Handicap manipulation - how to address

[Thintowin]

So do you think that having less than 20 scores (15, 10?) forming your record would be a better idea? Or are you happy with 20?

I don't think a moving window is appropriate at all. If someone was capable of playing off 5 when he was playing at the age of 25 then he's still capable of 5 when he's 35.

 

[D-S]

I don't think a moving window is appropriate at all. If someone was capable of playing off 5 when he was playing at the age of 25 then he's still capable of 5 when he's 35.

If someone plays off 5 at 63 will he still be capable of playing off 5 at 73? (asking for a 'friend').

 

[Neilds]

I don't think a moving window is appropriate at all. If someone was capable of playing off 5 when he was playing at the age of 25 then he's still capable of 5 when he's 35.

Hope the 35 year old hasn't had kids, new job, financial concerns, injuries, etc so they are still able to play as much golf as when they were 25. Stupid comment

 

[nickjdavis]

Improvements (???) that might lessen the effects of handicap manipulation attempts....

1. Restrict GP card submissions to 1 per week.
2. Change the weighting that a GP score has in a players record...maybe by limiting the number of GP scores that are part of the "average of the best 8 calculation" to 2
3. Calculate the handicap index using the best 5 from last 20 (my own analysis shows that this has only a marginal effect on the playing handicap...especially at courses with relatively low slope ratings)...this removes any spurious high scores from the best 8....though again my experience is that a players best 8 scores are usually within a reasonably tight range.
4. Low index based on last 18 months scores...reduces the effect of a player who showed good form a couple of years ago but who's "form" has declined (naturally or deliberately)
5. soft cap at 2 over low index, hard cap at 4 over low index...reduces slightly the effect of golfers throwing in lots in a short space of time to get their handicap up
6. graduated allowance for singles strokeplay events, based on field size AND handicap distribution of entrants (absolutely nigh on impossible to determine until you know who has played but may be a better way than a simple blanket % based on field size....maybe at any given club the same participants play each week so over a period of time it may be possible to determine a "best fit" allowance).
7. lower the "exceptional" score thresholds to say 5 and 8.

I realize that 3 and 4 immediately breaks the ethos of having a handicapping system that is more reflective of a players form and may limit those who are perhaps declining rapidly due to ill health or injury. But it seems that most WHS antagonists would rather see these particular golfers hobbled, if it meant that the "manipulators" were restricted in their efforts to increase their index. For the antagonists, the "demonstrated ability", that one golden round a player shot a year or more ago, is far more reflective of a players ability than the last thirty rounds form.

I don't believe, in isolation, any of the individual suggestions above will provide a wholesale fix to the generally perceived problems...it is simply not possible to come up with a perfect system...but some of them could be used as part of a toolkit in order to fine tune the system. Knee jerk reactions are not needed, but there must be enough scoring data out there that would allow the system to be tweaked. The frequency of GP card submissions is an obvious one...the mobile phone app (not the WHS itself) has made it far easier to submit scores and is obviously an area that can be abused by those looking to manipulate the system.

Most of the rest of the suggestions are ways of limiting the effect of many cards being submitted in a short space of time...which seems to be an area of concern....you either fix the issue "at source" by restricting the volume, or you lessen the effect by putting in to place methods of reducing the effect these scores have.

 

[Thintowin]

If someone plays off 5 at 63 will he still be capable of playing off 5 at 73? (asking for a 'friend').

That's a different situation. Some can but it was assessed by a decent handicap adjudicator.

Hope the 35 year old hasn't had kids, new job, financial concerns, injuries, etc so they are still able to play as much golf as when they were 25. Stupid comment

Stupid? Stupid to some people, infinitely sensible to others. I'd already realised we weren't on the same page. You and WorldHandicapSystem (who calls themselves that?) are cut from the same cloth.

 

[PaulMdj]

I don't think a moving window is appropriate at all. If someone was capable of playing off 5 when he was playing at the age of 25 then he's still capable of 5 when he's 35.

He’s also capable of playing off scratch or 10 as well though!
10 years is a massive gap.

 

[Thintowin]

Improvements (???) that might lessen the effects of handicap manipulation attempts....

1. Restrict GP card submissions to 1 per week.
2. Change the weighting that a GP score has in a players record...maybe by limiting the number of GP scores that are part of the "average of the best 8 calculation" to 2
3. Calculate the handicap index using the best 5 from last 20 (my own analysis shows that this has only a marginal effect on the playing handicap...especially at courses with relatively low slope ratings)...this removes any spurious high scores from the best 8....though again my experience is that a players best 8 scores are usually within a reasonably tight range.
4. Low index based on last 18 months scores...reduces the effect of a player who showed good form a couple of years ago but who's "form" has declined (naturally or deliberately)
5. soft cap at 2 over low index, hard cap at 4 over low index...reduces slightly the effect of golfers throwing in lots in a short space of time to get their handicap up
6. graduated allowance for singles strokeplay events, based on field size AND handicap distribution of entrants (absolutely nigh on impossible to determine until you know who has played but may be a better way than a simple blanket % based on field size....maybe at any given club the same participants play each week so over a period of time it may be possible to determine a "best fit" allowance).
7. lower the "exceptional" score thresholds to say 5 and 8.

I realize that 3 and 4 immediately breaks the ethos of having a handicapping system that is more reflective of a players form and may limit those who are perhaps declining rapidly due to ill health or injury. But it seems that most WHS antagonists would rather see these particular golfers hobbled, if it meant that the "manipulators" were restricted in their efforts to increase their index. For the antagonists, the "demonstrated ability", that one golden round a player shot a year or more ago, is far more reflective of a players ability than the last thirty rounds form.

