WHS working well for me

[Backsticks]

I’ve gone from 10.6 to 9.2 to 12.6 this year! ?

That’s every round in bar a few were I know I’m not striking it well.

Would you have done that in the past too, or is it only with the WHS and bad rounds potentially having a bigger upward drive on handicap that you have started doing it ?
Do we need to realign expectations on greater handicap variability rather than the stableish numbers we were used to?

 

[Backsticks]

the widening gap in handicaps and increased winning scores, not makes it harder for the good improving golfer to win anything. I've noticed the difference in the order of merit at our club. It used to be lead every year by, regular practicing, try hard, consistent golfers.

Thats a good thing though. The goal of the handicap system is that everyone start with an equal chance. Improving golfers or those practicing hard and so putting in a better than previous round were effectively buckers of that system. They started with an golfing skill not fully reflected in their handicap.
So if what you say is the case, then the WHS would seem superior to Congu, and that handicaps are now more likely reflective of a players form as they step onto the first tee rather than lagging and so giving them an initial advantage over the field.

 

[Swango1980]

I can't understand why clubs and there committees havnt done anything about sorting there comps out. The software used today allows for any amount of Divs and formats yet we continue to here that a single HIs is being used.

Showes lack of amity and understanding from committees and members.

Probably not practical to play in Divisions for board competitions.

I suppose if handicaps were fair for all golfers, divisions would not be necessary

 

[Swango1980]

Thats a good thing though. The goal of the handicap system is that everyone start with an equal chance. Improving golfers or those practicing hard and so putting in a better than previous round were effectively buckers of that system. They started with an golfing skill not fully reflected in their handicap.
So if what you say is the case, then the WHS would seem superior to Congu, and that handicaps are now more likely reflective of a players form as they step onto the first tee rather than lagging and so giving them an initial advantage over the field.

What makes you think improving golfers do not have an advantage under WHS?

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Have to say, I agree with @nickjdavis 's assessment, I dont think deliberate manipulation is happening any more than previously.

But do think that the effect on comps is pretty clear. As @Kaz and @azazel pointed out, the widening gap in handicaps and increased winning scores, not makes it harder for the good improving golfer to win anything. I've noticed the difference in the order of merit at our club. It used to be lead every year by, regular practicing, try hard, consistent golfers. This year its a random cross section of the club with none of the usual suspects. Its regularly golfers coming off a bad spell whos handicap has jumped up. Even scratch golfers who are now off 3 - 3 shots is the difference between a 39 and a 42, it makes a big difference!

Its probably the likely outcome, we didnt need a whs, nobody I know has played competitive handicap golf across the world.

Even if they did, it's still not even the same system in the home nations, never mind the world over.

And the chosen system, the us version, is the handicap system which had the least exposure to competitive play. Most americans play zero competitive rounds - why - all the comps are won by sandbagging cheats.

I cant help but think we're on the path to join them. If my club would let me play off the back tees in regular play, there's no way I'd pay an entry fee...

I had a look at the winning scores in our club this year compared to last year.

From 30 odd comps played the average winning handicap this year is 18.5.

From 30 odd comps last year the average winning handicap was 14.3.

I don't suspect any handicap manipulation just golfers rediscovering their form and having a few extra shots to play with.

I'm paying my entry fee tomorrow so I can play off the white tees

 

[Backsticks]

What makes you think improving golfers do not have an advantage under WHS?

I am not sure they dont, just commenting on sweaty socks view on it, and I think it is probably somewhat correct. The moving average probably does track the improving golfer better than a big bang type adjustment after a single CSS busting score that we were used to. So limiting the advantage/handicap error, that the improving golfer is likely to tee up with.

 

[wjemather]

What makes you think improving golfers do not have an advantage under WHS?

Improving golfers will always have an advantage. Significantly, WHS catches up with them faster than UHS did. More importantly, WHS catches up with declining golfers whereas UHS almost never did.

 

[sweaty sock]

I am not sure they dont, just commenting on sweaty socks view on it, and I think it is probably somewhat correct. The moving average probably does track the improving golfer better than a big bang type adjustment after a single CSS busting score that we were used to. So limiting the advantage/handicap error, that the improving golfer is likely to tee up with.

The point i was trying to make, was that rather than just a one off random comp, the order of merit rewards consistantly playing to your handicap. So under congu, 36 and 37 piints would get you top 20's that would be worth some OOM points. At our club there were 4 or 5 players, who take regular lessons, are constantly on the range, and steadily improve. They would always be at the sharp end of the order of merit.

For me, those are the players any handicap system should reward.

This year, their handicaps have plummeted, and some huge scores from the once a week brigade whos playing handicaps are 5 or 6 higher have meant the order of merit is not as refective of effort as it once was.

I could be wrong, its the first season we've had whs, so not much data. But as per my original post, its taken away the thril of competition for me...

 

[Backsticks]

The point i was trying to make, was that rather than just a one off random comp, the order of merit rewards consistantly playing to your handicap. So under congu, 36 and 37 piints would get you top 20's that would be worth some OOM points. At our club there were 4 or 5 players, who take regular lessons, are constantly on the range, and steadily improve. They would always be at the sharp end of the order of merit.

For me, those are the players any handicap system should reward.

