WHS - is it an advantage to higher handicaps

[Swango1980]

I would like to see Eng, Ire and Wales adopt the Scottish system of not rounding CH when making the PH calculation as this avoids the disproportionate "lump" of players off 10 in individual strokeplay.

The new system is very complicated for most and far too complicated for some, but will become far less so with time as we learn by using it.

I can see that issue, although calculating 95% of a decimal is a bit more tricky to do in ones head, definitely need an app or calculator for that. Just a bit of a pain, especially if you are having a knock with mates and not relying in the computer doing everything for you.

I'd like to see the 95% (or 93%) embedded within the course handicap. Leave it at that for singles stroke play and match play, 90% for fourball matchplay. Ultimately, you are pretty much back to using 100% course handicap for most rounds most golfers play, 90% for doubles, and a lot more familiar and easy to follow, like pre WHS.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

I can see that issue, although calculating 95% of a decimal is a bit more tricky to do in ones head, definitely need an app or calculator for that. Just a bit of a pain, especially if you are having a knock with mates and not relying in the computer doing everything for you.

I'd like to see the 95% (or 93%) embedded within the course handicap. Leave it at that for singles stroke play and match play, 90% for fourball matchplay. Ultimately, you are pretty much back to using 100% course handicap for most rounds most golfers play, 90% for doubles, and a lot more familiar and easy to follow, like pre WHS.

I agree, that should have been the way forward, one fairly easy calculation index / 113 * Slope * 95% no middle rounding, then everyone knows what stableford points they have scored.

 

[PJ87]

I guess that's why they encourage people to put more cards in, but I think a lot of people, me including, are happy with it being just competition rounds.

We as a group made the decision to just put the cards in when we play together

Once a week stick cards in

2 mins work on the app now

 

[Biggleswade Blue]

I've no idea. One of the many problems with the new system is that it's too taxing for my brain to work out. My IG app tells me what I'm off and that's enough for me. You're right though, it does seem to be quite flawed if you don't have all the cards in. My mate I was talking about has 20 rounds, but he didn't play a single comp in 2020 so his 20 rounds are mostly from ages ago.

I shot 87 off the whites at my new club last weekend, and I thought that would count as one of my 8 best, but it hasn't - I still have a couple of 90s from my old club that are counting because the slope is 131 as opposed to 117.

As my "get a life" club wasn't meeting today, I've spent the morning digging into the system.

I'm a new-ish member, high handicap, in the middle ground between putting in my 3 cards, but not yet got to 20. I've actually done 5. (I've not been soaked in the old system, so don't know it's merits or flaws and can't answer the original thread question!)

I was given a handicap after my first 3 cards. I then played again, just after lockdown, and though it wasn't a great round by my standards, I was surprised to see my index go up 1 shot as I had expected it just to ignore the recent poor-ish round. I then played again, a round very similar to my best, and was a bit surprised to be given another shot!

This morning I have found this, which explains exactly what was going on. Essentially after round 4 I lost the -2 adjustment, and after round 5 I lost the -1 adjustment. My next round I will get 1 back, and already I know that if I play badly my index will still reduce, because my 2nd lowest round will be counted (it's only about .9 worse than my lowest) and an adjustment applied. If I play my best round it'll come down, but if not, it'll go up 1 again, and will then start to settle down a bit, depending on how I play. I seem to be fairly consistent, improving but not yet stringing some decent 18 holes together, and have the occasional poor hole. So it looks like I'm unlikely to jump to a silly high handicap unless I don't quite have enough lowish rounds in place when we jump from averaging say 3 to 4 to 5 rounds etc but can reduce if I do manage to string one or two together. If a new golfer is wild - potential for a 90 as well as 110, then they will see it bounce around quite a lot more, and also if a new golfer has one really good round, then a whole load of high scores they will see quote a bit of movement, and may struggle to play to handicap for a while. Certainly in the pre-20 rounds phase, the more cards you've got in, the steadier your handicap will be, especially if you tend to have consistent scores. New golfers of course can bounce all over the place, and so it is inherently hard to handicap.

 

[Biggleswade Blue]

At my club we have started playing the opening round of our singles ko, 100% of the difference in course handicaps. So far the lower handicaps are getting smoked. I was one under my course handicap the other day as I lost 4&3 on the 15th. Won't be bothering with singles matchplay in future.

Isn't singles matchplay always tough when a low handicap player is against a high handicap player? Much easier for a high handicap player to be, say 5 under handicap than it is for a low handicap golfer.

I'm a bit twitchy about this as I am in the high handicap version of our knockout and my opponent will have to give me, I think 13 shots. If I have a decent day, It will be very difficult for him to win, though there is a reason I'm a high handicap! (My club does two singles matchplay comps: one for players up to 18, and then one for us hackers >18 which hopefully gets rid of the wildest excesses.)

I'm in it for the fun of playing rather than winning though, and I guess many others are the same. Having said that, If I'm 1 up on 17, I will really want to win!

