AussieKB
Well-known member
or maybe shoot bad scores and get my handicap out......then maybe I will have a chance.
rulie
Head Pro
That would make you a bandit/sandbagger.
The posts that talk about HI going up 3 shots in a week surprise me as there is the soft cap and hard cap checks to limit increases. I know that I've been in the soft cap region periodically due to my poor play. It must also apply to everyone.
AussieKB
Well-known member
That's me 71 years of age playing off 4 handicap
Dunesman
Active member
Why surprise ? The soft cap starts at three, so a 2 or 3 shot rise is unrestricted.
The cap is both the problem, and the solution I think. Nobody's golf form deteriotates by 2 or 3 shots in a week or two. So no handicap system should allow such a rise in so few rounds or such short a time period. This is NOT reflective of their golf.
In the past we effecyltively had a cap of 1 which constrained a handicap. Many golfer's handicaps hardly moved. We knew : Bill is a 12, Harry a 17 or whatever. Handicaps rose only over years and usually due to age. Now you do not. Handicap are too variable to for the competition landscape of UK gilf clubs.
It can be fixed : Soft cap of 0.7. Hard cap 2.0.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Always think it is a bit naive when some might think that, even if a golfer tries to inflate their handicap with some dodgy scores, it'll only ever increase a maximum of 5.0 above their best potential Index, and will slow down increasing beyond 3.0 from their best.
For such golfers, their Low Index value is probably already higher, maybe a lot higher, than their best potential low index. Because, they've probably always thrown in a lot of dodgy rounds, so their Index never gets as low as they could have got it had they gone out every single round and tried their absolute best.
So, even if a golfer goes through a period of increasing their index, and even hits soft cap / hard cap territory, they could actually be playing off a handicap well above their ability (more than 5 shots Index) when they are on form and trying.
For such golfers, their Low Index value is probably already higher, maybe a lot higher, than their best potential low index. Because, they've probably always thrown in a lot of dodgy rounds, so their Index never gets as low as they could have got it had they gone out every single round and tried their absolute best.
So, even if a golfer goes through a period of increasing their index, and even hits soft cap / hard cap territory, they could actually be playing off a handicap well above their ability (more than 5 shots Index) when they are on form and trying.
Bdill93
Undisputed King of FOMO
320 gents on the system - 3 members on 40.0 and above
One of those 3 is on 40.0 exactly.
Fair chunk in the 30's though!
Deleted member 90210
New member
Here's a fact for you...
A player from the midlands had his entry to a senior national open cancelled this year when the organisers were made aware of his "suspected" artificially low index of +4 or +5.
Over the last 2 years he entered several national 36 or 54 hole balloted-handicap events, didn't score anywhere near under par in any single round, often failed to complete more than 9 holes before walking off and finally raised enough suspicion for those with the power to have a closer look at his record.
Surprise surprise, his incredibly low handicap had come about wholly due to general play rounds, often only 9 holes, it was then flagged up.
So whilst it may seem that he was only seeing himself off, the truth is that he was actually seeing off genuine players by taking a place in several tournaments that he probably wouldn't have got in had his handicap been genuine.
I would put that down as a failing of WHS that someone so inclined could so easily manipulate the system.
A player from the midlands had his entry to a senior national open cancelled this year when the organisers were made aware of his "suspected" artificially low index of +4 or +5.
Over the last 2 years he entered several national 36 or 54 hole balloted-handicap events, didn't score anywhere near under par in any single round, often failed to complete more than 9 holes before walking off and finally raised enough suspicion for those with the power to have a closer look at his record.
Surprise surprise, his incredibly low handicap had come about wholly due to general play rounds, often only 9 holes, it was then flagged up.
So whilst it may seem that he was only seeing himself off, the truth is that he was actually seeing off genuine players by taking a place in several tournaments that he probably wouldn't have got in had his handicap been genuine.
I would put that down as a failing of WHS that someone so inclined could so easily manipulate the system.
nickjdavis
Head Pro
Whilst what you say is correct, you simply cannot blame a handicap system (any handicap system for that matter) for giving a player a handicap that is not reflective of their ability, if said player is fundamentally failing at the very first hurdle to do what the system assumes he will try to do....and that is make the best possible score at each hole.
The very first two items listed under player responsibilities are..
1) act with integrity
2) attempt to make the best possible score
The former is an underpinning fundamental of this game that we all play.
Maybe this whole concept of "not trying" is so fundamentally alien to me is why I have issues with such posts. Why play competitive sport if you are not trying?
nickjdavis
Head Pro
Which cap was this?
Swango1980
Well-known member
Just to clarify, I wasn't really blaming the handicap system for this. Any system where a player posts many scores much higher than the player could have scored, will give them a higher handicap.
