Scratch golf is course independent

[D-S]

Possibly not everywhere, though the provision was there, maybe only Ireland applied it.
"Increases in Exact Handicaps should not be subject to restriction unless a Union so directs. A Union may restrict the increase of Exact Handicaps to a maximum of 1.0 stroke in a calendar year except for increases granted under Clause 23."

But without digging back into the minutiae of the UHS, the principle is valid. Increases of 0.1 prompted slower increases than WHS.

I think this lack of understanding (memory?) of UHS, especially as the reverse of what you claimed was ‘a limit’ to increases was actually true, severely undermines your point about the “stickiness” of UHS handicaps. The fact that EG amongst other authorities are having to implement extra checks to the validity of low WHS handicaps due to the prevalence of ‘vanity handicaps’ under the new system, caused by the deregulation of GP formerly supplementary scores, further diminishes your argument.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

There is a nuancical difference between the two words though.
UHC certainly didnt promote, as in advocate, vanity handicaps. But it was easier for those so motivated to do so I think, thus facilitating that tendency more than WHS. I think you know what I meant.

Except, again, we all know, even you as you admitted, that handicaps for low guys are now lower than under UHS, so your point is wrong, whatever the nuance of your words

 

[Backsticks]

Except, again, we all know, even you as you admitted, that handicaps for low guys are now lower than under UHS, so your point is wrong, whatever the nuance of your words

You are missing my point that both lower handicaps, and handicap stickiness are possible. They are not mutually exclusive.

The lowerness relates to the calibration of the zero.
The stickiness relates to the reponsiveness to a change in the inputs, or the rate of change.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

You are missing my point that both lower handicaps, and handicap stickiness are possible. They are not mutually exclusive.

The lowerness relates to the calibration of the zero.
The stickiness relates to the reponsiveness to a change in the inputs, or the rate of change.

You called UHS a promoter of vanity handicaps, then admitted that handicaps for low guys are lower under WHS, the responsiveness & stickiness are utterly irrelevant to that argument, that's a different topic entirely and not one I'm discussing with you here in any way

 

[Backsticks]

You called UHS a promoter of vanity handicaps, then admitted that handicaps for low guys are lower under WHS, the responsiveness & stickiness are utterly irrelevant to that argument, that's a different topic entirely and not one I'm discussing with you here in any way

You are missing that handicaps being both lower, and, less sticky, are not contradictory.

 

[D-S]

You are missing that handicaps being both lower, and, less sticky, are not contradictory.

Seemingly not ‘sticky’ for the new breed of elite vanity handicappers who didn’t apparently exist or at least need regulating against under UHS but now have meant the introduction of new terms and conditions for handicap records for elite competitions under WHS.

 

[wjemather]

Seemingly not ‘sticky’ for the new breed of elite vanity handicappers who didn’t apparently exist or at least need regulating against under UHS but now have meant the introduction of new terms and conditions for handicap records for elite competitions under WHS.

There is no new breed. There have always been people cheating in order to get their handicap low enough to get in ballotted tournaments. Previously, these players were simply cheating in £2 club rollup comps rather than getting their handicap down for free. Now they are doing the latter, there are tools available to weed them out. Once they get wise to this, they'll simply go back to cheating in £2 rollups and it will go back to being almost impossible to catch them.

 

[D-S]

There is no new breed. There have always been people cheating in order to get their handicap low enough to get in ballotted tournaments. Previously, these players were simply cheating in £2 club rollup comps rather than getting their handicap down for free. Now they are doing the latter, there are tools available to weed them out. Once they get wise to this, they'll simply go back to cheating in £2 rollups and it will go back to being almost impossible to catch them.

Do you believe it is easier (and cheaper) to have a vanity handicap with the free access to unlimited GP scores now for low handicap golfers than before?

 

[wjemather]

Do you believe it is easier (and cheaper) to have a vanity handicap with the free access to unlimited GP scores now for low handicap golfers than before?

Cheaper certainly, but ease is relative to the level of scrutiny. We're talking about cheats, so they will find a way regardless of how easy it is perceived to be.
These are people who 'find' lost balls 50 yards from where they disappeared, routinely improve their lie, report false scores (or even doctor their scorecard), etc. whenever they can get away with it - which includes club competitions where scrutiny is commonly minimal.

