Handicap Committee / Club Secretary

[Swango1980]

Absolute rubbish. Such issues with initial handicaps are no different from any other handicap system we've had; indeed for most, there is little difference from the initial handicaps that would have been allocated under UHS. However, WHS will quickly resolve itself (if left alone) whereas older systems relied on the intervention (and often guesswork) of volunteers.

Any mitigation means penalising new players (protecting established players) by either giving them unrealistically low initial handicaps to stop them being competitive, or requiring a greater number of scores and therefore preventing them from playing comps altogether.

If you feel like using that tone, I'll just fire it back at you. Absolute rubbish.

I never said any other system did it better. I said it could be mitigated. You can't say the new handicapper has an unrealistically low handicap. With only 3 cards submitted, you have no evidence for this. Tou have no idea either way. In my opinion, better to give them an unrealistically low than high handicap . The post I replied to.the player was clearly given an unrealistically high handicap. This was also the case in many many instances at my old club.

At any rate, the system already subtracted 2.0 from the initial.best score. So my your argument, WHS is already absolutely rubbish. What evidence to.they have to subtract 2.0? I'll give an answer, it is already to try and mitigate to an extent the fact only 3 scores have been submitted. However, subtracting 2.0 whose best diff was 5.0 and subtracting from someone whose best differential was 40.0 is not the same level of protection.

I've posted my thoughts on how this could be resolved before, so won't do again. However, it appears that you defend 100% anything WHS does, so I can only imagine you think it is the perfect system right from the start? I like to remain open minded that it will be tweaked over the years to improve it. Just like the old system

 

[Swango1980]

When there are so few scores on a players record, one low score can cause a huge reduction in Handicap Index because only the lowest score is being used to calculate the index; there needs to be well over ten scores before the averaging begins to have a noticeable effect in smoothing out these big decreases.

Or, what he is suggesting, the player can get huge wins in his first few competitions, before their Index starts to smooth

As I said, if he thinks this is the perfect system, other competitors should just grin and bear it.

 

[Swango1980]

Recently a member at my club was cut 11 shots (yes 11) by the handicap secretary, after an exceptional round. Player puts in cards regularl. Apparently there is some kind of formula they are applying. They are under the impression that they can do what they like.

Ask them to show you were that formula is published

 

[wjemather]

If you feel like using that tone, I'll just fire it back at you. Absolute rubbish.

I never said any other system did it better. I said it could be mitigated. You can't say the new handicapper has an unrealistically low handicap. With only 3 cards submitted, you have no evidence for this. Tou have no idea either way. In my opinion, better to give them an unrealistically low than high handicap . The post I replied to.the player was clearly given an unrealistically high handicap. This was also the case in many many instances at my old club.

At any rate, the system already subtracted 2.0 from the initial.best score. So my your argument, WHS is already absolutely rubbish. What evidence to.they have to subtract 2.0? I'll give an answer, it is already to try and mitigate to an extent the fact only 3 scores have been submitted. However, subtracting 2.0 whose best diff was 5.0 and subtracting from someone whose best differential was 40.0 is not the same level of protection.

I've posted my thoughts on how this could be resolved before, so won't do again.

The only evidence for initial handicap are the 54 holes submitted, and on that basis the initial handicap is fair. You are saying it wasn't in this case on the basis on a score which was recorded in the future.

As yes I remember now, you only want to penalise higher handicappers, and do so proportionally to their potential for improvement.

 

[Swango1980]

The only evidence for initial handicap are the 54 holes submitted, and on that basis the initial handicap is fair. You are saying it wasn't in this case on the basis on a score which was recorded in the future.

As yes I remember now, you only want to penalise higher handicappers, and do so proportionally to their potential for improvement.

Unfortunately, you ignore good points and change context to shift your narrative.

You use the "there is no evidence" argument, yet seem content about the existing 2.0 cut, that has no evidence.

You use the emotive "you just want to punish high handicappers" argument. The fact is, a player with an best score diff of 50.0 after 3 scores, based on probability, is likely to have the potential to beat that significantly compared to someone who had a best score diff of 5.0. So, it is to temporarily give them higher than the 2.0 cut whilst they have few scores. This restriction eases as, say up to 10 scores are submitted and vanishes after 15-20. You said yourself, the index is completely unstable until about 10 scores are submitted.

