WHS doesn't work

[IanM]

I guess the point is its all relative, and 53 points are nothing to get upset about, or raise concern about the WHS.

Of course not. 38 used to get you a win, golfers are so much better now, you need 50 odd!

 

[wjemather]

I long for the day when people don't get hysterical over points totals presented without any information to determine how good those scores really are.

 

[doublebogey7]

Best player at the club shot 2under and came 85th.


The course was likely shortened for winter. Playing off mats. 32 was the worst score of the day.

Still can't wrap my head around those scores though.

The scores generally range from 39/40 to 21/22 at my club for a full field event so the range here seems normal making the winning score not as outlandish as first appears. Context is everything.

 

[clubchamp98]

I'd be gutted to get 50, then find out I was 3rd

Get used to it.

 

[Swango1980]

Would you consider 50 an acceptable score ?

I'd have to shoot 4 under. I'd consider it impossible rather than acceptable.

 

[Captain_Black.]

I long for the day when people don't get hysterical over points totals presented without any information to determine how good those scores really are.

In denial

 

[Deleted member 29109]

42 points won our Stableford on Saturday. 5 points clear of 2nd place.

The lad off 5 who came 2nd will be raging at being beaten by a chopper off 8

 

[IanM]

I long for the day when people don't get hysterical over points totals presented without any information to determine how good those scores really are.

In every sport, there is a level at which someone thinks "that's an amazing score."

Maybe over 50 points Stableford is getting somewhere near being worthy of comment? If not, what would be?

 

[Swango1980]

I long for the day when people don't get hysterical over points totals presented without any information to determine how good those scores really are.

Who, in their right mind, wouldn't consider 50, 50 and 53 points as ridiculously good!???? Unless they were assuming it could have been a 27 hole event.

 

[Backsticks]

Who, in their right mind, wouldn't consider 50, 50 and 53 points as ridiculously good!???? Unless they were assuming it could have been a 27 hole event.

Impossible to say without seeing the full table of results. 50 may not be exceptionally good at all if the rest of the field all posted in the 40s and the scores are high due to temporary greens, shortened tees, placing everywhere, or whatever else.

 

[IanM]

Impossible to say without seeing the full table of results. 50 may not be good at all if the rest of the field all posted in the 40s and the scores are high due to temporary greens, shortened tees, placing everywhere, or whatever else.

That's true enough..... I wonder what are the chances of that being the case in @garyinderry 's example

 

[nickjdavis]

Impossible to say without seeing the full table of results. 50 may not be exceptionally good at all if the rest of the field all posted in the 40s and the scores are high due to temporary greens, shortened tees, placing everywhere, or whatever else.

He said earlier that 32 points was the worst score.

 

[wjemather]

Who, in their right mind, wouldn't consider 50, 50 and 53 points as ridiculously good!????

Anyone who is not making huge unjustified assumptions about the course, or simply relating it to their own course.

Would you still consider it a "ridiculously good" score if told it was a 4500 yard par 72 course with a course rating of 62, or that the course had been reduced by 1000 yards for some reason? I'd hope not.

All scores in the example are very high, with a very typical distribution, which suggests nothing "ridiculously good".

 

[Backsticks]

He said earlier that 32 points was the worst score.

So a 19 point spread. Typical distribution I guess. So the 53 is nothing outrageous, just a very easy course setup played by all.

 

[D-S]

If only there was a way to have the true difficulty or ease of the course baked into our course handicaps, this would answer all the questions being posed.

 

[Voyager EMH]

So a 19 point spread. Typical distribution I guess. So the 53 is nothing outrageous, just a very easy course setup played by all.

How is 32 to 53 a 19-point spread? I think I am not understanding something here.

 

[Swango1980]

Anyone who is not making huge unjustified assumptions about the course, or simply relating it to their own course.

Would you still consider it a "ridiculously good" score if told it was a 4500 yard par 72 course with a course rating of 62, or that the course had been reduced by 1000 yards for some reason? I'd hope not.

All scores in the example are very high, with a very typical distribution, which suggests nothing "ridiculously good".

I don't know many 4500 yard par 72 golf courses, but maybe that is just the county I am in.

Rather than have a little dig at people's expected reactions to such scores, you could hav3bjust hypothesised at another explanation that didn't involve handicaps being too high.

I always felt that if a club has to shorten their course in winter, and it was non-qualifying anyway, then there would be a facility in ISVs to reduce Slope. The reduction based on estimated guidance of impact on slope related to length. That way, at least the relative difference between low and high handicappers wouldn't be unfairly too high.

 

[wjemather]

Of course not, but I'd say the probability of such things is unlikely. Are there many 4500 yard par 72 courses?

So, if we are to react to the information presented to us, of course those scores are ridiculous. Even with a shortened course, that is still likely. My last course, par 70, CR 66, length 5946 was shortened by well over 500 yards in winter. Sometimes a score would be high 40's, once there was a score of 50 (pre whs). Never do I remember a 53, 50 and 50 in same comp.

Some people have hypothesised it is cheating. Might be true, might not be. Perhaps it is new golfers who have very high handicaps, and will likely see big decreases once they get more scores on record.

And, if it is related to extreme shortening of course, you could simply ask the question. Rather than having a dig at other people's natural reactions, simply ask the question to gather more information.

So you ARE aware that additional information is required to make a judgement, but instead of reacting appropriately, you jump to unwarranted conclusions.

Since you missed it, the op clearly didn't know anything about the course setup.

Edit: I see you've completely rewritten your reply, but I'll leave this here.

Add: even with all the required information, some will still jump to bad conclusions - I remember back to the Brabazon Trophy when there was a fair amount of sneering at the scoring relative to par (on a par 71 course with a course rating of 76).

 

[wjemather]

I always felt that if a club has to shorten their course in winter, and it was non-qualifying anyway, then there would be a facility in ISVs to reduce Slope. The reduction based on estimated guidance of impact on slope related to length. That way, at least the relative difference between low and high handicappers wouldn't be unfairly too high.

There is.

 

[Oddsocks]

They need to bring back buffer!

2 shots over Hc in a medal would have see me buffer with no movement, it’s now put me up 0.6….