I don't believe, in isolation, any of the individual suggestions above will provide a wholesale fix to the generally perceived problems...it is simply not possible to come up with a perfect system...but some of them could be used as part of a toolkit in order to fine tune the system. Knee jerk reactions are not needed, but there must be enough scoring data out there that would allow the system to be tweaked. The frequency of GP card submissions is an obvious one...the mobile phone app (not the WHS itself) has made it far easier to submit scores and is obviously an area that can be abused by those looking to manipulate the system.

Most of the rest of the suggestions are ways of limiting the effect of many cards being submitted in a short space of time...which seems to be an area of concern....you either fix the issue "at source" by restricting the volume, or you lessen the effect by putting in to place methods of reducing the effect these scores have.

Low index in last 18 months might help out.

I still think that the elephant in the room is that the higher the index then generally the greater the difference is between the best and the average score.

The system needs to be adjusted with categories in mind.

 

[Thintowin]

He’s also capable of playing off scratch or 10 as well though!
10 years is a massive gap.

His physical attributes should still be in tact as far as golf goes. Given he's not over 70 anyway. If he was 5 he'll get back there quickly even if he hasn't been playing much. He wouldn't want a simpathy handicap.

 

[upsidedown]

EG article with stats

2024 record-breaking year for England Golf

2024 was a record-breaking year for England Golf, with the most scores submitted via WHS™ ever in a single calendar year.

www.englandgolf.org

 

[PaulMdj]

His physical attributes should still be in tact as far as golf goes. Given he's not over 70 anyway. If he was 5 he'll get back there quickly even if he hasn't been playing much. He wouldn't want a simpathy handicap.

He also may not of played for 9 years! He may of discovered Beer & Women and be 7 stone heavier, etc etc.

I don’t think any handicap system could cover all scenarios.

 

[Thintowin]

He also may not of played for 9 years! He may of discovered Beer & Women and be 7 stone heavier, etc etc.

I don’t think any handicap system could cover all scenarios.

I don't think we should be handing out extra shots to golfers who turn up occasionally when their wife lets them out to play.

And I've been there, don't doubt it.

 

[PaulMdj]

I don't think we should be handing out extra shots to golfers who turn up occasionally when their wife lets them out to play.

And I've been there, don't doubt it.

That’s different to someone who stopped playing at all, as I said, every scenario will be different.

 

[Thintowin]

In short I believe that your handicap should reflect the class of golfer you are and not your current form.

Sayings like "form is temporary, class is permanent" shouldn't just be ignored. There is always an underlying truth in these enduring sayings.

If you are in favour of WHS you are not of that mindset. Maybe you are in other sports that you regard as more important. Perhaps golf's just a bit of fun with your mates. If so, think how you might react when the foundation of the game you have grown up with and played for decades is tossed aside. That's what WHS has done for those of us who believe that class is permanent.

 

[Neilds]

In short I believe that your handicap should reflect the class of golfer you are and not your current form.

Sayings like "form is temporary, class is permanent" shouldn't just be ignored. There is always an underlying truth in these enduring sayings.

If you are in favour of WHS you are not of that mindset. Maybe you are in other sports that you regard as more important. Perhaps golf's just a bit of fun with your mates. If so, think how you might react when the foundation of the game you have grown up with and played for decades is tossed aside. That's what WHS has done for those of us who believe that class is permanent.

So you would do away with the Seniors Tour as golfers like Langer have class, which is permanent, and therefore should still be competitive against Scottie, etc?

 

[doublebogey7]

There was no data from those events where some clubs didn’t even put them through the ISVs

They used the data from single events and then used algorithms etc

You know that for a fact.

I would wager most clubs did put such events through ISVs as it was considerably less time consuming for committees, my current club did as did my previous club.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

You know that for a fact.

I would wager most clubs did put such events through ISVs as it was considerably less time consuming for committees, my current club did as did my previous club.

Yes they used data from the results submitted into EG for Hc purposes which was single comps , it’s the same when they changed the HC allowances for 4BBB to 90%

Algorithms using singles data

 

[Thintowin]

So you would do away with the Seniors Tour as golfers like Langer have class, which is permanent, and therefore should still be competitive against Scottie, etc?

It's hard for me to articulate the value of your input. But thanks.

 

[wjemather]

Yes they used data from the results submitted into EG for Hc purposes which was single comps , it’s the same when they changed the HC allowances for 4BBB to 90%

Algorithms using singles data

The USGA & R&A were certainly not limited to individual stroke play competition scores input into ISVs (and the CDH) and accessible by EG.

Similarly for allowance changes by CONGU under the old system; research went way beyond looking at individual stroke play scores in England.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

The USGA & R&A were certainly not limited to individual stroke play competition scores input into ISVs (and the CDH) and accessible by EG.

Similarly for allowance changes by CONGU under the old system; research went way beyond looking at individual stroke play scores in England.

So what other scores did they use

During multiple calls and seminars it was stated exactly that they used the individual stroke play scores and “algorithms” to come up with HC allowances for team format

 

[Thintowin]

The USGA & R&A were certainly not limited to individual stroke play competition scores input into ISVs (and the CDH) and accessible by EG.

Similarly for allowance changes by CONGU under the old system; research went way beyond looking at individual stroke play scores in England.

Given you are clearly involved with WHS do you think you can maintain an objective viewpoint of its level of success? Secondly, would you be personally affected should it be reversed? Thirdly, can you help to fix it?