World Handicap System (WHS)

[IanM]

first ever player to score 7 points on a hole. Eagled a par 5 and had 3 shots on the hole.

All our prizes are in Divisions now anyway, and daft things like the above will increasingly get balloted out of the serious stuff. Crazy scores from "new improving players" are nothing new, but they seem really crazy now.

At some point a player isn't ready to enter a comp, giving someone 54 to compensate isn't very sensible. (note: I said comp, not play!)

 

[Swango1980]

Then why not have a handicap limit to win the Trophy?

We could, but you are then alienating any members, who pay the same annual subscription, from winning big competitions. I know another local club did this, and it went down really badly.

We are trying to build participation in competitions, so are trying to be as inclusive as possible. We want to be as welcoming to a 30+ handicapper as we are to a 0 handicapper. It is just that the system is incredibly generous to high handicappers. As per my previous post, all 9 competitions have been won by high handicappers, most with very good scores. I'm not bothered if it happens once in a while, and maybe it is just a massive coincidence that it has happened at our place for 9 out of 9 comps. But, would be interested to see what happens at other clubs

 

[Bdill93]

We could, but you are then alienating any members, who pay the same annual subscription, from winning big competitions. I know another local club did this, and it went down really badly.

We are trying to build participation in competitions, so are trying to be as inclusive as possible. We want to be as welcoming to a 30+ handicapper as we are to a 0 handicapper. It is just that the system is incredibly generous to high handicappers. As per my previous post, all 9 competitions have been won by high handicappers, most with very good scores. I'm not bothered if it happens once in a while, and maybe it is just a massive coincidence that it has happened at our place for 9 out of 9 comps. But, would be interested to see what happens at other clubs

First board comp 24/4 - 16 handicap win (medal) - tied with a 22 but won on countback. Third place off 15 beaten by 1.
Midweek medal 21/4 - 27 (beat a 15 by 1)
Midweek medal 10/4 - 40!! ( won by 1 over a 19 handicap and a 7 hc by 3)

All other comps have been pairs/ team events etc so far, easing our way into the season.!

 

[wjemather]

We have divisions for monthly medals. However, it begs the question, if we need to set up divisions to protect lower handicappers from the big scores of high handicappers, how fair is the system? I always had a hunch that, for any system, maybe the initial handicap of any player should err on the lower side rather than higher side in comparison to the initial handicap of lower players.

We can't really have divisions for board competitions, because there is one main prize. It just is not fair to tell higher handicappers at the club that they are not eligible to win these, or at least have their full handicap allowance that WHS tells us is fair.

We have always had divisions for all regular comps - with the number of divisions (1, 2, or 3) based on number of entries - aside from ensuring one outlandish score doesn't affect the whole comp, it ensures a spread of the prize vouchers across the handicap range.

I've found no real difference in the number of higher handicaps coming in with unbeatable scores. Less than 5 have triggered an ESR in more than twenty comps so far, which is comparable with how it was under CONGU UHS (even though we had a comp limit of 28 previously). Interestingly, a couple of the best scores have been from players with indexes below 18. There have been more players kneecapped with indexes far lower than their ability due to one (lucky) good score as they build up their records - some have found this quite disheartening.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

We could, but you are then alienating any members, who pay the same annual subscription, from winning big competitions. I know another local club did this, and it went down really badly.

We are trying to build participation in competitions, so are trying to be as inclusive as possible. We want to be as welcoming to a 30+ handicapper as we are to a 0 handicapper. It is just that the system is incredibly generous to high handicappers. As per my previous post, all 9 competitions have been won by high handicappers, most with very good scores. I'm not bothered if it happens once in a while, and maybe it is just a massive coincidence that it has happened at our place for 9 out of 9 comps. But, would be interested to see what happens at other clubs

We limit our board comps to max 18, however, we have had this in place pre-WHS. Run as 2 Comps in one and 2 “Winners” prizes given out.

