Handicap manipulation - how to address

[Swango1980]

What hole score (number of strokes) is used for handicap purposes when a player 'blobs' a hole in Stableford?

Nett Double Bogey

 

[rulie]

Nett Double Bogey

So handicap records already include "assigned" or estimated hole scores. And the assumption is that nobody picks up when they could have still made less than a net double bogey? Is that a valid assumption for everyone and for every round?

 

[D-S]

What hole score (number of strokes) is used for handicap purposes when a player 'blobs' a hole in Stableford?

Net double bogey.

 

[D-S]

So handicap records already include "assigned" or estimated hole scores. And the assumption is that nobody picks up when they could have still made less than a net double bogey? Is that a valid assumption for everyone and for every round?

As the only scores are from singles strokeplay, no one would pick up beforehand as they are just depriving themselves of a point. So it is a pretty valid assumption that no one would do it. In practice it tends to be the opposite as players continue to play after net double bogey has been reached giving pace of play problems.

In 4BB strokeplay we use a scaling up process for holes on which a score is not recorded not MLS.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

So handicap records already include "assigned" or estimated hole scores. And the assumption is that nobody picks up when they could have still made less than a net double bogey? Is that a valid assumption for everyone and for every round?

Is this in relation to MLS ?

 

[rulie]

Is this in relation to MLS ?

Of course, in principle.

 

[rulie]

As the only scores are from singles strokeplay, no one would pick up beforehand as they are just depriving themselves of a point. So it is a pretty valid assumption that no one would do it. In practice it tends to be the opposite as players continue to play after net double bogey has been reached giving pace of play problems.

In 4BB strokeplay we use a scaling up process for holes on which a score is not recorded not MLS.

That's an assumption that everyone is "trying their best" and nobody is trying to inflate their handicap (which some groups are being accused of here, in similar circumstances).

 

[D-S]

That's an assumption that everyone is "trying their best" and nobody is trying to inflate their handicap (which some groups are being accused of here, in similar circumstances).

If they are trying to inflate their handicap ‘accidentally on purpose’ playing badly, missing a few putts etc. would be a lot less obvious than picking up when they are in the hole and can still score - this would raise eyebrows.

 

[Swango1980]

That's an assumption that everyone is "trying their best" and nobody is trying to inflate their handicap (which some groups are being accused of here, in similar circumstances).

That is a different matter entirely. MLS or not, if somebody wants to maliciously inflate their handicap, then they can intentionally score higher than they would have done.

With MLS, and in certain formats in particular, you can often find it is almost impossible to predict an overall "accurate" score if a player has picked up on numerous holes, some before they even have a putt. Even for well intentioned players.

 

[rulie]

That is a different matter entirely. MLS or not, if somebody wants to maliciously inflate their handicap, then they can intentionally score higher than they would have done.

With MLS, and in certain formats in particular, you can often find it is almost impossible to predict an overall "accurate" score if a player has picked up on numerous holes, some before they even have a putt. Even for well intentioned players.

And, "for well intentioned players", that approximated score would not factor into their handicap (other than to take a spot in the last 20 scores), so it's no big deal.

 

[D-S]

And, "for well intentioned players", that approximated score would not factor into their handicap (other than to take a spot in the last 20 scores), so it's no big deal.

The net double bogey limit can make an approximate score in good rounds as well as bad rounds. However all the other scores in that round are 'correct' i.e. every ball was holed out and the strokes tallied.

With MLS you would still have the net double bogey approximation but you would also have other extra 'approximated' scores, in 4BB matchplay this could be as many as 7, 8, 9 or more dependent on how well your partner and your opponents plays as well as how generous gimmes are.

 

[rulie]

The net double bogey limit can make an approximate score in good rounds as well as bad rounds. However all the other scores in that round are 'correct' i.e. every ball was holed out and the strokes tallied.

With MLS you would still have the net double bogey approximation but you would also have other extra 'approximated' scores, in 4BB matchplay this could be as many as 7, 8, 9 or more dependent on how well your partner and your opponents plays as well as how generous gimmes are.

Net double bogey limit also applies with MLS. In Stableford, a player could have several blobs in a bad round, and still records a score for handicap purposes.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It is actually a WHS requirement that any player having his handicapped altered to have the opportunity to respond to the committee before any such alteration is applied

Rules of Handicapping rule 7.1

Which is exactly what happens at my place.

 

[D-S]

Net double bogey limit also applies with MLS. In Stableford, a player could have several blobs in a bad round, and still records a score for handicap purposes.

Which is exactly what I said in the post your replied to "With MLS you would still have the net double bogey approximation but you would also have other extra 'approximated' scores".

My point was that with MLS you would have potentially far more 'approximated' scores in your counting and non counting rounds.

 

[rulie]

Which is exactly what I said in the post your replied to "With MLS you would still have the net double bogey approximation but you would also have other extra 'approximated' scores".

