Handicap Reductions during change over to WHS

[buster60]

I've had contact from the club today suggesting that I go along with the reduced handicap the Handicap Secretary has given me and that he will continue to monitor my next few scores. An adjustment would then be made if so justified.
Personally I don't see this as reasoned compromise. Any suggestions as to how to proceed?

 

[Swango1980]

I see his point but see no actual examples of historic (CONGU) or new (WHS) flaws criticized by the 'authorities' .

I didn't say they criticized them (when they were in operation), the very opposite.

Before WHS was talked about, plenty of people tried to ask why the US and UK systems were so different. There was plenty of justification this side of the Atlantic as to the merits of the CONGU system. There had to be, gotta defend your product.

Now WHS has come into operation, they champion how much better it is at being suitable at any course. So much better at adapting more quickly to player performance, etc. Before WHS however (I.e before it was on its way), you would not hear England Golf say the CONGU system was unfair for members competing at different courses, or that it didn't react to player form quickly enough. I believe they were very satisfied by how well CONGU reacted to player scores, and that players could "fairly" compete at different courses due to SSS.

Out of interest, why was a Slope system not introduced years ago? Was is simply accepted it was much better, but UK didn't have the money for it. Or did they feel the CONGU system was better, and eventually got pushed into a corner to align themselves with the rest of the world?

 

[Old Skier]

I've had contact from the club today suggesting that I go along with the reduced handicap the Handicap Secretary has given me and that he will continue to monitor my next few scores. An adjustment would then be made if so justified.
Personally I don't see this as reasoned compromise. Any suggestions as to how to proceed?

Still request the proof for a reduction and prior to any adjustment a meeting with the full handicap committee.for clarification. If this is refused and you wish to proceed you can go the county route especially if the club are not conforming to the requirement of a formal HC committee which could result in de-affiliation.

 

[rulefan]

I didn't say they criticized them (when they were in operation), the very opposite.

Before WHS was talked about, plenty of people tried to ask why the US and UK systems were so different. There was plenty of justification this side of the Atlantic as to the merits of the CONGU system. There had to be, gotta defend your product.

Now WHS has come into operation, they champion how much better it is at being suitable at any course. So much better at adapting more quickly to player performance, etc. Before WHS however (I.e before it was on its way), you would not hear England Golf say the CONGU system was unfair for members competing at different courses, or that it didn't react to player form quickly enough. I believe they were very satisfied by how well CONGU reacted to player scores, and that players could "fairly" compete at different courses due to SSS.

Out of interest, why was a Slope system not introduced years ago? Was is simply accepted it was much better, but UK didn't have the money for it. Or did they feel the CONGU system was better, and eventually got pushed into a corner to align themselves with the rest of the world?

I haven't seen CONGU or EG criticising the CONGU system retrospectively. They have certainly supported the WHS though.
The CONGU system was basically about potential, which was at the heart of the ratchet adjustment (0.1 up, 0.x down). WHS is more about current best performance (best 8). CONGU has accepted that in order to have a world system they had to follow the majority approach. Incidentally, the EGA system was essentially CONGU ratchet (plus slope).
CONGU introduced the USGA rating system (including Slope) into GB&I well over 10 years ago. Unfortunately the then EGU decided that the math behind Slope was not sufficiently well proven. There are still many academic critics in the US of the maths in the slope concept. England men (ie EGU) continued with SSS, which in practice produces much the same figures as CR. The rest of CONGU couldn't move to slope with far less than 50% of golfers not under their jurisdiction.
I would guess that twenty years ago there were far fewer club members playing at other than their own course so portable handicaps were not seen as a major issue.

 

[fenwayrich]

I've had contact from the club today suggesting that I go along with the reduced handicap the Handicap Secretary has given me and that he will continue to monitor my next few scores. An adjustment would then be made if so justified.
Personally I don't see this as reasoned compromise. Any suggestions as to how to proceed?

I would respond to the club requesting the names of the people on the handicap committee who made the decision to reduce your handicap. Ask for confirmation that this was done in accordance with Appendix D of the Rules of Handicapping as approved by the R&A, and request details of the evidence adduced in support of the decision. Provide your own evidence that your initial WHS handicap is a reasonable starting point for you to play under the new system. For example, your age, declining ability, reasonable number of scores to establish the initial WHS handicap.

Also inform them that you reserve your right to appeal against the decision as permitted by the Rules of Handicapping.