 

[Foxholer]

Well, I've been playing in competitions for 16 years now, and today we had our first ever player to score 7 points on a hole. Eagled a par 5 and had 3 shots on the hole.

It is interesting to see the course handicaps player have who have won competitions since we returned from lockdown. They are:

27 (36 points)
39 (47 points)
29 (Nett 64)
24 (Nett 62)
28 (Nett 66)
18 (Nett 70)
27 (Nett 68)
42 (44 points)
39 (46 points)

So, the average course handicap of competition winners in the 9 comps so far is 30.3 (an index of around 25.8), with some big scores. To put that in perspective, we have very few players at all with a course handicap over 30 (third last comp of 32 players there were none). Winners have generally been new members who handed in 3 bad cards for initial handicap, but are now much better than they were when they started. WHS seems to be incredibly generous awarding initial handicaps to higher handicap players. After all, it takes the best score differential and then subtracts 2.0. However, subtracting 2.0 whose best card was level par has a significantly higher impact on them than it does on subtracting 2.0 whose best card was 30 over. We have just given a first handicap to a chap whose 3 adjusted gross scores were 117, 123 and 113. His Index is 38.2, and course handicap 45. I dread to think what score he could get in competition once he practices a bit.

In my opinion, the system seems to be a bit of a joke when you talk about fairness. Most of the low handicappers at our club (by low, I mean anyone pretty much under 20) do not see fairness in any way, shape or form. I'd like to think it will settle down when these new player handicaps settle down. But, there will always be new players to the game. I would have thought the initial handicap awarded could be a bit more punishing the higher the scores a player submitted, rather than just a blanket -2.0 subtraction.

It was always likely that high cappers were going to be favoured for a while - though likely not the same ones each time. I'm sure it'll settle down once the 'last 20' list is for WHS rounds only.
And there's a few 'reasonable' scores in there that wouldn't be out of place as winning but not 'outstanding' ones in comps in 'the old' system.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Yep agreed, played on Wednesday got 33 points didn't think much about it. Had a look before i went out last night for our 1st round 4BBB KO and i had dropped 0.1 and put me in the next band below losing a shot. Lucky i checked!

We use IG - for all matchplay club comps I have entered I am are presented with a link to my matches and for any match a link to shots given/received for the match. This is up to date and HI includes any Q comps played the previous day. No need for me to work out anything.

 

[Swango1980]

We limit our board comps to max 18, however, we have had this in place pre-WHS. Run as 2 Comps in one and 2 “Winners” prizes given out.

It is interesting. Most of our competitive members are 0-20ish course handicap. We still have a fair few in the 20's, several who are regular competitors (and with "fair" handicaps). It seems harsh on them to ban them from winning a board comp just because new golfers can come in with ridiculously higher handicaps that can be highly improved on.

I'd love to see something like an initial handicap calculation that would do the following based on the players lowest score diff:

0-5: -1.0
6-10: -2.0
11-15: -3.0
16-20: -4.0
21-25: -5.0
26-30: -6.0
31-35: -7.0
36-40: -8.0
41-45: -9.0
46-54: -10.0

Those are just a general guide I've thought about quickly, but you get the picture. As the player starts handing in more cards, these subtractions become smaller, until they move towards their 20 scores. I just think it would really help protect the field much better from new golfers, whilst new golfers can still find their way much more fairly to their "appropriate" handicap as they submit more scores.

 

[2blue]

We have divisions for monthly medals. However, it begs the question, if we need to set up divisions to protect lower handicappers from the big scores of high handicappers, how fair is the system? I always had a hunch that, for any system, maybe the initial handicap of any player should err on the lower side rather than higher side in comparison to the initial handicap of lower players.

We can't really have divisions for board competitions, because there is one main prize. It just is not fair to tell higher handicappers at the club that they are not eligible to win these, or at least have their full handicap allowance that WHS tells us is fair.

We have Divisions for all Regular Comps & for 'Board Comps" but to win the latter you must have played 5 Comps in the past 12 months, however, if not can still win the money.

