95% - why?

Joined
Mar 26, 2021
Messages
52
It would be interesting to see a similar table after 4 seasons of WHS. CONGU did no favours for older high handicappers only getting 0.1 when they progressively got older and played over their buffer every time.
Continuous Handicap Review was supposed to address the declining player - our h/c comm had 2 x cat 1 members, 3 x borderline cat 1/cat 2 members, 3 x cat 2 members and 1 cat 3 member. Trying to float any discussion about giving a lift was an uphill struggle.
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
9,981
Continuous Handicap Review was supposed to address the declining player - our h/c comm had 2 x cat 1 members, 3 x borderline cat 1/cat 2 members, 3 x cat 2 members and 1 cat 3 member. Trying to float any discussion about giving a lift was an uphill struggle.
The problem was/is that many of these players stopped playing comps or only played in 1 or 2 seniors events, so never got 7 continuous 0.1s since the Continuous Review was introduced.
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2021
Messages
52
The problem was/is that many of these players stopped playing comps or only played in 1 or 2 seniors events, so never got 7 continuous 0.1s since the Continuous Review was introduced.
I was more concerned with those who played almost every comp and were in handicap freefall. As you say, it was a slow painful death at 0.1 per round.
 

2blue

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
3,324
Location
Leeds,
The problem was/is that many of these players stopped playing comps or only played in 1 or 2 seniors events, so never got 7 continuous 0.1s since the Continuous Review was introduced.
We experienced much the same..... they did very little to help themselves by giving us the data to work on. WHS is IMO providing great progress in addressing this kind of thing. I'm currently injured & our course, as well as many others is playing extremely difficult. My 13 Q rounds have shifted me from 10.1 to 13.1 with 3 of those rounds counting in my 8. WHS is very reflective & quick to do so. The problems with initial H/caps ha been there for quite some time. Clubs need to address this through their Comp T's & C's
 

2blue

Journeyman Pro
Joined
Feb 4, 2012
Messages
3,324
Location
Leeds,
I was more concerned with those who played almost every comp and were in handicap freefall. As you say, it was a slow painful death at 0.1 per round.
BUT.... if they didn't get their 7 continuous they weren't exactly in freefall. We had a number of thgose.
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
9,981
I was more concerned with those who played almost every comp and were in handicap freefall. As you say, it was a slow painful death at 0.1 per round.
If they had been playing regularly since Jan 2018 the WHS transition would/should have recalculated their scores under the WHS formula and they would be ok now.
 

jim8flog

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
9,192
Location
Yeovil
If they had been playing regularly since Jan 2018 the WHS transition would/should have recalculated their scores under the WHS formula and they would be ok now.
One of the discussions I was having yesterday was with someone who does not like the new system I think he now does as I made him realise that having gone from 14 to 27 (through many years) it is something that could only have happened with a handicap review under the UHS.

We used to see around 20- 30 players on the list each quarter when doing the Continuous Review and about a third of those were given an increase but in my view the increase was never really high enough in some cases.
 

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
2,192
One of the discussions I was having yesterday was with someone who does not like the new system I think he now does as I made him realise that having gone from 14 to 27 (through many years) it is something that could only have happened with a handicap review under the UHS.

We used to see around 20- 30 players on the list each quarter when doing the Continuous Review and about a third of those were given an increase but in my view the increase was never really high enough in some cases.
I guess that was very dependent on the people running the review. I know the guidance suggested not to increase the handicap if the player had played within buffer in the last year (from memory). However, this seemed harsh, as it could be very clear that a player has had a run of terrible form for several months, and submitted a good few scores. So, we would increase player handicaps, and sometimes by a reasonable amount. My starting point was to take their best score over a reasonable period of time / scores, work out what their initial handicap calculation would be from that score if they were a new golfer, and then bring this to Committee to discuss. This was done every 4-6 weeks. It worked really well, and it ensured that players who were languishing at the bottom of the leaderboard on 20 odd points every week, started to break into 30's and then pushing towards playing to and beating handicap on occasion.

Personally, I think part of the issue was that previous handicap secs, especially those on Seniors side, historically cut winners of competitions an extra shot or 2, even if they won with a nett score over SSS. That, and declining ability, meant there were quite a few members with handicaps that were too low.
 

wjemather

Active member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
278
Location
Bristol
I guess that was very dependent on the people running the review. I know the guidance suggested not to increase the handicap if the player had played within buffer in the last year (from memory). However, this seemed harsh, as it could be very clear that a player has had a run of terrible form for several months, and submitted a good few scores. So, we would increase player handicaps, and sometimes by a reasonable amount. My starting point was to take their best score over a reasonable period of time / scores, work out what their initial handicap calculation would be from that score if they were a new golfer, and then bring this to Committee to discuss. This was done every 4-6 weeks. It worked really well, and it ensured that players who were languishing at the bottom of the leaderboard on 20 odd points every week, started to break into 30's and then pushing towards playing to and beating handicap on occasion.

Personally, I think part of the issue was that previous handicap secs, especially those on Seniors side, historically cut winners of competitions an extra shot or 2, even if they won with a nett score over SSS. That, and declining ability, meant there were quite a few members with handicaps that were too low.
Due to general declining ability among seniors, we would very often find CSS increasing in their competitions when the very few capable ones were absent or failed to perform. This resulted in most seniors having handicaps lower than they should, with more of them making buffer and not getting increases. Ladies competitions were similarly afflicted. Now, with all scores taken into account for PCC (which is less likely to be non-zero anyway), that should not happen.
 
Joined
Mar 9, 2017
Messages
74
Location
West Sussex
I posted in another thread that a new member at our club (well, a returning member from 2018) has been given a handicap index which led to him playing in his 1st comp (medal) off +5 playing handicap...

Based on 5 or so cards on his WHS page, the best being a 67 (-3), but 3 years ago..

He had Net 80. 30C653DC-1A14-4930-BF96-BD661D16BFF5.jpeg
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
9,981
One of the discussions I was having yesterday was with someone who does not like the new system I think he now does as I made him realise that having gone from 14 to 27 (through many years) it is something that could only have happened with a handicap review under the UHS.

We used to see around 20- 30 players on the list each quarter when doing the Continuous Review and about a third of those were given an increase but in my view the increase was never really high enough in some cases.
A further quirk we found on transition was that a number of seniors had followed EG advice to get supplementary scores in. They did but they were over 9 holes. The WHS transition ignored them as 9 hole CR and SR values were not available.
One player ended up only having two counting scores and a dummy score. As soon as he returns a card his Index will come down by 2.0 !!!
 

jim8flog

Journeyman Pro
Joined
May 20, 2017
Messages
9,192
Location
Yeovil
I posted in another thread that a new member at our club (well, a returning member from 2018) has been given a handicap index which led to him playing in his 1st comp (medal) off +5 playing handicap...

Based on 5 or so cards on his WHS page, the best being a 67 (-3), but 3 years ago..

He had Net 80. View attachment 36470

Those scores from 2018 will continue to count until he gets another 18 cards in. He'd better get moving.
 

wjemather

Active member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
278
Location
Bristol
A further quirk we found on transition was that a number of seniors had followed EG advice to get supplementary scores in. They did but they were over 9 holes. The WHS transition ignored them as 9 hole CR and SR values were not available.
One player ended up only having two counting scores and a dummy score. As soon as he returns a card his Index will come down by 2.0 !!!
Also, the scaling-up process for 9-hole scores under UHS often resulted in scores better than would be the case under WHS, potentially making for lower handicaps that will take time to filter out.
 
Top