WHS doesn't work

[Steve Wilkes]

Partly agree. The point of handicaps though is for players of different abilities to compete with each other. In that sense WHS doesnt work. Any need for categories is effectively saying it doesnt work, categories being a recognition of its very flaw. Which categories doesnt realy fix : it doesnt enable a 10 to compete with a 40, the two handicaps having such different profiles, that a 10 and a 20 do not. Limits as you mention are the same as I am saying - no competitions for above 28. Even for an above 28 category, competition is a bit of an illusion. The level-ish playing field that does exist sub 28, just isnt really there.

I think it has come from a well intended, but misguided in some cases, tendency of our times : inclusivity. Admirable in principle. But it should not try to bend to reality something that is just impractical and does not function, and credibility is lost.

Of course it enables a 10 to complete with a 40 on a one to one or one to 3 x 40's , but not a 10 to complete with 20 x 40's or even more

 

[Backsticks]

Of course it enables a 10 to complete with a 40 on a one to one or one to 3 x 40's , but not a 10 to complete with 20 x 40's or even more

I dont think it does. The one on one situation just reduces the possibility of the flaw being exposed. The 10 competing with twenty 40s or more virtually ensures the problem will be exposed. The core problem is still there in both situations.

 

[rulefan]

Why is the WHS being blamed?
1) 56 handicaps were introduced by CONGU during the UHS era.
2) It appears to me that most of the problem is down to handicap committees being non existent, under resourced or incapable.

 

[Backsticks]

Yes, I agree entirely with point 1. WHS isnt to blame in itself but is failing because it preserved a 56 hc system. UHS was equally failing in this element. But the fault having been present in UHS doesnt exempt WHS from being a failure for the same reason. WHS is fine for up 28. Better than UHS up to 28 in my view.
Point 2, is still a failing of the system. Handicap committees etc being better is just not practical to have widespread implementation in an amateur volunteer run system to such a level. Limiting handicaps to 28 max is imperfect too. But a better imperfect.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

I dont think it does. The one on one situation just reduces the possibility of the flaw being exposed. The 10 competing with twenty 40s or more virtually ensures the problem will be exposed. The core problem is still there in both situations.

Yes, I agree entirely with point 1. WHS isnt to blame in itself but is failing because it preserved a 56 hc system. UHS was equally failing in this element. But the fault having been present in UHS doesnt exempt WHS from being a failure for the same reason. WHS is fine for up 28. Better than UHS up to 28 in my view.
Point 2, is still a failing of the system. Handicap committees etc being better is just not practical to have widespread implementation in an amateur volunteer run system to such a level. Limiting handicaps to 28 max is imperfect too. But a better imperfect.

Only if you are under 28 handicap yourself, not if you are a 40 handicapper

 

[rulefan]

Point 2, is still a failing of the system. Handicap committees etc being better is just not practical to have widespread implementation in an amateur volunteer run system to such a level. Limiting handicaps to 28 max is imperfect too. But a better imperfect.

Of course the option for those clubs affected is always available to limit the handicap for potential prize winners. But that doesn't do anything for a short hitting 29 handicapper who plays consistently to his cap and produces a winning score of net 1 under, when the second best is a 10 capper with a net 0.

 

[Region3]

Where I play we have an overall winner then 3 places in each of 3 divisions.

Everyone can enter but players with handicaps over 28 can Only win division prizes, not the overall.

I really don’t like the idea of excluding those players from competition altogether. At the very least let them play as their own comp and their prizes are made up from their entry fees, like a swindle/roll up.
Not saying I like that idea but better than excluding them. I think it’s important for their interest in golf to be competing against all other handicaps.

 

[Backsticks]

Only if you are under 28 handicap yourself, not if you are a 40 handicapper

Yes. Thats my point - at least you have a competition and handicap system that works for under 28s. Rather than one that works for nobody by the inclusion of the above 28s. It doesnt work for them either. But at least dont spoil the system for all by pretending they can be included.

 

[Backsticks]

Where I play we have an overall winner then 3 places in each of 3 divisions.

Everyone can enter but players with handicaps over 28 can Only win division prizes, not the overall.

