rulie
Head Pro
It’s a golf forum for discussing golf, it’s not a lobbying group or a governing body.
Opinions expressed will vary, as would be expected.
Opinions expressed will vary, as would be expected.
Handicap manipulation - how to address
- Thread starter Teebs
- Start date
KenL
Tour Rookie
A bit extreme. WHS may not perfect, but people would be able to manipulate handicaps whatever the system.
Do you have a particular gripe you would care to share?
Bunkermagnet
Journeyman Pro
What a load of twoddle.
You obviously havent played golf or been on any golf forums for very long if you thought the previous system was any better.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Well I've been involved in such forums for about 20 years.
But apart from the subject of this thread (handicap manipulation) what specific problem(s) have you encountered with respect to differences between UHS and WHS?
Crow
Crow Person
I suspect he was a member of this forum under another name until fairly recently.
KenL
Tour Rookie
Do you have your suspicions Mr Crow?
Crow
Crow Person
Colin L
Tour Winner
Well, since it clearly isn't obvious to many of us here, it's a pity you didn't explain the fatal flaws of any of the features of system I listed. But never mind. As you have said nothing specific about anything, you should consider saying nothing altogether.
You certainly haven't gained the understanding never mind the support of anyone on this forum who is properly knowledgeable and you also seem unaware of the significance of the fact (that's a real kind of fact, not your kind of 'fact") that this forum is owned by and wouldn't exist without Golf Monthly. If you want to start a campaign to abandon the WHS (be clear in considerable detail about what the reasons are and what alternative you would propose), you need to contact the editor of the magazine and get his support. I'm sure he will be thrilled to hear from you.
By the way the 'whoever' of "the R&A and whoever.." is the USGA (United States Golf Association). Jointly, it took them something like 7 years to devise a universal handicapping system that every national association agreed with. Do contact them as well. They will be most impressed by your opinion of - sorry the facts about - the WHS.
AussieKB
Well-known member
'By the way the 'whoever' of "the R&A and whoever.." is the USGA (United States Golf Association). Jointly, it took them something like 7 years to devise a universal handicapping system that every national association agreed with. Do contact them as well. They will be most impressed by your opinion of - sorry the facts about - the WHS.'
But every Country has a different version......explain that.
But every Country has a different version......explain that.
Colin L
Tour Winner
There is a number of options left to national associations to choose from but none of them to do with the fundamental system of calculating initial handicaps, subsequently adjusting them and applying them to the game. If I've overlooked anything you are aware of that allows differences in that core system, do let me know.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
95% or 93% for individual strokeplay handicap.
Net double bogey limit for Score Differential calculation according to 100% of Course Handicap.
Stableford Points for Score Differential calculation according to 93% of Course Handicap.
Last edited:
D-S
Well-known member
Isn’t that just a competition issue and has no effect on handicapping?
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
It addresses the point made by Colin L, "subsequently adjusting them and applying them to the game."
Colin L
Tour Winner
If there are other jurisdictions than CONGU where the stroke play allowance is 93% or some other figure, it makes no difference to the core calculations of handicap indexes. The net double bogey applied as the maximum score for a hole for handicapping calculations is according to the strokes received from course handicaps. Playing handicaps are, as said, pertinent only to particular competitions. There may be jurisdictions which use different handicap allowances than the ones in Appendix C or even allow clubs to set their own, but it doesn't affect the universality of handicap indexes.
Does that also address your other point?
Does that also address your other point?
Two points have been made repeatedly here and in other similar threads on this topic that I think are incorrect.
1. That non competition scores being submitted for handicap was possible under the old system, and so WHS GP scores are not new.
Factually true.
But in practice, the point is not valid. Supplementary scores were an exception, extreme rarity, and insignificant in the landscape of handicaps. Many golfers would not even have known of the facility. WHS by contrast, positively promotes cards at all opportunities. And facilitates by the nature of the apps which were not a feature of the old system, which required prior notification of supplementary card intent which in itself raised a barrier to submitting one without strong reason.
WHS is inherently more volatile. More cards pushed. The combination does make handicap manipulation more easy.
2. A line that claims you could cheat under the old system, and you can cheat under WHS, so nothing has changed. A, cheaters-gona-cheat, theory.
Again, the first is factually true, and the second partly true.
But in practice, not the fully story. The Italians have a line that goes something like : the opportunity can make a man a thief.
