WHS doesn't work

[wjemather]

Please do not put words into my mouth by way of, "what you are saying is".
We have rules of handicapping provided to us.
Deliberately circumventing those rules to advantage some with redistribution of money is risking fraudulent activity.
Agreeing to join a group without the full knowledge and understanding of the misconduct that is occurring is not agreeing to be a victim of that misconduct. This has always been the way.

I did no such thing. You are quoting out of context.

There are no rules in place to circumvent. Independent groups of golfers (like non-affiliated golf clubs and societies) are outside the jurisdiction of handicapping authorities and have autonomy to use whatever handicap system they please - they do not even have to play by the rules of golf, let alone handicapping.

 

[rosecott]

Indeed

What I was simply saying was that, in your players case, they were given an Index of 17.0, as WHS found their old handicap. However, that is simply a placeholder. Sure, there is no need for submitting 3 cards, as their initial index is 17.0, with no scores on their record. However, once 3 scores are submitted, their WHS Index will be exactly as it would have been if they just handed in 3 cards anyway. So, if this chap, who starts with a 17.0 Index then hands in his first 3 cards, Score Diff 25.0, 28.0 and 30.0 (for example), his Index would be 23.0. The 17.0 becomes irrelevant

I cannot agree with that. The Handicap Committee still has the power - and the duty - to make a considered judgement on the effect of his previous playing/handicap history on his new handicap situation.

Otherwise, what would be the point of disclosure of previous handicap history?

 

[Backsticks]

I cannot agree with that. The Handicap Committee still has the power - and the duty - to make a considered judgement on the effect of his previous playing/handicap history on his new handicap situation.

Otherwise, what would be the point of disclosure of previous handicap history?

Exactly.
Was in the UHS days when I was hc secretary, but in that scenario, I would have allocated 18. 17 is the dominant guide. The three cards suggest he is off that mark but only a little.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I did no such thing. You are quoting out of context.

There are no rules in place to circumvent. Independent groups of golfers (like non-affiliated golf clubs and societies) are outside the jurisdiction of handicapping authorities and have autonomy to use whatever handicap system they please - they do not even have to play by the rules of golf, let alone handicapping.

But they have to abide by the laws pertaining to deception and financial fraud. "Free to do what they like" is nonsense.

 

[Backache]

But they have to abide by the laws pertaining to deception and financial fraud. "Free to do what they like" is nonsense.

I suspect there would be a rather large dose of caveat emptor. You agree to a common set of rules when playing whether fair or unfair to anyone.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I suspect there would be a rather large dose of caveat emptor. You agree to a common set of rules when playing whether fair or unfair to anyone.

As I explained in a previous post, being unaware that an unfair practice is occurring does not make you a willing victim.
A player might have joined a group in good faith, but the full details may not have been clear to him at the time of joining.
He cannot be ruled out of being a victim merely because he decided to participate in something that he believed would be totally above board.
Believing it would be above board would be deemed reasonable, not reckless.
Blame would be apportioned to those designing and carrying out the unfair practice.

 

[Swango1980]

I cannot agree with that. The Handicap Committee still has the power - and the duty - to make a considered judgement on the effect of his previous playing/handicap history on his new handicap situation.

Otherwise, what would be the point of disclosure of previous handicap history?

Yes, but I addressed that very point in my original comment, where I said:

"Be interesting what would be done if the player went from a 17.0 index, submitted 3rd card and it became 25.0. Does the Committee reduce it, or accept the player may be worse than he was 9 years ago?"

So, the 17.0 has no relevance to the WHS system of calculating the players Index, except it simply uses it as a placeholder until 3 cards are submitted. Then it works it out in exactly the same way a brand new golfer would have theirs calculated. The 17.0 has no bearing. It is simply down to the Committee. They can reduce it to 17.0, leave it as 25.0 (as per my example), or choose any other number they think would be justified.

 

[tobybarker]

How many people really understood the previous system.

WHS isn’t difficult to understand if people just spent 10 minutes reading up on it.

many understand it but just don't think it's an improvement.

 

[rulefan]

many understand it but just don't think it's an improvement.

And many did and do.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Neither had I…until Saturday when I discovered that the rollup comp I‘ve played in for years might be PH = CH.

