WHS doesn't work

[94tegsi]

In a field of 100 golfers with assorted "perfectly accurate" handicaps, ie No sandbaggers, No beginners vastly improving, I know what handicap range my money would be on for the winner, but this doesn't make the handicap system wrong, it's just statistical probability. maybe the only way to make it an even chance is to allocate the winner as the golfer who played the best percentage better than his ability

The handicap range with the most players in that handicap range?

 

[MiurasFan]

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

So a trophy every comp! That's also ridiculous (at least imo) and devalues the important comps!

As I posted earlier, I'm not a fan of trophies for handicap comps in the first place, except for matchplay - and perhaps the designated CC where a single, overall one would be ok - but meaningless (and, off 9 at the time, I've been the recipient of one!).

Again, limited thinking about the trophy for winning a handicap comp concept! Perhaps, if deemed essential, rotate which division(s) gets that week's trophy.

 

[94tegsi]

The group I play with, we enter every round we play and let the system take care of itself, it 'feels' like it does a decent job of managing current form and longer term overall ability, but for sure it gives a bit more variability than the old system.

Also, I see a lot of people comparing handicaps to their pre WHS handicaps and arguing that differences to that pre WHS handicap prove that their current handicap is 'wrong'... that would only be the case if their old handicap was completely reflective of their playing ability... if that was the case then maybe the system wouldn't have been changed and maybe the difference is born that their old handicap was the one that was least reflective of their current playing ability.

Anyway, if everyone just continued to put cards in when they played, rather than be very selective when they submit, this argument might come up less often. As with every system if the input is 'poor' the results will also be poor/inconsistent... so lets keep fellow players to account rather than blame the system. It is always going to be difficult under any system to combat those who are underhanded and manipulate their inputs for their benefit unfortunately, that's where fellow players/committee/clubs are needed to help.

 

[MiurasFan]

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.

I agree! At least to a limited extent, as the old 'Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics applies!
I'd be more interested in what the average WINNING HANDICAP was! Or what the 'standard deviation' or variance of scores in each category was.
It also suggests, because the point have reduced, that - unlike suggestions on here otherwise - that Cat 1 players were likely cut slightly as part of the process, while other divisions were raised.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

So a trophy every comp! That's also ridiculous (at least imo) and devalues the important comps!

As I posted earlier, I'm not a fan of trophies for handicap comps in the first place, except for matchplay - and perhaps the designated CC where a single, overall one would be ok - but meaningless (and, off 9 at the time, I've been the recipient of one!).

Again, limited thinking about the trophy for winning a handicap comp concept! Perhaps, if deemed essential, rotate which division(s) gets that week's trophy.

You don't even read the replies eh? Let me try again as comprehension seems lost on you.

My home club has 18 trophies in the season, three scratch, one of which is matchplay; 3 seniors; two pairs one of which is matchplay; one team event; and the rest (nine) handicap, two of which are matchplay, and a season long order of merit.

 

[MiurasFan]

You don't even read the replies eh? Let me try again as comprehension seems lost on you.

My home club has 18 trophies in the season, three scratch, one of which is matchplay; 3 seniors; two pairs one of which is matchplay; one team event; and the rest (nine) handicap, two of which are matchplay, and a season long order of merit.

Thanks for admitting that your 'every weekend' comment was a complete exaggeration!!

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Thanks for admitting that your 'every weekend' comment was a complete exaggeration!!

You were the one who laughably claimed it as hard to believe there's a medal every weekend, of course there are, my away club has two medals a week as do most in the area, one that I know of has 4. You don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about

 

[patricks148]

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

No because the clubs would check and apply the correct handicaps.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

If that’s the case should they not just remove the handicaps and then people who want to compete get lessons and the person who plays the best wins

 

[wjemather]

You were the one who laughably claimed it as hard to believe there's a medal every weekend, of course there are, my away club has two medals a week as do most in the area, one that I know of has 4. You don't seem to have a clue what you're talking about

Seems quite clear that the claim being countered was the one made by you in post #1,093, that having divisions would mean be "4 or 5... trophies" (not medals) every weekend.

Anyhow, I'm not sure why there would be any resistance to holding regular medals (and Stablefords, Bogeys, Maximum Scores, etc.) in divisions?

 

[Voyager EMH]

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.

It is not "true to say" this at all. It is a view that anyone can take if they are focussed on "how many over par" or how easy/difficult it is to achieve 36 points.
To play "to your handicap" or thereabouts, no course is easier/harder than any other. This is a view you can take if you embrace the new system (WHS).
But we are not all precise golfing machines. Personal quirks to our game might make us feel more suited or more comfortable on some courses than others.

 

[Swango1980]

It is not "true to say" this at all. It is a view that anyone can take if they are focussed on "how many over par" or how easy/difficult it is to achieve 36 points.
To play "to your handicap" or thereabouts, no course is easier/harder than any other. This is a view you can take if you embrace the new system (WHS).
But we are not all precise golfing machines. Personal quirks to our game might make us feel more suited or more comfortable on some courses than others.

You keep talking about handicap, you are completely confusing what is being said. The whole point of the handicap system is to try and create a level playing field. We all agree on this, whether we believe it is achieving this goal or not.

But, the point that was being discussed was nothing to do with the handicap system. It was about the difficulty of one golf course over another. If you had a short 18 hole course, no trees, rough, bunkers or water (basically a big field of fairway and 18 greens and tee boxes), it would be an "easy" course. If you had a long course, with all of the above and lots of them, it would be a much harder course.

