were very few unexpected anomalies at transition ........eg, some men went up by a very high number of shots (?8) - due to the fact that they had put in lots of no returns of zeros on the card.

 

[D-S]

It was the same for many years under the UHS.

The requirement to put in 3 cards to keep your handicap disappeared years before the WHS came in.

When I checked we had over 100 members who had not put in a single card in the 3 years prior to it coming in and I know that number has probably increased since.

I thought that UHS merely changed from 3 cards meaning active/inactive to competition/non competition but 3 cards were still needed to have a ‘competition’ handicaps just prior to WHS.

 

[D-S]

A comment from someone 'in authority' .
There were very few unexpected anomalies at transition ........eg, some men went up by a very high number of shots (?8) - due to the fact that they had put in lots of no returns of zeros on the card.

I also seem to remember that inthe pre WHS briefings it was explained that due to lower players being steadier it was likely that their handicaps would stay the same or reduce and that the inconsistent, wider variation in scores of some higher handicappers would increase - all this before the impact of stroke on higher handicappers new course handicap . So perhaps no anomalies just what was expected but as no data has been produced we do not know, although the increase in plus handicappers, in our County, is certainly a sign that lower players did decrease.

 

[Region3]

Nowhere near evidence but in my very limited sample size of people I regularly play with, what a lot of people are saying was true with our group.

Only 1 of us low - went from 4.1 to 2.3
half a dozen or so 10 to 13 hardly moved
A couple around 18-20 went up by a couple

All I hear is how the new system must be wrong because the new one doesn’t work the same. I try to explain my thoughts to them once but don’t bother the next time it crops up. Life’s too short and all I want to do is play golf.

I do think the new system favours those with higher handicaps more than lower, but in the past at our place I don’t remember many occasions when anyone in division 3 got anywhere near winning a comp so perhaps now it is more balanced And a good thing.
The thing that makes it appear skewed is that (at our place at least and I guess a lot of clubs) the higher handicappers far outnumber the low hc’s.

I would back a 5hc 1 on 1 against any of the division 3 players, but there are so many of them in a weekly comp that it’s very likely that at least one of them is going to have a score that the 5hc will find it very hard to compete with.

I’m fine with that. They are the skill level they are and if they have a good day then good luck to them. If there is manipulation going on then perhaps there ought to be processes in place to spot them earlier and to do something about it.
I’m more amazed that a lot of golfers that didn’t really get enough shots to compete under the old system turn up every week and hand their fiver over with a small chance to be among the prizes. The same with the 2’s sweep; I never hear any complaining that the low hc’s are far more likely to have a 2 - they are just happy to be a part of the system and to take their chances with everyone else.

I know it doesn’t apply to all low hc’s but I honestly feel that some of them think they are entitled to win more than a high hc because their nett 70 is ‘better golf’ than a high hc’s nett 70.

Let’s just be grateful that we don’t have to only play against players of a similar ability to have a roughly competitive match.

 

[Crazyface]

No

You just need to be a member of an affiliated club.

BUT if you are thinking of entering open comps, some clubs are insisting on X cards for HC to be in club comps to be eligible for prizes.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Its overwhelmingly greatest failure.

A minimum of 10 cards a year or something to enable a handicap. 20 in order to compete in any form of competition other than friendly golf. Or something of that order.
It is preposterous to suggest a handicap can be credibly claimed to be in any way reflective of current playing level if cards are not being submitted.

It's not, it's one of many failures, but this one, like the 54 h'cap limit, is not a feature of WHS, it was a feature before then

*WorldHS that is interpreted and implemented differently in nearly every jurisdiction in the world
*The big rise in index for higher handicaps and drop for lower handicaps upon conversion
*the 95% limit, tacitly admitting that the handicaps are wrong and trying to fudge a solution
*Team handicap allowances based on utter guesswork
*No winter closed period (again other jurisdictions are doing this)
*even CONGU nations going in different directions, eg. SG uses exact index for 95% calculation whereas other Congu countries do rounded before taking their 95%
*SSS was the biggest problem under CONGU, it was really the only issue with the old system with courses clearly mis-aligned, yet this figure has remained unchanged (except you now see the decimal)
*PCC - an utter joke

 

[jim8flog]

I thought that UHS merely changed from 3 cards meaning active/inactive to competition/non competition but 3 cards were still needed to have a ‘competition’ handicaps just prior to WHS.

That was the change from - not putting in 3 cards meant you lost your handicap until you put in 3 cards.

The change to non 'C' status came in many years before the WHS. There was a lot of comment when it first was changed because CONGU used the terms 'active and inactive' which a lot did not like as it inferred disabled.

 

[wjemather]

It's not, it's one of many failures, but this one, like the 54 h'cap limit, is not a feature of WHS, it was a feature before then...

