WHS doesn't work

[HampshireHog]

But my question is why should it be a different system for different players?

The UHS allowed players to put in as many cards as they wanted and we had quite several put in card every time they played back then.

It‘s not a different system for different players?‍, I just happen to believe there is more value in a card from a competition when the course is set up properly, and cards are being scrutinised. It’s a personal opinion that people who are regularly playing competitions don’t need general play cards.

I am not sure what UHS is but before WHS I never met anyone who submitted supplementary cards other than to meet the 3 cards a year requirement or get an initial handicap.

 

[clubchamp98]

Good grief. Never seen scores like that at ours.

Neither had we for 130 years but since WHS we have had quite a few.

 

[Backsticks]

How can it be?
2 or 3 years ago is a world away..it has no bearing on how you're playing now which is what WHS does.
Whether you like it or whether you hate it, as long as regular cards are going in it reflects your current form ....which is what it's designed to do.
The soft and hard caps stop the index from rising too far.
WHS is about current form not some rounds you played in 2019..

Your scores of 2 or 3 years ago always had an influence, possibly more so before whs. WhS flushes scores out of the system and is effectively a new calculation every card you put in. UHS was a continuous iteration, with ALL that went before it, contributing to the latest handicap. The time distance wasnt as obvious as seeing a date on a score from 2 years ago still in your whs 20 or 8. But it was there.

 

[clubchamp98]

Once a month? It's weird how the experience differs from club to club. I've just looked at all the men's individual medal/stableford results at my club since 1st April.

Stableford
16 competitions
Average winning score: 38.8 pts
Highest score: 46
Scores in the 50s: none
Scores in the 40s: seven (four of which occurred in the same competition, only three out of sixteen comps have been won with scores in the 40s)

Medal
Seven competitions
Average winning score: 68.3 (net)
Lowest net score: 64
Net scores under 60: none
Net scores 60-69: ten (five of which were winning scores)

So, all season, we've had zero stableford scores in the 50s and zero net scores sub 60 - but you're getting either or both once a month!! What can account for a difference like that?

People with handicaps that are just not right.
Other things are as I have stated before.
The biggest being the lack of any rough.
So a good player who hits fairways nothing has changed much.
But a golfer can miss every fairway and still be able to hit a 3 wood shot out of the “ rough”

But they still need to get it in the hole

 

[Backsticks]

My mate Ben is in this situation now. He's been going up like a rocket already, he's just hit 15.1 (he started the year at 12 ish I think). Next round he's losing a 75-gross 8.4 differential. From our old course as well so I reckon he'd have to shoot about 73 or 74 to avoid going up next time. His last decent rounds were 83 so can't see that happening. Obviously the best he can do is limit the damage.

Limiting 'damage' is the wrong way to think about it. If he cannot shoot the 74 or 73, tgen the hc increase is reflecting the reality.
Maybe people are used to hiding behind the slow increase of the ucs, even when the hc they still had was too low for them.
He scored a 73 20 rounds ago. He hasnt done so in the later 19, and if he doesnt in his next round, then it seems reasonable that his hc should rise. Not unreasonable that the system is going to increase his hc if he doesnt shoot 73 or 74 next game out. Last decent round 83. The hc has to rise. Is he feeling agrieved by that ?

 

[D-S]

One of the issues is that current form is relatively arbitrary in Golf.
I played recently with a couple of guys in a Pairs competition and they had a better ball score of 22 points, both had high 20s HI’s. I was amazed to see one of the pair have 44 points on his own ball winning a singles comp comfortably 3 weeks later- having seen him play you would not have thought it possible. However ‘current form’ for a high handicapper is massively different/more variable than their ’stretch potential’ than lower players due to their inconsistency. This coupled with the fact that higher handicappers HI’s tended to go up in the transition and lower went down even before the additional shots that slope gave higher indexes ore shots on their CH (typically it was 10-15% more so maybe one for a single figure but 3 or 4 for a 20+).
These are some reasons for the discontent.

 

[rulefan]

This coupled with the fact that higher handicappers HI’s tended to go up in the transition

Where did you get this information from?

 

[Blob Jacket]

We’ve had a 52 points and a couple of nett 62s (-10) since WHS came in. Unheard of prior. Extremes, but they do happen.

 

[rulefan]

We’ve had a 52 points and a couple of nett 62s (-10) since WHS came in. Unheard of prior. Extremes, but they do happen.

What were the handicaps of the players with those scores?

