Does your knowledge of UHS allow you to answer this question then :
Do you dispute the statement that WHS has made it more easy to manipulate ones handicap, and that it can be done to a greater degree more quickly than UHS ?"
Handicap manipulation - how to address
- Thread starter Teebs
- Start date
Do you dispute the statement that WHS has made it more easy to manipulate ones handicap, and that it can be done to a greater degree more quickly than UHS ?"
On the topic of apps, they are a red herring, and no more relevant to this discussion than saying pencils were to blame for enabling manipulation in the past. Apps are a perfectly good and efficient way of getting scores into club and handicap databases.
The problem is a system permitting, facilitating, and encouraging, the submission of GP cards.
In the past, supplementary cards were a distinct minority, and as such did get human or committee scrutiny by their very rarity and eyebrow raising questioning of why one was being submitted at all. They were an exception mechanism for a system fundamentally built on the principle that competition scores determined ones handicap. The majority were surely legit, and promoted by special by special circumstances.
But WHS has opened the floodgates to them. This is the weakness. Unrestrained by the structure that cards for handicap required running of a competition by a club, had oversight of all cards and results, an entry fee, and that it was a competition and so cheating had a higher profile consequence of not just manioulating ones handicap, but of cheating the entire competition field of published results, the barrier to a manipulative card has been lowered by WHS.
The problem is a system permitting, facilitating, and encouraging, the submission of GP cards.
In the past, supplementary cards were a distinct minority, and as such did get human or committee scrutiny by their very rarity and eyebrow raising questioning of why one was being submitted at all. They were an exception mechanism for a system fundamentally built on the principle that competition scores determined ones handicap. The majority were surely legit, and promoted by special by special circumstances.
But WHS has opened the floodgates to them. This is the weakness. Unrestrained by the structure that cards for handicap required running of a competition by a club, had oversight of all cards and results, an entry fee, and that it was a competition and so cheating had a higher profile consequence of not just manioulating ones handicap, but of cheating the entire competition field of published results, the barrier to a manipulative card has been lowered by WHS.
D-S
Well-known member
Although CONGU strongly advised committees to clamp down on NRs, in particular frequent offenders.
Also published results are far more subject to scrutiny from the entire field thus enhancing peer review .
wjemather
Well-known member
The system only makes recommendations on allowances. Local authorities and/or competition organisers have freedom to decide what is best for them.
Again, please try and understand what a system is, and how systems have flexibility by including options to allow tailoring.
You're argument is akin to saying we are not playing the same sport because courses are not identical, or because different local rules are in place.
rulefan
Tour Winner
As I quoted previously from the manual:
"The administration and oversight of handicapping in each country is the responsibility of National Associations or other authorized bodies, which ensures the system
operates effectively and responsively at the local level."
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
With those examples I was illustrating how customisation doesn’t change the underlying process, program or system. Whether it’s a for website or a golf handicap
One of the things that’s been mentioned on these threads again and again by 'knockers' of whs is that the UK plays its golf & golf comps differently to the ROTW . Doesn’t it then make complete sense to have the capability for personalisation and customisation in the global handicapping system. How is that bending logic too far? It’s actually the very reality of what we’ve been given
Whether it’s to accommodate an historical comp format/trophy, the quirks of extreme seasonal playing conditions, the composition of the field/membership or some other specific variable. Customisation has not only been provided; its use is encouraged. Some of that customisation is controlled at a national level while other items can be set at club level. Clubs can actually mico manage how best to use the system for their comp/trophy etc. That's massive!
So what if Aus have gone with 93% and UK with 95% and someone else uses 100% for deciding comp placings. It doesn’t make it three different systems. It’s just setting up a permitted customisation for that territory to use in its comps & if a player/s don’t think the % is correct, take it up with the authority that set it, it doesn’t mean the system is broken simply because it provides the facility. Given the differences listed above It’d be a helluva lot worse if it was mandated globally to use xx%
Colin L
Tour Winner
Eleven pages to go for the 100 but I'm glad I have wakened up early and can, I hope, sort out a bit of a misunderstanding. In short, you are not comparing like with like.
The first formula you quote is for a course handicap, that is, the number of strokes received for the course to be played. It isn't peculiar to the USA, Take your handicap index to an Australian course, an American course, a Scottish course, a Finnish course , wherever, and your course handicap will be worked out using that formula. Your handicap index will give you the same number of strokes at any courses in the world which have the same course rating, slope rating and par. That is the universality of the matter. The percentages you show for other countries are handicap allowances, adjustments made to players' course handicaps for specific formats for particular competitions. Here in CONGU territory the allowance for singles stroke play is 95%, the effect of which is to reduce/eliminate the advantage higher handicappers would have if they received 100% of their course handicap. Other formats have different percentages applied. Such allowances affect only the competition being played and affect all competitors equally. As it is your gross score which goes into the recalculation of your index, it doesn't matter at all how many handicap strokes you received.
What you are showing for Australia is your playing handicap but seemingly it is called there your daily handicap, I guess for historical reasons.
