WHS doesn't work

[doublebogey7]

Club Championship should be a gross comp. Handicap comp can be held at same time, but either for Divisional Championship(s) or as separate (non CC event). Too many clubs are just lazy thinkers when it comes to competitions!

Doesn't your last sentence contradict the first, assuming that most clubs already award the club championship trophy to the best gross, as by some margin is my experience.

 

[clubchamp98]

Club Championship should be a gross comp. Handicap comp can be held at same time, but either for Divisional Championship(s) or as separate (non CC event). Too many clubs are just lazy thinkers when it comes to competitions!

I Agree
But some clubs like to be inclusive and give everyone a chance to be CC.

 

[rulefan]

It wasn't, stats showed that Cat 1 were proportionately more likely to post winning scores, not by a big margin, but the edge was there,

Oz and the US introduced their bonus for excellence specifically to cause that to happen. CONGU published on their website stats some years ago, that here all Cats (including 1) posted winning scores in proportion to the entries in the field.

now the stats are showing the opposite, and that duffers have more of an edge

Where have these stats been published?

 

[MiurasFan]

Doesn't your last sentence contradict the first, assuming that most clubs already award the club championship trophy to the best gross, as by some margin is my experience.

No.

 

[tobybarker]

WHS has been a, long-awaited, revelation for us.
As getting a H/cap on a pretty benign, easy course our H/caps were rather 'soft' under CONGU.
Playing against other 11 H/cappers on their N Leeds courses, off the Whites, they could get to most of their 430yd par 4's in regulation whereas I was 30 to 40 yds short... this happened repeatedly.
Now under WHS all their slopes are must greater, and whilst I still can't reach their greens, I am far more competitive overall due to receiving a few more shots.
Also, for many years, playing in the Leeds & District Union events we never got anywhere near the prizes. However, WHS has now made our Club members far more competitive over the same courses. Yes, you've still got to get 45 to 47pts to win as the fields are large, but just last year my partner & I won Leeds Union B/Ball Championship at Moortown with 110 pairs in the field. Won on count-back with 43pts over 17 holes as their 15th was been remodeled. Further success in several team events proves to me the value of WHS.
OK, so we've still got some silly scores coming in on the Home course but then that was always so as we have 30 to 40 new H/cap starters each year.
I think we just have to accept that no system is perfect

Slope says nothing about the relative difficulty of two courses

I played in a league last year which has 7 local clubs in. There were 21 matches and the home team won 19 of them.

They used to allow a courtesy shot for visiting teams which was removed when WHS came in. However from analysis of the last year results it looks more like 2 courtesy shots should be given.

No one’s handicap seems to travel well these days!

no WHS (or any system I could imagine) could take account of the fact that most players play better on their own track. it's one of several issues I have with it.

 

[2blue]

Slope says nothing about the relative difficulty of two courses.
Ahhh, right, so when I play off yellows at my course my CH is 16....... go to the Hotchkin at Woodhall Spa & I'm off 19. So I wonder why that is??

no WHS (or any system I could imagine) could take account of the fact that most players play better on their own track. it's one of several issues I have with it.

There's one thing for sure....... you do a lot better if the other course is more challenging & you receive more shots.

 

[MiurasFan]

Slope says nothing about the relative difficulty of two courses

Sorry, that's codswallop! Slope is absolutely, and entirely, the attribute that indicates the relative difficulty of two courses! It's CR that says nothing about relative difficulty!

 

[Swango1980]

Sorry, that's codswallop! Slope is absolutely, and entirely, the attribute that indicates the relative difficulty of two courses! It's CR that says nothing about relative difficulty!

I believe what was said was correct, in that they meant Slope doesn't tell you that one course is more difficult than the other.

Slope tells you the relative difficulty between higher and lower handicapped golfers. But, it doesn't tell you which course is more difficult. A course with a higher slope is not necessarily more difficult than one with a lower slope.

 

[Voyager EMH]

No course is more difficult than another. The Course Ratings and Slope Ratings work together to make all courses the same for players of all handicaps.

This becomes much easier to grasp if you focus less on "I get x-amount of shots" or on a goal of 36 stableford points.
Turn your focus to the differential achieved and how much above or below your handicap index that is.
Your differential achieved is your "what you played to" index.

Or continue with your perception of "getting varying amounts of shots per course" and how this may help or hinder your goal of 36 points and thus find the new system irritating.
We are free to choose our way of thinking and behaving.

 

[Swango1980]

No course is more difficult than another. The Course Ratings and Slope Ratings work together to make all courses the same for players of all handicaps.

This becomes much easier to grasp if you focus less on "I get x-amount of shots" or on a goal of 36 stableford points.
Turn your focus to the differential achieved and how much above or below your handicap index that is.
Your differential achieved is your "what you played to" index.

Or continue with your perception of "getting varying amounts of shots per course" and how this may help or hinder your goal of 36 points and thus find the new system irritating.
We are free to choose our way of thinking and behaving.

I think you are just explaining how the handicap system is meant to work?

