Hcap system - I don`t get it .

[rulefan]

It does it shows WHS is much easier to manipulate.
I wasn't referring to dishonest players, this is the reality of how the system works in practice.

Manipulate by whom? Honest players?

 

[oltimer]

You are being a bit of a luddite if you can't see the reasoning behind the Slope feature that gives you more shots off the harder Whites than off the Yellows.
And you might have noticed over the years that maximum handicap has gone up every now and then - so improving high handicap players are more likely to have been appropriately handicapped in the first place than doubly so. I'm not sure of the actual progress of the maximum handicap though, as I'm from Aus and had always played under a WHS style handicap system. The Congu one was, indeed, foreign to me!
Unfortunately, your likelihood of winning comps anyway is curtailed, not only by your, hopefully gradual, degradation but also by the young guys starting the game with appropriate handicaps around 30-35 who are improving quickly - so score high stableford points. I'm nearly in the same position btw!

Thanks for input - what I don`t understand is that my hcap whatever it be is based on white tee medal play at this Course for 30+ years - so why cannot I play off this? why the extra shots to play off different tees either the same or shorter distance than what my hcap is based on. I see the sense in such adjustments when playing different Courses and welcome such improvements but not on ones Home Course.
As said winning anything does not come into it my priority is to complete 18 holes. What happened to the idea that a hcap was something you played to half a dozen times a year on the few occassions everything went right, some players regularly play to their hcap in stablefords with 4-5 no scores on their Card, 12 of this years medals have been won with scores of 59 , 61, 63, 64 by players with high hcaps , doesn`t seem fair on those whose long standing hcap correctly reflects their ability. my concerns are not for myself but quite a few are losing interest in playing comps which they have no chance of competing in.

 

[woofers]

The really big scorers are not the high cappers it’s the ones who used to be off about 15/16 that are now 22/24 due to WHS.

Presumably you mean under UHS they were off 15/16 - how accurate was that? did they compete for prizes each week on that handicap?

New system rewards crap golf, playing badly you know your handicap can shoot up quickly. Absolutely no incentive to go onto practice ground and work it out.

Just play more golf, get a load of shots back and before you know it you get your name on a board....

What do you consider to be a “load of shots”? There are features in the WHS referred to as “soft cap” and “hard cap” which mitigate the increases a player can receive, I take it you are familiar with these.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Presumably you mean under UHS they were off 15/16 - how accurate was that? did they compete for prizes each week on that handicap?

What do you consider to be a “load of shots”? There are features in the WHS referred to as “soft cap” and “hard cap” which mitigate the increases a player can receive, I take it you are familiar with these.

I am familiar with those and it is a load of shots to get back compared to those who only have a handful to begin with.

I stand by what I say, if you're playing crap it's the easy way out to play more golf and see a quick increase.

Majority of golfers are unwilling to work on their game.

 

[Colin L]

Thanks for input - what I don`t understand is that my hcap whatever it be is based on white tee medal play at this Course for 30+ years - so why cannot I play off this? why the extra shots to play off different tees either the same or shorter distance than what my hcap is based on. I see the sense in such adjustments when playing different Courses and welcome such improvements but not on ones Home Course.
As said winning anything does not come into it my priority is to complete 18 holes. What happened to the idea that a hcap was something you played to half a dozen times a year on the few occassions everything went right, some players regularly play to their hcap in stablefords with 4-5 no scores on their Card, 12 of this years medals have been won with scores of 59 , 61, 63, 64 by players with high hcaps , doesn`t seem fair on those whose long standing hcap correctly reflects their ability. my concerns are not for myself but quite a few are losing interest in playing comps which they have no chance of competing in.

You don't have a single home course. Effectively each set of tees is a discrete course with its own course and slope ratings. They will be courses of varying difficulty and in the same way as away courses might differ from each of your home courses.

Your handicap index is not "based" on a particular course. It is the number of strokes you need on a standard course (slope rating 113) to level you with a scratch player on that course. The index is then used as as the basis of the calculation made to get you on a level with a scratch player on the course you are going to play. You don't have to understand it - just enjoy the fact that the WHS system. takes into account the particular difficulty of a course for the higher handicapper and gives you more strokes than before because you need them to keep you on a level with the scratch player. That has to be a GOOD THING.

 

[oltimer]

You don't have a single home course. Effectively each set of tees is a discrete course with its own course and slope ratings. They will be courses of varying difficulty and in the same way as away courses can differ from each of your home courses.

thanks for that it, explains a lot

 

[clubchamp98]

Manipulate by whom? Honest players?

By definition honest players will not manipulate their handicap.

But I know one guy who put in 5 general play cards to get his cap up because he was playing a knockout at the weekend.
He went up a shot and still lost.! Probably overgolfed serves him right.
All perfectly legit but dosnt quite sit right for me.
The chance to manipulate your cap it to easy imo.

