Official WHS Survey

[Backache]

I think the issue you are having here is you have the blinkers on, and you are blind to the obvious and fail to acknowledge the obvious?

There is an intrinsic reason, which had been repeated several times. The multiplier is mandatory. Written in black and white. Whereas, there is nothing to say Clubs cannot run different divisions if they wish, or restrict entry to a specified handicap limit.

It really is that simple.

If you want the better golfer to win, just be open about it and run many scratch competitions (albeit you still have a responsibility to still run handicap competitions )

I am fully aware that it is mandatory. What I disagree with is that it should be mandatory or that there is any need for it to be mandatory. A club should have no more reason to fear a reprimand from Colonel Smithers for adjusting the multiplier than if they choose to run a three club competition rather than a fourteen one which may 'unfairly ' advantage the more versatile player.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Don’t think you really understand what’s fair or not

No, I do understand what is fair and what is not.

Scratch comp - not all members are going to have an equal chance of winning prizes.
Terms of comp very clear - "fairness" is in the terms of the comp that the best player wins.

Twos sweeps. Lower handicap players have more chance of winning prizes than higher handicappers. Entry should be optional to avoid or lessen unfairness.
Longest drive prize - favouring lower handicap players again. Usually no extra entry fee involved - so no "losers".

Using 100% instead of 95% in individual comp or 100% instead of 85% in an AmAm - favouring higher handicappers unfairly.

 

[Dunesman]

The whole point of Handicapping is to level the playing field as beat as possible, and the Authority on this tell us 95% is the appropriate multiplier. Not 90%, not 120%, not 50%, etc.

So, if a club decides to use 90%, then the maths is clear, they are tipping the balance towards the lower handicappers. If a higher handicapper, who pays the same entry fee claims that to be unfair, difficult to argue

This is not quite the case. 95% is an appropriate multiplier when balancing winning with high placings. 95% favours higher handicapper winning. And favours lower handicapper placing high.
The lower the multiplier, the greater those two skew. So there is a balance to strike. If the goal is distributing prizes evenly, it is probably a good value.
But what lower handicappers have experienced now after several years of this setup, is a feeling that they cannot win, i.e. win being place first, and not just high to collect a prize. And they are correct. This was entirely predictable, and built into our flavour of WHS. It not a complete impossibility, but the odds are stacked against them.
Regular placings in the top 20, to a greater degree than the high handicapper, is no consololation to many.
And in the case of actually competing on an even footing in competitions where winning is THE THING, and 5th is nothing, 0.95 makes no sense. To anybody. Its as wrong for the low man and the high handicapper. That is why the one size fits all policy, implemented here, but not in the WHS system which does recognise this value might need adjustment to local needs, is too restrictive.
Disregarding it where appropriate is entirely sensible. It is EG that needs to recognise the reality and legislate for the needs of it clubs, and not clubs who need to be forced to comply with a too rigid implementation of WHS.

 

[D-S]

I very much doubt that it would go that way.
The club makes it clear what the terms of the comp are. Describe it as "A fun day".
Anyone can raise their concerns with H&C committee - no need to involve county level authority.
Entry to the comp is optional - don't enter if you don't want to take part on these terms.
That is more likely how it would go in reality.

Although you may “doubt it would go that way”, I can categorically tell you that it would go exactly, as I laid out in the post that you responded to, in my County as well as all the Counties that I have both experience of and contact with.
As repeatedly said, if no one make their County aware of such things, no action would or could be taken but if they made aware an initial discussion would be had and it would evolve as per my post.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Although you may “doubt it would go that way”, I can categorically tell you that it would go exactly, as I laid out in the post that you responded to, in my County as well as all the Counties that I have both experience of and contact with.
As repeatedly said, if no one make their County aware of such things, no action would or could be taken but if they made aware an initial discussion would be had and it would evolve as per my post.

Very unlikely that a member will "rat" on their own club.
More likely they will moan a bit and take it no further.
Very irate and they will move to another club.
I am unsurprised by anyone who can not be bothered about gathering county officials to reprimand their own club, their own committee members and their own friends.