 

[doublebogey7]

Well, I've been playing in competitions for 16 years now, and today we had our first ever player to score 7 points on a hole. Eagled a par 5 and had 3 shots on the hole.

It is interesting to see the course handicaps player have who have won competitions since we returned from lockdown. They are:

27 (36 points)
39 (47 points)
29 (Nett 64)
24 (Nett 62)
28 (Nett 66)
18 (Nett 70)
27 (Nett 68)
42 (44 points)
39 (46 points)

So, the average course handicap of competition winners in the 9 comps so far is 30.3 (an index of around 25.8), with some big scores. To put that in perspective, we have very few players at all with a course handicap over 30 (third last comp of 32 players there were none). Winners have generally been new members who handed in 3 bad cards for initial handicap, but are now much better than they were when they started. WHS seems to be incredibly generous awarding initial handicaps to higher handicap players. After all, it takes the best score differential and then subtracts 2.0. However, subtracting 2.0 whose best card was level par has a significantly higher impact on them than it does on subtracting 2.0 whose best card was 30 over. We have just given a first handicap to a chap whose 3 adjusted gross scores were 117, 123 and 113. His Index is 38.2, and course handicap 45. I dread to think what score he could get in competition once he practices a bit.

In my opinion, the system seems to be a bit of a joke when you talk about fairness. Most of the low handicappers at our club (by low, I mean anyone pretty much under 20) do not see fairness in any way, shape or form. I'd like to think it will settle down when these new player handicaps settle down. But, there will always be new players to the game. I would have thought the initial handicap awarded could be a bit more punishing the higher the scores a player submitted, rather than just a blanket -2.0 subtraction.

Unfortunately the introduction of WHS has co-incided with Covid and many more novices coming to the game. Not at all a bad thing in itself but it has highlighted the problem with any handicap system as players new to the game will always improve quicker than those of us with significantly more experince. I am less than convinced hat divisions are the best way to manage this issue as it would more severly impact those genuine old timers with higher handicaps. You could cap competition ha

 

[Swango1980]

Unfortunately the introduction of WHS has co-incided with Covid and many more novices coming to the game. Not at all a bad thing in itself but it has highlighted the problem with any handicap system as players new to the game will always improve quicker than those of us with significantly more experince. I am less than convinced hat divisions are the best way to manage this issue as it would more severly impact those genuine old timers with higher handicaps. You could cap competition ha

Yeah, it is why I think the idea in my post 2988 would help. It would provide another layer of protection from new golfers with higher handicaps, and diverge to a more appropriate handicap as they hand in more scores.

 

[Old Skier]

I’m not sure why for normal Q comps that divisions aren’t used, ISVs provide the easy option for this, takes the sting out of it when a high handicapper comes in with a good score and gives the lower handicapped player the chance of being amongst the winners especially when you have reasonably sized fields.

 

[rulefan]

Winners have generally been new members who handed in 3 bad cards for initial handicap, but are now much better than they were when they started. WHS seems to be incredibly generous awarding initial handicaps to higher handicap players. After all, it takes the best score differential and then subtracts 2.0. However, subtracting 2.0 whose best card was level par has a significantly higher impact on them than it does on subtracting 2.0 whose best card was 30 over. We have just given a first handicap to a chap whose 3 adjusted gross scores were 117, 123 and 113. His Index is 38.2, and course handicap 45. I dread to think what score he could get in competition once he practices a bit.

In my opinion, the system seems to be a bit of a joke when you talk about fairness. Most of the low handicappers at our club (by low, I mean anyone pretty much under 20) do not see fairness in any way, shape or form. I'd like to think it will settle down when these new player handicaps settle down. But, there will always be new players to the game. I would have thought the initial handicap awarded could be a bit more punishing the higher the scores a player submitted, rather than just a blanket -2.0 subtraction.

Have you compared these initial WHS handicap allocations with what would have been allocated under CONGU?
Have you looked at 5.2a to see the difference in the effect of good scores in a player's early days?

