Handicap manipulation - how to address

[Thintowin]

I did my best round of last year on our Captain's Day. 41 points and came 4th. Got cut a fair bit.
Chap who won made 43 points off playing handicap of 24.
The next board comp the following month he made 18 points and I made 35 and I got cut a few more decimal places.
Just checked his HI. Gives him a playing handicap of 23.
But I don't believe he is deliberately manipulating.
Many years ago he would have been cut to 21 immediately for his winning score. No one would have considered that wrong.
I really think something like that needs to be brought in. Exceptional scoring of 7 and 10 below handicap is insufficient in my view.

Category sensitive adjustments were in UHS. That's one of the weaknesses of WHS. I would not be awarding multiple net double bogeys to cat 3 and less at cat 2 etc.

 

[Thintowin]

So your real complaint is that there are a few golfers at your club who don't play conservatively when you believe they should, and you believe their nett double bogeys inflate their handicaps to such an extent that it enables them to win when they get away with it, or their course management is better.

The only workable solution to the non-problem you have identified is to reduce the maximum hole score to nett bogey for handicapping - and that is never going to happen.

There are other solutions. Needs some thought but it is a real problem that should be considered.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Ah, the "I don't like your data, use mine" fallacy.

Sorry to disappoint, but it is your real world data that is being analysed.

When it comes to “data”

What data did they use to come up with the handicap allowances for multiple team formats when no data was sent by clubs into the governing bodies

 

[Voyager EMH]

Category sensitive adjustments were in UHS. That's one of the weaknesses of WHS. I would not be awarding multiple net double bogeys to cat 3 and less at cat 2 etc.

I was thinking much longer ago.
In 1977 I got cut from 11 to 8 for shooting 5 over par.
A few days later I shot level par and got cut from 8 to 5.

A 6 shot cut in one week. I did not complain. I welcomed it. Many, including me, would have been happier to see me lower.
The second round of mine above might just be enough for a extra 1.0 cut today for exceptional scoring. But overall the reduction for the two rounds would more like be 3 or 4 shots not 6.

But a 6-shot cut in two rounds to someone today? Very unlikely indeed. Two rounds of SD being 10 below HI might do it.
But if it clearly needs to be done - there ought to be a way under the WHS rules - but there isn't a good enough way as far as I can tell.

EDIT: I've just replaced my 7th and 8th best scores on my spreadsheet with net scores equivalent to those above.
The cut from the first round was just enough to avoid exceptional scoring for the second round and I come down from 4.6 to 2.5. A two shot reduction rather than six.

 

[Dunesman]

You've posted this nonsense before. It was full of errors (misunderstanding , misrepresentation, fallacy, etc.) then, and that remains the case.

And you posted the same reply before. In a discussion, simply saying its nonsense, is pointless. Duscussion progresses by expanding where you disagree or why you can make your assertion. I have given some rational for my position, not just stated baldly, 'WHS is nonsense'.

 

[wjemather]

When it comes to “data”

What data did they use to come up with the handicap allowances for multiple team formats when no data was sent by clubs into the governing bodies

You don't know about it, so it didn't happen - is that really your argument?

 

[Colin L]

You appear to know so much and so defensive when challenged.

I did my own analysis of the regular winners, of which there are 7, at my club. They are all mid teens HI. They used to be high single figures. What was interesting was that in their 8 scoring rounds they still had a high percentage of doubles and worse, between 20% and 24% to be exact. That has made them matchplay specialists and they are unbeatable if they are playing 4BBB. What's more they are pretty successful at foursomes where their partner is a plodder.

Last year we had the first changes to the WHS system in what will be, as it is with the Rules of Golf, a continuous process of review carried out by folk who are for the most part "real golfers", who inhabit the "real world of golf" and who have access to a mass of factual information on millions of golfers from all over the globe, access to the views and thoughts of all national governing bodies and are open, I expect, to submissions from individual "real golfers". I suggest you put together everything you have observed at your club, especially the data you have on those seven players who you reckon are unfairly hoovering up the prizes, extrapolate from that the parlous state worldwide of this rubbish handicap system and put in a submission. Who knows what the next round of revisions will look like as a result?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

You don't know about it, so it didn't happen - is that really your argument?

You are talking about data and I’m asking how they come to the handicap allowances with no data from those formats

What data did they use ?

 

[wjemather]

And you posted the same reply before. In a discussion, simply saying its nonsense, is pointless. Duscussion progresses by expanding where you disagree or why you can make your assertion. I have given some rational for my position, not just stated baldly, 'WHS is nonsense'.

I've previously addressed each point, and you're repeating the same mistakes.

 

[wjemather]

There are other solutions. Needs some thought but it is a real problem that should be considered.

I suppose you could play more aggressively to try and win, rather than playing conservatively to avoid big numbers and protect your handicap.

