WHS doesn't work

[D-S]

Is this meant to be joke response?

If yes ignore my next comment. The difficulty of the course has always been factored in to your handicap previously it was SSS/CSS and not par as many believe. It is just that it takes and extra calculation these days and your score will be compared against the Course rating for you handicap record.

It is merely suggesting that if we used CR-Par in the calculation of Course Handicap (as the rest of the world outside CONGU do) then the difficulty of the course would be factored in to your course Handicap - we would therefore already know the performance against CR which has sparked this debate.

Then we wouldn't have people permanently talking about points vs. Par, then having to have questions posed about course difficulty and needing to know CR etc, etc.

 

[rosecott]

Just had a wee nosey at a few of the clubs scores.

He had a 48 in feb when he was beat into 2nd place by a 29handicaper with 50 points.

18 Non returns that day and scores from 24 to 50.

Non-returns in Stableford?

That club needs looking at. What is the CR and slope?

 

[Alan Clifford]

It is merely suggesting that if we used CR-Par in the calculation of Course Handicap (as the rest of the world outside CONGU do) then the difficulty of the course would be factored in to your course Handicap - we would therefore already know the performance against CR which has sparked this debate.

Then we wouldn't have people permanently talking about points vs. Par, then having to have questions posed about course difficulty and needing to know CR etc, etc.

I don't understand why congu do it. It means another calculation for mixed tee competitions as well as not relating to the actual differential calculations.

 

[nickjdavis]

Some stats and graphs...

Now we have had two full calendar years of the WHS in operation I thought I would look at some of the scoring patterns across 2021/22 and see of anything was amiss....regular ridiculous scores winning comps, outlandish handicaps winning comps, whether the handicap system favours low or high handicappers yada yada yada....make of the following what you will...

So....I looked at 51 comps over the last two years (32 s'ford and 19 medals)...seniors only comps excluded. 3077 submitted scores....a tad over 60 entries/comp. Best stableford score seen in that time was 47 points, best medal score was nett 59 (twice)...par 70 course, CR 68.7 Slope 124.

Firstly the distribution of scores submitted by Course Handicap...



Next... average stableford points and nett medal score by course handicap...



So...pretty much as expected...a slight bias towards the consistency of the lower handicap golfer and some volatility in medal scores for higher handicappers

Now for two graphs showing the scoring distribution...




So stableford scores averaging around 31-32pts, medal scores around 74

Finally for the ones that I find most interesting. If you take the finishing position of every player in each comp and normalised them so as to make each comp the same number of entries...what would be the average finishing position of each handicap? In a perfectly balanced system, equally fair system that fully took account of ability and consistency you would expect all handicaps to, on average, over a number of competitions to finish at the halfway point in the field....everyone has an even chance of finishing anywhere. In this case I chose a normalise field of 60...so would expect that each handicap level, would on average, finish in 30th place...assuming all was fair with the world. Two graphs are shown...one for each discrete course handicap, the other for 7 ranges of course handicaps...rather than split the ranges into even number of handicaps I chose the ranges so that each group would have submitted roughly 1/7th of all the entries over the two years...this helps remove some of the volatility seen in the higher handicap rnages where fewer scores are submitted...




I think that these show that the WHS makes a pretty good fist of balancing things out....yes there is still a bias towards the lower handicapper who on average, finishes higher up the leaderboard...maybe getting rid of the 95% allowance might even things out further?

Just thought I would share these...the only conclusion I would draw is that at my club, the WHS works pretty well, we have no regular outlandish scores, nor are we overrun by vast hordes of 40+ handicappers winning everything, and things appear to be reasonably fairly balanced.

 

[Bdill93]

Some stats and graphs...

Now we have had two full calendar years of the WHS in operation I thought I would look at some of the scoring patterns across 2021/22 and see of anything was amiss....regular ridiculous scores winning comps, outlandish handicaps winning comps, whether the handicap system favours low or high handicappers yada yada yada....make of the following what you will...

So....I looked at 51 comps over the last two years (32 s'ford and 19 medals)...seniors only comps excluded. 3077 submitted scores....a tad over 60 entries/comp. Best stableford score seen in that time was 47 points, best medal score was nett 59 (twice)...par 70 course, CR 68.7 Slope 124.