 

[Swango1980]

This is not quite the case. 95% is an appropriate multiplier when balancing winning with high placings. 95% favours higher handicapper winning. And favours lower handicapper placing high.
The lower the multiplier, the greater those two skew. So there is a balance to strike. If the goal is distributing prizes evenly, it is probably a good value.
But what lower handicappers have experienced now after several years of this setup, is a feeling that they cannot win, i.e. win being place first, and not just high to collect a prize. And they are correct. This was entirely predictable, and built into our flavour of WHS. It not a complete impossibility, but the odds are stacked against them.
Regular placings in the top 20, to a greater degree than the high handicapper, is no consololation to many.
And in the case of actually competing on an even footing in competitions where winning is THE THING, and 5th is nothing, 0.95 makes no sense. To anybody. Its as wrong for the low man and the high handicapper. That is why the one size fits all policy, implemented here, but not in the WHS system which does recognise this value might need adjustment to local needs, is too restrictive.
Disregarding it where appropriate is entirely sensible. It is EG that needs to recognise the reality and legislate for the needs of it clubs, and not clubs who need to be forced to comply with a too rigid implementation of WHS.

I've no problem if people want to have this debate with the Handicap Authorities. I have no firm idea whether allowances will always be the way they are, or will be adapted.

But, the Rules are as they are now, and it is the responsibility of the Committee to act on them. Not do their own thing because they think they know better.

Your last point was about EG being too rigid. The solution, for me, isn't then to ignore their Rules. After all, it might be you that's wrong.

 

[D-S]

Very unlikely that a member will "rat" on their own club.

People do and people have, not always and not often but they have and will continue to do so. All I have ever said is what the County would do if made aware.

It is a risk the club would be taking, unknowingly or not.

 

[Backache]

I've no problem if people want to have this debate with the Handicap Authorities. I have no firm idea whether allowances will always be the way they are, or will be adapted.

But, the Rules are as they are now, and it is the responsibility of the Committee to act on them. Not do their own thing because they think they know better.

Your last point was about EG being too rigid. The solution, for me, isn't then to ignore their Rules. After all, it might be you that's wrong.

It may well be a solution, blind adherence to daft rules because they are 'The Rules' doesn't improve a situation . Occassionally disregarding daft rules draws attention to their stupidity.

 

[Swango1980]

It may well be a solution, blind adherence to daft rules because they are 'The Rules' doesn't improve a situation . Occassionally disregarding daft rules draws attention to their stupidity.

Or, draws attention to the stupidity of the person(s) disregarding them.

 

[Backache]

Or, draws attention to the stupidity of the person(s) disregarding them.

Yes I'm sure Colonel Smithers was frothing at the mouth when people walked up Kinder Scout, saying how stupid they were.

 

[badgergm]

To claim members will just accept it because entry is optional and it will go no further is naive. Even is entry is optional, it's almost certain that the course is reserved exclusively for the comp if it's a board/trophy comp - this alone is going to cause problems with those not wanting to enter an under-the-counter comp weighted in favour of low handicappers.
Our county have had many reports of clubs not adhering to the Rules of Handicapping & EG guidance in various ways - not always from within the club concerned.

Oh, and all recreational amateur golf is supposed to be "fun", so such a label is meaningless - calling something a "fun day" or a "fun competition" in this way is nothing more than a dishonest way of pretending it's ok to disregard rules, responsibilities and integrity.

Yes, lots of things are unfair, but none of the things in your list are.

To claim members will just accept it because entry is optional and it will go no further is naive. Even is entry is optional, it's almost certain that the course is reserved exclusively for the comp if it's a board/trophy comp - this alone is going to cause problems with those not wanting to enter an under-the-counter comp weighted in favour of low handicappers.
Our county have had many reports of clubs not adhering to the Rules of Handicapping & EG guidance in various ways - not always from within the club concerned.

Oh, and all recreational amateur golf is supposed to be "fun", so such a label is meaningless - calling something a "fun day" or a "fun competition" in this way is nothing more than a dishonest way of pretending it's ok to disregard rules, responsibilities and integrity.

Yes, lots of things are unfair, but none of the things in your list are

To claim members will just accept it because entry is optional and it will go no further is naive. Even is entry is optional, it's almost certain that the course is reserved exclusively for the comp if it's a board/trophy comp - this alone is going to cause problems with those not wanting to enter an under-the-counter comp weighted in favour of low handicappers.
Our county have had many reports of clubs not adhering to the Rules of Handicapping & EG guidance in various ways - not always from within the club concerned.

Oh, and all recreational amateur golf is supposed to be "fun", so such a label is meaningless - calling something a "fun day" or a "fun competition" in this way is nothing more than a dishonest way of pretending it's ok to disregard rules, responsibilities and integrity.

Yes, lots of things are unfair, but none of the things in your list are.

