Handicap Review Guidance

[sjn]

I'm guessing the algorithm is very much work in progress, given WHS is in its very early stages? It (hopefully) does a pretty decent job in many general circumstances, but still is rough around the edges. This highlighting some players that would not be expected, while maybe missing out on some others. For example, if a player had very good competition scores, but the majority of his rounds were GP, and poor scores, would the algorithm pick this player out? Or, does it just group all scores together when looking at them?

This is why we need Committees. If the algorithm was perfect, you could probably just get rid of the Annual Review and get the algorithm to make all adjustments automatically.

The 'algorithm' is looking at all his scores, GP and Competition just like his hcap is based on all of them in the last 20 scores.

Re your example plyaer with differences in GP and comp scores , Handicap committees have access to a WHS report which compares each player's GP scores and competition scores .A player who consistently scores much better in competition than in GP scores would likely be looked at to see if he/she might be manipulating their handicap. I have heard of one golfer local to me who had his handicap suspended (i.e effectively a ban from competition) for a year after differences in his competition and GP scores was investigated.

 

[rulie]

The 'algorithm' is looking at all his scores, GP and Competition just like his hcap is based on all of them in the last 20 scores.

Re your example plyaer with differences in GP and comp scores , Handicap committees have access to a WHS report which compares all players' GP scores and competition scores .A player who consistently scores much better in competition than in GP scores would likely be looked at to see if he/she might be manipulating their handicap. I have heard of one golfer local to me who had his handicap suspended (i.e effectively a ban from competition) for a year after differences in his competition and GP scores was investigated.

Like a bimodal distribution.

 

[rulefan]

The 'algorithm' is looking at all his, scores GP and Competition just like his hcap is based on all of them in the last 20 scores.

The Guidance note suggests the Annual Review is looking at 35 55 scores.

Edit: To correct 35 to 55

 

[sjn]

The Guidance note suggests the Annual Review is looking at 35 scores

Hmm, where is that ? The tables in the guidance that the 'conditions under which a player will be flagged' go up to 55 rounds ,which could suggest that's the maximum ,but its doesnt say so explicilty . When we ran the report itself, the scores in the date range on the ouptut were not limited to eiiher 35 or 55 .

 

[rulie]

How many months/years might 35 or 55 rounds represent for the average player? How often is the Handicap Review done?

 

[D-S]

Players with far less than 35 scores in the past 12 months certainly appear on the report and are a significant proportion.

 

[rulefan]

Hmm, where is that ? The tables in the guidance that the 'conditions under which a player will be flagged' go up to 55 rounds ,which could suggest that's the maximum ,but its doesnt say so explicilty . When we ran the report itself, the scores in the date range on the ouptut were not limited to eiiher 35 or 55 .

https://static.whsplatform.englandg...wnloads/whs/handicap-review-guidance-2021.pdf

See pages 2 & 3

 

[D-S]

Doesn’t that say that the report is looking at between 1 or 2 and 55 scores?

 

[rulefan]

Doesn’t that say that the report is looking at between 1 or 2 and 55 scores?

Indeed it does. And I've got it printed out on my desk. Goodness knows where I got 35 from