Handicap manipulation - how to address

[Lord Tyrion]

Comment No. 1000. Can I have a prize?

Prize or punishment? Still to be mulled over . I'm not sure there are any prizes to be won here

 

[wjemather]

So there are more people with h/caps that are too high.

Wasn't that addressed by the SSS and CSS

No, there were more people with handicaps that were too low, and there are now more people with handicaps that actually reflect their ability.

And no. SSS only accounted for difficulty for the scratch player; Slope is needed to account for the difference in difficulty for a higher handicapper relative to the scratch player. CSS was simply a scoring adjustment for competitions. Also, the difference between the scratch rating and par was never accounted for prior to last April.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

No, there were more people with handicaps that were too low, and there are now more people with handicaps that actually reflect their ability.

And no. SSS only accounted for difficulty for the scratch player; Slope is needed to account for the difference in difficulty for a higher handicapper relative to the scratch player. CSS was simply a scoring adjustment for competitions. Also, the difference between the scratch rating and par was never accounted for prior to last April.

Are there ?

I’m guessing there is some sort of stats to back it up

 

[Thintowin]

Id like the think the platform itself can spot the handicap cheats . If I put a load of dodgy cards in and shoot up by 6 shots , surely an alarm is triggered somewhere ?

Then people would just learn what the threshold is a work marginally under it.

Getting shots back for most players should be a long journey and then the problem disappears. The few who really need shots back need human assessment to help make that judgement. That's how it should be, that's how it was.

Now more human intervention than before is required as the upward part is a fiasco under the WHS form philosophy.

 

[wjemather]

Are there ?

I’m guessing there is some sort of stats to back it up

Yes.
You know there are, and you've even linked to some of them yourself (perhaps under your previous account), so I won't be playing this game with you.

 

[Slab]

Not looking for any verifiable number just a gut feeling really, but what % of players in a typical comp do you all reckon have a handicap index greater than say; 3 shots higher than ‘it should be’ ?



For ‘it should be’ I assume we need to use WHS ‘form ability’ to scale as the baseline rather than the UHS ‘potential ability’

 

[Thintowin]

Golf used to be a game where each player was incentivised to get to his or her own ability ceiling. Those who thought they'd got to it would often learn something new about the game or themselves and find themselves pushing through a ceiling they'd never thought possible. It was a rewarding game.

The previous handicap systems supported this philosophy.

WHS does not.

 

[bobmac]

No, there were more people with handicaps that were too low, and there are now more people with handicaps that actually reflect their ability.

How can that be when there are more people shooting 7 under their handicap.

For several reasons, such scores may be more common than they were under the old system,

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Yes.
You know there are, and you've even linked to some of them yourself (perhaps under your previous account), so I won't be playing this game with you.

What game ?

You re all about the data so I’m sure you have something to show that HCs are now more reflective?

I’m not sure it’s something I have noticed but when you post a definitive statement surely it’s ok for someone to ask for some substance

 

[AussieKB]

Under the old system I don't remember when the scores were 45 and above......

Maybe getting old my memory is failing.

 

[Colin L]

Id like the think the platform itself can spot the handicap cheats . If I put a load of dodgy cards in and shoot up by 6 shots , surely an alarm is triggered somewhere ?

It's not all that simple. For example, if the 20th score that will disappear is a non counting one, and your 'dodgy' score is higher than the highest in your 8 counting ones, it won't count at that time although maybe later. It is only when a counting score drops off that a higher score can have an impact, but bear in mind there are already 12 non-counting scores in your record all higher, obviously, than the current highest counting one. All you could do is to keep putting in scores higher than the existing highest counter and wait for the process of counting scores dropping off to take effect.

Written in a bit of a hurry and I haven't even mentioned capping increases. No doubt I'll be taken to task if I've got it wrong in my haste.

 

[Slab]

Golf used to be a game where each player was incentivised to get to his or her own ability ceiling. Those who thought they'd got to it would often learn something new about the game or themselves and find themselves pushing through a ceiling they'd never thought possible. It was a rewarding game.