 

[Swango1980]

I've had contact from the club today suggesting that I go along with the reduced handicap the Handicap Secretary has given me and that he will continue to monitor my next few scores. An adjustment would then be made if so justified.
Personally I don't see this as reasoned compromise. Any suggestions as to how to proceed?

I agree with the other comments. Your handicap was reduced in a manner that seems to operate outside the workings of the WHS System. There appears to be no real justification from this other than it was done on a personal whim, nor likely any proper discussion with a handicap committee. On this basis, what confidence should you have that the handicap secretary will properly monitor your handicap going forward, and what decision could they come to? If you happen to have one good score in the next few weeks, they may decide to not do anything at all and justify their decision (wrongly, as WHS would have accounted for this good score anyway). If you do not, they may put you back to where you were, but you have had to endure the time up to that point with a handicap that is unfairly low (how would you feel if you missed out in winning a competition on countback?).

 

[doublebogey7]

I didn't say they criticized them (when they were in operation), the very opposite.

Before WHS was talked about, plenty of people tried to ask why the US and UK systems were so different. There was plenty of justification this side of the Atlantic as to the merits of the CONGU system. There had to be, gotta defend your product.

Now WHS has come into operation, they champion how much better it is at being suitable at any course. So much better at adapting more quickly to player performance, etc. Before WHS however (I.e before it was on its way), you would not hear England Golf say the CONGU system was unfair for members competing at different courses, or that it didn't react to player form quickly enough. I believe they were very satisfied by how well CONGU reacted to player scores, and that players could "fairly" compete at different courses due to SSS.

Out of interest, why was a Slope system not introduced years ago? Was is simply accepted it was much better, but UK didn't have the money for it. Or did they feel the CONGU system was better, and eventually got pushed into a corner to align themselves with the rest of the world?

You talk as if EG has been run by the same people for the last 100 years. As in any organisation people come and go, as does its policies.

 

[Swango1980]

You talk as if EG has been run by the same people for the last 100 years. As in any organisation people come and go, as does its policies.

I can assure you, the timescale I am referring to does not go back 100 years. It was much much more recently that WHS was finally given the green light.

In fact, EG was only formed in 2012

 

[rulefan]

I can assure you, the timescale I am referring to does not go back 100 years. It was much much more recently that WHS was finally given the green light.

In fact, EG was only formed in 2012

But the EGU made the decision not to use slope.

 

[Old Skier]

I would respond to the club requesting the names of the people on the handicap committee who made the decision to reduce your handicap. Ask for confirmation that this was done in accordance with Appendix D of the Rules of Handicapping as approved by the R&A, and request details of the evidence adduced in support of the decision. Provide your own evidence that your initial WHS handicap is a reasonable starting point for you to play under the new system. For example, your age, declining ability, reasonable number of scores to establish the initial WHS handicap.

Also inform them that you reserve your right to appeal against the decision as permitted by the Rules of Handicapping.

@buster60 there you go including your reference

 

[doublebogey7]

I can assure you, the timescale I am referring to does not go back 100 years. It was much much more recently that WHS was finally given the green light.

In fact, EG was only formed in 2012

That just proves my point, a newly formed organisation took just a 3 or 4 years to come to the conclusion that a system adopted by the previous organisation over the previous 100 years was not fit for purpose.

 

[rulefan]

That just proves my point, a newly formed organisation took just a 3 or 4 years to come to the conclusion that a system adopted by the previous organisation over the previous 100 years was not fit for purpose.

Not really. The 'newly formed' organisation (EG) was simply the old organisation (EGU) merged with another old organisation (EWGA). Essentially the same people were running the system.

 

[doublebogey7]

Not really. The 'newly formed' organisation (EG) was simply the old organisation (EGU) merged with another old organisation (EWGA). Essentially the same people were running the system.

Swango was talking as if EG had the same view for years, my point was that the people in orgainsations change and therefore so do that organisations views. EG as you way was formed by two organisations merging creating a new orgaination wirh some new people and therefore some new views.

 

[Swango1980]

Swango was talking as if EG had the same view for years, my point was that the people in orgainsations change and therefore so do that organisations views. EG as you way was formed by two organisations merging creating a new orgaination wirh some new people and therefore some new views.

Incredible. That is how you interpreted my original post. I mention about authorities effectively being very supportive and defensive of one system, then when a new one comes along suddenly being supportive and defensive of the new system, whilst happily now highlighting all the flaws of the old system.

And you think that meant I felt the authorities held the same views for years?. Completely the opposite.

