Handicap Limits

[IanMcC]

We allow players who have just received their Index to enter everything, but to win a board comp they must have 3 other qualifying scores over and above initial handicap scores in the previous 12 months. Our committee debated whether this should be 3 or 5 cards at the time, but we plumped for 3 in the end, similar to how UHS used to be. All winners so far have had well over this amount.
Upper handicap limits are never the answer. I agree with post 2.

 

[apj0524]

We allow players who have just received their Index to enter everything, but to win a board comp they must have 3 other qualifying scores over and above initial handicap scores in the previous 12 months. Our committee debated whether this should be 3 or 5 cards at the time, but we plumped for 3 in the end, similar to how UHS used to be. All winners so far have had well over this amount.
Upper handicap limits are never the answer. I agree with post 2.

The issue I have with just three acceptable scores or even three competition scores is that we have members who don't have 20 scores, in the last case a player with 6 scores play almost every day then enters a comp with no upper limits and returns a score of 47 points, its just right and not how WHS should work

 

[3offTheTee]

“Handicap Limit 36. To qualify for 1st prize and trophy players must have registered at least 12 qualifying scores comp. Or casual in their WHS record in the rolling 2 year period prior to the date of The Competition”

There is a guy with us HI 3.4, been a member around 45 years, scratch team player in the past who has not the required number. Not a happy bunny but knows what he needs to do!

 

[Tryhardgolfer]

I dont think there is a solution other than that which has always been done. If the players have form of good scores in good events and terrible scores to form their handicap, they get a pga tour style informal ban, where you advise clubs not to accept their entry into events where they may be pot hunting...

Sorry to be dim but... what is pot hunting? ?

 

[Foxholer]

Sorry to be dim but... what is pot hunting? ?

Manufacturing a falsely high handicap, in order to have better chance in competitions where significant value prizes - such as overseas trips - are available.

 

[rulie]

Competitions where pot-hunters, aka sandbaggers, are prevalent should rearrange their prize allocation. Give the winners of the flawed golf event a sleeve of balls, save the high value prizes for door prizes, where everyone has an equal chance of winning.
Or as said above, widely publicize the names and clubs of the said pot-hunters so others can refuse them entry (or, if refusal is considered too severe or not politically correct, tell them they are welcome to participate but there handicap will be assigned).

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Sorry to be dim but... what is pot hunting? ?

Players who only (or mostly) turn up when there's a trophy on the line, but when it's just a run of the mill medal or stableford are noticeable by their absence

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

We are changing. As IG system and WHS do not differentiate between general play cards and competition cards when analysing player records, the entry criteria for any honours board stroke-play comp is changed to six WHS qualifying cards (inc casual play cards ) in the 12 month period prior to any competition - pre WHS it was 3 qualifying competition cards. This will come into force for coming Winter and from next years Summer comps as all of this years summer comps are underway under the previous criteria.

 

[IanM]

Was talking to a mate who's club are concerned that a large number of older members don't play comps or enter cards.

Surely that's their business. If they pay their subs and cause no problems, so what?

Of course, if you have folk massagind their handicaps to win stuff... it needs sorting. Minimum number of qualifiers per year..

One issue with whs is the disparity of cards folk are putting in. But that is because of the disparity of ways and times humans play golf. Overlooking this was poor.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Now that it is so easy to put in cards for casual rounds I really don’t see why there can’t be a sensible limit on handicaps for comp entry. It should give people an insensitive to improve.

If no limit on HC then there should be a minimum number of cards handed in with a recent period of time.

I’ve got my first (for 14 years) club knock out game at the weekend. The person I’m playing has only 4 scores on their record over a period of 4 years. Their HI is 7 shots higher now then when the draw was made 3 weeks ago.

 

[wjemather]

I'm not sure what makes people think that requiring a minimum number of cards will stop cheats. It never has before. Rooting them out has always relied on the vigilance and diligence of competition and handicap committees.
The only other rationale for imposing limits seems to be to protect established players from new and improving golfers, and handicap divisions are a better way to manage this, rather than resorting to exclusionary measures.

 

[wjemather]

One issue with whs is the disparity of cards folk are putting in. But that is because of the disparity of ways and times humans play golf. Overlooking this was poor.

The evidence, e.g. vast increases in the submission of GP and 9-hole scores, suggests WHS is much better (than UHS was) at accommodating how people play golf and allowing them to maintain a handicap that is reflective of current ability.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Was talking to a mate who's club are concerned that a large number of older members don't play comps or enter cards.

Surely that's their business. If they pay their subs and cause no problems, so what?

Totally agree with you. We have nearly 2/3rds of our membership without a handicap, we try everything to encourage more competitive play, but they're just not interested. Scottish Golf want us to issue a CDH to every member, but why? They're literally not going to use it, so why clog up your (Scottish Golf's) database with CDH numbers that have no play attached?

 

[wjemather]

Totally agree with you. We have nearly 2/3rds of our membership without a handicap, we try everything to encourage more competitive play, but they're just not interested. Scottish Golf want us to issue a CDH to every member, but why? They're literally not going to use it, so why clog up your (Scottish Golf's) database with CDH numbers that have no play attached?

