John Maclurcan talks on his Performance Handicap System
Performance Based Handicapping (PHS) Systems have been the back bone of club racing for ever. For years that meant that some dedicated volunteer within the Club took the role of “Club Handicapper” with responsibility for setting the handicaps based on subjective knowledge of the performance of the competitors. Today, with the advent of computers, the subjectivity has been removed and the facility to store data on a yacht’s performance from which the handicap can be derived is available. Sydney yachtsman John Maclurcan's pioneering work created the prototype for current PHS handicapping. Here, John replies to some of the most frequently asked questions about the system.
Where did the idea for your PHS System start?
The idea started when I first raced on my father’s yacht “Morag Bheag” in 1970 with the Sydney Amateur Sailing Club. The Club used “minutes” starts (they still do for their Classic Divisions) and I would calculate the elapsed times of the competitors mainly to rank our performance in the fleet and check whether we had beaten arch rival “Eventide” owned by Bill Merrington around the course.
When did you first apply your ideas?
My first involvement with club handicapping came when I was appointed to the Offshore Committee of the Royal Sydney Yacht Squadron in 1979 and at the first meeting I attended, the only item on the Agenda was to provide handicaps for the Gascoigne Cup. Up to that time, the handicaps were determined arbitrarily by the Sailing Secretary and the Committee but they welcomed my intervention with data I had been collecting on the Offshore Fleets.
What is the underlying principle of the PHS System?
The underlying principle of PHS is that the best measure of a yacht’s performance, taking into account every factor is the elapsed time of the yacht relative to the elapsed time of all other yachts in the same event. There is a philosophical principle too: if a competitor obtains the relevant safety certificate and pays the entry fee, then he should be eligible to win an event. Note that this does not include any statement about the ability of the competitor.
What are the inputs to the calculation of the handicap?
The elapsed time of the yacht is the primary input. A finish position is chosen as the benchmark position. e.g. 5th place on handicap. A Race TCF is calculated using simple division for each finisher so that if that TCF (Time Correction Factor) was used as the yacht’s handicap, every competitor would have the same corrected time as the benchmark position. The Race TCFs are stored in a record from which an average Race TCF is calculated and this becomes the handicap.
What are some of the variations available?
There is a trade off in PHS handicaps between movement and stability. If the number of Race TCFs used to calculate the average is large, (>6), then the stability of the handicap will be favoured. If the number of races is small (< 4), the handicap will fluctuate a lot. The number of Race TCFs chosen can be adapted for the event and I currently do this for many of the events around Sydney harbour which I handicap.
Another variable is position chosen as the benchmark. Some systems favour using the 4th place boat whatever the number in the fleet but I prefer to use a position closer to the middle of the fleet which therefore varies depending on the number of finishers.
Also, upper and lower limits can be applied to the generated Race TCFs to dampen the effects of large movements in the handicap. For example, if a Race TCF is generated which is say 10% higher than the yacht’s handicap, it can be limited to say 5% or even excluded from the stored record completely.
The rules which I apply have been the result of extensive testing over a long time and are not necessarily replicated by others who have copied my work.
How do you handle new entries for which no data is available?
Bogus Race TCFs are created for new entries based on a subjective view of what the starting handicap of the yacht should be. I developed a piece of logic which progressively replaces these TCFs with actual Race TCFs with the purpose of stabilising the handicap as quickly as possible. The subjective decision is based on the type of yacht, any previous racing record of the skipper, advice from the Organising Club etc. Feedback from competitors has made it loud and clear that they do not like new entries winning immediately, so if in doubt, I would prefer to err towards a too hard handicap than too generous.
Do you ever override data?
Yes, most often when a competitor declares a change to his yacht but sometimes if the system is not “catching up” quickly enough with a rapidly improving competitor. The Organising Clubs usually bring this to my attention.
You have developed a PHS Database. Can you tell us a bit about that?
The advent of the Internet has allowed me to gather race results from all over the country. I have set up dummy races for most of the clubs in Sydney and others and each week I process the results though my system to generate the handicaps. This has allowed me to build up a comprehensive data base on most of the yachts racing in NSW and some interstate competitors too. I run 4 data bases – winter, summer inshore, short offshore and long offshore. The different data bases reflect the different conditions; for example, short ocean racing favours yacht which are good to windward and long ocean racing favours larger yachts good at reaching.
If we sail our boat well enough to win races early in the season, will this result in us being "handicapped out of it" for the later races?
No. Remember, the system is a moving average. Each week, as a Race TCF is added to the record, another one is removed. If the system uses 6 Race TCFs to calculate the handicap, then after 7 races, the TCF will go. In other words, if you are no longer winning, your handicap will go down as well as go up eventually. Consistency is the key.
Is it true that the best idea is not to win but to finish fourth in as many races as possible over the season, as this will result in less modification to our TCF and more chance of winning the series?