 

[clubchamp98]

You may have a good point, but it might be swings and roundabouts. If a player has good scores from 4 years ago still exerting a downward pull on his/her handicap, then this could be considered a valid element of proven ability, which could be regained. Poor scores from that long ago will not matter, if they are not in best 8. If an individual feels that their current handicap is too high or too low, they may submit more cards, or give grounds (health, injury etc) for review.
My current personal experience is that the next 5 scores that I will replace contain 3 in my best 8, including the best score of all. This was a run of good form last July/August. If those scores were from 2018, because I had only returned 5 or so a year, the effect would/will be the same, but spaced over a longer period of time, but not a greater number of rounds.
So I believe the point your are making is about players either struggling or cleaning up in social golf 20 times a year, while only submitting 4 or 5 cards a year for assessment. In that case - twas ever thus - and such players should be encouraged or cajoled into submitting general play scores. Can't think of another possible solution at the moment.

There will always be people who play only enough to maintain a handicap.
Then clean up in swindles and opens., no system will sort them out.
But WHS is overly complicated and not a WHS as such as lots of different versions are available like Australia.
It should have kept it as simple as possible and all this 95% lark just bed it all in

 

[Swango1980]

Isn't singles matchplay always tough when a low handicap player is against a high handicap player? Much easier for a high handicap player to be, say 5 under handicap than it is for a low handicap golfer.

I'm a bit twitchy about this as I am in the high handicap version of our knockout and my opponent will have to give me, I think 13 shots. If I have a decent day, It will be very difficult for him to win, though there is a reason I'm a high handicap! (My club does two singles matchplay comps: one for players up to 18, and then one for us hackers >18 which hopefully gets rid of the wildest excesses.)

I'm in it for the fun of playing rather than winning though, and I guess many others are the same. Having said that, If I'm 1 up on 17, I will really want to win!

Also easier for a high handicapper fo shoot 20 over handicap than a lower handicapper. The higher handicapper will win on their "best" day, but better consistency from lower handicappers will ensure they win slightly more than they lose on balance

 

[clubchamp98]

Isn't singles matchplay always tough when a low handicap player is against a high handicap player? Much easier for a high handicap player to be, say 5 under handicap than it is for a low handicap golfer.

I'm a bit twitchy about this as I am in the high handicap version of our knockout and my opponent will have to give me, I think 13 shots. If I have a decent day, It will be very difficult for him to win, though there is a reason I'm a high handicap! (My club does two singles matchplay comps: one for players up to 18, and then one for us hackers >18 which hopefully gets rid of the wildest excesses.)

I'm in it for the fun of playing rather than winning though, and I guess many others are the same. Having said that, If I'm 1 up on 17, I will really want to win!

The low man has to play well also!
Low caps have bad days as well.
But if your high handicap op plays well on the day it’s very hard to beat .
In match play you can have 7/8 and lose a hole but it’s only one.
Where in a medal ( where caps are calculated) a few 7s and 8 s keep their cap high.
Match0lay is a lot about nerve and who keeps theirs the best usually wins.

 

[Ser Shankalot]

Isn't it a function of statistics and probability? My feeling (albeit without any data backup) is a typical high handicapper isn't just bad, but inconsistently bad - ie. they have a much much wider standard deviation of results than a low handicap. The handicap just gives something approaching an average expectation. One on one, the low handicap will more likely win assuming a usual distribution of scores. But given enough high handicappers in the same competition, the chances of atleast one of those players being on the low end of their very wide range with a score very different from their average is more probable than not, whereas low handicaps will be tightly bound to their typical average?

I'm sure someone with access to lots of low and high handicap scoring data over time would be able to help answer the debate.

 

[doublebogey7]

You may have a good point, but it might be swings and roundabouts. If a player has good scores from 4 years ago still exerting a downward pull on his/her handicap, then this could be considered a valid element of proven ability, which could be regained. Poor scores from that long ago will not matter, if they are not in best 8. If an individual feels that their current handicap is too high or too low, they may submit more cards, or give grounds (health, injury etc) for review.
My current personal experience is that the next 5 scores that I will replace contain 3 in my best 8, including the best score of all. This was a run of good form last July/August. If those scores were from 2018, because I had only returned 5 or so a year, the effect would/will be the same, but spaced over a longer period of time, but not a greater number of rounds.
So I believe the point your are making is about players either struggling or cleaning up in social golf 20 times a year, while only submitting 4 or 5 cards a year for assessment. In that case - twas ever thus - and such players should be encouraged or cajoled into submitting general play scores. Can't think of another possible solution at the moment.

Have 4 ball and Matchplay as qualifying scores as other countries do.

 

[Swango1980]

Isn't it a function of statistics and probability? My feeling (albeit without any data backup) is a typical high handicapper isn't just bad, but inconsistently bad - ie. they have a much much wider standard deviation of results than a low handicap. The handicap just gives something approaching an average expectation. One on one, the low handicap will more likely win assuming a usual distribution of scores. But given enough high handicappers in the same competition, the chances of atleast one of those players being on the low end of their very wide range with a score very different from their average is more probable than not, whereas low handicaps will be tightly bound to their typical average?