My point was that with MLS you would have potentially far more 'approximated' scores in your counting and non counting rounds.

I understand that point, but why is the number of "approximated" scores an issue? And what number is "too many", and again, why?

 

[D-S]

I understand that point, but why is the number of "approximated" scores an issue? And what number is "too many", and again, why?

As per my post #2238 there can be quite a variability in the approximate score dependent on assessment of length and shot difficulty/player ability - the more of such scores in a round (and cumulatively in a record) the more inaccurate the resultant handicap versus m our current and past way of calculating handicaps.
How many is too many? No idea but having seen it in action my view is that the scores that people put down in their record bore little reality to their standard of play.
They are like really casual rounds here, with gimmees and pick ups, which we wouldn’t consider ‘proper’ golf.
They would give a really rough approximation of ability (which is fine if that’s all you want) but I wouldn’t dream of playing someone for money (which is what we do here all the time in frequent midweek and weekend comps) based on a handicap that is in part based on their judgement given the a possible amount of approximated scores.

 

[rulie]

As per my post #2238 there can be quite a variability in the approximate score dependent on assessment of length and shot difficulty/player ability - the more of such scores in a round (and cumulatively in a record) the more inaccurate the resultant handicap versus m our current and past way of calculating handicaps.
How many is too many? No idea but having seen it in action my view is that the scores that people put down in their record bore little reality to their standard of play.
They are like really casual rounds here, with gimmees and pick ups, which we wouldn’t consider ‘proper’ golf.
They would give a really rough approximation of ability (which is fine if that’s all you want) but I wouldn’t dream of playing someone for money (which is what we do here all the time in frequent midweek and weekend comps) based on a handicap that is in part based on their judgement given the a possible amount of approximated scores.

I realize that I'm being a devil's advocate, but don't think there is a definition of "proper golf" in the authorized handicap system.
Different cultures may have different interpretations.

 

[D-S]

I realize that I'm being a devil's advocate, but don't think there is a definition of "proper golf" in the authorized handicap system.
Different cultures may have different interpretations.

You are exactly right and I am trying, poorly, to explain our culture in comparison to that of the US that I have seen and heard of and has been described.
MLS doesn’t fit in well with our handicap culture - we have big enough problems/suspicions with pre registered, attested General Play that must only be played in singles strokeplay format.

 

[rulie]

You are exactly right and I am trying, poorly, to explain our culture in comparison to that of the US that I have seen and heard of and has been described.
MLS doesn’t fit in well with our handicap culture - we have big enough problems/suspicions with pre registered, attested General Play that must only be played in singles strokeplay format.

In nearly all golf cultures, there will be questions arising about vanity handicaps and elevated handicaps and how to deal with either/both. Pointing fingers at other cultures' practices is easy and may result in complacency in one's own practices.

 

[Plus4]

It's easy to give WHS a hard time, and a lot of people do, but I would question - is that fair?

It has so far given us 2 significant changes –

1) Handicap portability due to a uniform system of rating courses. The slope system is essential to this portability and was first introduced in the late 1980s in the USA but did not feature in the UK prior to WHS inception.

2) A player’s Handicap calculated from the best 8 from the 20 most recent eligible scores, alongside greater freedom to generate those scores through GP submissions. Handicap volatility has increased as a result with inevitable easier handicap manipulation for anyone so minded. The system makes a lot of assumptions about how golfers behave but understandably does not cope well when they fall outside acceptable limits.

IMHO, the use of MLS is bound to be a problem as it relies too heavily on the golfer’s understanding and application, which will have wide variability. Furthermore, combining MLS with match-play would seem to be an unhappy marriage.

Handicap manipulation occurs when a player maintains (or generates) a handicap that doesn’t reflect their overall level of skill [either a) higher than or b) lower than] – both can be achieved by submitting either sufficient or insufficient scores.

• WHS struggles to distinguish between a player submitting many scores who is genuinely having difficulty, and a player who hastens removal of low scores, knowing their handicap will increase significantly thus providing a competitive advantage
• At the other end of the scale, there are many reasons why a player may wish to hold on to a handicap which is too low for them to reasonably compete. Mostly, the only person disadvantaged is the player themselves – however, entry to comps balloted on handicap, or masking actual ability for the purpose of team selection, can both lead to more deserving golfers being excluded. Fortunately, the Comp and GP tags provide the means to look at those scores in more depth and help weed out those punching above their weight – increasingly the comparison between GP average score differentials and Comp average score differentials is being used (manual intervention) by Country and County – and the same can easily be done at club level if necessary.

In essence the system suffers from GIGO (garbage in, garbage out), either too much, too little, or simply bad data. WHS takes a bit too much interest in high scores which are largely irrelevant and not enough interest in relatively recent good scores that may no longer be one of the last 20 - it has a handicap index memory (12 months) but the memory of the scores that were used to calculate that index can quickly be lost. I believe the issues of so called ‘sand-bagging’ could be fixed by considering such aspects.