GM Article - Handicap System Ruining Comps for Low Handicaps

[SteveW86]

Couple of hooligans in that pic....

The cheek of it

 

[Deleted member 30522]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1805999153475956768

So the club have made a change and brought in best gross prizes for all comps

That does absolutely nothin to solve the issue with handicaps at all, the fact the club didn;t have a scratch prize already and have just brought one in is hardly cause for applause

 

[AussieKB]

I play every Wednesday with a group of guys (about 8 on a regular basis) where I give 7 to 24 shots, we always play in the competition a stableford but have a 4bbb between us.

Who ever draws me knows we will normally lose.

Yesterday our opponents had 11 three's and 2 four's in the round, my partner was overwhelmed and while I was under par for the first 7 holes we were still 2 down at that stage.

If I suggested that we had a gross prize, I would be laughed at, a few of the guys do comment that it is not fair, but still put their hand out to take my money with a smile on their face.

One guy in particular off a 28 handicap actually thinks he is a good golfer, takes on shots that Seve would not dream of, has at least 4 wipes but makes up for it with par's on holes he gets two shots on, not sure how I can compete with that.

I make the odd comment I only need to hole my second shot for an Eagle for a half, some of them get the joke.

 

[Imurg]

One guy in particular off a 28 handicap actually thinks he is a good golfer, takes on shots that Seve would not dream of, has at least 4 wipes but makes up for it with par's on holes he gets two shots on, not sure how I can compete with that.

Ah...so you took Fragger back to Oz with you......

 

[Crow]

Ah...so you took Fragger back to Oz with you......

Out of curiosity, what's the win percentage between the two of you in your games with Fragger?

 

[Imurg]

Out of curiosity, what's the win percentage between the two of you in your games with Fragger?

Honestly couldn't tell you Nick....I suspect its around 50:50, maybe leaning slightly my way purely because he's so damn inconsistent....
He beat me the other day, partly, due to a run on 13 points in 4 holes - 2 nett eagles, a nett birdie and a nett par....
Back to back 4 pointers is hard to beat...

 

[tobybarker]

Golfers have been winning singles stablefords with 40-odd points for as long as I can remember, going back several different versions of handicapping systems. Handicaps are achieved by past performances, not future ones. Guy is off 26, shoots 8 under handicap and gets cut. That’s how it works. How do you give a genuine 26 handicapper a handicap of 18 and tell him it’s because you might one day shoot 44 points off 26?

The current system is more reflective of form, especially if someone is in a bad run of form. No more waiting forever for a handicap to catch up.

Some clubs post their results in divisions, and some clubs pay a nominal prize for best gross on the day. There’s not much else that can be done.

How often should a scratch handicapper win a club comp? Not that I ever was off scratch but I’ve seen plenty of occasions when I’d need to shoot a course record to win. Equally, I’ve won plenty of times shooting 3-4 under handicap. Surely a scratch player is going to shoot 3 or 4 under a few times a year? Hell, they’ve had to shoot that to get to scratch.

It’s a non-story.

Not a reflection of form if the guy puts in one card a month at most, for example. Not sure what the solution

There probably is though, or not far from it. As has been mentioned, high handicappers have more fluctuation in their scores, and there are more of them, so it is always more likely that a high handicapper wins for those reasons. Low handicappers still win as well from time to time. But they have selective memories I guess, so if one particular low guy doesn't win for a while, and he sees high handicappers winning 4 weeks out of 5, he thinks it's a problem, despite the fact that 80% of the club members might be 'high handicappers' to him, in which case it would be about right.

Isn't this what the 95% is for? To try to equalize things? In my opinion 95 is too big a number for this.

 

[Radbourne2010]

The cheek of it

 

[Radbourne2010]

It’s a valid point. My club has seen a marked drop in Cat 1 golfers (of both sexes) playing handicap comps. That said, how many high handicappers bother playing Club Championship & other Scratch events?
One thing of note. Recently played an English Senior Strokeplay event near me. Turns out an increasing number of low handicap golfers were turned away due to the high number of non-comp General Play cards they have against their WHS h’cap.