And, it was never a criticism at them, only an observation. In my experiences, there was always a strong defence on the old CONGU system when challenged on why Slope was not used, handicaps went up slowly, etc. It had been well refined over the years as well, such as ESRs and Continuous Reviews getting added later on.

However, now it seems to me, that it is much easier to highlight the flaws of the old system when comparing to WHS flaws that would not have been focused on pre WHS.

So, now we have WHS, and any "flaws" that people may highlight are heavily defended to. Which is fine, you have to defend the current direction you've decided to go. It will be interesting how things change going forward. Probably convergence first in terms of being more consistent between handicap authorities so there are less global variations.

 

[rulefan]

Incredible. That is how you interpreted my original post. I mention about authorities effectively being very supportive and defensive of one system, then when a new one comes along suddenly being supportive and defensive of the new system, whilst happily now highlighting all the flaws of the old system.

And you think that meant I felt the authorities held the same views for years?. Completely the opposite.

And, it was never a criticism at them, only an observation. In my experiences, there was always a strong defence on the old CONGU system when challenged on why Slope was not used, handicaps went up slowly, etc. It had been well refined over the years as well, such as ESRs and Continuous Reviews getting added later on.

However, now it seems to me, that it is much easier to highlight the flaws of the old system when comparing to WHS flaws that would not have been focused on pre WHS.

So, now we have WHS, and any "flaws" that people may highlight are heavily defended to. Which is fine, you have to defend the current direction you've decided to go. It will be interesting how things change going forward. Probably convergence first in terms of being more consistent between handicap authorities so there are less global variations.

Good points but what do you see as 'flaws' in the WHS apart from national authorities not being fully in step?

 

[Swango1980]

Good points but what do you see as 'flaws' in the WHS apart from national authorities not being fully in step?

I'm not sure they are all flaws, but perhaps "complications". I've probably heard hundreds of people being negative about it by now. No doubt, we'll all get used to it, we'll have to. But, It is good to try and see where they are coming from to understand why they have issues (as I have had to).

In terms of the positives, I see only one main positive. And it is a big one. Slope and accounting for the relative difference between golfers at courses. I think that is massive, although probably poorly understood my most general golfers (who often seem to think Slope accounts for absolute difficulty). So, I am now a big fan of using Slope, no doubt.

Another "positive" is that a handicap is transportable across the globe. However, I'd imagine that has a positive impact on an incredibly small number of golfers, so I don't see that as a big selling point. I'm not sure how this was dealt with pre-WHS, but I'm sure there must have been a workaround. And, for elite amateurs, I'm pretty sure they often compete globally off scratch anyway, so is it something that helps them at that level now?

In terms of false positives, there is the claim that WHS reacts more quickly to current player form, and so players not restricted to 0.1 increases when playing badly. I get that to a point, but so long as a Club had an active and reasonable handicap committee, the introduction of Continuous Reviews with CONGU was a positive step that addressed that issue in many ways. And, CONGU seemed to react quickly in the another direction, when players shot good scores, especially when ESRs were introduced.

Having 3 handicaps is especially confusing, particularly having a Course Handicap, but then all the Playing Handicap derivatives from that. It is incredibly confusing to many golfers, especially at our club that attracts more casual golfers with its budget membership, and thus members who are much less likely to bury their heads into rules books and forums potentially. But, the confusion seems widespread. Yes, we'll get used to it, but it will always be a more difficult system to get used to (as opposed to simply having one handicap, end of story), and new members will always have to pick it up from scratch no matter how much we get used to it. I believe Oz do not have a Playing Handicap, but they just embedded a 93% factor into their course handicap. I appreciate why the Playing handicap is different for different formats, but it seems Oz have taken more the view that it was simpler to stop short of having multiple playing handicaps (I believe they refer to the Index as GA Handicap, and the Course Handicap as Daily Handicap, and no definition of Playing Handicap)

I still personally believe it would have been better to embed CR-Par into the Course Handicaps, as done in the USA. This would mean golfers over here would not find it confusing that they are not getting more shots at absolutely harder courses, and then thinking the Slope is simply wrong. It will be interesting if we end up doing what the Americans do, or vice versa in the future.