I really don’t like the idea of excluding those players from competition altogether. At the very least let them play as their own comp and their prizes are made up from their entry fees, like a swindle/roll up.
Not saying I like that idea but better than excluding them. I think it’s important for their interest in golf to be competing against all other handicaps.

Thats a reasonable compromise. At least they are ring fenced, and the core competition section where the hc system works, is protected. The 28+ competition is on shaky ground, but yes, as long as its amongst themselves I guess its no real problem, and does give a semblance of competition.

 

[rulefan]

At least they are ring fenced

Why should they be?
Unless they pay significantly reduced subscriptions.

 

[Backsticks]

Why should they be?
Unless they pay significantly reduced subscriptions.

I thought this was pretty clear : because they dont play well enough to make the grade in which the hc system works. If a system can be devised that means a 40 can compete on an equal footing with a 10, then great. Include them. But I dont think such a system can exist : the profile of scores just do not overlap sufficiently.
The 'dont play well enough' bit is unpalatable to some who prefer to overlook it, and do so at the expense of the basis of the handicap system. A major strength of the the sport of golf. It is in danger of eating itself. Flawed inclusion risks adding up to rejection of the system itself.

 

[Region3]

We have 4 or 5 over 28 that regularly play in our comps. There are generally around 25 from 19 to 28 in our comps that if they have a great day will beat me no matter what I do. Why should we be worried about the 4.

Edited to add… Ive just counted 41 male members 29 or higher where I play. I know a fair few just like playing socially within their own group during the week, I just hope a lot of the others don’t keep away from competitions because they feel they wouldn’t be welcome.

 

[rulefan]

I hope no-one keeps away from competitions because they feel they wouldn’t be welcome.
That's what most golf clubs here are about - inclusion.

 

[Swango1980]

Why is the WHS being blamed?
1) 56 handicaps were introduced by CONGU during the UHS era.
2) It appears to me that most of the problem is down to handicap committees being non existent, under resourced or incapable.

In relation to Point 2, were you equally critical of Committees pre WHS?

They are the same Committees. So what has changed to make them non existent, 7nder resourced or incapable? WHS perhaps? And therein lies the problem. To do a proper job, WHS requires more effort for Committees.

 

[Backache]

Maybe a handicap limit of 10 for regular competitions and 18 for seniors would seem sensible.
Outside that each club could have a rabbits plate.

 

[rulefan]

In relation to Point 2, were you equally critical of Committees pre WHS?

Yes. In my experience on the EGU Club Services Committee I dealt with many clubs with deficient handicap/competition committees.

 

[jim8flog]

Maybe a handicap limit of 10 for regular competitions and 18 for seniors would seem sensible.
Outside that each club could have a rabbits plate.

That strikes me of not actually looking at all of the results in a competition.

Where I play that would exclude 70% of the players in both regular club comps and seniors comps.

In England (according to EG) only 17% of players have handicaps of 10 or better and only 50% have handicaps of 18 or better.

 

[2blue]

Maybe a handicap limit of 10 for regular competitions and 18 for seniors would seem sensible.
Outside that each club could have a rabbits plate.

Haha... that's Comedy Gold. Oh my God..... you mean some folk would still be getting a shot on par 3's??

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Maybe a handicap limit of 10 for regular competitions and 18 for seniors would seem sensible.
Outside that each club could have a rabbits plate.

Over the age of 16 for men, 18 strokes should be the comp limit. One shot per hole is more than sufficient.

There is no need to stop anyone playing in comps, just limit their HC. They can play off whatever they want for GP rounds.

 

[Backsticks]

Over the age of 16 for men, 18 strokes should be the comp limit. One shot per hole is more than sufficient.

There is no need to stop anyone playing in comps, just limit their HC. They can play off whatever they want for GP rounds.

It isnt a question of what is sufficient. That is just an arbitrary judgement without foundation.
For handicapped golf competitions to work, what matters is probability profile of beating ones handicap by a range of strokes. The data is there to determine that, and should be used to define it. Up to 28 worked I think. Up to 24 certainly was OK. All players stood a reasonable chance of their best scores being very similar. So best golfer, on the day, relative to his handicap wins.
A 50 hc blows that fairness away.