Handicap manipulation - how to address

[jim8flog]

I was hoping just ten cards might be more up to date for most golfers and they wouldn’t have cards two years old .

I was mainly referring to Low Handicap index which goes back 12 months. So you would probably need the last 15 months to work out what it was 12 months ago.

I know for me with the current system my low index dates from Feb 202 hence being on the soft cap for some time now. Without soft cap I could be on hard cap now.

 

[Swango1980]

You might be interested to know that England Golf will be running a WHS seminar on Monday next week.

First item on the agenda is "Score and Handicap Index® manipulation"

Hmmm

Does that mean England Golf recognise it as a problem serious enough to be on the agenda, or an issue that is not a serious problem, and they need to stick it on the agenda to deal with the misconceptions of many club golfers?

Interesting to know what will be discussed

 

[jim8flog]

The fewer scores you use, the more volatile handicaps will become. The biggest complaints about WHS is how volatile it is compared to last system (particularly in terms of going upwards).

If you truly want to make your handicap reflect your most recent form, it could just be based on your last score (only as good as your last round). Clearly, there would be huge drawbacks to this. Using last 2 scores, 3 scores, 4 scores, etc would stabilise that extreme idea, but would still be wildly unstable compared to what we have.

I'd like to think that most enthusiastic golfers, especially those that play in competitions, are able to submit 20 or more scores in a year anyway, or certainly not much beyond that. If they don't, then it is up to competition organizers to set conditions if they feel it isn't a good idea to have players in the competition that have very little recent playing history. If they do, I'm not sure how easy it is to weed these players out? Do organisers need to look through the records of all entered players, and then remove them if they don't meet the requirements? It would be good in the competition set up, where you could set the criteria on the software. If a player doesn't meet that criteria, they are automatically given a message they do not meet the criteria and cannot play, or do not meet the criteria, can still play within the competition but uneligible for a prize (i.e. they still get a game of golf and a counting score on handicap, if it is an acceptable format)

Does this actually point to bringing in the rule that you must submit a card every time you play and allow 'plays like'.

 

[rosecott]

Hmmm

Does that mean England Golf recognise it as a problem serious enough to be on the agenda, or an issue that is not a serious problem, and they need to stick it on the agenda to deal with the misconceptions of many club golfers?

Interesting to know what will be discussed

I'm sorry. I should have taken more time to read it more carefully. It's not next week, but mid-February - we will find out then.

 

[Swango1980]

Does this actually point to bringing in the rule that you must submit a card every time you play and allow 'plays like'.

I wouldn't advocate that. Has that traditionally been the requirement in the USA?

There are plenty of times golfers go out in social play with no intention to shoot their best score. Maybe they want to try out a few different types of shots, different clubs. Or, just play a format with gimmes and such like that don't make it an acceptable round. I would hate a system that demand golfers do something when they are just going out for a bit of a social knock.

But, for enthusiastic golfers, who genuinely want a reliable handicap, I'd think they'd be encouraged to submit a decent number of social rounds, if not all. probably a good number of competitions to play in through the year as well. I'm not retired, so I can only play competitions at weekends, and I think I managed 23 competitions that had gone towards my handicap in 2024. If clubs set criteria to enter competitions, then it would likely encourage golfers to submit more scores.

They could go extreme, and set the actual handicap to competition or non-competition like they did pre-WHS, based on an agreed set of criteria a golfer must meet (perhaps 3 scores in a year may be considered too lenient). But doubt that will happen, as I guess the handicap authorities want the competition organisers to set that criteria, and give them flexibility to set what their own limits.

 

[wjemather]

Hmmm

Does that mean England Golf recognise it as a problem serious enough to be on the agenda, or an issue that is not a serious problem, and they need to stick it on the agenda to deal with the misconceptions of many club golfers?

Interesting to know what will be discussed

Manipulation has been a major talking point in several of EG's seminars on WHS.
Also, as mentioned before (somewhere, probably the survey thread), manipulation was one of the main concerns expressed by respondents to the WHS survey last year, so it's no surprise that it's at the top of the list this time, when there isn't a raft of major changes to wade through first and the WHS fundamentals shouldn't need a thorough refreshing.

 

[nickjdavis]

There are plenty of times golfers go out in social play with no intention to shoot their best score. Maybe they want to try out a few different types of shots, different clubs. Or, just play a format with gimmes and such like that don't make it an acceptable round. I would hate a system that demand golfers do something when they are just going out for a bit of a social knock.