*WorldHS that is interpreted and implemented differently in nearly every jurisdiction in the world - because how golf is played differs around the world; the HI is directly comparable, and that is ALL that is required for it to be a world system.
*The big rise (small, if any) in index for higher handicaps and drop for lower handicaps upon conversion - because old systems had built in bias towards lower handicappers; WHS does not. For example, under UHS, 0.1 reductions and the 1 stroke buffer (even the best golfers are simply not that consistent) for cat 1 meant that low handicappers were generally too high, and 0.1 increases for higher handicappers sometimes meant their handicaps were too low; "bonus of excellence" in USGA & GA systems. Also, several old systems, including UHS, did not factor in Slope.
*the 95% limit, tacitly admitting that the handicaps are wrong and trying to fudge a solution - equity of handicap competition in small and large groups is not constant, so reduced allowances are necessary in larger fields to maintain equity for the lower handicappers; WHS actually allows for lower allowances as field size increases (or higher in very small fields), but CONGU does not - the result being that lower handicappers are marginally disadvantaged in very big fields.
*Team handicap allowances based on utter guesswork - this is simply untrue; they are based on data and modelling.
*No winter closed period (again other jurisdictions are doing this) - arguments for off-seasons and winter handicaps in GB&I do not stand up to scrutiny.
*even CONGU nations going in different directions, eg. SG uses exact index for 95% calculation whereas other Congu countries do rounded before taking their 95% - again, this is down to how golf is played (i.e. manually working out allowances, rather than using an app), with Scotland being CONGU's guinea pig in this regard.
*SSS was the biggest problem under CONGU, it was really the only issue with the old system with courses clearly mis-aligned, yet this figure has remained unchanged (except you now see the decimal) - the problem you are describing is a result of not using Slope, and had almost nothing to do with SSS. There were many issues with UHS, but being simply the rounded Course Rating, SSS wasn't really one of them.
*PCC - an utter joke - any adjustment for daily scoring difficulty is going to have problems because the scoring patterns of amateur golfers are fundamentally unreliable, but the PCC methodology (based on vast amounts of real world data) is a vast improvement over CSS.

 

[D-S]

*PCC - an utter joke - any adjustment for daily scoring difficulty is going to have problems because the scoring patterns of amateur golfers are fundamentally unreliable, but the PCC methodology (based on vast amounts of real world data) is a vast improvement over CSS.

I fuly understand the difficulty in producing a sensible adjustment for amateur golfers and think it is an almost impossible task but no one I have discussed this with, including EG officials and Regional Handicap Advisors, has ever said it is a vast improvement over CSS especially in UK conditions - this strikes me a bit of a stretch.

 

[Imurg]

I fuly understand the difficulty in producing a sensible adjustment for amateur golfers and think it is an almost impossible task but no one I have discussed this with, including EG officials and Regional Handicap Advisors, has ever said it is a vast improvement over CSS especially in UK conditions - this strikes me a bit of a stretch.

Plucking a number out of thin air would have been a vast improvement.......PCC ain't it.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I fuly understand the difficulty in producing a sensible adjustment for amateur golfers and think it is an almost impossible task but no one I have discussed this with, including EG officials and Regional Handicap Advisors, has ever said it is a vast improvement over CSS especially in UK conditions - this strikes me a bit of a stretch.

I have him on block, I had a swatch at what he's replied, it's as usual a lot of drivel, which is why he's on block

 

[Swango1980]

It's not, it's one of many failures, but this one, like the 54 h'cap limit, is not a feature of WHS, it was a feature before then

*WorldHS that is interpreted and implemented differently in nearly every jurisdiction in the world
*The big rise in index for higher handicaps and drop for lower handicaps upon conversion
*the 95% limit, tacitly admitting that the handicaps are wrong and trying to fudge a solution
*Team handicap allowances based on utter guesswork
*No winter closed period (again other jurisdictions are doing this)
*even CONGU nations going in different directions, eg. SG uses exact index for 95% calculation whereas other Congu countries do rounded before taking their 95%
*SSS was the biggest problem under CONGU, it was really the only issue with the old system with courses clearly mis-aligned, yet this figure has remained unchanged (except you now see the decimal)
*PCC - an utter joke

Not having a go, just thought it would be interesting to discuss the points you made.

WorldHS that is interpreted and implemented differently in nearly every jurisdiction in the world
It can still be classed as a World Handicap System because your Index is compatible wherever you go. There will simply be regional variations in what scores are allowed, and exactly how that Index number is transformed into a Course Handicap. This is a good thing, in that for example, I doubt many in Britain would like certain things the US public are used to, and vice versa. It allows for cultural differences. However, there are things we do that I wish we did the same as other parts of the world (eg. CR-Par in Course Handicap), but there is flexibility for each region to adapt over time.

