World Handicap System has created a more level playing field ?

[clubchamp98]

All this talk of courses being set up too easy kind of misses the point.
If a course is set up easy, then people who get lucky and score well despite missing lots of fairways will get low differentials and their HCP indexes will reduce accordingly.

Yes that’s correct.
But the amount of golfers with high caps has increased and they make up the majority of the field.
There are plenty of them Someone always has a good day, not the same person every week.

 

[cliveb]

Another factor? If a course is set up significantly easier than when it was rated, its CR could be too high.

Yes, and so people who play there will end up with HCP indexes that are too low. They aren't the ones being complained about.

 

[clubchamp98]

Another factor? If a course is set up significantly easier than when it was rated, its CR could be too high.

Yes but it would not make much difference to a scratch player who hits fairways.
But would have a big difference to a higher handicapper who misses a lot of fairways.
This is where the silly high scores are coming from imo.

 

[clubchamp98]

The ladies section have reacted to one lady who beat someone 8&7 playing off 40 something HC - the lady beaten is one of the more “influential” ones and so they have now decided to go back to maximum HC of 36 ?

They encouraged the lady to enter - she beat one of them and now they will make sure she can’t win again

A lot depends how they both played.
A four shot drop she probably would still beat her.
Once the comps started they should not change the rules. Until next year!
Sour grapes but the other ladies should not let her do this regardless of who she is.

 

[rulefan]

Yes, and so people who play there will end up with HCP indexes that are too low. They aren't the ones being complained about.

But they will be complaining that the ones who haven't played since the course was made easier have indices which are now too high.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Yes, and so people who play there will end up with HCP indexes that are too low. They aren't the ones being complained about.

That loterally is who is being complained about. And another downside of WHS is that reducitions are much slower than before

 

[rulefan]

And another downside of WHS is that reducitions are much slower than before

It would be interesting to know who is complaining about that? Those who feel they should be lower or those who feel others should be lower?
It only takes 20 rounds for the best to start falling off.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

It would be interesting to know who is complaining about that? Those who feel they should be lower or those who feel others should be lower?
It only takes 20 rounds for the best to start falling off.

It was me, you quoted me And in answer to the second question, both.

 

[IanM]

It only takes 20 rounds for the best to start falling off.

Ah, 20 rounds. Is that a year's golf, two years or a few weeks?

Therein lies many of the niggles with the system. They spent years doing the maths and regs, and considerably less thinking about the application and adoption. ?

 

[rulefan]

It was me, you quoted me And in answer to the second question, both.

Ah. I thought you were suggesting there was a groundswell of opinion throughout your cohorts, club, country, the world.

 

[Imurg]

Ah, 20 rounds. Is that a year's golf, two years or a few weeks?

Therein lies many of the niggles with the system. They spent years doing the maths and regs, and considerably less thinking about the application and adoption. ?

20 rounds for me is 6 weeks
20 rounds for Fragger is 9 months
20 rounds for my mate Andy is just over 2 years...

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Ah. I thought you were suggesting there was a groundswell of opinion throughout your cohorts, club, country, the world.

No I was speaking for myself, although I've dropped 4 shots after going up 2 this year tbf, but then I play a shite load of golf, over 100 rounds since WHS introduced with hardly any GP scores.

However as you ask, I've yet to play with anyone who likes WHS, it amazes me when Scottish Golf, and some media outlets come out with comments on how it's being well received. I think they just talk amongst themselves.

 

[rulefan]

It simply isn't a topic of conversation in my club or the events I have officiated at.

 

[Tashyboy]

The report starts by saying

Analysis of nearly two years of data since the World Handicap System was launched has shown it has effectively made club competitions fairer, particularly by reducing an unfair advantage Category 1 players used to have.

now correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure I read early days when WHS was launched, the 95% reduction on whs in comps was to aid lower handicappers. Why would you if now the report says Cat 1 players had an unfair advantage.

Did they?

 

[Backsticks]

The report starts by saying

Analysis of nearly two years of data since the World Handicap System was launched has shown it has effectively made club competitions fairer, particularly by reducing an unfair advantage Category 1 players used to have.

now correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure I read early days when WHS was launched, the 95% reduction on whs in comps was to aid lower handicappers. Why would you if now the report says Cat 1 players had an unfair advantage.

Did they?

95% isnt to 'aid' anyone. It is the factor that makes the handicap fair across the range in singles competition.

 

[Backache]

20 rounds for me is 6 weeks
20 rounds for Fragger is 9 months
20 rounds for my mate Andy is just over 2 years...

Yup 20 rounds for me in the summer although maybe not full rounds might be a few weeks.
20 submitted scores might be a few years

 

[rulefan]

20 rounds for me is 6 weeks
20 rounds for Fragger is 9 months
20 rounds for my mate Andy is just over 2 years...

So why would they worry about competition handicaps?

 

[Deleted member 30522]

The report starts by saying

Analysis of nearly two years of data since the World Handicap System was launched has shown it has effectively made club competitions fairer, particularly by reducing an unfair advantage Category 1 players used to have.

now correct me if I am wrong, but I am sure I read early days when WHS was launched, the 95% reduction on whs in comps was to aid lower handicappers. Why would you if now the report says Cat 1 players had an unfair advantage.

Did they?

They had an unfair advantage under UHS, under WHS high handicaps would have an advantage, the 95% is meant to level that out.

 

[rulefan]

They had an unfair advantage under UHS, under WHS high handicaps would have an advantage, the 95% is meant to level that out.

I seem to remember that in the old US (and Oz) systems the 95% (93%) were described as a 'Bonus for excellence'