ExRabbit
Club Champion
I guess this person might be a new player with a bit of talent - no way would a potential cheater make that high of a score!
WHS abuse
- Thread starter Bamberdele2.0
- Start date
I guess this person might be a new player with a bit of talent - no way would a potential cheater make that high of a score!
Yes, thats clearly not a case of the mythical feared handicap builder. Even the WHS paranoids would have to agree, that WHS does not allow handicap boosting, by even the most diligent WHS abuser flushing in 20 card, by 15 shots.
This is an example that is nothing to do with WHS.
AussieKB why did you post it here by the way ?
Swango1980
Well-known member
Well, it has nothing to do with abuse, but you can't say it has nothing to do with WHS. After all, if it is as you describe, WHS gave the new handicapper a ridiculously high handicap to begin with.
There are things that could have been implemented in WHS to safeguard this, but didn't.
A handicap committee gave the handicap. 20 shots too high. Not the system.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Where does it say he was a new handicapper? He may have been sitting on a UHS conversion and not put a score in for a couple of years. Some didn't play during Covid lockdown.
Swango1980
Well-known member
You decided not to read the "if it is as you describe" comment then?
Swango1980
Well-known member
How do you figure that. Did you not realise that WHS calculates an Index once 3 cards are submitted, automatically? The Committee do not just make a number up on the spot. Or, do you feel Committee should just ignore the WHS methodology, and do their own thing?
wjemather
Well-known member
So no different to UHS (and every other handicap system) then. Initial handicaps are based only on the available scores and any known additional information. They can't predict future scores, and can be made to look "ridiculously high" when a much better score is entered - before this there is nothing to suggest that might be the case.
In summary, not a WHS issue. Or more accurately, not an issue at all.
Last edited:
rulefan
Tour Winner
You simply posited a possible view. I posted an alternative. The OP didn't "describe" anything and gave no indication about how long the player had held a handicap.
Banchory Buddha
Well-known member
Nothing clear about it.
Swango1980
Well-known member
You asked me a question. I answered it. It should have been abundantly clear from my post when I began "if it is as you describe". If it was not as it was described, then clearly a different explanation would be required.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Firstly, and we have been here before as you are well aware, I've never said UHS did it correct.
Also, when you say it is not an issue at all, I think that is incredibly naïve. You simply sound like someone who quotes rule books and manuals, but have no idea about evaluating the potential weaknesses within the real world. You will defend the manual to death. However, as we know, over the years guidance and rules change to improve on any weaknesses. Until that point, you appear to defend the manuals, and then when the manual changes, in whatever way, you will then say it needed to change because of weaknesses in the old method. That is my impression anyway, I guess you sound like a bot that is programmed only to quote manuals and praise the way in which they do things
Giving a player an Index of, for example, 35.0, after submitting 3 cards is laughable quite frankly. They've literally only submitted 3 scores, and they could have done so on a rubbish week for them. Even if it wasn't overly terrible, being a new golfer, they are most likely going to have the potential to improve over a short time. If I requested that my handicap was only based on my last 3 scores at all times, you would say it is an appalling idea. Yet you bury your head firmly in the sand when it comes to a new golfer. Then, when there are reports of players scoring 50 points, one reason often given is "don't worry, it is probably not a cheating golfer, but a new golfer" as if that makes things OK for everyone else in the field.
Until a player has 20 scores, I will always be in favour of a system that handicaps the handicap to a specified and variable level, depending on how many actual scores have been submitted and the value of the raw Index in the first place. This way, new golfers can still be awarded a new handicap after 3 scores, but there is much better protection for competition fields from new players with handicaps that are way way too high. It will encourage the new handicappers to submit more and more scores, so that it becomes more quickly refined to find their level. Once they've 20 scores, and their Index is still 35.0, fair play. They've earned it. I'd imagine in most cases though, you'd find their Index after 20 scores would be less than 35.
rulefan
Tour Winner
How did the OP describe the situation as "WHS gave the new handicapper a ridiculously high handicap to begin with"? The OP makes no mention of how or when he got a handicap
Swango1980
Well-known member
I was replying to a comment that was a direct reply to ExRabbits post that said: "I guess this person might be a new player with a bit of talent - no way would a potential cheater make that high of a score!"
The person I replied to, Backsticks, agreed with this possible explanation. At which point, I made my comment, which was part of that conversation.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Would it not be better to restrict a new handicappers ability to win competitions until they have returned a higher number of cards. That is a facility a committee has at their discretion and many clubs do already.Firstly, and we have been here before as you are well aware, I've never said UHS did it correct.