I was simply saying that, it seems to me, some people believe that despite rapid increases that are possible in WHS, the caps at least limit a bandit to only getting as high as 5.0 more than their low index, assuming that low index reflects the players best efforts at that time. All I was saying that the Low Index may never truly represent the players best efforts, if the player has always had form for throwing in dodgy rounds.
Deleted member 90210
New member
I agree 100% with your sentiment.
However if the system is so easily open to abuse I put that down as one area that is letting the majority of us down and therefore should be tightened up.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
I think the use of "effectively" refers to it taking at least 11 poor scores to go up 2 shots, unless the 7 scores in a row gave an extra one shot.
Now it is possible to go up 2 shots of playing handicap on the day that your best score drops off.
I have noticed that the larger up and down movements of my handicap is one of the main features of the new system though my scores are pretty much what they have been for many years.
Dunesman
Active member
Boss of England golf on NGC podcast today, interesting. Positives and negatives to take.
To anyone here who thinks concern of WHS is not an issue or topic of conversation in golf clubs, you have it here. He says it is tye number one topic he is asked about wherever he goes, once people hear who he is.
On the negative.
He claims and repeats only one win for WHS, the metric of number of people with handicaps. I do t know the EG charter or mission, but had mistaken it to be the association representing the interest of club golfers, not one who is more concerned about non golfers at the expense of existing members. None of the supposed gains that were the justification to us of WHS, are mentioned. So who does EG really represent ? Do we need an association of golfers and clubs now, that is not EG.
He is somewhat disingenuous, in that he says EG is listwning to the complaints, and feeding it back to the R&A. But EG is tge very organisation that is not implementing WHS as the R&A wrote it. Get your own house in order first Sir.
He says they are listening and want feedback from clubs. At this point, I think they should have. And should be acting, not saying they are listening.
On the positive.
He confirms we are not at the end game. That WHS is and will continue to evolve.
He acknowledges WHS has swung the balance away against lower handicappers, and that there is an issue with traditional boards comps.
He encourages clubs to do more, and suggests clubs have a lot more scope than they think. He does seem to be encouraging local fixes to syir local club needs. Our 0.9 factor for board comps winners seems along this line. He advocates clybs drafting terms of competition to their needs. You could say that is passing the buck. But maybe they want to see how very localised club solutuons pan out before making wider changes to their advise. One that occured listening, that seems in line with his advise, would be for traditional clubs to run competitions with a condition that you play off your lowest HI from the last 2 months for example. I would restore something closer to the competitiveness we knew without changes WHS handicap calculations themselves.
In conclusion, he didnt give an indication of any imminent change of policy on their side. More a do it yourself.
To anyone here who thinks concern of WHS is not an issue or topic of conversation in golf clubs, you have it here. He says it is tye number one topic he is asked about wherever he goes, once people hear who he is.
On the negative.
He claims and repeats only one win for WHS, the metric of number of people with handicaps. I do t know the EG charter or mission, but had mistaken it to be the association representing the interest of club golfers, not one who is more concerned about non golfers at the expense of existing members. None of the supposed gains that were the justification to us of WHS, are mentioned. So who does EG really represent ? Do we need an association of golfers and clubs now, that is not EG.
He is somewhat disingenuous, in that he says EG is listwning to the complaints, and feeding it back to the R&A. But EG is tge very organisation that is not implementing WHS as the R&A wrote it. Get your own house in order first Sir.
He says they are listening and want feedback from clubs. At this point, I think they should have. And should be acting, not saying they are listening.
On the positive.
He confirms we are not at the end game. That WHS is and will continue to evolve.
He acknowledges WHS has swung the balance away against lower handicappers, and that there is an issue with traditional boards comps.
He encourages clubs to do more, and suggests clubs have a lot more scope than they think. He does seem to be encouraging local fixes to syir local club needs. Our 0.9 factor for board comps winners seems along this line. He advocates clybs drafting terms of competition to their needs. You could say that is passing the buck. But maybe they want to see how very localised club solutuons pan out before making wider changes to their advise. One that occured listening, that seems in line with his advise, would be for traditional clubs to run competitions with a condition that you play off your lowest HI from the last 2 months for example. I would restore something closer to the competitiveness we knew without changes WHS handicap calculations themselves.
In conclusion, he didnt give an indication of any imminent change of policy on their side. More a do it yourself.
D-S
Well-known member
Have you run your 90% past officials at EG to see if it is acceptable?
My assumption is that they will say it certainly is not, which flies in the face of what you suggest he is saying in this interview.
wjemather
Well-known member
Of course not.
He was talking about limits and divisions - something EG have consistently promoted (going back long before WHS).
There's no chance that anyone at EG, let alone Jeremy Tomlinson, is going to advocate flouting their own rules and guidance. None whatsoever.
Backache
Assistant Pro
Which is a pity because things like restricting GP rounds and cutting the stroke allowance to say 0.75 would allow clubs to sort out the mess inflicted on them.
D-S
Well-known member
My point entirely.