ETA - I have raised with one of the rollup organisers that for as long as…I have been playing and calculating for others their PH as 95% of CH in accordance with club guidelines. It might for only be a shot for 10-28 CHs, but that’s not the point. In any case I will ask the question next week.

Well I asked the question of our Sat rollup organiser this afternoon. He confirmed for our rollup individual Stableford comp PH is 95% of CH. As I thought and knew it should be. He’s going to send out a reminder to all. He was rather despairing that some might be playing 100% - as he rightly said - it’s not as if this is new or difficult, and we each only need to remember two numbers. Our CH and our ind stableford PH. In fact when we arrive on the tee we only need to know one number, either our CH or our ind stableford PH.

ETA. The winning score in our Sat rollup was 41points. Three players scored that. 34 were playing. The excessive scores of winter seem to be dropping away as the course is set up more to its normal length. Off 9, I can go with 41 winning as that’s achievable for me…a very good day I grant you, but achievable.

 

[tobybarker]

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.

the issue is not A ten handicapper competing with A 28 handicapper..it's any given ten HCP competing with say, twenty 28 HCPs.... the odds are high that one of them at least will have "one of those days" and will come in with 50 points. not the fault of anyone or the system.. that's why divisions are a good idea (in my mind)

 

[AussieKB]

We just had a 49 handicapper win today, I feel for the runner-up off 16, don't think I have ever seen him win anything in years.

 

[rulefan]

We just had a 49 handicapper win today, I feel for the runner-up off 16, don't think I have ever seen him win anything in years.

Presumably since well before WHS.

 

[clubchamp98]

the issue is not A ten handicapper competing with A 28 handicapper..it's any given ten HCP competing with say, twenty 28 HCPs.... the odds are high that one of them at least will have "one of those days" and will come in with 50 points. not the fault of anyone or the system.. that's why divisions are a good idea (in my mind)

Thing for me though Is the system is supposed to level the playing field for everyone to compete.
but divisions does the total opposite by dividing us up.
There can only be one overall winner but the score nessesary now to win is beyond some lower handicap golfers.!

 

[rulefan]

Thing for me though Is the system is supposed to level the playing field for everyone to compete.
but divisions does the total opposite by dividing us up.
There can only be one overall winner but the score nessesary now to win is beyond some lower handicap golfers.!

Have you got documented stats that show the proportion of abnormally high scores in relation to the proportion of very high handicappers in the field?
In fact, have you got documented stats that show the incidence of abnormally high scores?

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Thing for me though Is the system is supposed to level the playing field for everyone to compete.
but divisions does the total opposite by dividing us up.
There can only be one overall winner but the score nessesary now to win is beyond some lower handicap golfers.!

I Still think the aim of the WHS system is to give everyone a fair course handicap of their ability, which it does very well, but this system doesn't necessarily make it a level playing field for all in a largish field of competitors with many high handicappers, not sure any system can cope with that.

 

[rosecott]

Have you got documented stats that show the proportion of abnormally high scores in relation to the proportion of very high handicappers in the field?
In fact, have you got documented stats that show the incidence of abnormally high scores?

I am also wondering where the abnormally high scores are appearing. How often do they occur on a normal day with the course at normal length?

Since the advent of WHS we have had a very very small number of scores of 6 or 7 under or 42/43 points - and these were not scored by players with HIs of over 28 - with the norm being 3 or 4 under or 39/40 points and often lower scores than that as comp winners.

Looking back at results pre-WHS, there is little difference in the scoring compared to WHS scores.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

We just had a 49 handicapper win today, I feel for the runner-up off 16, don't think I have ever seen him win anything in years.

WHS doesn't let low handicappers win because they can't score low enough.
WHS doesn't let High handicappers win because when their do everyone moans it's unfair, and the only reason they won is because of the system

 

[Banchory Buddha]

I Still think the aim of the WHS system is to give everyone a fair course handicap of their ability, which it does very well, but this system doesn't necessarily make it a level playing field for all in a largish field of competitors with many high handicappers, not sure any system can cope with that.

How can fair not be a level playing field?

 

[Steve Wilkes]

How can fair not be a level playing field?

Sorry, should have said Accurate course handicap and not Fair course handicap