This is why I likened your understanding of what was being said to golfers themselves. Assuming all handicaps were fair, along with the handicap system, you could say no golfer is better than another. Because, with handicaps, all should be able to compete against each other. Of course, it is still completely accurate to say some golfers are better than others in real terms.

 

[Voyager EMH]

You keep talking about handicap, you are completely confusing what is being said. The whole point of the handicap system is to try and create a level playing field. We all agree on this, whether we believe it is achieving this goal or not.

But, the point that was being discussed was nothing to do with the handicap system. It was about the difficulty of one golf course over another. If you had a short 18 hole course, no trees, rough, bunkers or water (basically a big field of fairway and 18 greens and tee boxes), it would be an "easy" course. If you had a long course, with all of the above and lots of them, it would be a much harder course.

This is why I likened your understanding of what was being said to golfers themselves. Assuming all handicaps were fair, along with the handicap system, you could say no golfer is better than another. Because, with handicaps, all should be able to compete against each other. Of course, it is still completely accurate to say some golfers are better than others in real terms.

And the Course Ratings and Slope Ratings of these two courses would be such that a golfer can score the same differential relative to his/her handicap on each course without one being harder or easier to achieve this. This is also "in real terms".
But, as I said, everyone is free to consider courses as harder or easier than others if they choose to take this view.
I can not force people to see things the way that I do. I can not be forced to see things the way that you do.

 

[MiurasFan]

Seems quite clear that the claim being countered was the one made by you in post #1,093, that having divisions would mean be "4 or 5... trophies" (not medals) every weekend.

You beat me to it! The 'every weekend' has come down to 7 I think my 'complete exaggeration' description has been validated!

 

[Swango1980]

And the Course Ratings and Slope Ratings of these two courses would be such that a golfer can score the same differential relative to his/her handicap on each course without one being harder or easier to achieve this. This is also "in real terms".
But, as I said, everyone is free to consider courses as harder or easier than others if they choose to take this view.
I can not force people to see things the way that I do. I can not be forced to see things the way that you do.

That bit in bold is the bit that you've missed, as I alluded to in my last comment.

In the discussion that was being had, tobybarker said "Slope says nothing about the relative difficulty of two courses". That comment was immediately slammed by another poster. I then commented that toby was actually correct, assuming he was simply implying that the Slope does not tell you anything about whether one course is more difficult than another course. That is very true. Handicaps are irrelevant to this particular discussion, as we are simply talking about defining the difficulty between one course and another. Of course, various handicap ratings can then be used as a means to come up with an answer as to which course is more difficult, but Slope certainly is not one that can be relied on to give you this answer.

My course is a prime example. The white tees are more difficult than the yellows, as one would expect. Off the white tees, the course rating and the bogey rating are both higher than those for the yellow tees. Yet, the Slope for the white tees is lower than the yellow tees.

 

[Voyager EMH]

That bit in bold is the bit that you've missed, as I alluded to in my last comment.

In the discussion that was being had, tobybarker said "Slope says nothing about the relative difficulty of two courses". That comment was immediately slammed by another poster. I then commented that toby was actually correct, assuming he was simply implying that the Slope does not tell you anything about whether one course is more difficult than another course. That is very true. Handicaps are irrelevant to this particular discussion, as we are simply talking about defining the difficulty between one course and another. Of course, various handicap ratings can then be used as a means to come up with an answer as to which course is more difficult, but Slope certainly is not one that can be relied on to give you this answer.

My course is a prime example. The white tees are more difficult than the yellows, as one would expect. Off the white tees, the course rating and the bogey rating are both higher than those for the yellow tees. Yet, the Slope for the white tees is lower than the yellow tees.

I don't believe I have "missed" anything. Some have expressed their perception of a difficult/easy course (which I fully understand and accept their choice to have that view) and I have expressed my view on difficult/easy course and explained why I have that view.

 

[Swango1980]

I don't believe I have "missed" anything. Some have expressed their perception of a difficult/easy course (which I fully understand and accept their choice to have that view) and I have expressed my view on difficult/easy course and explained why I have that view.

OK

So, let us say you have some Asian Tour Event, Par 72 course. Good weather conditions, and the winning score is -30

Then you have the US Open, Par 72 course. Good weather conditions, and the winning score is +5

Let us say all the same golfers are playing as well (I know that wouldn't happen in reality)

Are you trying to say, that in "real terms", neither course is more or less difficult than the other!?

 

[jim8flog]

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.

My days of practicing and having lessons have long gone - my body just does not like it any more.

I do however play in plenty of comps with occasional GP cards so think my H.I reflects my current ability which is one of the declining golfer rather than the improving golfer.

 

[Voyager EMH]

OK

So, let us say you have some Asian Tour Event, Par 72 course. Good weather conditions, and the winning score is -30

Then you have the US Open, Par 72 course. Good weather conditions, and the winning score is +5

Let us say all the same golfers are playing as well (I know that wouldn't happen in reality)

Are you trying to say, that in "real terms", neither course is more or less difficult than the other!?

Yes. (Unless their CR and SR were questionable)
That would be my view if I were to play both courses. I would be attempting to achieve a differential equal to or below the 8th best one in my last 20 scores.
Both courses would or should give me an equal chance of achieving this.

 

[Swango1980]

Yes. (Unless their CR and SR were questionable)
That would be my view if I were to play both courses. I would be attempting to achieve a differential equal to or below the 8th best one in my last 20 scores.
Both courses would or should give me an equal chance of achieving this.

You keep demonstrating you miss the point. Why do you keep talking about a handicap golfer, when we are talking purely about the difficulty of one course over another. It is why I used a professional golf tournament as an example, where handicaps are irrelevant.

I think we'll just leave it at that