 

[clubchamp98]

Presumably you mean under UHS they were off 15/16 - how accurate was that? did they compete for prizes each week on that handicap?

What do you consider to be a “load of shots”? There are features in the WHS referred to as “soft cap” and “hard cap” which mitigate the increases a player can receive, I take it you are familiar with these.

It was as accurate as everybody else’s, which can’t be said for the present system.

 

[Colin L]

It was as accurate as everybody else’s, which can’t be said for the present system.

If you think that everyone's handicap was accurate under the UHS, think again. The "ratchet system" by which a declining player's handicap went up by only 0.1 at a time no matter by how much their nett score was in excess of the buffer zone alone resulted in many such players being underhandicapped because of the system. An analysis at my own club showed some 26% of players were underhandicapped. Some were missing the buffer zone by 17/18 strokes, the systemic failure being compounded by their putting in only 3 scores a year. With only this minimum of scores returned, it took over 3 years to add 1 stroke to a handicap. The Annual Review recommendations for increases were ludicrously restricted to a couple of strokes. I've seen a player with net differentials 14 strokes above their buffer zone being recommended to get a 1 stroke increase.

The WHS averaging system is a considerable improvement on that. Plus, a club now has the freedom to choose how many scores have to be returned each year to be eligible for entry competitions (or none at all).

 

[Swango1980]

If you think that everyone's handicap was accurate under the UHS, think again. The "ratchet system" by which a declining player's handicap went up by only 0.1 at a time no matter by how much their nett score was in excess of the buffer zone alone resulted in many such players being underhandicapped because of the system. An analysis at my own club showed some 26% of players were underhandicapped. Some were missing the buffer zone by 17/18 strokes, the systemic failure being compounded by their putting in only 3 scores a year. With only this minimum of scores returned, it took over 3 years to add 1 stroke to a handicap. The Annual Review recommendations for increases were ludicrously restricted to a couple of strokes. I've seen a player with net differentials 14 strokes above their buffer zone being recommended to get a 1 stroke increase.

The WHS averaging system is a considerable improvement on that. Plus, a club now has the freedom to choose how many scores have to be returned each year to be eligible for entry competitions (or none at all).

Of course, this would be less so if the Handicap Committee were doing a good job and increasing these players handicaps on review. Especially during the Continuous Review Process, thus not simply waiting annually to make changes. At our club, we did this monthly.

Sure, if someone is only submitting 3 cards a year, they probably won't go up.much, or even be noticed. But, that is their issue, I mean they are only submitting 3 cards a year! Even under WHS, they are not going to get quick handicap increases. They might not even go up 0.3 in a year, if they are only losing scores outside top 8.

 

[rulefan]

Of course, this would be less so if the Handicap Committee were doing a good job and increasing these players handicaps on review. Especially during the Continuous Review Process, thus not simply waiting annually to make changes. At our club, we did this monthly.

Sure, if someone is only submitting 3 cards a year, they probably won't go up.much, or even be noticed. But, that is their issue, I mean they are only submitting 3 cards a year! Even under WHS, they are not going to get quick handicap increases. They might not even go up 0.3 in a year, if they are only losing scores outside top 8.

Didn't the CHR only report on seven consecutive 0.1 increases? One buffer zone score (the day in the sun) would scupper that.

 

[wjemather]

By definition honest players will not manipulate their handicap.

But I know one guy who put in 5 general play cards to get his cap up because he was playing a knockout at the weekend.
He went up a shot and still lost.! Probably overgolfed serves him right.
All perfectly legit but dosnt quite sit right for me.
The chance to manipulate your cap it to easy imo.

If you are implying that this is the behaviour of an honest player, you are wrong. Submitting scores with the intention of increasing your index isn't legitimate. The Handicap Committee should have been all over this - with the assistance of someone reporting such behaviour, if necessary.

 

[Swango1980]

Didn't the CHR only report on seven consecutive 0.1 increases? One buffer zone score (the day in the sun) would scupper that.

It did. Although I thought Colin was talking about people who were missing buffer by a mile, so hard to imagine them scoring a significantly better score to creep into buffer.

Furthermore, if a player was at least submitting cards on a fairly regular basis and they were that far away from handicap, you'd expect them to have at least 7 consecutive rounds not hitting buffer at some point. Even if they had an unbelievably good round to creep into buffer, it may only delay the review for a while.

It is all very well for a player complaining their handicap does not increase quickly enough. But, the onus should also.be in them to submit the scores to demonstrate that.

 

[Swango1980]

If you are implying that this is the behaviour of an honest player, you are wrong. Submitting scores with the intention of increasing your index isn't legitimate. The Handicap Committee should have been all over this - with the assistance of someone reporting such behaviour, if necessary.