Firstly the distribution of scores submitted by Course Handicap...

View attachment 46823

Next... average stableford points and nett medal score by course handicap...
View attachment 46824
View attachment 46825

So...pretty much as expected...a slight bias towards the consistency of the lower handicap golfer and some volatility in medal scores for higher handicappers

Now for two graphs showing the scoring distribution...

View attachment 46826
View attachment 46827

So stableford scores averaging around 31-32pts, medal scores around 74

Finally for the ones that I find most interesting. If you take the finishing position of every player in each comp and normalised them so as to make each comp the same number of entries...what would be the average finishing position of each handicap? In a perfectly balanced system, equally fair system that fully took account of ability and consistency you would expect all handicaps to, on average, over a number of competitions to finish at the halfway point in the field....everyone has an even chance of finishing anywhere. In this case I chose a normalise field of 60...so would expect that each handicap level, would on average, finish in 30th place...assuming all was fair with the world. Two graphs are shown...one for each discrete course handicap, the other for 7 ranges of course handicaps...rather than split the ranges into even number of handicaps I chose the ranges so that each group would have submitted roughly 1/7th of all the entries over the two years...this helps remove some of the volatility seen in the higher handicap rnages where fewer scores are submitted...

View attachment 46828
View attachment 46829

I think that these show that the WHS makes a pretty good fist of balancing things out....yes there is still a bias towards the lower handicapper who on average, finishes higher up the leaderboard...maybe getting rid of the 95% allowance might even things out further?

Just thought I would share these...the only conclusion I would draw is that at my club, the WHS works pretty well, we have no regular outlandish scores, nor are we overrun by vast hordes of 40+ handicappers winning everything, and things appear to be reasonably fairly balanced.

Ill be the first to say - great data!

Would love to see this done with the scores at my club.

 

[Swango1980]

Some stats and graphs...

Now we have had two full calendar years of the WHS in operation I thought I would look at some of the scoring patterns across 2021/22 and see of anything was amiss....regular ridiculous scores winning comps, outlandish handicaps winning comps, whether the handicap system favours low or high handicappers yada yada yada....make of the following what you will...

So....I looked at 51 comps over the last two years (32 s'ford and 19 medals)...seniors only comps excluded. 3077 submitted scores....a tad over 60 entries/comp. Best stableford score seen in that time was 47 points, best medal score was nett 59 (twice)...par 70 course, CR 68.7 Slope 124.

Firstly the distribution of scores submitted by Course Handicap...

View attachment 46823

Next... average stableford points and nett medal score by course handicap...
View attachment 46824
View attachment 46825

So...pretty much as expected...a slight bias towards the consistency of the lower handicap golfer and some volatility in medal scores for higher handicappers

Now for two graphs showing the scoring distribution...

View attachment 46826
View attachment 46827

So stableford scores averaging around 31-32pts, medal scores around 74

Finally for the ones that I find most interesting. If you take the finishing position of every player in each comp and normalised them so as to make each comp the same number of entries...what would be the average finishing position of each handicap? In a perfectly balanced system, equally fair system that fully took account of ability and consistency you would expect all handicaps to, on average, over a number of competitions to finish at the halfway point in the field....everyone has an even chance of finishing anywhere. In this case I chose a normalise field of 60...so would expect that each handicap level, would on average, finish in 30th place...assuming all was fair with the world. Two graphs are shown...one for each discrete course handicap, the other for 7 ranges of course handicaps...rather than split the ranges into even number of handicaps I chose the ranges so that each group would have submitted roughly 1/7th of all the entries over the two years...this helps remove some of the volatility seen in the higher handicap rnages where fewer scores are submitted...

View attachment 46828
View attachment 46829

I think that these show that the WHS makes a pretty good fist of balancing things out....yes there is still a bias towards the lower handicapper who on average, finishes higher up the leaderboard...maybe getting rid of the 95% allowance might even things out further?

Just thought I would share these...the only conclusion I would draw is that at my club, the WHS works pretty well, we have no regular outlandish scores, nor are we overrun by vast hordes of 40+ handicappers winning everything, and things appear to be reasonably fairly balanced.