If continually coming 4th implies consistency, then yes, it can help you win a series. This idea has evolved from superseded systems which only penalised 1st, 2nd and 3rd. However, don’t forget the handicaps of all competitors are revised under PHS and if there are 20 boats in the fleet and the benchmark is, say the 8th position, then the handicap of the 4th boat will inevitably rise. Remember that a competitor can win a race and actually have a reduction in his handicap. I’ll leave you to think about why this is possible.
Does the PHS system favour all-round boats over light air or heavy air flyers?
I would say yes but then it can depend on the event. For example, the CYCA Winter series definitely favours light weather performers. The PHS is no different to any other handicapping system in its inability to handle extreme performance because it provides one TCF for all conditions. Extremes in performance will always either have a big advantage or be behind the 8 ball depending on the conditions. The Sports Boats are a good example of this and in the CYCA Winter fleet, an enormous amount of thought is put into allocating yachts to their respective Divisions to try and match boats with similar performance across the wind range. IMS was a system which tried to address this problem but it was almost impossible to administer.
At the club level, with an enormous variety of yachts competing, I also think it is important that “every dog has his day”. In other words, if I have a light weather flier, then I have an expectation that in light airs, I will get a good result. If I don’t have this expectation, then I will eventually give up racing.
What is the hardest event you handicap?
Undoubtedly, the CYCA Winter Series: the CYCA run Minutes starts, just like the Sydney Amateurs and the conversion from TCF’s to Minutes is time consuming and tricky. Also, the winter weather is lousy with either a gale or a drift. The challenge is not to have the handicaps jump around too much particularly when there is no wind at the start and the handicaps become irrelevant.
What are the best results you have ever obtained?
The PHS system favours consistency. The Sydney Etchell fleet is a high quality consistent fleet and week after week they get very close results on handicap. The CYCA have introduced PHS results in the last 2 Rolex Cups and the results have been very close both for the individual races but best of all in the pointscores. Once again, a high quality fleet will always produce great results.
What are the weaknesses of the system?
Because PHS reflects directly the performance of the competitor, a mediocre competitor has a margin “to play with”, a greater margin than the really good competitor who is sailing much closer to his full potential. Therefore, I have witnessed mediocre competitors putting “heavies” on board for both individual events and complete series and thereby using that margin to their advantage. At the Royal Sydney Yacht Squadron, we have the provision in our Sailing Instructions that any modification to the vessel, increase in sail area, change of skipper or even change of onboard skill must be declared. This does not result in a lot of declarations but it does provide the competitor with an avenue for protest if an unfair advantage is perceived and a declaration has not been made.
Can you tell from the results when a boat gets some extra "talent" onboard for a race?
Yes, it often is very obvious from the data when extra “talent” is aboard. Whether anything is done about it is up to the Organising Club and the conditions of the Sailing Instructions. At least with the maintenance of the Data Base, I am endeavouring to store the most recent data on competitors and this helps.
Do I need to declare if I have bought new sails (or rig or faired the keel)?
It depends on the Sailing Instructions of the Organising Club. Personally, I believe it is fundamental to do so.
Are there any misconceptions about PHS you would like to skewer?
Yes, 2 in particular:
First, I have heard it said that PHS encourages mediocrity. This is rubbish. It “accommodates” mediocrity because it does not exclude any competitor from achieving a place simply because his ability is not as good as the next competitor. On the contrary, PHS encourages improvement simply because improved performance will always be rewarded in a good result. Also, because the system favours consistency and the most consistent performers are the best, these competitors win pointscores year in and year out with very very few exceptions. The good yachtsman may not win an individual race but he invariably wins the series!
Secondly, yachtsmen forget that the system means that they, in fact, handicap themselves. The logic is specifically designed to remove the subjectivity of that poor volunteer club man, the brunt of criticism for so long.
Being a handicapper for so long, you must have some favourite stories?
Over the years, I must say I have heard it all. Two favourite stories come to mind:
One was a letter from a competitor demanding that the handicaps of the non starters in an event be revised because his handicap had changed and theirs had not. I really could not accept amending a handicap for not starting!
The other was when a very prominent competitor baled up the staff of one of Sydney’s main Yacht Clubs demanding his handicap be revised. In desperation the jaded Sailing Secretary rang me and asked if I would speak to him. It should be noted that I work with the Clubs so I rarely deal directly with competitors, if only to retain my privacy (and sanity). I rang this gentleman’s office and was put through to a very officious secretary who said that her boss “was in a meeting”. I was asked, very arrogantly, who I was and what company I represented. I replied that I did not represent a company and was merely the Club Handicapper. “Putting you through” was the response. I learnt subsequently that neither the Queen, the Prime Minister nor the Pope could get through, but the Club Handicapper could! (I’m joking, of course)
Any final comments?
I believe that the advent of computer based PHS handicapping is a great development in the sport as evidenced by its adoption widely through the sailing community. It was never designed to compete with or replace measured rules such as IOR, IMS or IRC. For the truly competent and competitive sailor, one design is the only solution.
Finally, I am often told that being a handicapper is a thankless task. Not so for me. I have had overwhelming encouragement and support for my work for over 25 years and I hope it will continue for many years to come. The detractors are a very small minority.
Close Window »
|
