Handicap manipulation - how to address

[wjemather]

My home course is quite tough, I nearly always score better at an away course. A few of my playing partners at my club have observed the same thing with their game. There are clearly flaws in the rating system.

If there is a problem, it's more likely to be how the respective courses are setup compared to when they were (tricked up) for rating day.

 

[D-S]

I must admit I can’t think of any of the courses we rated this year as at all ‘tricked up’.

 

[IanM]

I do, and I'm not.

Me too. My home course is narrow and fiddly. Doesn't suit my iffy tee shots!

I agree with the comment above about folk should have to pass Level 1 before being allowed in a comp.

 

[PJ87]

Anyone who regularly scores better at away clubs than their own course is surely at it!

Majority of my best scores come at other clubs

Ironically they are higher actual scores than I shoot at mine I just have to shoot the lights out to get that differential at my home course

That and putting on slower greens with only one break is much easier

 

[wjemather]

I must admit I can’t think of any of the courses we rated this year as at all ‘tricked up’.

Most aren't, but the odd one is; usually faster greens and/or longer rough. We've seen both - and some frankly outlandish stimp reading claims on the pre-rating forms. Of course, such things will almost always get picked up.

Far more common though, is daily tee placement being well outside the 100 yard tolerance and course setup policy changing significantly between rating cycles without contact with county or consideration for how it might affect ratings.

 

[clubchamp98]

If there is a problem, it's more likely to be how the respective courses are setup compared to when they were (tricked up) for rating day.

Do you think Raters are that easily fooled.?

 

[wjemather]

Do you think Raters are that easily fooled.?

No, but it would be naive to think it doesn't happen. However, that's not really my point, hence the 'tricked up' being in brackets.

 

[Swango1980]

It's a fact that handicaps go up more quickly under WHS than UHS. This was actually one of the big selling points of the system, as the handicap is meant to better reflect declining golfers.

So, I don't see much point in suggesting UHS handicaps could go up as quickly (if there was a 10% chance you were on x.4) and that anyone who wished to cheat would be equally successful at it under both systems.

A cheating golfer will benefit significantly more under WHS. And, given the Slope is often a lot higher than 113, the increase in course handicap is often more than the big increases that can be made in the Index alone.

Sure, a player may be losing a worst 12 round and no handicap change would occur after an individual round. But that isn't an issue, just keep rattling through a few more bad scores and you'll start losing some of the top 8. The most lucrative time will be when a player realises they have a string of very good scores to lose, which may include their very best rounds. At that point, Index can fly upwards with only a handful of submitted bad scores.

Impossible to tell if they are cheating though, as they may just be playing rubbish golf compared to a purple patch.

 

[Teebs]

To be honest you need to forget this, it will just eat you up and the committee has done all that they can...

I've done my bit and the Club have taken action. Can't really ask for more than that.

Be interesting how it plays out across the 2025 season but as I've said, I'm done.

 

[Colin L]

Those of you who are talking of scoring better away seem to have missed Rulie's question - are you comparing gross scores or net differentials? It should be the latter to make a meaningful comparison.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Those of you who are talking of scoring better away seem to have missed Rulie's question - are you comparing gross scores or net differentials? It should be the latter to make a meaningful comparison.

It might be neither of those two that are being compared. (Not sure what a net differential is)
Stableford points is a much used score that players tend to consider.

I focus on Score Differential achieved as this is my what-I-played-to score.

 

[KenL]

It might be neither of those two that are being compared. (Not sure what a net differential is)
Stableford points is a much used score that players tend to consider.

I focus on Score Differential achieved as this is my what-I-played-to score.

Stableford is irrelevant as your handicap can change by several strokes depending on the venue.

Currently, off the white tees, I would be 3 at Kilspindie and 10 at Southerness.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Stableford is irrelevant as your handicap can change by several strokes depending on the venue.

Currently, off the white tees, I would be 3 at Kilspindie and 10 at Southerness.

And what would the corresponding Score Differentials be, if you scored 36 points at each course?

 

[D-S]

With CR-Par in place at least there is a semblance of the course difficulty built into net scoring these days.

 

[KenL]

And what would the corresponding Score Differentials be, if you scored 36 points at each course?

That depends on the course rating, slope and PCI, at least to get an exact value.

 

[jet11]

I've done my bit and the Club have taken action. Can't really ask for more than that.

Be interesting how it plays out across the 2025 season but as I've said, I'm done.

OK Andy

 

[AussieKB]

I'm dropping flags my next two rounds so should get a shot back......
yes I know I'm a Sandbagger.

 

[doublebogey7]

That depends on the course rating, slope and PCI, at least to get an exact value.

That of course is true, but I think the point Voyager was trying to make, is that since the introduction of CR-Par, differentials will be very similar across courses when scoring 36 points.

 

[KenL]

That of course is true, but I think the point Voyager was trying to make, is that since the introduction of CR-Par, differentials will be very similar across courses when scoring 36 points.

Fair point.

 

[Thintowin]

It's evident that there is no need to defend the WHS system since the detractors have not really been saying anything about the actual system. Rather they have been pointing up a problem of manipulation (largely on anecdotal "evidence") resulting from the electronic returning of General Play scores. Interesting as it is, there is no point in arguing about that in defence or otherwise of the WHS system as it has nothing to do with it. The system is about calculating handicaps in the first place, maintaining handicaps by making adjustments and applying handicaps to the game about to be played. That, in a rather simplistic form is what the system is about. Whether your score is returned electronically, on a printed scorecard, a bit of paper torn out of a notebook or, on the back of a fag packet (a bit out of date that one) is irrelevant.. If there are any problems arising from the chosen method, they are not caused by the WHS system. To leap from a manipulation problem being the result of the method of returning a score via an app to wholesale condemnation of the WHS system is a leap way too far. Generalising from a particular is never a sound move but worse when the particular isn't even relevant. How about an argument as to why the system is so bad based on the actualities of the system - such as
the calculation of an initial handicap;
the use of slope rating;
the maintenance of a handicap including
the averaging system,
the use of the 8 best out the the last 20;
safeguards like low handicap index, soft cap, hard cap and exceptional score reduction;
the value of slope rating in calculating course handicaps.

Go on Thintowin. I'm sure from your absolute rejection of the WHS system you can do it.

WHS is obviously not fit for purpose. A few posters on here trying to argue for it by nitpicking isn't going to change that. And it's not a matter of opinion, it's fact. If it wasn't fact then we wouldn't even be discussing it. No one was discussing the previous system on forums.

My point is that the R&A and whoever have ruined our game and we, the masses, should be trying to fix that. If the Golf Monthly forum isn't going to pull in the right direction on this then I fear it's not really a golf forum, is it?