Agree with that summary entirely. The WHS has broken handicapping and taking a sticking plaster approach is a mug's game.So we have a Cheats charter that makes it easy to fiddle your handicap.
Now we need a Snitches charter to report them .
Progress
Handicap manipulation - how to address
- Thread starter Teebs
- Start date
D-S
Well-known member
Hasn’t peer review always been a part of handicapping systems?
Even if it was, who the heck ever used it? Flood gates have opened on dodgy handicaps. System not fit for purpose. Couldn't be more obvious.
D-S
Well-known member
Handicap Committees?
rulefan
Tour Winner
England Golf (and the then EGU) at least twice to my certain knowledge. Also my County Union.
D-S
Well-known member
Previously systems were seemingly so good that no manual intervention was ever needed?
I wonder why the famous/infamous rule 19 was ever needed?
I wonder why the famous/infamous rule 19 was ever needed?
No previous system was nearly as bad a WHS. If you can't see that then you are not playing club golf.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
My club has put in place Winter restrictions around casual play cards being submitted when members are playing ‘away from home’ (as it were). It had become apparent, or at least the risk recognised that, in winter, courses could be non-qualifying…but who is to know…certainly not an app. I have to admit to not knowing how my club is actually managing this restriction if a member wishes to submit one or more winter cards for play ‘away from home’.
A few of us had this discussion yesterday at the club…with the consensus understanding being that, as a club, we have little ‘deliberate’ handicap manipulation - at least of this nature. But we recognise the risk is there.
A few of us had this discussion yesterday at the club…with the consensus understanding being that, as a club, we have little ‘deliberate’ handicap manipulation - at least of this nature. But we recognise the risk is there.
Neilds
Assistant Pro
As I have said a few times on threads like this, if you are certain it is going in ( and a lot seem to be certain) have they reported it? Or, as I suspect, do you just moan on social media and join in the unsubstantiated gossip?
D-S
Well-known member
An App certainly should know as the tees need to be turned off in the portal so if you try create a scorecard in the App you can't as there should be no marker available.
rulefan
Tour Winner
I wonder how many clubs actually do that.
wjemather
Well-known member
Players should be advised to check with the host club to ensure scores are acceptable, even if the tee markers are available on the app.
D-S
Well-known member
As a County we check that the clubs are doing it (its quite a quick process), they are now all aware what to do when their course is unacceptable - so I can confidently say. almost all here.
KenL
Tour Rookie
If a course is non-conforming due to length or the number of temporary greens, then the club can prevent scores being put through on an app.
We are in this situation at the moment and can’t log a score on the club ig app or the Scottish Golf app.
D-S
Well-known member
How does your club restrict GP scores from members playing away courses in winter? When do they start not to trust other clubs?
rosecott
Money List Winner
I don't see how his club can restrict their members from submitting GP cards at other courses. They could, of course, just cancel them but, as a member, I would be straight on to the County Handicap Adviser.
D-S
Well-known member
Couldn’t agree more.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
I don’t know…I’ll ask…
Colin L
Tour Winner
Skimming through this thread for the first time, one thing jumps out. As has been previously noted, those slating the WHS system are actually complaining about the behaviour of people, broadly speaking of dishonest players and under-active club committees, not about the handicapping system as such. Was there no moaning about folk manipulating handicaps previously? Was the term bandit first used in golfing circles in 2020? Did we never sit in the bar griping about known groups who travelled around regularly picking up prizes at fairly lucrative Tex Scrambles? Were there no annual handicap reviews, no peer reviews?
Having carried out an intensive analysis of handicapping in my own club pre-WHS, I can say with confidence that were was a huge systemic weakness in the UHS resulting in a substantial proportion of our players being seriously under handicapped, some of whose net differentials were up in the high teens. That was because the UHS system was hopelessly slow in responding to a decline in playing ability which was, of course, endemic in an ageing population and because in the CONGU annual recommendations for the annual review you would find the committee being recommended to increase with caution the handicap of one of those players recording double figure net differentials by one stroke. Imagine telling a member the we know they are returning scores 15 stokes above their handicap and we are going to rectify that by giving them a stroke which will help them return scores 14 above their handicap. Believe me, at worst it was that bad.
I ask those of you who are denigrating the WHS system to detail any systemic weakness in the WHS of that magnitude and to explain what aspects of the system (not the behaviour of people) you see as seriously flawed. And to answer one question: what is the difference between the previous supplementary scores and general play scores that has suddenly made it possible for the unscrupulous to manipulate their handicaps?.
Having carried out an intensive analysis of handicapping in my own club pre-WHS, I can say with confidence that were was a huge systemic weakness in the UHS resulting in a substantial proportion of our players being seriously under handicapped, some of whose net differentials were up in the high teens. That was because the UHS system was hopelessly slow in responding to a decline in playing ability which was, of course, endemic in an ageing population and because in the CONGU annual recommendations for the annual review you would find the committee being recommended to increase with caution the handicap of one of those players recording double figure net differentials by one stroke. Imagine telling a member the we know they are returning scores 15 stokes above their handicap and we are going to rectify that by giving them a stroke which will help them return scores 14 above their handicap. Believe me, at worst it was that bad.
I ask those of you who are denigrating the WHS system to detail any systemic weakness in the WHS of that magnitude and to explain what aspects of the system (not the behaviour of people) you see as seriously flawed. And to answer one question: what is the difference between the previous supplementary scores and general play scores that has suddenly made it possible for the unscrupulous to manipulate their handicaps?.
Rubbish