In my opinion, the current alternative is worse. At my club, no one can play in a competition with a handicap above 24, to protect against crazy scores. Clearly, this is unfair to genuine high handicappers. Other clubs might ban players playing until they have a certain number of scores. Many do divisions, which is essentially admitting there is a feeling it is unfair for a low and high handicapper to be in same comp (that feeling goes beyond this discussion, and is probably unfair to the genuine high handicappers with 20 scores on their record). Or, just let everyone compete, and just tell all the people in the competition who have a vast handicap record that they'll just have to accept sometimes a new golfer will win with an exceptional score, because as expected, they were a lot better than the 1st 3 scores they submitted. Scores that were submitted when they were just new to the game, the course, etc and they have improved rapidly since. This happened at my old club, where new golfers were smashing comps with points in the very high 40's. My favourite was when a guy eagled a par 5 with 3 shots, getting him 7 points. He is much much lower now than he started.

 

[wjemather]

You use the "there is no evidence" argument, yet seem content about the existing 2.0 cut, that has no evidence.

Other than the thousands of handicap records and millions of scores analysed by the WHS team, right?

 

[Swango1980]

Other than the thousands of handicap records and millions of scores analysed by the WHS team, right?

I am virtually certain that it didn't take analysis of millions of scores to say an 2.0 extra reduction was just as applicable to a person with a best score diff of 0.0 and one of 50.0. To even try and hide behind that argument seems ignorant in the extreme.

I wouldn't be surprised if it was just pulled out of the air, and wasn't lower simply because it would seem harsh on those with an initial score diff.

I'm happy to review their analysis of millions of scores though if available. I'm sure you have access to that, as you can use it as your argument. It is the same analysis of millions of scores that was used to get the PCC calculation? You know, the one that England Golf now suggest isn't working exactly how they hoped?

 

[wjemather]

In my opinion, the current alternative is worse. At my club, no one can play in a competition with a handicap above 24, to protect against crazy scores. Clearly, this is unfair to genuine high handicappers. Other clubs might ban players playing until they have a certain number of scores. Many do divisions, which is essentially admitting there is a feeling it is unfair for a low and high handicapper to be in same comp (that feeling goes beyond this discussion, and is probably unfair to the genuine high handicappers with 20 scores on their record). Or, just let everyone compete, and just tell all the people in the competition who have a vast handicap record that they'll just have to accept sometimes a new golfer will win with an exceptional score, because as expected, they were a lot better than the 1st 3 scores they submitted. Scores that were submitted when they were just new to the game, the course, etc and they have improved rapidly since.

The greater the field size the higher the likelihood of nett/Stableford scores that are unattainable for lower handicappers being returned; divisions are recommended by the authorities to mitigate the probability of this. Excluding higher handicappers, or giving them artificially low handicaps, is not a fair or equitable way of handling something that no handicap system can account for.

 

[Hobbit]

Only had a quick read through…

1) the player is not happy with what looks like an excessively harsh cut.
2) subsequent postings by the OP indicate the guy has won quite a few times in the last 18 months - no doubt been placed several times too.

Was a 5 shot cut within the bounds of the rules? I don’t know, but the more informed say it wasn’t. Was an extra cut needed? With that many wins, no doubt with handicap cuts that he could still win from, yes an additional cut seems appropriate. Is the 5 shot cut excessive? I’m inclined to say it is, but only just. With that many wins the guy still hasn’t found his level, and his potential is his current best round.

That aside, if I was in his shoes I’d be over the moon to be cut, and would accept it with a smile and set to trying to play to it.

 

[chellie]

Unfortunately, you ignore good points and change context to shift your narrative.

You use the "there is no evidence" argument, yet seem content about the existing 2.0 cut, that has no evidence.

You use the emotive "you just want to punish high handicappers" argument. The fact is, a player with an best score diff of 50.0 after 3 scores, based on probability, is likely to have the potential to beat that significantly compared to someone who had a best score diff of 5.0. So, it is to temporarily give them higher than the 2.0 cut whilst they have few scores. This restriction eases as, say up to 10 scores are submitted and vanishes after 15-20. You said yourself, the index is completely unstable until about 10 scores are submitted.

In my opinion, the current alternative is worse. At my club, no one can play in a competition with a handicap above 24, to protect against crazy scores. Clearly, this is unfair to genuine high handicappers. Other clubs might ban players playing until they have a certain number of scores. Many do divisions, which is essentially admitting there is a feeling it is unfair for a low and high handicapper to be in same comp (that feeling goes beyond this discussion, and is probably unfair to the genuine high handicappers with 20 scores on their record). Or, just let everyone compete, and just tell all the people in the competition who have a vast handicap record that they'll just have to accept sometimes a new golfer will win with an exceptional score, because as expected, they were a lot better than the 1st 3 scores they submitted. Scores that were submitted when they were just new to the game, the course, etc and they have improved rapidly since. This happened at my old club, where new golfers were smashing comps with points in the very high 40's. My favourite was when a guy eagled a par 5 with 3 shots, getting him 7 points. He is much much lower now than he started.