I also think that, although any system can be cheated by a golfer, it is much easier to do so under WHS. I've mentioned this before. At the least, this will means handicap committees will need to be more on the ball in spotting this. Not sure if any automated systems will be produced to highlight such issues that may be missed. At end of day, a player could submit 15-20 scores in fairly quick succession, and get a handicap index increase of 5 shots (and a course handicap increase of around 6 shots usually). These rounds can be submitted before anyone on Committee even has a chance to check they have been entered appropriately. Previously, every score had to be confirmed by Committee before it even touched a player's handicap record. And, if they wanted their handicap to go up 6 shots, it would take around 60 scores to be submitted with 0.1 increases. Clearly not worth the effort, and a committee member would find this strange long before all 60 rounds were submitted. I think what would be more common than this though, is a player may realise their oldest 4 or 5 rounds mainly feature in their best 8. If there was a big comp coming up, they could quickly enter 4 or 5 bad rounds, and suddenly get 2 or 3 extra shots potentially. It would be impossible for any Committee member to say they were trying to manipulate their handicap upwards, as they could simply say they had a bad few days.

I'm also still uncertain how NRs will be dealt with. Was never an issue under CONGU as it didn't matter how bad the score was, it was just a 0.1 increase. Now I feel more harsh penalties may need to be handed out if there are persistent offenders. They obviously call into question the integrity of the handicap system, and England Golf have encouraged clubs to deal with this strongly. Yet you have to balance that with the golfers who don't really care that there are people out there sorting their handicaps for them, and simply say it is just a game and they will do as they please. I certainly don't want to hand out punishments, as I agree to a point, it is just a game.

 

[jim8flog]

I also think that, although any system can be cheated by a golfer, it is much easier to do so under WHS. I've mentioned this before. At the least, this will means handicap committees will need to be more on the ball in spotting this. Not sure if any automated systems will be produced to highlight such issues that may be missed. At end of day, a player could submit 15-20 scores in fairly quick succession, and get a handicap index increase of 5 shots (and a course handicap increase of around 6 shots usually). These rounds can be submitted before anyone on Committee even has a chance to check they have been entered appropriately. Previously, every score had to be confirmed by Committee before it even touched a player's handicap record. And, if they wanted their handicap to go up 6 shots, it would take around 60 scores to be submitted with 0.1 increases. Clearly not worth the effort, and a committee member would find this strange long before all 60 rounds were submitted. I think what would be more common than this though, is a player may realise their oldest 4 or 5 rounds mainly feature in their best 8. If there was a big comp coming up, they could quickly enter 4 or 5 bad rounds, and suddenly get 2 or 3 extra shots potentially. It would be impossible for any Committee member to say they were trying to manipulate their handicap upwards, as they could simply say they had a bad few days.

I'm also still uncertain how NRs will be dealt with. Was never an issue under CONGU as it didn't matter how bad the score was, it was just a 0.1 increase. Now I feel more harsh penalties may need to be handed out if there are persistent offenders. They obviously call into question the integrity of the handicap system, and England Golf have encouraged clubs to deal with this strongly. Yet you have to balance that with the golfers who don't really care that there are people out there sorting their handicaps for them, and simply say it is just a game and they will do as they please. I certainly don't want to hand out punishments, as I agree to a point, it is just a game

.

During 2020 we were encouraging players to put in as many cards as possible and it was encouraging to see quite a few players respond appropriately. We did notice one two putting in one every time they played.

My belief is it is that players should be least putting in 20 cards a year if they do not play in that many comps.

I too am hoping that the application of penalty scores and minimum number of score for acceptability will be automatic.

I might put in a couple of scores just to test the system.

 

[doublebogey7]

Incredible. That is how you interpreted my original post. I mention about authorities effectively being very supportive and defensive of one system, then when a new one comes along suddenly being supportive and defensive of the new system, whilst happily now highlighting all the flaws of the old system.

And you think that meant I felt the authorities held the same views for years?. Completely the opposite.

And, it was never a criticism at them, only an observation. In my experiences, there was always a strong defence on the old CONGU system when challenged on why Slope was not used, handicaps went up slowly, etc. It had been well refined over the years as well, such as ESRs and Continuous Reviews getting added later on.

However, now it seems to me, that it is much easier to highlight the flaws of the old system when comparing to WHS flaws that would not have been focused on pre WHS.

So, now we have WHS, and any "flaws" that people may highlight are heavily defended to. Which is fine, you have to defend the current direction you've decided to go. It will be interesting how things change going forward. Probably convergence first in terms of being more consistent between handicap authorities so there are less global variations.

Sorry if I misinterpreted your OP, it just seems a very odd observation to me. Organisations often change policies after defending there previous position, see the hand ball and offside rules in Football.

I agree with you in the variances in my view it would have been better to have gone the whole way from day but fully understand why EG felt some steps were too far.