But it isn’t clear whether it really would be “in favour of low handicappers “, given the R&A recommendations in Appendix C. The words there seem to at least allow for the possibility that Committees set allowances, and vary between competitions, rather than governing bodies.

EG Making 95% mandatory for all fields and types of stroke play competitions (the one being discussed here appears to be a an unusual winner takes all scenario) is surely as much about simplicity than it is equity.
Don’t get me wrong, overall I think it’s best for consistency and goodness knows what some committees would do given carte Blanche.

 

[Swango1980]

What's interesting about this thread is that we've been given an actual example of a Committee failing in their responsibilities, and others prepared to back it, because they can justify it in their own heads. No doubt, there must be many more clubs doing similar things. Can't imagine this is the only example, and it had just so happened to be brought up here.

So, question is, is this something that has become more frequent since WHS was implemented. Or did clubs frequently pick and choose what Rules they adhered to pre WHS to the same extent?

 

[D-S]

What's interesting about this thread is that we've been given an actual example of a Committee failing in their responsibilities, and others prepared to back it, because they can justify it in their own heads. No doubt, there must be many more clubs doing similar things. Can't imagine this is the only example, and it had just so happened to be brought up here.

So, question is, is this something that has become more frequent since WHS was implemented. Or did clubs frequently pick and choose what Rules they adhered to pre WHS to the same extent?

Most clubs that I am aware of have a variety of handicap limits and division boundaries for different competitions. I do not know of any that use anything but the mandated handicap allowances.
There were a couple of questions about this in the first few months after the inception of WHS but all clubs that asked were happy to use the mandated allowances. This may well be because this is the way the software is set up so it is a pain to do anything else but they aren’t now making up anything of their own accord.

 

[Swango1980]

Most clubs that I am aware of have a variety of handicap limits and division boundaries for different competitions. I do not know of any that use anything but the mandated handicap allowances.
There were a couple of questions about this in the first few months after the inception of WHS but all clubs that asked were happy to use the mandated allowances. This may well be because this is the way the software is set up so it is a pain to do anything else but they aren’t now making up anything of their own accord.

Don't get me wrong, not suggesting most, or a very large number are acting without the integrity you'd expect. But was wondering if it was just a handful, dozens, etc.

Still surprised the software allows the Allowance to be changed at all. With software, you give users an opportunity to edit something, you can guarantee some will edit it. And the fact it can be edited is often enough to convince them it is fine to do so (working for a software company, I've seen it many times)

 

[wjemather]

Don't get me wrong, not suggesting most, or a very large number are acting without the integrity you'd expect. But was wondering if it was just a handful, dozens, etc.

Still surprised the software allows the Allowance to be changed at all. With software, you give users an opportunity to edit something, you can guarantee some will edit it. And the fact it can be edited is often enough to convince them it is fine to do so (working for a software company, I've seen it many times)

The software doesn't allow changing of allowances for comps that are set as acceptable for handicapping.

 

[AussieKB]

High handicap people in OZ have started a petition to OZ Golf to change our 93% to EG 95% as they perceive it is unfair to limit their scores to below 40 stableford points, can see this going all the way to the High Court, and if that Judge is a 20 plus handicap he might even grant 100%

 

[Swango1980]

The software doesn't allow changing of allowances for comps that are set as acceptable for handicapping.

Ahh, I thought it did when it was mentioned in this discussion that this club was reducing it to 90%.

So, to do this, does this also mean they need to make the rounds unacceptable for handicapping as well?

 

[rulie]

I'll ask a dumb question - what does the allowance have to do with whether a score is acceptable for handicapping purposes, ie, what is the purpose of that restriction in the software? The allowance is not part of the index calculations.

 

[wjemather]

Ahh, I thought it did when it was mentioned in this discussion that this club was reducing it to 90%.

So, to do this, does this also mean they need to make the rounds unacceptable for handicapping as well?

That would be one option. However, scores from all rounds in organised comps must be submitted for handicapping, so they'd then have to manually re-enter all scores for WHS.

As I said earlier, there is no way of circumventing the rules on allowances without creating additional work, or breaking futher rules.

 

[wjemather]

I'll ask a dumb question - what does the allowance have to do with whether a score is acceptable for handicapping purposes, ie, what is the purpose of that restriction in the software? The allowance is not part of the index calculations.

You are correct. However, (in GB&I) if scores are acceptable for handicapping, it is certain that the allowances in Appx C must be used. The software is simply enforcing the mandate.