Handicap manipulation - how to address

[hambugerpete]

Max handicap was changed before whs I think

 

[wjemather]

On the basis that the recommendation is that competitions should have categories, we can conclude that the handicap system is not capable of having a scratch and a 40 handicapper really compete against each other. I think all will agree on this.

Maybe the older systems had the same issue, but it was reduced in effect, with 24 then 28 the max handicaps. WHS has tilted the odds away from low handicaps further. Exacerbating the situation.

But going back to categories, if they are unavoidable for fair competition, should we have :
- a single guidance policy on these categories. Maybe just two : up to 24, and, above 24 ? All the 'old' competitions would then at least in this aspect of the higher handicaps, be restored to what was before 2018.
- furthermore, with such a split, should there then be different single factors for each category and not just a one size fits all, 0.95 ?

There is a contradiction in the EG implementation, where on the one hand they acknowledge a a 1 and a 50 cannot compete fairly, yet arrive at and recommend using 0.95 on the basis that it is the best compromise across the full handicap range ?

If we say we should have categories, say plus infinity to 12 for example, then that competition should be run with a factor that applies to that field of golfers. Not one that is based on a 50hc, who is then not in yhe category anyway ?

You're over simplifying the limitations of handicapping and misrepresenting them. Field size and handicap distribution are the key factors, not just whether there is a low and high handicapper - one 40 handicap in a field of 100 single figure golfers would not affect equity; one single figure golfer in a field of 100 40 handicappers doesn't stand a chance; head to head, they have a fair match with the low handicapper winning marginally more often (but also getting trounced occasionally, even when playing well). As such, it isn't practical or desirable to specify what variable allowances should be based solely on field size (covered in the rule clarifications) or create a global division boundary framework.

 

[Dunesman]

You're over simplifying the limitations of handicapping and misrepresenting them. Field size and handicap distribution are the key factors, not just whether there is a low and high handicapper - one 40 handicap in a field of 100 single figure golfers would not affect equity; one single figure golfer in a field of 100 40 handicappers doesn't stand a chance; head to head, they have a fair match with the low handicapper winning marginally more often (but also getting trounced occasionally, even when playing well). As such, it isn't practical or desirable to specify what variable allowances should be based solely on field size (covered in the rule clarifications) or create a global division boundary framework.

Misunderstanding. Thats not what I am saying. I am suggesting the allowance should be according to the handicap range in the category. Not field size.

 

[wjemather]

Misunderstanding. Thats not what I am saying. I am suggesting the allowance should be according to the handicap range in the category. Not field size.

Handicap range is largely irrelevant - a field with one scratch golfer and 100 28 handicappers has the same range as a field with 100 scratch golfers and one 28 handicapper, but would require very different allowances.

The distribution of handicaps in the field (or division) and field (or division) size are the determining factors.

 

[Thintowin]

How do you suppose all your disparaging remarks (about new golfers, less able golfers, less dedicated golfers, bad golfers, forum members, etc.) are being judged?
You said a while ago that we don't know anything about you. What kind of picture do you think you've painted for us?

Us? I think you mean you. I'm sure each person's picture will be different.

WHS is the biggest insult to the golfer.

 

[Thintowin]

For those who think it's fine to give men more than one shot, and occasionally 2, on a hole why is the limit 54?

What's your criteria for it not being infinity?

 

[Thintowin]

More absurd by the minute.

The most expensive clubs, irons anyway, tend to be forged.

The mid-range game improvement clubs are cast so can be easily mass produced and are usually overpriced. They look good and are often game improvement clubs which have less metal as they are hollowed out like a wood. Swing faster and they go much further than a normal swing which isn't really what you want from an iron when you get proficient. People who are getting to grips with the game are often looking for more distance and get drawn in by these big profit clubs.

The game has become more about hitting it far than learning to get the ball in the hole.

You can see the manufacturers' strategy to increasing profits and influential people can sometimes be easily led. WHS plays into the manufacturers hands.

 

[PaulMdj]

For those who think it's fine to give men more than one shot, and occasionally 2, on a hole why is the limit 54?

What's your criteria for it not being infinity?

You’re missing the point!
People learn at different speeds, have different abilities etc!

Our Club has a max handicap of 24 for Board Comps, I have no issue with that, none whatsoever, it used to be 18, but it was noted that we excluding some members the chance to compete who had been members for 30 years or more and their health amongst other reason had declined and as such, their handicap.

As JLO I had kids who didn’t care if they took 10 shots on a Par 3 or 20 shots, they were enjoying and learning the game.

So, for me, there has to be a start point, why not 3 shots per hole, 4 or 5 wouldn’t bother me either, but Clubs can control when all these people can enter Comps, WHS has no affect what Local conditions Clubs put on Comps when it comes to Handicap.

 

[Colin L]

The most expensive clubs, irons anyway, tend to be forged.
Any
The mid-range game improvement clubs are cast so can be easily mass produced and are usually overpriced. They look good and are often game improvement clubs which have less metal as they are hollowed out like a wood. Swing faster and they go much further than a normal swing which isn't really what you want from an iron when you get proficient. People who are getting to grips with the game are often looking for more distance and get drawn in by these big profit clubs.