 

[tobybarker]

Under the old system going from 9.4 to 9.5 exact handicap resulted in going from a playing handicap of 9 to 10.

Throwing in multiple bad scores under the WHS only has an effect if you have good scores waiting to fall off your record. Depending on the distribution of your good scores it is possible to put in several bad scores and it won't have any effect whatsoever.

Under the old UHS every bad score would see your exact handicap increase by 0.1.

Unfortunately there is opportunity to manipulate handicap via submitting bad scores in both systems.

The "system" was designed to work best when all who participate in it submit cards with the same approximate frequency. Sadly we don't. Does this mean the design of the system is bad or that it's implementation is?

 

[Alan Clifford]

Not a reflection of form if the guy puts in one card a month at most, for example. Not sure what the solution

Isn't this what the 95% is for? To try to equalize things? In my opinion 95 is too big a number for this.

The Wednesday competitions at my club in South Africa always seem to use 85%.

 

[tdc1]

Disclaimer: I live in the U.S. so I only have experience the WHS; almost all competitions I've entered have been match-play (rare stroke-play, never Stableford); and, the overwhelming majority are flighted based on handicap.

Also, this is my first post in any Golf Monthly forum and I am sincerely not trying to pick a fight or stir the pot.

With that said, I struggle to understand what appears to be widespread and vehement condemnation of the WHS as the root cause of low handicappers not being able to win weekly comps. Can someone give a brief overview of the old system (again, I only know what is now the WHS)? Can someone give a specific example of how the change has affected individual handicaps? Can someone explain why comps are not routinely flighted (e.g., not enough entrants; "tradition"; too much work; unverifiable HCP; etc.)?

Thanks.

 

[Alan Clifford]

Disclaimer: I live in the U.S. so I only have experience the WHS; almost all competitions I've entered have been match-play (rare stroke-play, never Stableford); and, the overwhelming majority are flighted based on handicap.

Also, this is my first post in any Golf Monthly forum and I am sincerely not trying to pick a fight or stir the pot.

With that said, I struggle to understand what appears to be widespread and vehement condemnation of the WHS as the root cause of low handicappers not being able to win weekly comps. Can someone give a brief overview of the old system (again, I only know what is now the WHS)? Can someone give a specific example of how the change has affected individual handicaps? Can someone explain why comps are not routinely flighted (e.g., not enough entrants; "tradition"; too much work; unverifiable HCP; etc.)?

Thanks.

Old system in England for a high handicapper like me;

Play 1 below handicap, handicap cut by 0.4, 2 below, 0.8 cut etc. Low handicappers would only cut by 0.1 rather than 0.4.

Play 1, 2 or 3 above handicap, no change (or was it 4 above, can't remember).

Play 4, 5, 6 or anything above, handicap goes up by 0.1

Only competitions counted for handicap adjustment.

So the effect was, if I had a really good game, say 4 under (which is possible for a high handicapper as we are not very consistent), it would take me playing not just badly, but really badly, in 16 competitions to regain my previous handicap. It was difficult to game the system.

Under WHS, or indeed in the previous US system where non-competition scores are included for handicap, dishonest people can fake bad scores with their mates and the good score soon drops out of the average handicap index.

It was a very brutal system. But handicap was supposed to reflect your potential, and if I scored four under then I had the potential to play well. An average does not reflect potential in my opinion, even without it being manipulated by the dishonest.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

It was a very brutal system. But handicap was supposed to reflect your potential, and if I scored four under then I had the potential to play well. An average does not reflect potential in my opinion, even without it being manipulated by the dishonest.

The problem with this was you could have a very lucky day. Hole a couple of long putts, chip in, bounce a couple off trees into the fairway instead of OB and shoot a really low score. You then got a handicap that wasn’t a true reflection of your ability.