Our groups preferred format for GP is "skins".

There are many occasions where you will hit an "ambitious" shot on a hole where you receive a stroke, that you wouldn't play if you were building a medal score. Sometimes gross birdie with a shot is the only way you might win a skin on a particular hole....especially when there are 20 of you playing...so you tend to take more risks chasing a birdie, knowing that it ultimately doesn't matter if you par/bogey or double bogey (or worse) the hole.

 

[Dunesman]

You might be interested to know that England Golf will be running a WHS seminar on Monday next week.

First item on the agenda is "Score and Handicap Index® manipulation"

I suppose putting golfers themselves in the spotlight as a problem deflects from their own responsibility or dealing with the issues of WHS itself and England Golf's worse implementation of it.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I asked our golf manager about winning scores and if he felt there was much handicap manipulation going on in my club. He felt winning scores were generally reasonable, so not absurd, and well distributed across handicaps. Plus his feeling was that there was very little handicap manipulation going on in our membership, certainly nothing significant.

So why the difference between clubs.

I’ll note that our golf manager is our previous head professional and that we have a very diligent low SF handicapper and qualified ref as our Handicaps Secretary

 

[Dunesman]

I asked our golf manager about winning scores and if he felt there was much handicap manipulation going on in my club. He felt winning scores were generally reasonable, so not absurd, and well distributed across handicaps. Plus his feeling was that there was very little handicap manipulation going on in our membership, certainly nothing significant.

So why the difference between clubs.

I’ll note that our golf manager is our previous head professional and that we have a very diligent low SF handicapper and qualified ref as our Handicaps Secretary

Unfortunately, with the merging of the two similar threads on WHS, that there are two distinct issues has been lost or blurred a little.

Firstly, handicap manipulation as you mention. Of coarse, its part of golfing history since the dawn of handicapping, and tales of banditry predate WHS. But were, and are still, probably overblown I think. If a club has some members of that persuasion, it can be a big problem, and spread a little. Some clubs may indeed have no issue, and I would also guess they are the majority.

Nevertheless, I think it is clear that WHS has made handicap manipulation easier, less conspicuous, and more tempting to the so minded. I dont think it can be argued, but that to some degree, handicap manipulation has increased in prevalence and extent since WHS. Open to question, are how problematic was manipulation before, how much has it increased, does the increased level have any material effect on the playing of handicap golf, and how widely distributed or patchy is the problem. Very hard to analyse, so we will hear all variety of estimations of the issue, from no issue, to ruining the game catastrophising.


While your manager is just one mans maybe or not considered opinion, the issue of winning scores also brings in the other key WHS (England flavour at least) issue of the fairness of competitions. That is a function of the system, and EG and other regional golf authorities have the necessary information to analyse, present, and either reassure those mistrusting WHS, or correct issues if they are identified.
Due to the loosening of what in the main, in practice here, would have been a handicap limit increase of 1 shots to 3 in a short period, I think it is also unarguable that average winning scores will have increased with WHS. Further fuelled by the favouring of higher handicaps to win, rather than lower handicappers as under UHS. The greater scope for the higher hc to beat his handicap, the greater number in that range, cannot but have raised the best scores of players in the upper ranges.
But this can only be seen in big data analysis. Anecdotes, or we have no winning score above 40 this year, or on the other pole, you dont even place with 45 here now, nor the whim impression of anyone of their clubs situation, cannot provide this answer.
This is why authorities must come public and restore confidence. Saying the procedure is to review it every 4 years is, computer says no, nonsense. A four year review might be fine once there is a decade or more of running the system. But no responsible authority or business changes a system, and leaves it to 4 year intervals to review its performance. For the first few years, scrutiny and review should be more in depth, and more frequent. Annually as a minimum. EG could do this, for the wriggle room they have even within the existing WHS framework. That their only response off their own bat, has been to amend the criteria for the competitions under their own direct control is a disgrace.
Their ordinary fee paying handicap golfers deserve better.

 

[rulefan]

Hmmm

Does that mean England Golf recognise it as a problem serious enough to be on the agenda, or an issue that is not a serious problem, and they need to stick it on the agenda to deal with the misconceptions of many club golfers?