 

[Blob Jacket]

What were the handicaps of the players with those scores?

2 19s for the 62s. Gross 81 for the 52, whatever that works out at.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

2 19s for the 62s. Gross 81 for the 52, whatever that works out at.

Not sure you can blame WHS for these scores as why would their handicap by so much higher than under Congu

 

[D-S]

Where did you get this information from?

EG have not given us the details so you are right it is not a demonstrable fact but anecdotally it appears to be true. Certainly at the lower end HI’s are significantly lower than with UHS. Simply ask any club how many plus handicappers they have now versus pre WHS - we had one, we now have 7.
It used to be the case that anyone with say a value in excess of +2 or 3 was a superstar now it is commonplace. We had many +6 or better playing in a National junior competition at our club last year.
It also appears to be the case that many 18 UHS HI’s went up due to their wide score distribution.
Even if the above were not true the average slope of 125 necessarily increased the shots for higher handicappers.
Maybe you have seen published information on this?
Although I seem to recall that in the early WHS toolkit presentations this was inferred when they described the likely value changes to various categories of golfers.

 

[Springveldt]

EG have not given us the details so you are right it is not a demonstrable fact but anecdotally it appears to be true. Certainly at the lower end HI’s are significantly lower than with UHS. Simply ask any club how many plus handicappers they have now versus pre WHS - we had one, we now have 7.
It used to be the case that anyone with say a value in excess of +2 or 3 was a superstar now it is commonplace. We had many +6 or better playing in a National junior competition at our club last year.
It also appears to be the case that many 18 UHS HI’s went up due to their wide score distribution.
Even if the above were not true the average slope of 125 necessarily increased the shots for higher handicappers.
Maybe you have seen published information on this?
Although I seem to recall that in the early WHS toolkit presentations this was inferred when they described the likely value changes to various categories of golfers.

That's what I noticed at my course when we swapped over. The really low guys under congu (2 and under) all went down further. We went from having maybe 1 or 2 guys being a plus to 8 or 9. The 3 to 12 range didn't change that much, I was off 9 under congu and when we changed over my initial index was 7.2 which gave me a playing handicap of 9. I noticed guys that were off 16 under congu suddenly had playing handicaps of 18 or 19 under WHS. Our home course has a slope of 139 though so that definitely contributed.

 

[Blob Jacket]

Not sure you can blame WHS for these scores as why would their handicap by so much higher than under Congu

There’s probably a few contributing factors, there usually is with things like this. These could be outliers. The outliers being more extreme with WHS doesn’t mean they don’t happen though. I’m just reporting what I’ve seen post-WHS and not before.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I put a card in for my round at West Byfleet last week. Weather was fine, little bit windy at times but nothing that would much even sway the trees, and I notice the next day that a PCC of 2 was applied. I just don’t get that. I have played in comps in seriously difficult conditions at my own track when almost nobody played to their handicap, yet no PCC adjustment.

Now when I played WB the course was pretty quiet, though I think a society may have played earlier in the day. Could low numbers playing that day, and of that number a large % being visitors who may all have registered their round, have something to do with it? Baffled.

 

[Imurg]

I put a card in for my round at West Byfleet last week. Weather was fine, little bit windy at times but nothing that would much even sway the trees, and I notice the next day that a PCC of 2 was applied. I just don’t get that. I have played in comps in seriously difficult conditions at my own track when almost nobody played to their handicap, yet no PCC adjustment.

Now when I played WB the course was pretty quiet, though I think a society may have played earlier in the day. Could low numbers playing that day, and of that number a large % being visitors who may all have registered their round, have something to do with it? Baffled.

It'll about the scores. Nothing else .
Yes, if it's poor weather then scores are likely to be higher but not sufficiently to change PCC
Yet, on a calm, sunny day the scoring can be poorer and activate a PCC.
Its all about the scoring.

 

[rulefan]

Its all about the scoring.

The calculated adjustment is dependent upon:
Whether significantly fewer players than anticipated attained their expected score
Whether significantly more players than anticipated attained their expected score

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Where did you get this information from?

There was a webinar from a woman at EG who said that for the most part, higher handicappers would go up and lower would go down.

 

[rulefan]

There was a webinar from a woman at EG who said that for the most part, higher handicappers would go up and lower would go down.

She was talking about one or two strokes at most with only a few exceptions.

 

[rulefan]

2 19s for the 62s. Gross 81 for the 52, whatever that works out at.

But what were their handicaps under CONGU?