However, it is still true to say one course is more difficult than another. Just like it is true to say one golfer is better than another.

 

[Crazyface]

One thing I have noticed of late is that's very open to abuse or should I say mistakes. Play at two clubs roll ups and noticed this weekend and last week how many took their handicap from the wrong tees giving them a more favourable handicap from a forward tee. Obviously these are not counting comps so no effecting players overall results, but the comps are for prize money.

If they did this in a comp, wouldn't they disqualified ?

 

[Crazyface]

What Handicap System does not encourage people to get lessons to improve, it just gives you more handicap, all the way to 54 for NOW, how long before people want more ?

This, for me, is the biggest mistake. the reason for doing it was to encourage more people to play, I think, but there is no need for this. If they want to play they can they don't need a HC. If they want to play competitive golf, ie club comps, and have a chance to win, have lessons and damn well practice like the rest of us have had to do. Pampering to lazy People is not the way forward.

 

[RichA]

This, for me, is the biggest mistake. the reason for doing it was to encourage more people to play, I think, but there is no need for this. If they want to play they can they don't need a HC. If they want to play competitive golf, ie club comps, and have a chance to win, have lessons and damn well practice like the rest of us have had to do. Pampering to lazy People is not the way forward.

Not everyone has the time or inclination to practice and have lessons. If I have time to play golf, I go for a round of golf. My practice and experimentation takes place during recreational rounds. I have fun and attempt hero shots because I like the buzz when it works. I don't worry about my scores and don't record the round with EG because my HI would rocket. I'd be embarrassed when it came to a comp and I was playing more safe, attritional golf.
The problem isn't with the WHS and its method of HI calculation; it's entirely about which rounds individuals choose to include in the calculations. Personal responsibility, as with golf scoring and rules in general, is the problem rather than the system.

 

[IanM]

If you try and impose a uniform approach on something that is virtually infinite, you mostly fail.

 

[wjemather]

If they did this in a comp, wouldn't they disqualified ?

No. Since Jan 1, applying handicaps in comps is the responsibility of the committee (unless a local rule is on force passing the responsibility to the player).

 

[Deleted member 30522]

52 Trophies a year is bonkers! Or 25 to 30, given Scottish weather! I find it hard to believe that you have a trophy comp every weekend! Or even that there's a comp every weekend! There are even ways of managing trophies within mixed division comps!

We don't have 52 trophies a year, cos weather, nor 25-30, but when there are trophies, you're suggesting instead of the one (board comp as you'd say in England) you'd need multiples, it's nonsense

Have you any evidence for that. The authorites who have a very large bank of results in we which to gather the statsistics say that's not the case.

Then they are lying, here ye go, read it all not just the headline

https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/data-reveals-world-handicap-system-is-levelling-playing-field

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Where have these stats been published?

https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/data-reveals-world-handicap-system-is-levelling-playing-field

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Doesn't your last sentence contradict the first, assuming that most clubs already award the club championship trophy to the best gross, as by some margin is my experience.

Never known a single club not have the CC as scratch, I've seen a few that don;t also have a handicap section, but that's very rare. CC is always the scratch guy though

 

[Swango1980]

We don't have 52 trophies a year, cos weather, nor 25-30, but when there are trophies, you're suggesting instead of the one (board comp as you'd say in England) you'd need multiples, it's nonsense



Then they are lying, here ye go, read it all not just the headline

https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/data-reveals-world-handicap-system-is-levelling-playing-field

And, that graph worries me if it does indeed show AVERAGE Stableford points. If the average points is now similar for all handicap levels, then the higher handicappers will be capable of shooting much higher scores on a good day than lower handicappers, simply because the range of scores they shoot will be so much bigger.

 

[wjemather]

We don't have 52 trophies a year, cos weather, nor 25-30, but when there are trophies, you're suggesting instead of the one (board comp as you'd say in England) you'd need multiples, it's nonsense

The club/committee would simply need to decide what they want the trophies for - if they only want the small minority of low handicappers winning prestigious events, then they should be honest about it and introduce a handicap limit, and possibly create a new trophy for higher handicappers. The alternative is to accept that the superior ability of lower handicappers does not entitle them to win handicap competitions and the vast majority of competitions should be won be players with handicaps above 10.

Then they are lying, here ye go, read it all not just the headline

https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/data-reveals-world-handicap-system-is-levelling-playing-field

And, that graph worries me if it does indeed show AVERAGE Stableford points. If the average points is now similar for all handicap levels, then the higher handicappers will be capable of shooting much higher scores on a good day than lower handicappers, simply because the range of scores they shoot will be so much bigger.

That article is a great example of just spewing numbers out and not knowing how to analyse data (and relevance of both mean and median averages). As such, it can be cited in support of almost any position you like. It's also a very limited dataset compared to that held by the authorities.

Extreme scores are not really relevant as far as equity is concerned; but for balance, higher handicappers are capable of scores at both ends of the scale that are out of the (normal) range of the lower handicapper.