I'm sure someone with access to lots of low and high handicap scoring data over time would be able to help answer the debate.

Yeah. This is why the 95% Playing Handicap allowance was brought in for singles stroke play.

 

[rulefan]

I agree, that should have been the way forward, one fairly easy calculation index / 113 * Slope * 95% no middle rounding, then everyone knows what stableford points they have scored.

Exactly what they do in Australia. Course and Playing Handicaps don't exist - just a Daily Handicap.

However that puts the higher handicapper at a bigger disadvantage in match play where previously the lower player already won over 50% of matches.

 

[rulefan]

Isn't it a function of statistics and probability? My feeling (albeit without any data backup) is a typical high handicapper isn't just bad, but inconsistently bad - ie. they have a much much wider standard deviation of results than a low handicap. The handicap just gives something approaching an average expectation. One on one, the low handicap will more likely win assuming a usual distribution of scores. But given enough high handicappers in the same competition, the chances of atleast one of those players being on the low end of their very wide range with a score very different from their average is more probable than not, whereas low handicaps will be tightly bound to their typical average?

I'm sure someone with access to lots of low and high handicap scoring data over time would be able to help answer the debate.

The USGA and other national authorities (including Scotland) have already done this with many thousands of scores analysed

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Exactly what they do in Australia. Course and Playing Handicaps don't exist - just a Daily Handicap.

However that puts the higher handicapper at a bigger disadvantage in match play where previously the lower player already won over 50% of matches.

I agree, that should have been the way forward, one fairly easy calculation index / 113 * Slope * 95% no middle rounding, then everyone knows what stableford points they have scored.

In Matchplay, Just ignore the 95% bit, as it's 100% for Singles Matchplay

 

[Voyager EMH]

I'm not 100% certain about this, but I think that Course Handicap does exist in a way in Australia, if a differential for a round is calculated the same way as here. But there does not appear to be any terminology or nomenclature for what we call Course Handicap.
If differentials are calculated differently in Australia, then I may have to join the critics with regard to the validity of World Handicap System.

 

[rulefan]

In Matchplay, Just ignore the 95% bit, as it's 100% for Singles Matchplay

• Numerous researchers and golfing bodies including the United States Golf Association,
English Golf Union and Scottish Golf Union have investigated the relative merits of full
versus three-quarters difference in handicap.
• All of these independent pieces of research have come to a single conclusion – full
difference between the handicaps of the two players is clearly the more equitable
allowance.
• A Scottish Golf Union survey covering 4000 handicap singles matches showed:
Matches won by lower handicap player - 75% difference 61% - Full difference 55%

From the above it can be seen that even when conceding full difference the lower
handicap player retains an advantage.

Further, the bigger the gap the greater the probability of the lower winning

 

[Swango1980]

I'm not 100% certain about this, but I think that Course Handicap does exist in a way in Australia, if a differential for a round is calculated the same way as here. But there does not appear to be any terminology or nomenclature for what we call Course Handicap.
If differentials are calculated differently in Australia, then I may have to join the critics with regard to the validity of World Handicap System.

Course Handicap is called Daily Handicap in Oz, and included 93%. Index is called GA Handicap in Oz

 

[Swango1980]

Exactly what they do in Australia. Course and Playing Handicaps don't exist - just a Daily Handicap.

However that puts the higher handicapper at a bigger disadvantage in match play where previously the lower player already won over 50% of matches.

Probably. Though it is rare I have heard a 30 handicapper complain about not getting enough shots when playing a single figure handicapper

 

[rulefan]

I'm not 100% certain about this, but I think that Course Handicap does exist in a way in Australia, if a differential for a round is calculated the same way as here. But there does not appear to be any terminology or nomenclature for what we call Course Handicap.
If differentials are calculated differently in Australia, then I may have to join the critics with regard to the validity of World Handicap System.

As I said in post #72. There is just the Daily Handicap. GA Handicap is Handicap Index

GA Handicaps and Daily Handicaps
There are two types of official handicap allocated in Australia under the WHS; a GA Handicap and a Daily Handicap. The GA Handicap is not designed for use in handicap competition play; rather it is GA’s assessment of the relative golfing ability of a player on a course with a neutral Slope Rating. The Daily Handicap is the handicap to be used in handicap competition play. The GA Handicap is one of the factors used in the calculation of the Daily Handicap.

Further, differentials are calculated differently. Australia is dominated by stableford play where everything is about 36 points. Their formula is a bit more complicated.

((36 – Stableford Score) + Daily Handicap + Par – (Scratch Rating + PCC)) × (113 ÷ Slope Rating)

 

[Voyager EMH]

Thanks, Swango 1980 and Rulefan. I always like to hear from the well-informed. I think I had worked that out before and then confused myself. Their Course Handicap (Daily Handicap) is what they play off in individual strokeplay, as far as I know.
But does this mean that their differentials are calculated in a different way from ours? If so, our HI is not transferable directly to a GA Index and a World system it is not. If they are calculated the same way, then there must be something in their formula for differentials that is equivalent to our Course Handicap with regard to the nett double bogey limit.