The previous handicap systems supported this philosophy.

WHS does not.

Much as I have questions about WHS (& course rating) I'm not sure this point of view holds water

My handicap is far lower now than it ever was while we had the previous system. I've done this by getting better at the game & learning new things to get to a level I never thought possible.

So WHS obviously does support that (edit; as did the old system)

 

[jim8flog]

But the Comittiee checked all the cards.
Would your workload be up if you checked every GP card now?

The app and GP cards are a problem imo.

Cards are checked by office staff where I play.

If every card had to be returned to the office, probably not as County have already said we do not need to check every card, 1 in 10 was recommended. That is 4 a day compared to every card pre WHS and every score would have been entered on the PSI screen by the player these days.

Has admin increased? Probably in some clubs where they do not take advantage of apps and by some who are very punctilious.

In light of OP have apps made it easier to manipulate? No more than 'deciding' what to put on a card?
It is not the system it is the player at fault.

 

[hambugerpete]

Then people would just learn what the threshold is a work marginally under it.

Getting shots back for most players should be a long journey and then the problem disappears. The few who really need shots back need human assessment to help make that judgement. That's how it should be, that's how it was.

Now more human intervention than before is required as the upward part is a fiasco under the WHS form philosophy.

I started the year at 11.6 and finished at 15.7. my game was in pieces , I think under the old system I'd have gone up a shot. Under whs I've gone up 4. I'm optimistic I've turned a corner and will see it drop as fast. I don't really see any issues with that. The system reflects how bad I've played.

 

[Thintowin]

Much as I have questions about WHS (& course rating) I'm not sure this point of view holds water

My handicap is far lower now than it ever was while we had the previous system. I've done this by getting better at the game & learning new things to get to a level I never thought possible.

So WHS obviously does support that (edit; as did the old system)

Your handicap has gone down because you have become a better player. Would have under the previous system also.

My question to you is do you think your handicap should now go up if you have a run of bad form?

 

[jim8flog]

Id like the think the platform itself can spot the handicap cheats . If I put a load of dodgy cards in and shoot up by 6 shots , surely an alarm is triggered somewhere ?

ditto to DickInShorts

It is relatively easy to go up 3 but much harder between 3 and 5 and impossible within a year to go beyond 5 with h'cp committee intervention.

 

[jim8flog]

Then people would just learn what the threshold is a work marginally under it.

Getting shots back for most players should be a long journey and then the problem disappears. The few who really need shots back need human assessment to help make that judgement. That's how it should be, that's how it was.

Now more human intervention than before is required as the upward part is a fiasco under the WHS form philosophy.

The trouble in that was always the human factor.

Having spent more than a decade on a handicap committee with an assortment of others there is always a great reluctance by some to give an increase to a players handicap no matter what their scores suggest.

to give an example at the Annual review (which is actually made much easier under the WHS) out of approx 50 players reviewed only 3 got an increase.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Not looking for any verifiable number just a gut feeling really, but what % of players in a typical comp do you all reckon have a handicap index greater than say; 3 shots higher than ‘it should be’ ?



For ‘it should be’ I assume we need to use WHS ‘form ability’ to scale as the baseline rather than the UHS ‘potential ability’

My gut feeling is that more people have handicaps that are too high for their ability and that’s reflected in a lot of the scores we are getting

 

[Slab]

Your handicap has gone down because you have become a better player. Would have under the previous system also.

My question to you is do you think your handicap should now go up if you have a run of bad form?

re bold; Yeah that's what I said because you said WHS doesn't support that philosophy, but it does, doesn't it?

re red; entirely diff question
Of course it should go up, I'm sure you even believe that? The bone of contention is; at what rate & over what period is deemed acceptable by our peers

 

[RichA]

Under the old system I don't remember when the scores were 45 and above......

Maybe getting old my memory is failing.

The highest ever competition Stableford score at my club was 44 points in September 2021.
The issue you describe is not universal.