This year, their handicaps have plummeted, and some huge scores from the once a week brigade whos playing handicaps are 5 or 6 higher have meant the order of merit is not as refective of effort as it once was.

I could be wrong, its the first season we've had whs, so not much data. But as per my original post, its taken away the thril of competition for me...

I am not necessarily saying your view of what a handicap system might be is incorrect, but it is certainly not what WHS or UHS are designed to be, so it is not really fair to criticise them for failing to achieve something that is not their goal.

• The handicap system doesnt aim to reward anyone - but that everyone should be rewarded, as you put it, equally.
• Let alone reward effort - it rewards good play versus ones own standard game. Effort is not the scoring measure of golf.
• OOM is beside the issue of handicaps - you can structure points per position, and how many positions to give points to, as you want.
• Steady impovement only goes so far. No one improves for ever. And the handicap system, either of them, has the stated purpose of detecting any improvement as quickly and accurately as possibly, and nullifying it by the appropriate handicap reduction.
• The thrill of competition is surely only valid if the playing field is level. Not by having it stacked in favour of some more than others.

 

[patricks148]

I sometimes play with a guy that was on the R&A rules committee, he told us that the main point was to bring down the handicaps of elite players in line with the US to allow the uk players a better chance of getting into elite comps as the US system meant their elite players had lower handicaps. I suppose in that aspect the Whs has succeeded.

 

[wjemather]

I sometimes play with a guy that was on the R&A rules committee, he told us that the main point was to bring down the handicaps of elite players in line with the US to allow the uk players a better chance of getting into elite comps as the US system meant their elite players had lower handicaps. I suppose in that aspect the Whs has succeeded.

Nice conspiracy theory, but it doesn't stand up to even the lightest scrutiny.

 

[Backsticks]

I've said it before but worth repeating that the shift of emphasis from ability to recent form is, IMO, the big problem. You now have the situation where players are capable of playing far better than their handicap whereas, previously, playing to your handicap was you on a good day.

The goal of the handicap system should be that any time you're playing well (by your own standards) you should be competitive against any opponent. The old system only failed in that regard when the handicap gap was massive. The new system, in my experience, just doesn't achieve that goal at all.

Thats fair comment, but the move to recent form also has the benefit of tracking improvers better than the old system, which required a CSS beating scores to start cutting them. It didnt catch what could still be improvements lower than that. WHS will start nibbling the handicap even if scores start improving slightly, or a steadier average pattern is emerging. SOmeone putting in a steady run of 32-36 points will likely now get cut, reflecting that improvement. Previously, with the emphasis on best, it would more likely not happen until they put in one envelope pushing card. And in this sense the old system failed, as people who might well have been playing well by their own standards, had a decent chance of being beaten by a player who doesnt even need to play well by their standard - but whose standard has changed recently but that isnt reflected yet in the handicap.

 

[nickjdavis]

I had a look at the winning scores in our club this year compared to last year.

From 30 odd comps played the average winning handicap this year is 18.5.

From 30 odd comps last year the average winning handicap was 14.3.

I don't suspect any handicap manipulation just golfers rediscovering their form and having a few extra shots to play with.

I'm paying my entry fee tomorrow so I can play off the white tees

Did you compare the average handicap of all the entrants? You may find that this has also risen....in which case you would expect to see a rise in the handicaps of the winners (or at least those who are finishing in the top 5 places or thereabouts).

 

[patricks148]

Nice conspiracy theory, but it doesn't stand up to even the lightest scrutiny.

No conspiracy theory at all, straight from someone on the R&A rules com.

 

[stevek1969]

For me its worked well , i work shifts and can't play comps at weekends a fair bit so the ability to General Play cards during the week has given me a true reflection of where my game is . And being a member of a place that has numerous course options with different slope ratings has worked well. Like any new system people don't like change .

 

[wjemather]

No conspiracy theory at all, straight from someone on the R&A rules com.

The notion that WHS was conceived with the intention of benefitting a very small number of "elite" British and Irish amateurs, the vast majority of whom held USGA handicaps (by virtue of attending college in the US) and would qualify for such events anyway, is pure fantasy.

 

[patricks148]

The notion that WHS was conceived with the intention of benefitting a very small number of "elite" British and Irish amateurs, the vast majority of whom held USGA handicaps (by virtue of attending college in the US) and would qualify for such events anyway, is pure fantasy.

which bit of UK based amateurs didn't you understand?

This peice of info came from someone who was on the R&A rules committee who reg was a referee at R & A events, you believe what you want, I'd believe him over some random guy off the internet

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Nice conspiracy theory, but it doesn't stand up to even the lightest scrutiny.

Considering it's been widely said that the goal was to allow people playing in foreign countries the chance to compete equally, then it reinforces that entirely.

And the only folks who ever played competitively abroad were the elite level players.

 

[IanM]

The thread has gone past 350 posts and none of the scumbags who've pitched up at an Open, got 50 points and gone home with arms full of swag, have been in to say "thanks lots, lovely jubbly!!"

Not very grateful, are they?

 

[Rlburnside]

I’ve had 24 scores in for this year, not had many good rounds just a small cut early in season, last 7 rounds been 90 -95. adjusted gross ,h/c has stayed the same.

Thought this new system was to reflect your current form more ??‍