 

[Dunesman]

Could we all agree that in the best case scenario, if WHS is fine and has been a success in it goal, that it has somewhat failed in convincing some golfers that that is so. And so a statement, corroborative data, and rebuttal of some of the issues and charges people are making needs to be addressed by EG (not the R&A or USGA, as they are not responsible for the regional variant implementations of it).
A handicap system lives or dies on credibility and confidence. And even if the substance of WHS is working fine and as intended, they need to satisfy golfers on this point. The harm done by what are perceived (correctly or incorrectly) to be local sticking plaster fixes feeds this lack of confidence.
Doing nothing is not an option. Dismissing concerns as people not liking change, things need time to settle (its 4 years now), or simply annoying internet trolling, is an arrogant position to take and unacceptable. That would be like politicians simply ignoring a question until people get tired asking about it. And then claiming nobody has a problem with it any more.

 

[Dunesman]

I've previously addressed each point, and you're repeating the same mistakes.

I am happy to reread your answer if you link me to the post or posts. Or if you could briefly summarises what you think is nonsense.

 

[PaulMdj]

I was thinking much longer ago.
In 1977 I got cut from 11 to 8 for shooting 5 over par.
A few days later I shot level par and got cut from 8 to 5.

A 6 shot cut in one week. I did not complain. I welcomed it. Many, including me, would have been happier to see me lower.
The second round of mine above might just be enough for a extra 1.0 cut today for exceptional scoring. But overall the reduction for the two rounds would more like be 3 or 4 shots not 6.

But a 6-shot cut in two rounds to someone today? Very unlikely indeed. Two rounds of SD being 10 below HI might do it.
But if it clearly needs to be done - there ought to be a way under the WHS rules - but there isn't a good enough way as far as I can tell.

What were you shooting the week/month before these 2 cuts?

I don’t see not being able to “cut” someone massively as an issue, surely sone of the reasons 8 from 20 was brought in was to reflect “current” form.

Previously under UHS some would have days in the sun, get chopped and then struggle to play anywhere near the new handicaps and simply took their time getting 0.1 back until their handicap reflected their ability.

The issue I see with WHS is having no time frame of the 8 from 20 scores, to me it should be limited to 18 months, it’s not a good system for people who don’t put cards in.

 

[Dunesman]

Category sensitive adjustments were in UHS. That's one of the weaknesses of WHS. I would not be awarding multiple net double bogeys to cat 3 and less at cat 2 etc.

This is a good point, to those (officialdom and others) advocating categories. If categories have merit, is it not also sensible that the handicap adjustments should differ depending on category as well ? As UHS did.

 

[doublebogey7]

When it comes to “data”

What data did they use to come up with the handicap allowances for multiple team formats when no data was sent by clubs into the governing bodies

I don't know the answer before someone accuses me of being on the inside. But I would think that EG, SG etc have access to data from the ISVs as part of their service agreement.

 

[Voyager EMH]

What were you shooting the week/month before these 2 cuts?

I don’t see not being able to “cut” someone massively as an issue, surely sone of the reasons 8 from 20 was brought in was to reflect “current” form.

Previously under UHS some would have days in the sun, get chopped and then struggle to play anywhere near the new handicaps and simply took their time getting 0.1 back until their handicap reflected their ability.

The issue I see with WHS is having no time frame of the 8 from 20 scores, to me it should be limited to 18 months, it’s not a good system for people who don’t put cards in.

I wasn't shooting anything. I was taking my O levels too seriously.
I had played a couple of 9-holes practice maybe in the month before and then possibly one unimpressive comp the week before.

The previous year I had come down from 18 to 10. But because I hadn't played to 10 or better 3 times I was given a shot back to 11 at the end of the year.
I thought this was barmy. I knew I had the potential to get better - I was still growing taller and stronger.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

I really think something like that needs to be brought in. Exceptional scoring of 7 and 10 below handicap is insufficient in my view.

At last this thread has a proper opinion of what could be done
I said quite a while back two things that should be introduced that wouldn't affect the integrity of the reason behind WHS and they are
Exceptional scoring should be at 5 and 7, and soft and hard caps should be 1 and 3
Ive got another one involving Standard Deviation of scores, but that could wait

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I don't know the answer before someone accuses me of being on the inside. But I would think that EG, SG etc have access to data from the ISVs as part of their service agreement.

There was no data from those events where some clubs didn’t even put them through the ISVs

They used the data from single events and then used algorithms etc

 

[PaulMdj]

I wasn't shooting anything. I was taking my O levels too seriously.
I had played a couple of 9-holes practice maybe in the month before and then possibly one unimpressive comp the week before.

The previous year I had come down from 18 to 10. But because I hadn't played to 10 or better 3 times I was given a shot back to 11 at the end of the year.
I thought this was barmy. I knew I had the potential to get better - I was still growing taller and stronger.

So what happened after these 2 rounds? To judge if your cuts back in the 70’s were fair or not compared to how WHS, you’d have to look at how long your handicap took to settle to a honest level.

 

[Thintowin]

At last this thread has a proper opinion of what could be done
I said quite a while back two things that should be introduced that wouldn't affect the integrity of the reason behind WHS and they are
Exceptional scoring should be at 5 and 7, and soft and hard caps should be 1 and 3
Ive got another one involving Standard Deviation of scores, but that could wait

Standard deviation appears beyond the clever statisticians behind WHS.