The big rise in index for higher handicaps and drop for lower handicaps upon conversion
I might be misunderstanding your point, whether you mean conversion from Index to Course handicap, or conversion to old handicap to WHS handicap(s)? I agree that WHS will give more shots, generally based on typical course slopes, to higher handicappers than lower handicappers, that they did not benefit from pre WHS. Therefore, this should aid higher handicappers more than before. The argument that this is good is that lower handicappers were already at an advantage pre WHS, so this levels things up (ironically, it was the lower handicappers that were always most upset pre WHS with "bandits"). Personally, I would prefer there to be a slight advantage to better players, only because it gives incentive for all golfers to improve, and make them feel they become a little bit more competitive once they plateau out their handicap, and reach their potential, than where they were at the start of their journey. I hasten to add, only a very very marginal advantage to a lower handicap, so that high handicappers still feel like they can easily compete on a good day (I appreciate some will consider this as a massively right-wing golfing view)

the 95% limit, tacitly admitting that the handicaps are wrong and trying to fudge a solution
I wouldn't say it is a fudge. Given that an Index is the average of the best 8, a higher handicapper will have a wider range of top 8 scores. So, if it was left at 100%, higher handicappers would be at an advantage in a large field, as you increase the odds one of them will get their best score in 20, and be more under their average than a low handicapper can do. So, a reduction is required, and I assume the 95% is based on their analysis of many many scores (I hope, but it would seem to be something easy for them to get the data for and analyse). Oz use 93% I believe, not sure why their number is different.

Team handicap allowances based on utter guesswork
I struggle to counter this point at all, especially if we are talking about Scramble. Maybe not 100% guesswork, but I suspect whatever work they did do, it has serious flaws. Don't even get me started when Scrambles have men and women playing off different tees, with women able to drive off a tee 50-100 yards closer the green, take their drive, and then the men are hitting approach shots from much closer than they'd ever be able to play from if they took one of the mens creamed drives. Also not unusual for the ladies to give the team big handicap boosts to the team ha handicap as well, for good measure.

No winter closed period (again other jurisdictions are doing this)
I really like being able to submit scores all year round, gives me something more to play for all the time. It also ensures players don't dominate winter competitions, by starting the season with a high handicap, and it means new players can obtain a handicap all year. Both courses I've been a member of are a bog over the winter, yet I still see players shoot great scores on a good day. If a course is truly bad, then the club can make a decision to prohibit scores themselves. It is unfair to put that ban on all golfers, just because a few don't like playing in winter, or a few courses are truly terrible. PCC should account for changing conditions, but it looks like we'll get to that...

even CONGU nations going in different directions, eg. SG uses exact index for 95% calculation whereas other Congu countries do rounded before taking their 95%
It probably would be a good idea for the British and Irish associations to work towards having the exact same system. Simply for the fact that most golfers who play golf in different countries, most will be between Great Britain and Ireland. So, would be nice to have consistency, and less confusing for golfers. I guess I could see them agreeing to trial slightly different things in the opening years, but I'd like to think by now they could agree a consistent way forward.

SSS was the biggest problem under CONGU, it was really the only issue with the old system with courses clearly mis-aligned, yet this figure has remained unchanged (except you now see the decimal)
I'll not say too much on this, as I do not know how it is worked out or how "accurate" it is. However, I never had a problem with it, in the sense that it usually seemed logical what it was, relative to par, when going between easy and hard courses. Hard, long courses would often have SSS more than par, easy, short courses, usually lower than par (me defining difficulty based on a golfers perception when playing against par). Was SSS, or is CR not representative of a scratch players target score? At any rate, at least with BR and Slope, the relative difference in difficulty can be accounted for. A high handicapper will get more shots at a long, tough course. But, if they then go and play a much shorter, easier course, quite rightly they do not get as many shots. Slope is definitely an improvement at the very least.

PCC - an utter joke
Again, no idea how it is worked out, and I believe it was recently changed? But, based on my experiences, I will probably have to agree with you. Unless the authorities can clearly demonstrate it is doing what it should do, by using a couple of good examples (are there any?), it is very hard to have faith that it is truly dealing with the difficulty of conditions as one would hope for or expect.

For me, one of the huge failures will be the technology used to help implements it, and the processes required by Committee. Not 100% WHS, as this could all have happened without it (the tech), but certainly driven by WHS. We all know that handicap manipulation occurred pre WHS, and it was obvious this would become much worse with WHS. Much bigger handicap increases possible (more incentive to play the system), and the tech available to allow golfers to do this much more easily. Very difficult for Committees to keep on top off, especially as unless the cheating is absurd, you can never 100% know if someone if guilty of manipulation or just having a rubbish time. It has also allowed some very good golfers to get their handicap lower, maintain it, by finding loopholes in submitting only good GP scores. There may be ways around this with tech in the future. Very detailed reports, and automated flags on players who exhibit certain patterns of scoring, especially between competition and GP.