 

[Voyager EMH]

We could, but you are then alienating any members, who pay the same annual subscription, from winning big competitions. I know another local club did this, and it went down really badly.

We are trying to build participation in competitions, so are trying to be as inclusive as possible. We want to be as welcoming to a 30+ handicapper as we are to a 0 handicapper. It is just that the system is incredibly generous to high handicappers. As per my previous post, all 9 competitions have been won by high handicappers, most with very good scores. I'm not bothered if it happens once in a while, and maybe it is just a massive coincidence that it has happened at our place for 9 out of 9 comps. But, would be interested to see what happens at other clubs [/QUOTE]
We've had four weekday weekly stablefords and one board comp medal.
Playing Handicaps are quoted for the winners.
41 points off 25
39 points off 12
40 points off 9
90 - 22 = 68
38 points off 4. (This was me yesterday, whoopee!)

So a fairly normal spread so far I think. Fair play to the 22 handicapper - he had two pars and a birdie 2 - nothing worse than a double bogey. In that medal I was the only single figure handicapper in the nett 68 to 71 range. In the nett 72 to 74 range, half were single figures. Over 150 entrants total.

 

[Swango1980]

Have you compared these initial WHS handicap allocations with what would have been allocated under CONGU?
Have you looked at 5.2a to see the difference in the effect of good scores in a player's early days?

I hadn't time to go into that level of detail. But, I accept there was an issue before WHS, I just don't have the comparison to see which was worse.

However, we constantly talk about handicaps being there to promote fairness. Yet, pre and post WHS we have had clubs putting handicap limits on comps, breaking into divisions and having entry requirements to stop new golfers from winning unless they had played a minimum number of comps previously. All of those to stop high handicappers, especially new golfers, from winning an UNFAIR amount of competitions.

So, there is a huge flaw right there. Stands out like a sore thumb. As I mentioned in a previous post, there could be a way to largely mitigate this within the handicap system itself, by heavier subtraction on early indices that become less and less as the player hands in more and more scores.

As mentioned by someone previously, this had probably been exacerbated by the influx of new members after lockdowns. But, we will always have new golfers. So, until the handicapping authorities address this properly, we will always rely on competition secretaries to apply all sorts of conditions on competitions to protect us against this problem

 

[rulefan]

As I mentioned in a previous post, there could be a way to largely mitigate this within the handicap system itself, by heavier subtraction on early indices that become less and less as the player hands in more and more scores.

Isn't that what the table in 5.2a does? And if that isn't enough you can resort to 5.2a/2.

 

[Swango1980]

Isn't that what the table in 5.2a does? And if that isn't enough you can resort to 5.2a/2.

No, as I mentioned in a previous post, Table 5.2a subtracts 2.0 from the best score when a player has submitted 3 scores. That is a big cut if the players best score is level par, and it is a very small cut if the players best score is 30 over par.

I think they should have graded that, so a smaller subtraction if the players best score provided them with a fairly small initial index, but a much bigger subtraction if they were initially to be given a high index. Surely 5.2a/2 is not relevant, as that looks to suggest INCREASING the players index if their next few scores are higher than their first 3.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Very informative posts from rulefan and Swango 1980. Thank you both. There is clearly a lot more for me to look at and learn.

 

[rulefan]

Surely 5.2a/2 is not relevant, as that looks to suggest INCREASING the players index if their next few scores are higher than their first 3.

5.2a/2 is concerned with any scores that are 'Significantly Different Than Expected'. They can be better or worse.

 

[Swango1980]

5.2a/2 is concerned with any scores that are 'Significantly Different Than Expected'. They can be better or worse.

If they are BETTER, the damage is already done. Handicap secretary could chop them, but they've already won the competition with a massive score. Besides, will many handicap secs give extra cuts beyond the systems Exceptional score reduction, and the fact it is supposed to adapt quickly to the good scores that come in, especially early on in a player's record?

My thoughts were the system could have protection against that BEFORE the new high handicapper wins with a massive score