The game has become more about hitting it far than learning to get the ball in the hole.

You can see the manufacturers' strategy to increasing profits and influential people can sometimes be easily led. WHS plays into the manufacturers hands.

Typical swerving around the point that was being made - the bolded nonsense about bladed irons luring us into thinking we can hit a 7 iron as far as s pro. If any higher handicapper thinks that, more fool them. They should have done their homework, spoken to their pro or the nearest single figure player in the clubhouse , arranged a fitting - whatever.

Cavity irons are used by the less proficient golfer mainly because they are more forgiving, blades by the highly proficient golfer for their being better for manufacturing shots at will using skills well out of reach of the higher handicapper. Cavity clubs have made the game more enjoyable for a large number of us.

What any of that has to do with the WHS is anyone's guess.

EDIT. I didn't mention the main point I meant to make - that cavity irons have made the game more enjoyable for many by being more manageable.

 

[Swango1980]

For those who think it's fine to give men more than one shot, and occasionally 2, on a hole why is the limit 54?

What's your criteria for it not being infinity?

Already been pointed out, but maximum handicap is a bit of a red herring in relation to this thread. The maximum handicap could be set to any number in any handicap system, and was indeed introduced pre WHS.

Sure, reducing the maximum handicap will stop any handicap manipulation by any individual that is doing it above the new maximum, and who cant actually get their handicap down to the new maximum if they give it their best. But, it won't stop any individuals who are currently manipulating their handicap, below the new maximum.

The maximum allowed handicap is a different discussion, and a fair discussion to have (I've no issues with it to be honest, and clubs can still set upper handicap limits on their competitions if they wish, ours set it to 24). But I think it is best left for a separate thread personally.

 

[doublebogey7]

Already been pointed out, but maximum handicap is a bit of a red herring in relation to this thread. The maximum handicap could be set to any number in any handicap system, and was indeed introduced pre WHS.

Sure, reducing the maximum handicap will stop any handicap manipulation by any individual that is doing it above the new maximum, and who cant actually get their handicap down to the new maximum if they give it their best. But, it won't stop any individuals who are currently manipulating their handicap, below the new maximum.

The maximum allowed handicap is a different discussion, and a fair discussion to have (I've no issues with it to be honest, and clubs can still set upper handicap limits on their competitions if they wish, ours set it to 24). But I think it is best left for a separate thread personally.

I wonder how many have a handicap of 54, at my club our highest male adult HI is 32.1 and I've yet to see anyone above 40. We have a number of juniors above that, but that can surely only be a good thing as it provides a measure in which they can show improvement.

 

[Swango1980]

I wonder how many have a handicap of 54, at my club our highest male adult HI is 32.1 and I've yet to see anyone above 40. We have a number of juniors above that, but that can surely only be a good thing as it provides a measure in which they can show improvement.

Very few.

Just looking at our handicap list, the 5 highest men are:

1. 54.0, CH (White) = 67
2. 40.5, CH (White) = 50
3. 36.8, CH (White) = 45
4. 33.8, CH (White) = 42
5. 33.6, CH (White) = 42

In all honesty, I've never come across them. So not sure if they are juniors, or casual players. The highest handicap player I recognise that plays in comps is off 29.4. That would give him a course handicap of 36, but he is restricted to 24 in most comps anyway, so usually near last place (either with a very bad score or an NR).

 

[LincolnShep]

I wonder how many have a handicap of 54, at my club our highest male adult HI is 32.1 and I've yet to see anyone above 40. We have a number of juniors above that, but that can surely only be a good thing as it provides a measure in which they can show improvement.

My club is very cheap and attracts members that some people would look down their nose at because they're not very good golfers. We don't have any 54s but we do have four players in the 40s.

 

[IanM]

My club is very cheap and attracts members that some people would look down their nose at because they're not very good golfers. We don't have any 54s but we do have four players in the 40s.

No one minds "bad" golfers, every dislikes cheats and snails

 

[Swango1980]

No one minds "bad" golfers, every dislikes cheats and snails

Unless they are in your team. In which case a lot of people hate bad golfers, but they love cheating bandits

 

[IanM]

Unless they are in your team. In which case a lot of people hate bad golfers, but they love cheating bandits

According to some in this thread, there's no such thing as a bandit

 

[D-S]

According to some in this thread, there's no such thing as a bandit

There have always been cheats and bandits and there probably always will be.

If only there was a thread on here that sought to find and share good ways and best practice to discover and minimise the number of them.

 

[Crow]

For those who think it's fine to give men more than one shot, and occasionally 2, on a hole why is the limit 54?

What's your criteria for it not being infinity?

To get a handicap of infinity you would need to hand in scorecards of infinity, which means your round would never end, ergo you can't have a handicap of infinity.

 

[LincolnShep]

No one minds "bad" golfers, every dislikes cheats and snails

There have been comments on this very thread that suggest some people don't consider high handicappers as golfers at all (or "pub golfers" at best).

 

[3 jabber]

Wow, loads of new posts since I last looked at this thread and I can't be bothered to read 30 pages of arguments.

My summary

WHS gives a more accurate indication of current form BUT it is too easy to manipulate and a cheats charter.

Fair assessment?