Interesting to know what will be discussed

I hope EG will tell us that they have done the necessary number crunching and are in a position to tell us if the there is a problem or not. If there is an identified problem they will tell us what and when they will take appropriate action to rectify it.

As it happens, my club has no evidence of there being an issue.

 

[Swango1980]

I hope EG will tell us that they have done the necessary number crunching and are in a position to tell us if the there is a problem or not. If there is an identified problem they will tell us what and when they will take appropriate action to rectify it.

As it happens, my club has no evidence of there being an issue.

That's one of the problems. Very hard to get evidence for most of incidents it actually happens. Almost need the player to admit to it, or be found out entering scores when they didn't play.

Whereas, intentionally playing garbage for a few holes, missing a few short putts, etc. is impossible to prove as being intentional.

 

[rulefan]

That's one of the problems. Very hard to get evidence for most of incidents it actually happens. Almost need the player to admit to it, or be found out entering scores when they didn't play.

Whereas, intentionally playing garbage for a few holes, missing a few short putts, etc. is impossible to prove as being intentional.

We have no evidence of players attempting to build a handicap and have no evidence of players producing abnormally low (medal ) or low (stableford) scores.

 

[Swango1980]

We have no evidence of players attempting to build a handicap and have no evidence of players producing abnormally low (medal ) or low (stableford) scores.

Yup. You said that previously, hence my reply.

Not sure how you would get evidence if it was happening

 

[rulie]

We have no evidence of players attempting to build a handicap and have no evidence of players producing abnormally low (medal ) or low (stableford) scores.

I heard a classic definition of "they" that may be applicable in this thread - it means "everybody but me".
(not intended in any way as disputing your post)

 

[rulefan]

Yup. You said that previously, hence my reply.

Not sure how you would get evidence if it was happening

One example. Unusual low/high scores from GP cards with same marker.
Others (with more devious minds?) may have others.

 

[Dunesman]

Yup. You said that previously, hence my reply.

Not sure how you would get evidence if it was happening

I dont think it will ever be found, in a general sense, that manipulating has increased. Its too subtle and disguisable to determine categorically if someone wants to. Only the stupid will get caught.
But on a wider consideration, it doesnt matter. WHS has made cheating easier, so it is reasonable to conclude that it has increased by some unknown and unknowable degree. But this aspect of WHS would have been fully predictable and known to WHS designers. They presumably deemed this negative was worth the positive (for anyone who has forgotten, it was, though maybe isnt really any more, 'portability').

 

[rulie]

I dont think it will ever be found, in a general sense, that manipulating has increased. Its too subtle and disguisable to determine categorically if someone wants to. Only the stupid will get caught.
But on a wider consideration, it doesnt matter. WHS has made cheating easier, so it is reasonable to conclude that it has increased by some unknown and unknowable degree. But this aspect of WHS would have been fully predictable and known to WHS designers. They presumably deemed this negative was worth the positive (for anyone who has forgotten, it was, though maybe isnt really any more, 'portability').

The Rules of golf are written with the expectation that the players will act with integrity (Rule 1.2). I presume the same is true for the Rules of handicapping.

 

[D-S]

I dont think it will ever be found, in a general sense, that manipulating has increased. Its too subtle and disguisable to determine categorically if someone wants to. Only the stupid will get caught.
But on a wider consideration, it doesnt matter. WHS has made cheating easier, so it is reasonable to conclude that it has increased by some unknown and unknowable degree. But this aspect of WHS would have been fully predictable and known to WHS designers. They presumably deemed this negative was worth the positive (for anyone who has forgotten, it was, though maybe isnt really any more, 'portability').

I don’t necessarily think it is WHS has made cheating easier, it is the ease of use and lack of limits and constraints on GP cards that has done that.
These are things that are controlled by the local governing body. In Spain there are limits to GP cards I believes and we have heard about the Mauritius example.
The impetus for this seems to have come from the US style of handicapping/score tracking where entering your score used to be just typing two (or three) digits into a touchscreen or App and was enabled and encouraged to be done after almost all rounds in the majority of formats.

 

[Swango1980]

The Rules of golf are written with the expectation that the players will act with integrity (Rule 1.2). I presume the same is true for the Rules of handicapping.

This thread is called handicap manipulation. So, we are talking about golfers who lack integrity. Unless you believe 100% of golfers do have integrity and handicap manipulation doesn't happen?