 

[D-S]

Cheaper certainly, but ease is relative to the level of scrutiny. We're talking about cheats, so they will find a way regardless of how easy it is perceived to be.
These are people who 'find' lost balls 50 yards from where they disappeared, routinely improve their lie, report false scores (or doctor their scorecard), etc. whenever they can get away with it - which includes club competitions where scrutiny is commonly minimal.

And I guess more convenient as you can play GP rounds according to your schedule not that of the club competition diary and at a greater frequency as well.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

You are missing that handicaps being both lower, and, less sticky, are not contradictory.

You're missing that nobody is talking about that. You said UHS promoted vanity handicaps, yet also have stated WHS has lowered handicaps for low players. Your own statements totally contradict each other. Please don;t reply again with this "Sticky" nonsense, never in my life have I heard handicaps being described in this way, and it's totally irrelevant in any case

 

[Voyager EMH]

There was never a "sticky" notion that applied to one range of handicaps more than another.
What I found was that it was easier to get from 8 to 5 than it was to get from 4 to 3, because of coming down 0.1 per shot rather than 0.2 per shot and having a 1-shot buffer zone rather than a 2-shot buffer zone.
I thought that the difference between a 4 and 2 handicapper was much larger than the difference between a 9 and a 7.
That is why low handicappers often did well in club matchplays - together with the 75% and 90% of difference that was used.
An improving golfer who had got down from 5 to 3 was probably playing to 1 or scratch, but a player who got down from 11 to 9 was not playing to as much below handicap.
It was slow reduction of handicap in the lowest range rather than "stickiness" that was a problem.

As for vanity handicaps today - the ones I am mainly aware of is in the 12-20 range. Handing in 5 or 6 scores a year that are average to poor with only one reasonable score in order to have a handicap that they can play to 50% or more of the time in social golf, AmAms, betterballs and matchplay.

I'm sure scratch-or-thereabouts vanity handicaps exists - I've just not met any of them, but plenty of the other type.

 

[bobmac]

People with vanity handicaps just reduce their chances of winning anything, no skin off my nose. However those who keep their handicaps artificially high is a problem as that increases their chances of winning which in my house is called cheating.
If the system makes it easier to cheat, then it should be changed.

One way to do that would be to reduce the entry fee and the value of the prizes

 

[Deleted member 23270]

I'm confused. Is my handicap based on lowerness, stickiness, vanity or none of the above.

Or to put it another way, why is this forum now full of people trying to outsmart and trip each other up? It used to be a place for banter and advice, seems those days are gone.

 

[Backsticks]

You're missing that nobody is talking about that. You said UHS promoted vanity handicaps, yet also have stated WHS has lowered handicaps for low players. Your own statements totally contradict each other. Please don;t reply again with this "Sticky" nonsense, never in my life have I heard handicaps being described in this way, and it's totally irrelevant in any case

Enabled, to a greater degree than WHS. Not promoted.
There is a first time for everything. Sticky, is a perfectly valid word to describe the relative tendency of a dynamic process to change. The concept is fully understood and used in the world of science, mathematics, engineering.

 

[Backsticks]

There was never a "sticky" notion that applied to one range of handicaps more than another.

Indeed not. I am only contrasting tge stickiness in the upward direction of WHS handicaps compared to UHS/Congu as we knew it.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

I'm confused. Is my handicap based on lowerness, stickiness, vanity or none of the above.

Or to put it another way, why is this forum now full of people trying to outsmart and trip each other up? It used to be a place for banter and advice, seems those days are gone.

Because Foxholer’s halfwit twin has been allowed to remain

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Enabled, to a greater degree than WHS. Not promoted.
There is a first time for everything. Sticky, is a perfectly valid word to describe the relative tendency of a dynamic process to change. The concept is fully understood and used in the world of science, mathematics, engineering.

 

[Backache]

People with vanity handicaps just reduce their chances of winning anything, no skin off my nose. However those who keep their handicaps artificially high is a problem as that increases their chances of winning which in my house is called cheating.
If the system makes it easier to cheat, then it should be changed.

One way to do that would be to reduce the entry fee and the value of the prizes

Changing the prize money reduces the incentive to cheat, it doesn't exactly make it less easy though.
I agree that it would be a start. Maybe we should go back to the system that to play in a competition, you're handicap should be derived from competitive golf. Personally it's what I do anyway.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Changing the prize money reduces the incentive to cheat, it doesn't exactly make it less easy though.
I agree that it would be a start. Maybe we should go back to the system that to play in a competition, you're handicap should be derived from competitive golf. Personally it's what I do anyway.

We insist that you have put in 3 competition cards in the last 12 months