WHS doesn't work

[clubchamp98]

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.

10 is to low imo.
18 is better .
its a Competition after all.
what other sport lets complete beginners play in comps

 

[wjemather]

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.

Says the person advocating a limit of 28 (or is it now 24) without any evidence; and no supporting statements other than assertions, "I think it worked before" and "that's what it used to be" (despite earlier limits not being data based). Good one.

Best nett scores have never been very similar across the handicap range; the ceiling for a 28 (or 24, or 18, or 12, or even a 6 handicapper) on any given day has always been well out of the range of a scratch golfer. Despite this, every study has shown that "best scores being similar" (or potential best) systems significantly favour lower handicaps, so are inequitable. On the other hand "average best" (like WHS) has been shown to be equitable across all handicaps, with the inescapable exception that all handicap systems have: large fields (typical handicap distribution) where low handicaps are disadvantaged by the substantially increased probability of a score that is statistically virtually impossible for them to attain.

Ever since handicap systems became more equitable (higher handicap limits and increased allowances), divisions have been the recommended mitigation to ensure players are only competing against those with a more similar ceiling - even then lower handicappers will see scores that are out of their reach. Limits are also an option, but are undesirable because they are exclusionary and far better options are available.

 

[Backsticks]

Says the person advocating a limit of 28 (or is it now 24) without any evidence; and no supporting statements other than assertions, "I think it worked before" and "that's what it used to be" (despite earlier limits not being data based). Good one.

Best nett scores have never been very similar across the handicap range; the ceiling for a 28 (or 24, or 18, or 12, or even a 6 handicapper) on any given day has always been well out of the range of a scratch golfer. Despite this, every study has shown that "best scores being similar" (or potential best) systems significantly favour lower handicaps, so are inequitable. On the other hand "average best" (like WHS) has been shown to be equitable across all handicaps, with the inescapable exception that all handicap systems have: large fields (typical handicap distribution) where low handicaps are disadvantaged by the substantially increased probability of a score that is statistically virtually impossible for them to attain.

Ever since handicap systems became more equitable (higher handicap limits and increased allowances), divisions have been the recommended mitigation to ensure players are only competing against those with a more similar ceiling - even then lower handicappers will see scores that are out of their reach. Limits are also an option, but are undesirable because they are exclusionary and far better options are available.

I acknowledged I dont know the detailed data. So leaving it open. EG or Congu should be giving a precise answer.

And my 24 or 28 - guesses ! - do have some basis from the past. There were no reports of 50 points needed to make to top of a leader board until the past few years. There was no clamour for comp hcs to be limited to 18, because 26hcs were shooting net 60s.

 

[wjemather]

10 is to low imo.
18 is better .
its a Competition after all.
what other sport lets complete beginners play in comps

To some extent, pretty much all of them.

 

[wjemather]

I acknowledged I dont know the detailed data. So leaving it open. EG or Congu should be giving a precise answer.

And my 24 or 28 - guesses ! - do have some basis from the past. There were no reports of 50 points needed to make to top of a leader board until the past few years. There was no clamour for comp hcs to be limited to 18, because 26hcs were shooting net 60s.

This is a fallacy. Most reports since the introduction of WHS (or the increase to a 54-limit that predates it) are the result of confirmation bias - people suddenly started looking for such results while (actively or unconsciously) ignoring the vast majority of comps where it isn't happening and not comparing with what happened in the previously.

There was a huge amount of disquiet when limits were increase to 24, and again to 28 (Note: there are a lot of clubs that still retain 24 as their competition limit as a result); as there was every time allowances were increased.

 

[SteveJay]

To some extent, pretty much all of them.

But almost exclusively only with other competitors of similar ability.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Another thing I stumbled across yesterday was that some, perhaps many, of those who play in our Saturday Rollup individual stableford comp (34 of us yesterday) take their PH as 100% of their CH. Now my club’s published recommendations for individual stableford is 95%. But it seems many either ignore that; are unaware of it; or think the rollup has decided 100% is the thing. I raised it with one of the organisers and he seemed unaware that it should be 95%. Well…no wonder many are confused by WHS %s.

I assume that 95% is only a recommendation and that if my rollup wants it to be 100% then it is free to do so. If it has so decided then I fear I have been doing some players out of a shot when calculating their PHs for the comp (I do that as so many just dither, argue and seem to get confused about it…so I just work it out for them )

FWIW…as I departed yesterday the best stableford in was a couple of 41s. I doubt the winner would have been much more than that, if at all more. I will check.

 

[wjemather]

But almost exclusively only with other competitors of similar ability.

Not that exclusively, but it's a different point, and one that is not relevant to handicapping.

 

[wjemather]

Another thing I stumbled across yesterday was that some, perhaps many, of those who play in our Saturday Rollup individual stableford comp (34 of us yesterday) take their PH as 100% of their CH. Now my club’s published recommendations for individual stableford is 95%. But it seems many either ignore that; are unaware of it; or think the rollup has decided 100% is the thing. I raised it with one of the organisers and he seemed unaware that it should be 95%. Well…no wonder many are confused by WHS %s.

