Change to whs ?

[Backsticks]

Not putting a card in isn't a manipulation. Much like players who chose not to play in a medal in windy conditions etc

If they are basing their decision on the wind and its challenge to their score, then they are manipulating their handicap, clearly. It depends on the motivation, which we will never know. They might defend themselves by saying PCC corrects for those who do play, so all remains equitable.

 

[jamielaing]

Who expects you to submit every score?

I mean those that think people should, not an official expectation.

 

[doublebogey7]

One of the important points is that the R&A are not responsible for the WHS. England golf, Scotland golf etc are. Although I would expect they are kept 'in the loop'.

The Rules of Handicapping were written jointly by The R&A and the USGA and they remain jointly reasonable for maintaining them. The National Associations have responsibility for their implementation.

 

[Swango1980]

I mean those that think people should, not an official expectation.

For those people that think that, they better be careful what they wish for. As said, not every player always go out in a social round and plays under the complete rules of golf for stroke play, and many times a player will practice shots they wouldn't dream off if they were trying to shoot their best score in a competition. Also, my mate has an App on his phone that randomly selects a golf club, for the purpose of the player having to use that club for their next shot. We were going to try that out one day, but I cannot imagine it would be appropriate for our handicap record

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It would be dead easy for me to mess things up by my play in order to increase my HI - and that could just look like careless putting adding 4 or 5 strokes to a round; but to get my HI down I have to either play well or 'cheat' - or both.

But in truth though both forms of manipulations are cheating, for me the issues resulting from a manipulated increase in a HI are much more important than if a HI is manipulated down. The latter seems largely the players vanity project.

 

[Crow]

It would be dead easy for me to mess things up by my play in order to increase my HI - and that could just look like careless putting adding 4 or 5 strokes to a round; but to get my HI down I have to either play well or 'cheat' - or both.

But in truth though both forms of manipulations are cheating, for me the issues resulting from a manipulated increase in a HI are much more important than if a HI is manipulated down. The latter seems largely the players vanity project.

Not if it's getting the cheat into a balloted competition to the detriment of a better golfer with a "genuine" but higher handicap.

 

[Neilds]

You do realise I was there? Had he submitted a general play score, he actually would have been cut (just for that round), and I've no idea how many other general play rounds he had that attitude. He hadn't submitted any anyway for quite a while, but had been playing very well. He won the first competition on countback. So, I can categorically say he actually did end up winning the competition as a result of not submitting a general play score.

And, that was his right, so I cannot complain. However, when a player decides whether they choose to register a general play score or not based on the probable outcome, then it is a subtle way of manipulating handicap. There will be players who will submit scores if it is likely it will result in an increase (losing good scores), but choose not to if they are losing bad scores, and a good score will result in a cut.

Slightly different story to what you hinted. Winning on countable when you made out he walked away with the comp by having a much higher handicap ?

 

[Swango1980]

Slightly different story to what you hinted. Winning on countable when you made out he walked away with the comp by having a much higher handicap ?

You need to read my original post again. At no point whatsoever did I say he walked away with the competition, or had a massively inflated handicap. I simply said he elected to not submit a general score as it could have reduced his handicap, and the week after won the competition, you've obviously jumped to the wrong conclusion as to how that competition was won. My main point was simply that it was a subtle form of handicap manipulation, a form that is not exactly in direct conflict with the Rules of Handicapping.

 

[KenL]

Is handicapping in Scotland not under control of SG and not to do with R&A who look after rules.

 

[KenL]

Could it be that this is largely going to be for Cat 1:golfers?
As a mid- high handicapper I don't do general play scores anyway. It doesn't really suit how I play golf far to much faff.

What is a cat 1 golfer?

 

[rulefan]

Is handicapping in Scotland not under control of SG and not to do with R&A who look after rules.

See post #43

 

[Backache]

What is a cat 1 golfer?

Old style cat 1, handicap ,< 5

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Not if it's getting the cheat into a balloted competition to the detriment of a better golfer with a "genuine" but higher handicap.

I appreciate that of course. Just feels to me that cheating by deliberately messing up a round seems 'less' of a cheat that cheating through rule breaking, deceit and dishonesty. And I know they are both cheating.

 

[Backsticks]

I appreciate that of course. Just feels to me that cheating by deliberately messing up a round seems 'less' of a cheat that cheating through rule breaking, deceit and dishonesty. And I know they are both cheating.

I guess you are placing breaching the core rules of the game of golf as a greater crime than cheating the world of competitions access or prizes ? I think most would agree. A first degree, second degree murder sort of thing.

 

[RRidges]

Don't know if this has been discussed before but a strong rumour coming out (from a member of a St.Andrews club who is good friends with an 'ITK' R&A member) is a change is being considered in that of the 8 best counting rounds from 20 a maximum if 2 can be from General Play rounds. For me personally who traditionally scores lower in 'bounce' gp games than in medals it would increase my current hi by 1.0 from 4.8 to 5.8, if gp scores were to be removed completely my hi would increase to 7.9
Talk is that it's being considered due to the increasing number of + and scratch h'caps, makes sense in our club anyway where we now have a lot more folk with these h'caps than before, many of them would never have got that low pre whs

Seems a daft idea to me. It would mean that it was no longer a World Handicap System, at least for me.
Better to find out for sure why there are more Scratch or better players. As the ability to enter scores has increased, that's likely part of the reason. Clubs that want to restrict Open entries to a certain number simply need to adjust the figure down and continue to ballot out and adjust if still oversubscribed.

 

[Backsticks]

1. It has never been a World handicap system. It has many flavours since its launch 8n different countries. It is world system only in that it is different in different parts of the world.
2. It was always known that there would be more 0 and plus handicaps than with UHS. It was the expeience with the distribution of US handicaps under their old variant of what was very close to WHS anyway, and from the modelling.

 

[Jigger]

WHS is open to abuse and has been proved by dodgy general play submitted.
Not my club, but I’ve heard of people increasing their handicap in time for Open competition’s.
It’s disgraceful and I no time for individuals like that

You hear that at every club despite the system. I think it’s easy for those not winning to say it goes on without any real evidence of it happening at times. However, the flip side of that is that I've attended a few masters stableford comps, as have a few others I’ve spoken too and the general consensus is the top teams are cheating in one way or another.

 

[rulefan]

1. It has never been a World handicap system. It has many flavours since its launch 8n different countries. It is world system only in that it is different in different parts of the world.
2. It was always known that there would be more 0 and plus handicaps than with UHS. It was the expeience with the distribution of US handicaps under their old variant of what was very close to WHS anyway, and from the modelling.

It is a World system in that all the major elements and calculations produce the same comparable handicap index. This has never been true before. The differences (rounding, cr-par, 9 hole scores) have a trivial effect on the result.

I am surprised you say there are more 0 and plus handicaps. Where has this been reported? WHS aims to give a measure of current ability; UHS was intended to indicate potential ability.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

It is a World system in that all the major elements and calculations produce the same comparable handicap index. This has never been true before. The differences (rounding, cr-par, 9 hole scores) have a trivial effect on the result.

I am surprised you say there are more 0 and plus handicaps. Where has this been reported? WHS aims to give a measure of current ability; UHS was intended to indicate potential ability.

Last sentence if anything I would argue the reverse is true, most low handicappers I know are lower post WHS introduction then pre.

 

[Crazyface]

Could it be that this is largely going to be for Cat 1:golfers?
As a mid- high handicapper I don't do general play scores anyway. It doesn't really suit how I play golf far to much faff.

Really? I enter a score for almost every round I play. Its dead easy.