Good work. Do you have a graph that plots the winners of a competition against handicap. Would be interesting to see how that compares with your 1st graph

P.S. I suppose you'd need to choose the best overall score, if your club uses multiple divisions in certain comps

 

[RichA]

I'd also like to see a graph that shows winning scores compared to the prizes at stake.
The prizes for the minor comps at ours are a sleeve of 3 mid-priced balls. The major comps get 3 balls and a cheap engraved beer mug.
We very rarely get a winning score around 40.
I suspect that the perceived flaws in WHS are more to do with greedy individuals manipulating the system rather than the system itself.

 

[D-S]

I'd also like to see a graph that shows winning scores compared to the prizes at stake.
The prizes for the minor comps at ours are a sleeve of 3 mid-priced balls. The major comps get 3 balls and a cheap engraved beer mug.
We very rarely get a winning score around 40.
I suspect that the perceived flaws in WHS are more to do with greedy individuals manipulating the system rather than the system itself.

Agreed, but the ease of manipulation also contributes to this.

 

[nickjdavis]

I'd also like to see a graph that shows winning scores compared to the prizes at stake.
The prizes for the minor comps at ours are a sleeve of 3 mid-priced balls. The major comps get 3 balls and a cheap engraved beer mug.
We very rarely get a winning score around 40.
I suspect that the perceived flaws in WHS are more to do with greedy individuals manipulating the system rather than the system itself.

Not relevant at our club. Prize fund is directly in proportion to the number of entrants.

In medals we have 3 divisions and first/second/third in each division get exactly the same prize. In Stablefords we increase the prize "money" paid out to a certain extent but after a while, instead of increasing the payouts for 1st/2nd/3rd etc. we start paying out for 6th/7th/8th places. Its more a case of spreading the prizes around rather than giving out lottery style headline amounts. We generally pay out roughly 85% of entry fees in prizes.

 

[garyo]

Non-returns in Stableford?

That club needs looking at. What is the CR and slope?

Not sure returns are compulsory for non-qualifying?

 

[nickjdavis]

Good work. Do you have a graph that plots the winners of a competition against handicap. Would be interesting to see how that compares with your 1st graph

P.S. I suppose you'd need to choose the best overall score, if your club uses multiple divisions in certain comps

I do. It doesn't compare at all. Our mid (10-15) handicappers are vastly under performing (in terms of winning) compared to their representation...



However....if you start to expand things a bit and look at top 5 / top 10 placings then this happens...



all of a sudden the lower handicaps start filling up the places more in line with the proportion of entries - except our 13-15 guys who do appear to be criminally poor!!!...might have to delve deeper in to their scoring patterns later to see why they are so bad!!!

 

[rosecott]

Not sure returns are compulsory for non-qualifying?

Hadn't noticed a mention of non-Q.

The only reasons I can think of for N/R in a stableford comp are:

Failure to submit a scorecard, or

Failure to complete 10 holes in an 18-hole comp.

 

[Backsticks]

Some stats and graphs...

Now we have had two full calendar years of the WHS in operation I thought I would look at some of the scoring patterns across 2021/22 and see of anything was amiss....regular ridiculous scores winning comps, outlandish handicaps winning comps, whether the handicap system favours low or high handicappers yada yada yada....make of the following what you will...

So....I looked at 51 comps over the last two years (32 s'ford and 19 medals)...seniors only comps excluded. 3077 submitted scores....a tad over 60 entries/comp. Best stableford score seen in that time was 47 points, best medal score was nett 59 (twice)...par 70 course, CR 68.7 Slope 124.

Firstly the distribution of scores submitted by Course Handicap...

View attachment 46823

Next... average stableford points and nett medal score by course handicap...
View attachment 46824
View attachment 46825

So...pretty much as expected...a slight bias towards the consistency of the lower handicap golfer and some volatility in medal scores for higher handicappers

Now for two graphs showing the scoring distribution...