I assume that 95% is only a recommendation and that if my rollup wants it to be 100% then it is free to do so. If it has so decided then I fear I have been doing some players out of a shot when calculating their PHs for the comp (I do that as so many just dither, argue and seem to get confused about it…so I just work it out for them )

FWIW…as I departed yesterday the best stableford in was a couple of 41s. I doubt the winner would have been much more than that, if at all more. I will check.

CONGU's mandate only applies to comps organised by affiliated unions, golf clubs, societies, etc. Independent groups are free to do whatever they wish with regards to handicapping and allowances.

 

[RichA]

3 Stableford comps at ours this week that continue the variation of winning handicaps and lack of outrageous scoring. We don't have divisions. Winning scores and handicaps were:
30 - 15
32 - 6
29 - 26
Still nobody grumbling about WHS at our place.

 

[D-S]

CONGU's mandate only applies to comps organised by affiliated unions, golf clubs, societies, etc. Independent groups are free to do whatever they wish with regards to handicapping and allowances.

Of course they are free to do what they wish, but it would be pretty boneheaded to think on the one hand that you try to make your competitions ‘fair’ by using WHS handicaps and on the other hand ignoring the allowances that are mandated by the same WHS system for official comps. Why do they think their way is better?

 

[wjemather]

Of course they are free to do what they wish, but it would be pretty boneheaded to think on the one hand that you try to make your competitions ‘fair’ by using WHS handicaps and on the other hand ignoring the allowances that are mandated by the same WHS system for official comps. Why do they think their way is better?

The allowances are not mandated by the system; they are mandated by CONGU - for entirely non-equity reasons like simplicity, consistency, etc.

For similar reasons, those administering comps by hand for small independent groups likely find 100% simpler than calculating 95% for everyone.

As an aside, WHS makes it very clear that different allowances to the recommendations may be appropriate, and for very small groups 100% is more equitable than 95% (true equity being somewhere in the middle).

 

[doublebogey7]

But almost exclusively only with other competitors of similar ability.

That's largely true, but can you name another sport, other than football, that has a similar number of active competitors, in the UK. Handicaps are all part of golfs relative success as a sport.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Of course they are free to do what they wish, but it would be pretty boneheaded to think on the one hand that you try to make your competitions ‘fair’ by using WHS handicaps and on the other hand ignoring the allowances that are mandated by the same WHS system for official comps. Why do they think their way is better?

I have absolutely no idea. In fact it may simply be that too many who play in it can’t be bothered working out 95%. That I spend time every time I play in the rollup advising my group on the %s that apply for fourball matchplay and individual stableford really irritates, with intelligent guys whinging about ‘how difficult it is’ and pleading confusion. It’s not difficult.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

3 Stableford comps at ours this week that continue the variation of winning handicaps and lack of outrageous scoring. We don't have divisions. Winning scores and handicaps were:
30 - 15
32 - 6
29 - 26
Still nobody grumbling about WHS at our place.

Are these the winning stableford points for three comps…nobody got anywhere near 36? Was the weather dreadful?

 

[Backsticks]

This is a fallacy. Most reports since the introduction of WHS (or the increase to a 54-limit that predates it) are the result of confirmation bias - people suddenly started looking for such results while (actively or unconsciously) ignoring the vast majority of comps where it isn't happening and not comparing with what happened in the previously.

There was a huge amount of disquiet when limits were increase to 24, and again to 28 (Note: there are a lot of clubs that still retain 24 as their competition limit as a result); as there was every time allowances were increased.

Its only a fallacy if there were also complaints about 50pt scores before WHS. 56hc limit predates WHS. I didnt hear any complaints about high scores when that came in. Is there no case to answer from WHS that is was the catalyst the drove handicaps into the 28+ at unprecedented rates and numbers. Prior to it, while 28+ was possible and there were cases, new handicaps were not allocated as high as WHS did, and handicaps were restrained from rapid climbing out of the 28 zone by the inherent slowness of UCS to increase.
A 28 shot increase in the ceiling is without question more drastic than the previous 4 and 6 shot increases. And takes handicaps in the the realm of more learner-golfer than stable hc.
Maybe 56 is the key problem, but was kept under wraps until WHS let the genie out of the bottle.
56 isnt a handicap. It a learners permit. And should be treated as such, with system restraints on its use in the wider hc golf world.

 

[IanM]

56 isnt a handicap. It a learners permit.

Absolutely.

Inclusion means playing. Not guaranteed prizes.

 

[RichA]

Are these the winning stableford points for three comps…nobody got anywhere near 36? Was the weather dreadful?

Those are the comps this week. Highest score in a comp so far in 2023 was 37 points by a guy with a 6 or 7 HI.
Weather hasn't been too awful.

We use the very same WHS as the guys on here who complain about ridiculous Stableford scores, necessity of divisions and handicap caps for comps.
We don't get silly scores and the wins are spread evenly across the skill ranges.
I just like to occasionally illustrate that the problem is the people, not the system. Our prizes are token, so maybe nobody feels the need to cheat the system like at some of your fancier clubs with serious pro shop credit at stake.

 

[wjemather]

Inclusion means playing. Not guaranteed prizes.

Inclusion means being able to play competitively (on an equitable basis) like everyone else.
No handicap (however high) that accurately reflects ability guarantees prizes.

 

[clubchamp98]

To some extent, pretty much all of them.

No they don’t.
I can’t turn up at Anfield and expect a game.
Or any other Sport.