Handicap manipulation - how to address

[rulie]

It’s a golf forum for discussing golf, it’s not a lobbying group or a governing body.
Opinions expressed will vary, as would be expected.

 

[KenL]

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?

A bit extreme. WHS may not perfect, but people would be able to manipulate handicaps whatever the system.

Do you have a particular gripe you would care to share?

 

[Bunkermagnet]

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?

What a load of twoddle.
You obviously havent played golf or been on any golf forums for very long if you thought the previous system was any better.

 

[rulefan]

No one was discussing the previous system on forums.

Well I've been involved in such forums for about 20 years.

But apart from the subject of this thread (handicap manipulation) what specific problem(s) have you encountered with respect to differences between UHS and WHS?

 

[Crow]

What a load of twoddle.
You obviously havent played golf or been on any golf forums for very long if you thought the previous system was any better.

I suspect he was a member of this forum under another name until fairly recently.

 

[KenL]

I suspect he was a member of this forum under another name until fairly recently.

Do you have your suspicions Mr Crow?

 

[Crow]

Do you have your suspicions Mr Crow?

A couple of candidates but nothing concrete.

 

[Colin L]

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?

Well, since it clearly isn't obvious to many of us here, it's a pity you didn't explain the fatal flaws of any of the features of system I listed. But never mind. As you have said nothing specific about anything, you should consider saying nothing altogether.

You certainly haven't gained the understanding never mind the support of anyone on this forum who is properly knowledgeable and you also seem unaware of the significance of the fact (that's a real kind of fact, not your kind of 'fact") that this forum is owned by and wouldn't exist without Golf Monthly. If you want to start a campaign to abandon the WHS (be clear in considerable detail about what the reasons are and what alternative you would propose), you need to contact the editor of the magazine and get his support. I'm sure he will be thrilled to hear from you.

By the way the 'whoever' of "the R&A and whoever.." is the USGA (United States Golf Association). Jointly, it took them something like 7 years to devise a universal handicapping system that every national association agreed with. Do contact them as well. They will be most impressed by your opinion of - sorry the facts about - the WHS.

 

[AussieKB]

'By the way the 'whoever' of "the R&A and whoever.." is the USGA (United States Golf Association). Jointly, it took them something like 7 years to devise a universal handicapping system that every national association agreed with. Do contact them as well. They will be most impressed by your opinion of - sorry the facts about - the WHS.'

But every Country has a different version......explain that.

 

[Colin L]

'By the way the 'whoever' of "the R&A and whoever.." is the USGA (United States Golf Association). Jointly, it took them something like 7 years to devise a universal handicapping system that every national association agreed with. Do contact them as well. They will be most impressed by your opinion of - sorry the facts about - the WHS.'

But every Country has a different version......explain that.

There is a number of options left to national associations to choose from but none of them to do with the fundamental system of calculating initial handicaps, subsequently adjusting them and applying them to the game. If I've overlooked anything you are aware of that allows differences in that core system, do let me know.

 

[Voyager EMH]

There is a number of options left to national associations to choose from but none of them to do with the fundamental system of calculating initial handicaps, subsequently adjusting them and applying them to the game. If I've overlooked anything you are aware of that allows differences in that core system, do let me know.

95% or 93% for individual strokeplay handicap.

Net double bogey limit for Score Differential calculation according to 100% of Course Handicap.
Stableford Points for Score Differential calculation according to 93% of Course Handicap.

 

[D-S]

95% or 93% for individual strokeplay handicap.

Isn’t that just a competition issue and has no effect on handicapping?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Isn’t that just a competition issue and has no effect on handicapping?

It addresses the point made by Colin L, "subsequently adjusting them and applying them to the game."

 

[Colin L]

If there are other jurisdictions than CONGU where the stroke play allowance is 93% or some other figure, it makes no difference to the core calculations of handicap indexes. The net double bogey applied as the maximum score for a hole for handicapping calculations is according to the strokes received from course handicaps. Playing handicaps are, as said, pertinent only to particular competitions. There may be jurisdictions which use different handicap allowances than the ones in Appendix C or even allow clubs to set their own, but it doesn't affect the universality of handicap indexes.

Does that also address your other point?