View attachment 46826
View attachment 46827

So stableford scores averaging around 31-32pts, medal scores around 74

Finally for the ones that I find most interesting. If you take the finishing position of every player in each comp and normalised them so as to make each comp the same number of entries...what would be the average finishing position of each handicap? In a perfectly balanced system, equally fair system that fully took account of ability and consistency you would expect all handicaps to, on average, over a number of competitions to finish at the halfway point in the field....everyone has an even chance of finishing anywhere. In this case I chose a normalise field of 60...so would expect that each handicap level, would on average, finish in 30th place...assuming all was fair with the world. Two graphs are shown...one for each discrete course handicap, the other for 7 ranges of course handicaps...rather than split the ranges into even number of handicaps I chose the ranges so that each group would have submitted roughly 1/7th of all the entries over the two years...this helps remove some of the volatility seen in the higher handicap rnages where fewer scores are submitted...

View attachment 46828
View attachment 46829

I think that these show that the WHS makes a pretty good fist of balancing things out....yes there is still a bias towards the lower handicapper who on average, finishes higher up the leaderboard...maybe getting rid of the 95% allowance might even things out further?

Just thought I would share these...the only conclusion I would draw is that at my club, the WHS works pretty well, we have no regular outlandish scores, nor are we overrun by vast hordes of 40+ handicappers winning everything, and things appear to be reasonably fairly balanced.

Great stats and analysis. WHS certainly working very well, probably better than UHS. Lower handicappers still have a slight advantage but its low enough not to worry about. I wonder would a single ratio of 0.96 or 0.97 level it a little better ?

 

[Swango1980]

I do. It doesn't compare at all. Our mid (10-15) handicappers are vastly under performing (in terms of winning) compared to their representation...

View attachment 46840

However....if you start to expand things a bit and look at top 5 / top 10 placings then this happens...

View attachment 46842

all of a sudden the lower handicaps start filling up the places more in line with the proportion of entries - except our 13-15 guys who do appear to be criminally poor!!!...might have to delve deeper in to their scoring patterns later to see why they are so bad!!!

So, in terms of winning an event, the lower handicaps can accept they have little chance, in relation to the proportion that enter. But, anyone over 16 the odds go right up, even more so over 22.

However, if the goal is to finish in top 3, the lower handicappers have a more equitable chance, and slight raised probability to finish top 5 and top 10. Excluding your 13-15 guys of course. No idea what is going on with them. They need to have a long, hard look at themselves

 

[garyo]

Hadn't noticed a mention of non-Q.

The only reasons I can think of for N/R in a stableford comp are:

Failure to submit a scorecard, or

Failure to complete 10 holes in an 18-hole comp.

Apologies, I thought that had been highlighted in an earlier post. It garnered a lot of attention in local social media also (as you can imagine!) so it’s been hard to keep up!

Non-Q, significantly shorter winter track, mats everywhere (apart from really heavy, unmaintained rough), unseasonal dry/firm ground conditions…a perfect storm really unfortunately.

 

[clubchamp98]

So, in terms of winning an event, the lower handicaps can accept they have little chance, in relation to the proportion that enter. But, anyone over 16 the odds go right up, even more so over 22.

However, if the goal is to finish in top 3, the lower handicappers have a more equitable chance, and slight raised probability to finish top 5 and top 10. Excluding your 13-15 guys of course. No idea what is going on with them. They need to have a long, hard look at themselves

I have never met a low cap golfer whose goal is top three.
we all go out to win.

 

[nickjdavis]

Great stats and analysis. WHS certainly working very well, probably better than UHS. Lower handicappers still have a slight advantage but its low enough not to worry about. I wonder would a single ratio of 0.96 or 0.97 level it a little better ?

Hang on....you cant say that...it is contrary to the entire rationale behind this thread.

 

[rulefan]

Great stats and analysis. WHS certainly working very well, probably better than UHS. Lower handicappers still have a slight advantage but its low enough not to worry about. I wonder would a single ratio of 0.96 or 0.97 level it a little better ?

The only problem is the number of 'cheats' or dilatory committees a number of clubs reported here seem to have. But WHS didn't cause that - they have always been around.

 

[Swango1980]

The only problem is the number of 'cheats' or dilatory committees a number of clubs reported here seem to have. But WHS didn't cause that - they have always been around.

They have, though some must be in denial to assume WHS hasn't made it easier for those types of people.

 

[IanM]

They have, though some must be in denial to assume WHS hasn't made it easier for those types of people.

Absolutely spot on. If you add options to abuse a system, folk will. (Sadly)

In essence WHS and the use of Apps is a good thing.