Does it not depend on his intent during the round? It may simply be that the player has 3-5 of his best scores all as his oldest 5, when he was in great form. He now is playing nowhere near as well. He decides to take a week off, or organise 5 rounds after work, knowing that once he submits 5 scores, on current form, his handicap will go up.

He does so. Plays to his genuine current form. Would be pleasantly surprised if he shot a good score, but even if he doesn't, at least comforted by the fact his handicap will increase accordingly.

WHS tell us the system is great because it changes more quickly to reflect form. Yet, are you saying you would jump on top of that player, warn him, accuse him of being dishonest and put his handicap back down?

 

[D-S]

If you think that everyone's handicap was accurate under the UHS, think again. The "ratchet system" by which a declining player's handicap went up by only 0.1 at a time no matter by how much their nett score was in excess of the buffer zone alone resulted in many such players being underhandicapped because of the system. An analysis at my own club showed some 26% of players were underhandicapped. Some were missing the buffer zone by 17/18 strokes, the systemic failure being compounded by their putting in only 3 scores a year. With only this minimum of scores returned, it took over 3 years to add 1 stroke to a handicap. The Annual Review recommendations for increases were ludicrously restricted to a couple of strokes. I've seen a player with net differentials 14 strokes above their buffer zone being recommended to get a 1 stroke increase.

The WHS averaging system is a considerable improvement on that. Plus, a club now has the freedom to choose how many scores have to be returned each year to be eligible for entry competitions (or none at all).

It was incredibly shortsighted of the UHS system to only suggest up to 2 shot increases for declining golfers. Moving this to say 5 shots would have quickly solved one of the flaws in the system. I hope there will be more flexibility in the new system when a flaw is pointed out and those with involvement and/or influence will not blindly defend the status quo.

 

[wjemather]

Does it not depend on his intent during the round? It may simply be that the player has 3-5 of his best scores all as his oldest 5, when he was in great form. He now is playing nowhere near as well. He decides to take a week off, or organise 5 rounds after work, knowing that once he submits 5 scores, on current form, his handicap will go up.

He does so. Plays to his genuine current form. Would be pleasantly surprised if he shot a good score, but even if he doesn't, at least comforted by the fact his handicap will increase accordingly.

WHS tell us the system is great because it changes more quickly to reflect form. Yet, are you saying you would jump on top of that player, warn him, accuse him of being dishonest and put his handicap back down?

"...put in 5 general play cards to get his cap up because he was playing a knockout at the weekend" - this clearly describes someone manipulating their handicap. Whatever action should be taken depends on unknown (to us) factors.

 

[AussieKB]

Can someone explain to me why it is called the WHS when every Country uses a varying degree of the original one ?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

In next six rounds I’ll lose two 5.8s. I very much doubt I’ll be able to replace them with similar as these rounds reflected my stretch ability (and old system handicap would have reflected that ability); but at the moment I’m not scoring that well and I’ll lose at least one of them before the club championship in a couple of weeks and my CH will likely go up.

I could put in six cards and lose them both, and there’s a possibility that my CH would go up by 2 shots, though I won’t. But if I did am I manipulating or just looking to get to a HI that reflects my current playing to give myself a better chance of doing well in the championship nett prize.

 

[BiMGuy]

Some serious overthinking on here.

Just go out an play golf.

 

[Swango1980]

"...put in 5 general play cards to get his cap up because he was playing a knockout at the weekend" - this clearly describes someone manipulating their handicap. Whatever action should be taken depends on unknown (to us) factors.

No it doesn't. Unless I missed it, nothing was said that he wasn't trying to score his best during those rounds. Handicap secs should probably make sure they are aware how the system works before accusing players of cheating.

If you look at my scoring record, at times none of my 5 or 6 oldest scores are in my top 8. Other times, nearly all are. It basically reflects my purple patches, and times I play garbage. Maybe a nice or bad spell of weather factor in. However, there are times I am aware that the next 4 or 5 scores I lose are all good ones. Sometimes a few might be extremely good rounds. So, I know that my handicap is likely to increase significantly if I submit 4 or 5 scores on current form. Even if I manage to fluke a good round.

So, if any player is in such a position, why are they not allowed to play golf until AFTER their next comp? Why can't they go out and play as well as they can. Great if they play well, but if not the silver lining is their handicap will increase to reflect their form better.

Either way, the system is working exactly as we are told it should work. They say it will encourage golfers to.play more often, and handicap increases quicker to reflect form. So, how do you approach the player and confidently accuse them of cheating?

Fair enough, if we were told they purposely played badly, different story. But, I'm unsure that one of the player responsibilities is to only submit general play cards if they are not going to lose good scores, before an upcoming competition? However, even if we were told in here the player purposely played badly, the handicap sec won't know that unless his mates dobbed him in.