 

[IanM]

The "system" was designed to work best when all who participate in it submit cards with the same approximate frequency. Sadly we don't. Does this mean the design of the system is bad or that it's implementation is?

Bit of both.

Some people play multiple rounds a week, some far fewer. So there's the first unrealistic expectation.

Peoples' behaviour and propensity to put in cards is wildly different. There's another.

The implementation messaging didn't hit home about putting I'm cards. It also varied greatly from club to club. There are still folk who don't seem to understand how they can go up after a good round! (I've made a placard saying, "what score has just rolled off?" )

The point above about high handicappers not entering scratch events is spot on.

They never have! So don't moan when low handicappers avoid handicap events. Although, I shocked if clubs are not using divisions

 

[tdc1]

Old system in England for a high handicapper like me;

Play 1 below handicap, handicap cut by 0.4, 2 below, 0.8 cut etc. Low handicappers would only cut by 0.1 rather than 0.4.

Play 1, 2 or 3 above handicap, no change (or was it 4 above, can't remember).

Play 4, 5, 6 or anything above, handicap goes up by 0.1

Only competitions counted for handicap adjustment.

So the effect was, if I had a really good game, say 4 under (which is possible for a high handicapper as we are not very consistent), it would take me playing not just badly, but really badly, in 16 competitions to regain my previous handicap. It was difficult to game the system.

Under WHS, or indeed in the previous US system where non-competition scores are included for handicap, dishonest people can fake bad scores with their mates and the good score soon drops out of the average handicap index.

It was a very brutal system. But handicap was supposed to reflect your potential, and if I scored four under then I had the potential to play well. An average does not reflect potential in my opinion, even without it being manipulated by the dishonest.

Thanks for the info -- it helps my understanding a little bit. I have a membership at a golf course but I do not belong to a golf "club" so some of the issues I've been reading about are foreign to me. Sandbaggers will exist as long as their enablers are willing. My experience with the lowest (best) 8 scoring differentials being used to calculate hcp index has been generally positive but then I tend to know most of the people I am playing with well. We keep and post our scores which are publicly available (I usually won't play a match against anyone I don't know except for fun).

 

[Alan Clifford]

The problem with this was you could have a very lucky day. Hole a couple of long putts, chip in, bounce a couple off trees into the fairway instead of OB and shoot a really low score. You then got a handicap that wasn’t a true reflection of your ability.

I did say it was brutal

 

[Alan Clifford]

Interesting bit in the current Handicaps Network Africa newsletter today. My highlighting.

You will notice that each player has a Registered Round Percentage listed on their profile. In summary, this indicates how many of a golfer’s last 20 scores were opened before play started. Rounds not opened before play will be considered non-registered rounds and will affect the percentage negatively.

A requirement of the World Handicap System™ and in terms of the Golf RSA Rules of Handicapping, golfers are obliged to ensure a round is opened before play.

To make sure a round is opened before play, some clubs have the ability to do this for you via their point of sale systems. Alternatively, the player can open a round for themselves via the phone apps or terminals situated at the club.

While this percentage has no effect on the player's Handicap Index®, some club competition organizers only allow players with a minimum percentage (normally 75-80%) to compete in their competitions.

 

[Whereditgo]

Received an email from the club stating that all GP rounds for handicap at our club must be pre-registered on the terminal before play and include the attesters name. Not that we have a problem with handicap manipulation, but to bring our system in line with England Golf handicapping requirements.

 

[wjemather]

Interesting bit in the current Handicaps Network Africa newsletter today. My highlighting.

This local guidance seems somewhat contradictory as it could encourage players not to submit scores if they forget to open the round before play, which would then see them contravene rule 1.3(i), which states that all acceptable scores should be submitted.

Seems to me that GolfRSA need to decide whether there want pre-registration or whether they want all scores to be submitted.