As a matter of curiosity, what is the allowance in Australia for match play?
doublebogey7
Head Pro
1. How would I know? Much more data available today to detect possible manipulation.
2. How would I know unless there had been a formal competition on the day, pretty much the same as today.
3. There were always markers signatures present, but not sure how I could have confirmed if the marker was actually present during the round, especially when signatures were barely readable and we had no tee booking system at the time. Now we can see exactly who the markers are and whether they were booked in to play.
Now do I think there is more manipulation going on to day, yes probably given that scores are easier to submit. Do I think it is wide spread, no not at my club at least as our handicap secretary is keeping on top of it and advising players of their responsibilitys where appropriate. We also have a pretty robust on going handicap review sysem. I know that all sounds like a lot of work for the volunteers, but believe me it is less time consuming than it was when all cards had to be collected and input to the ISV, including competition scores.
D-S
Well-known member
I guess at the end of the day it is about how much manipulation is tolerable and when does too much of it start to undermine trust in the end result.
No one believes there is no manipulation either in this system or the last.
Most believe that there is more opportunity to manipulate now and that this is clamped down on by some committees and not by others.
However if players think that the system is providing a level enough playing field, then it’s doing its job.
Also if people think that the vast majority of people’s handicaps reflect their demonstrated ability then fair enough.
Trust in the result is the overwhelming factor.
No one believes there is no manipulation either in this system or the last.
Most believe that there is more opportunity to manipulate now and that this is clamped down on by some committees and not by others.
However if players think that the system is providing a level enough playing field, then it’s doing its job.
Also if people think that the vast majority of people’s handicaps reflect their demonstrated ability then fair enough.
Trust in the result is the overwhelming factor.
doublebogey7
Head Pro
Which is impossible to achieve as has been explained before.
With UHS lower handicapped players had a better than even chance of winning handicap matches and a pretty much equal chance of winning large field stroke play competitions, but a very large and in my view unfair advantage in taking winnings from the prize pot. Under WHS lower handicaped players have an equal chance of winning in match play, a slightly lower chance than higher handicapped players of winning large field competitions but an equal chance of taking the money out of the prize pot.
Those are basically the choices, any tweaking of the system will resulting in movement one way or the other, personally I think the authorities have it about right but would not object if there was small movement back towards players with a lower handicap, but would be shouting loudly from the rooftops if we were ever to go back to how it was under UHS. Others I understand will take a different view, which is fine but these discussions take us nowhere if we don't except the limitations of any system of handicapping.
Last edited:
D-S
Well-known member
I haven’t got any issue with the skewing of the system as it stands nor whether there are differences at the margin in different jurisdictions re comp allowances.
This thread was about manipulation and prevention and this for me is extremely important. Education of committees and more and more user friendly tools must be the answers.
Also any future tweaks need to bear manipulation in mind as it obviously is a thing. So initiatives like ‘most likely score’ which increase opportunity and temptation would be a serious retrograde step.
This thread was about manipulation and prevention and this for me is extremely important. Education of committees and more and more user friendly tools must be the answers.
Also any future tweaks need to bear manipulation in mind as it obviously is a thing. So initiatives like ‘most likely score’ which increase opportunity and temptation would be a serious retrograde step.
AussieKB
Well-known member
100% for single and 4 ball's
nickjdavis
Head Pro
100% for 4BBB matchplay???
As a low handicapper you might as well drop your strides and invite the nearest Kangaroo to have its way with you. Likely to be a more enjoyable experience.
As a low handicapper you might as well drop your strides and invite the nearest Kangaroo to have its way with you. Likely to be a more enjoyable experience.
wjemather
Well-known member
It's actually 93%, which is baked into the Daily Handicap, not 100% - but still no good for lower handicappers in 4BBB.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
Yes they do.
We use 100% CH for nett double bogey limit in SD calculation.
Australia use 93% CH and the consequential stableford points for SD calculation.
Is anyone seriously saying that with WHS, the fundamental handicap indexes of US golfers and English ones are now equal and provide a level base for competition between golfers from both regions ?
Also, Australia has reduced its 0.93 further, slightly, this year. Another local 'fix'.
doublebogey7
Head Pro
Certainly way more comparable than they have ever been before, given the fundamental differences in systems prior to WHS. As usual with these debates it seems some would like the perfect to get in the way of the good.
wjemather
Well-known member
ICYMI #1,402
Like all previous handicap systems, WHS will continue to evolve, with a global update currently scheduled every 4 years. However, some changes will inevitably be trialled/adopted sooner or later than the official release date in some regions; e.g. the PCC update was adopted early by CONGU and late by GA; GB&I didn't fully implement the 2024 update until April, etc.
doublebogey7
Head Pro
That is the one bit I don't really get and for me does detratct from the idea that it is a World system. Using 93% for the SD calculation will result in Australian golfers in general having lower handicaps than the rest of the world who use 100%. Leaving Australian's at a disadvantage when competing in handicap events abroad but with an advantage when it comes to getting into balloted scratch events.