Also, when you say it is not an issue at all, I think that is incredibly naïve. You simply sound like someone who quotes rule books and manuals, but have no idea about evaluating the potential weaknesses within the real world. You will defend the manual to death. However, as we know, over the years guidance and rules change to improve on any weaknesses. Until that point, you appear to defend the manuals, and then when the manual changes, in whatever way, you will then say it needed to change because of weaknesses in the old method. That is my impression anyway, I guess you sound like a bot that is programmed only to quote manuals and praise the way in which they do things
Giving a player an Index of, for example, 35.0, after submitting 3 cards is laughable quite frankly. They've literally only submitted 3 scores, and they could have done so on a rubbish week for them. Even if it wasn't overly terrible, being a new golfer, they are most likely going to have the potential to improve over a short time. If I requested that my handicap was only based on my last 3 scores at all times, you would say it is an appalling idea. Yet you bury your head firmly in the sand when it comes to a new golfer. Then, when there are reports of players scoring 50 points, one reason often given is "don't worry, it is probably not a cheating golfer, but a new golfer" as if that makes things OK for everyone else in the field.
Until a player has 20 scores, I will always be in favour of a system that handicaps the handicap to a specified and variable level, depending on how many actual scores have been submitted and the value of the raw Index in the first place. This way, new golfers can still be awarded a new handicap after 3 scores, but there is much better protection for competition fields from new players with handicaps that are way way too high. It will encourage the new handicappers to submit more and more scores, so that it becomes more quickly refined to find their level. Once they've 20 scores, and their Index is still 35.0, fair play. They've earned it. I'd imagine in most cases though, you'd find their Index after 20 scores would be less than 35.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Well, yes, that is another potential solution.
But, the weakness of that would then be that some would complain this also "discriminates" against new golfers. There would be some new golfers who may not get 20 cards in as quickly as others. So, if they get their handicap in late Spring, depending on the limits set in the competitions, they may not actually be able to be eligible to win a competetion for all or most of the year.
Furthermore, if competition secretaries did that, and it was considered acceptable, then the only reason they are doing it is because they do not trust the Index of the new players WHS is giving them. So, it still points to a flaw in the system. If people think there is NO flaw with WHS in this regard, then they should not suggest prohibiting new golfers from winning competitions.
rulefan
Tour Winner
I don't see that using a limited number of cards to establish a handicap as being a WHS system flaw. How else could a handicap be established in any system?
An arbitrary max of any value is just that - arbitrary. I have never seen any study/case made for choosing 18, 28, 36, 54 or any other value. Why not let players serve an apprenticeship over whatever time they wish to set aside for it?
Swango1980
Well-known member
I have never made any argument against any of this!? I absolutely think it is good a player can get a handicap after 3 scores, otherwise it could take them ages to get an official handicap. However, if they are banned from winning any comps for a considerable time after, as you highlighted a potential solution, it is a bit of a kick in the face to some. Then the competition secretaries / committees may well be questioned for their individual choices.
Therefore, give them an Index after 3 scores. What I am saying, they should still be in an apprenticeship period before they "earn" their "true handicap. The system already subtracts 2.0 from their Index after 3 scores, although that is the same value for someone with a best differential of 4.0 or 54.0. Not exactly a balanced restriction based on potential ability going forward. And, regardless of that, these new golfers do not necessarily go out and shoot a much better round on their 4th or 5th score, at which point this restriction diminished to 1.0 and then nothing anyway.
wjemather
Well-known member
Firstly, please stop with the personal remarks. You don't know me. Don't be so arrogant as to presume you do.
We've been through your ludicrous "solutions" before. Discouraging new golfers is not the answer. Artificially restricting new handicappers to a guaranteed uncompetitive level is grossly unfair - it's strange that you seem to think this isn't discriminating against new golfers, but committees establishing entry requirements is - established golfers are not entitled to an advantage. Is 3 scores perfect? No, of course not, but it does provide a reasonable indicator of scoring ability, and three cards can be easily submitted within a reasonable timeframe by almost everyone; some people take years to build up 20 scores - given them an artificially low handicap would discourage many from ever doing so, reversing one of the successes of WHS in bringing players back to handicapping and competitions.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Please do not call my ideas "ludicrous", it could be interpreted that you are assessing I am a silly person for even suggesting such things
. My comments on yourself were my personal assessment on how I view your own remarks.Every new handicapper is already "artificially" restricted by 2.0 shots after 3 scores. Is that grossly unfair, or is it OK because it has the WHS logo attached to it?
That comment I highlighted is a joke, right? I mean seriously, are you actually thinking clearly, not trying to offend? I could go out and shoot three scores in the 90's within a week or 2. I could be playing badly, maybe I've a dodgy wrist, maybe the weather was horrific, maybe it is on a course I don't really know, or a combination of all the above, or other issues. The next week I could go out and shoot a 75.
So, don't try and tell me that3 scores provides a reasonable indicator of scoring ability. Particularly of even higher handicappers, where their Index is 20's, 30's, 40's unlike mine in the single figures. Not only will their range of scoring be higher, they have much more potential to improve rapidly as they are starting often from scratch. They may also get use to, and comfortable with the course.
PS If a player takes years to build 20 scores, I wonder how interested they are in having that handicap to be honest?