Data.

 

[rulefan]

I'm not sure what makes people think that requiring a minimum number of cards will stop cheats. It never has before. Rooting them out has always relied on the vigilance and diligence of competition and handicap committees.
The only other rationale for imposing limits seems to be to protect established players from new and improving golfers, and handicap divisions are a better way to manage this, rather than resorting to exclusionary measures.

I know that the above wasn't directly aimed at my question but to make it clear, it isn't about cheating. The issue is that some players have simply got out of the habit of entering comps and their caps are not representative of their playing ability. By seeing foursomes as 'a bit of fun' they are likely to overwhelm the field with unrealistic low scores.

Despite the club's exhortations re casual scores, they haven't yet responded. But I'm now inclined to recommend 'no of Q scores in a time frame' with further prompts re 9 hole and casual scores.

Many thanks to all for your comments.

 

[IanM]

Totally agree with you. We have nearly 2/3rds of our membership without a handicap, we try everything to encourage more competitive play, but they're just not interested. Scottish Golf want us to issue a CDH to every member, but why? They're literally not going to use it, so why clog up your (Scottish Golf's) database with CDH numbers that have no play attached?

Provable higher participation numbers...might be handy if applying for grants. But, if folk don't want CDH Numbers etc, that's their business

 

[apj0524]

I'm not sure what makes people think that requiring a minimum number of cards will stop cheats. It never has before. Rooting them out has always relied on the vigilance and diligence of competition and handicap committees.
The only other rationale for imposing limits seems to be to protect established players from new and improving golfers, and handicap divisions are a better way to manage this, rather than resorting to exclusionary measures.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment or vigilance and diligence of competition and handicap committee to root out cheats but that sounds a lot of work for a volunteer like me, surely having a competition setting that is 6 Acceptable Scores in 6 months meets that aim of WHS that your handicap should reflect your current ability and makes M&H Committee's job easier?

 

[Foxholer]

I have been asked by our committee to sound out how other clubs handle players with high handicaps who do not return many cards for handicap purposes (either comp or casual).
It seem a largish number of ladies have not returned cards since 2018 because 'they don't understand WHS' and/or 'don't know how to enter scores on their phones' and only play if they can find someone who will do the work for them. There are men in the same boat but they no longer enter competitions.

One suggestion is to simply have an upper limit in order to be able to enter (36 has been suggested).
An alternative is to require a minimum number of qualifying scores in a particular time frame (eg 15 in the last 12 months). Possibly specifying a minimum no of holes (ie 2 x 9 hole = 1 x 18)

Details of current practice under WHS appreciated.

You are going about it the wrong way imo.

Seems to me that WHS is merely an excuse, as 2018 was a considerable time before WHS was implemented!
I suspect that they are simply happy to play Golf with their buddies - with or without competition. Your 'There are men in the same boat...' sentence simply describes the equivalent situation for men!

Trying to use more restrictive rules of competition to encourage entries into competitions seems a daft approach - by folk seemingly obsessed that everyone has the same (as their) reasons for playing golf! Putting up more barriers for participation in comps or returning scores is simply counter-productive.

If 'a largish number of ladies have not returned cards since 2018' and are still members of clubs, then I'm pretty certain they are happy to continue to do so - amongst themselves. And they are the folk you should be discussing the (perceived) problem with, not folk on here, as, imo, the vast majority include comps and scores as part of their Golf.

Basically talk to the Ladies - a bit deeper than currently - perhaps by finding their 'natural organiser' of the group(s) they play in.

 

[wjemather]

Whilst I agree with the sentiment or vigilance and diligence of competition and handicap committee to root out cheats but that sounds a lot of work for a volunteer like me, surely having a competition setting that is 6 Acceptable Scores in 6 months meets that aim of WHS that your handicap should reflect your current ability and makes M&H Committee's job easier?

Checking such requirements is extra work for the committee; it's not like UHS where there was a designation on all handicaps. The other stuff, committees should be doing anyway, so no extra work.
And to repeat, requiring recent scores will not prevent whatever it is people are seeking to prevent. Cheats will just put bad scores in, while others are unfairly excluded and improvers (or higher handicappers) having a good day will still outscore everyone else.

 

[Foxholer]

Totally agree with you. We have nearly 2/3rds of our membership without a handicap, we try everything to encourage more competitive play, but they're just not interested. Scottish Golf want us to issue a CDH to every member, but why? They're literally not going to use it, so why clog up your (Scottish Golf's) database with CDH numbers that have no play attached?

I suspect they have 'set targets' to be used as confirmation that converting to WHS has been successful - and worthwhile. So are now trying to boost numbers so that those 'targets' are met. I'd question the rationale of the target setting process - or their whole priorities/reasoning behind the exercise. If folk don't consider competitive play important, that's fine. There are many who simply play for enjoyment, company and a nice way to spend a morning/afternoon.