Cheating is not so black and white. There were golfers who would never knowingly cheat in the playing of their golf, yet might have 'not really tried' on the 18th when a point or two would have kept them in the buffer zone, and a blank, given them point one back, and maybe a full shot for next week. Hardliners would not make the distinction - cheating is cheating. But the reality is that many players do not equate nudging a bad lie in the rough with your foot, to messing up the 18th to get a shot back.
WHS has lowered the bar to cheating. Putting in lots of cards gives easy, low level opportunity, when playing casual games, with no comp entry fee, and no sense of cheating a field playing in a competition, to put in a bad round. And this is happening far more than it did in the past.
1. That non competition scores being submitted for handicap was possible under the old system, and so WHS GP scores are not new.
Factually true.
But in practice, the point is not valid. Supplementary scores were an exception, extreme rarity, and insignificant in the landscape of handicaps. Many golfers would not even have known of the facility. WHS by contrast, positively promotes cards at all opportunities. And facilitates by the nature of the apps which were not a feature of the old system, which required prior notification of supplementary card intent which in itself raised a barrier to submitting one without strong reason.
WHS is inherently more volatile. More cards pushed. The combination does make handicap manipulation more easy.
2. A line that claims you could cheat under the old system, and you can cheat under WHS, so nothing has changed. A, cheaters-gona-cheat, theory.
Again, the first is factually true, and the second partly true.
But in practice, not the fully story. The Italians have a line that goes something like : the opportunity can make a man a thief.
Cheating is not so black and white. There were golfers who would never knowingly cheat in the playing of their golf, yet might have 'not really tried' on the 18th when a point or two would have kept them in the buffer zone, and a blank, given them point one back, and maybe a full shot for next week. Hardliners would not make the distinction - cheating is cheating. But the reality is that many players do not equate nudging a bad lie in the rough with your foot, to messing up the 18th to get a shot back.
WHS has lowered the bar to cheating. Putting in lots of cards gives easy, low level opportunity, when playing casual games, with no comp entry fee, and no sense of cheating a field playing in a competition, to put in a bad round. And this is happening far more than it did in the past.
The lines of conversation and points of view of those who are dominant in this forum are simply not reflective of the chat within the clubhouse. Maybe you enjoy your echo chamber but that's what it is. WHS will be a dead duck and is already ignored in some golfing circles. People find a way of competing and they'll find a way again. It won't be long before some clubs drop their affiliations. All it's doing is breaking up the game. It's created hostility and attitudes between players of different handicaps are worse because of it. The game is in turmoil.Well, since it clearly isn't obvious to many of us here, it's a pity you didn't explain the fatal flaws of any of the features of system I listed. But never mind. As you have said nothing specific about anything, you should consider saying nothing altogether.
You certainly haven't gained the understanding never mind the support of anyone on this forum who is properly knowledgeable and you also seem unaware of the significance of the fact (that's a real kind of fact, not your kind of 'fact") that this forum is owned by and wouldn't exist without Golf Monthly. If you want to start a campaign to abandon the WHS (be clear in considerable detail about what the reasons are and what alternative you would propose), you need to contact the editor of the magazine and get his support. I'm sure he will be thrilled to hear from you.
By the way the 'whoever' of "the R&A and whoever.." is the USGA (United States Golf Association). Jointly, it took them something like 7 years to devise a universal handicapping system that every national association agreed with. Do contact them as well. They will be most impressed by your opinion of - sorry the facts about - the WHS.
Completely unnecessary.
pendodave
Tour Rookie
Blimey.
I play golf at a club.
No-one cares about the whs, we just get on and play golf.
It'll never catch on I guess.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Not within my club and others I play socially at.
Asking around, members at other clubs in the area are not seeing such 'chats'.
Very unlikely. All their members would lose their handicaps and who would have the resources to introduce an alternative.
Many groups within clubs have always run their own 'private' handicap systems but managing a countrywide system is of a different magnitude.
But I ask again, just what are the specific problems that your chatters are complaining about?
Whs Handicap Problems
For those who think it's easier to annoy you than to Google 'Whs handicap problems' themselves.
D-S
Well-known member
We can all search the web but that is not what is being asked of you by many different posters.Whs Handicap Problems
For those who think it's easier to annoy you than to Google 'Whs handicap problems' themselves.letmegooglethat.com
What do you think are the specific problems with WHS?