So how do they get their handicap down? General play scores only I assume which IMO it's not the same as playing in a proper comp pressure wise.

 

[Backache]

Absolute rubbish. Such issues with initial handicaps are no different from any other handicap system we've had; indeed for most, there is little difference from the initial handicaps that would have been allocated under UHS. However, WHS will quickly resolve itself (if left alone) whereas older systems relied on the intervention (and often guesswork) of volunteers.

Any mitigation means penalising new players (protecting established players) by either giving them unrealistically low initial handicaps to stop them being competitive, or requiring a greater number of scores and therefore preventing them from playing comps altogether.

One significant difference is the handicap allowance you are able to get by submitting three scores. It used to be a max of 28 for men whereas now the max Index is 54 which can translate into a much higher playing handicap. The higher the scores the greater the variance and the less likely three scores are to be representative.

 

[wjemather]

One significant difference is the handicap allowance you are able to get by submitting three scores. It used to be a max of 28 for men whereas now the max Index is 54 which can translate into a much higher playing handicap. The higher the scores the greater the variance and the less likely three scores are to be representative.

That change predates WHS.

 

[jim8flog]

Only a 5 shot cut?

a new member at my course handed in 3 cards, allocated a HCI of 37, duly won his first competition with a 9 under, cut by 10 shots, then the following week 44 points in the stableford. He is now down to 21,7

That is because of the way the WHS works for newly handicapped players this chart is ongoing as scores are added

 

[jim8flog]

One significant difference is the handicap allowance you are able to get by submitting three scores. It used to be a max of 28 for men whereas now the max Index is 54 which can translate into a much higher playing handicap. The higher the scores the greater the variance and the less likely three scores are to be representative.

As per wjemather

the increase to 54 max handicap came in years before the WHS.

 

[full_throttle]

That is because of the way the WHS works for newly handicapped players this chart is ongoing as scores are added


View attachment 43021

I was just giving another example, the handicap will work itself our in time,

 

[Swango1980]

So how do they get their handicap down? General play scores only I assume which IMO it's not the same as playing in a proper comp pressure wise.

To be honest, no idea. Been at club about 9 months, not met any higher handicappers, as I only meet others in comps. Most are drawn in handicap order as well.

 

[AliMc]

Well he won the winter league last year and a number of stablefords / medals so you are quite right in the fact that he is on the radar.

But he puts huge effort in, lessons weekly etc.

But as one of his PP’s I can’t help but feel a little bad for him as he expressed that he’s not enjoyed playing golf in general since that cut.

We have a little cash stableford social between my group and he won’t play with us anymore ?

Don't take this the wrong way as it's genuinely not intended as that but i find this incredible, you say he has won the winter league and a few other medals but now because he has been cut he's not enjoying it.
Compare with me as an example, been a member of the same club for over 40 years h'cap never lower than 5 never more than 7 and have won 1 competition
I would be telling him to just get on with it tbh he's obviously improved and should be trying his best to play at that level again, it's not all about winning trophies, although going by some of the stuff on here I do wonder sometimes (again I'm not getting at you or your mate honestly !)

 

[patricks148]

Don't take this the wrong way as it's genuinely not intended as that but i find this incredible, you say he has won the winter league and a few other medals but now because he has been cut he's not enjoying it.
Compare with me as an example, been a member of the same club for over 40 years h'cap never lower than 5 never more than 7 and have won 1 competition
I would be telling him to just get on with it tbh he's obviously improved and should be trying his best to play at that level again, it's not all about winning trophies, although going by some of the stuff on here I do wonder sometimes (again I'm not getting at you or your mate honestly !)

100% agree, All time low last year, completely uncompetitive in handicap comps, but I love golf and love playing and it was nice to get the cuts that got me that low even though I shot some low scores without being anywhere near the prizes. Tbh if you only enjoy golf to clean up in comps while getting lots of shots imo that's not really the spirit of the game.

 

[rulefan]

This thread seems to have little to do with the OP.

Is there a conflict of interest with the club secretary being on the handicap committee?

Or is this a normal thing that happens at most clubs

 

[Hobbit]

Just had a closer read through the thread.

He shot 8 under handicap, and got cut 5. And he’s had a number of wins and places in other comps.

I’d say the system is definitely at fault. For someone to win etc so often, and continue to do so, I’d say the system has let other members down by not cutting him better previously.

No sympathy at all. My first handicap was 18, a week later it was 14, and the week after that it was 12. Loved it, and I was ecstatic.