WHS abuse

[IanM]

Weird, when I started, I just played till I got good enough to get round in a sensible score without holding up the rest of the course. I never felt excluded. I don't play in the scratch medal qualifier for the club championship, I know I can't qualify. I am not excluded, I am just not good enough.

As a cricketer, I knew I had to play my way into the first team. I never felt excluded. I worked harder to improve.

No idea why the concept of people not being able to win a competition the week after they start is seen as exclusion. But I do agree that making them play off an unplayable handicap in one isn't the answer either.

What's with all the "hand-wringing?" Integrate new players properly. Otherwise clubs will start bringing in their own regulations for competition entry....as mine has done. What's this craze about handicaps and comps? My next door neighbour has just taken up golf. He refused to play in a recent society as he didn't feel his game was up to it. He plays with some mates once a week, casually and has lots of fun. He says he'll start putting cards in when the better weather comes, giving him the winter to improve.

Maybe the entire strategy is wrong. We seem to be moving towards obsession with handicaps and every round counting...even blooming matchplay. What next? The practice putting green?

Growing the game is about getting new people on golf courses. Not getting them tied up in knots..... until they are ready!

 

[Swango1980]

Weird, when I started, I just played till I got good enough to get round in a sensible score without holding up the rest of the course. I never felt excluded. I don't play in the scratch medal qualifier for the club championship, I know I can't qualify. I am not excluded, I am just not good enough.

As a cricketer, I knew I had to play my way into the first team. I never felt excluded. I worked harder to improve.

No idea why the concept of people not being able to win a competition the week after they start is seen as exclusion. But I do agree that making them play off an unplayable handicap in one isn't the answer either.

What's with all the "hand-wringing?" Integrate new players properly. Otherwise clubs will start bringing in their own regulations for competition entry....as mine has done. What's this craze about handicaps and comps? My next door neighbour has just taken up golf. He refused to play in a recent society as he didn't feel his game was up to it. He plays with some mates once a week, casually and has lots of fun. He says he'll start putting cards in when the better weather comes, giving him the winter to improve.

Maybe the entire strategy is wrong. We seem to be moving towards obsession with handicaps and every round counting...even blooming matchplay. What next? The practice putting green?

Growing the game is about getting new people on golf courses. Not getting them tied up in knots..... until they are ready!

Agreed

When I offered my own opinion on how the system could be refined, it is almost like the WHS diehards think I am saying "if a players best differential is 37.0 after 3 scores, give them an Index of 0.0". Which would be absurd, and I am saying nothing of the sort. I'm simply saying don't just give them 35.0, and try and fool us all into thinking that is "fair" to all other handicapped golfers.

When I had my first handicap, which was 20, I was absolutely the same. I had no expectation to go out and win competitions. My early goals were to just not come last in competitions, and try and get better. I'd rather have been well down the order, and earn my stripes. After about 3 competitions, I won a medal with a nett 60 (-10 under par, -9 under CSS). Sure, that was nice, but also very uncomfortable when many questioned my handicap. Most of it was the jovial "bandit" type comments, nothing malicious. But it was still apparent that my actual ability was way better than 20, and it was better than 20 before I teed off that round. I think that round pushed me down to 18. So, I did feel they had a point that my handicap was a bit fraudulent, albeit within the workings of the system so justifiable.

So, despite the win, I really had no expectation, or feeling that I had any right to win competitions. I was just happy playing, and would have been happier not winning anything, until most other members felt I "earned my stripes" in relation to handicap. I wonder how many new golfers are actually put off when they score extremely high scores in comps, and there is a lot of negativity from others towards that win. It may not be personal, but hard to take it any other way for some. After all, many competition golfers are competitive, it is why they play in those comps. So, clearly it will agitate a reasonable amount when there is a feeling there is no sense of fairness in that competition

 

[wjemather]

Weird, when I started, I just played till I got good enough to get round in a sensible score without holding up the rest of the course. I never felt excluded. I don't play in the scratch medal qualifier for the club championship, I know I can't qualify. I am not excluded, I am just not good enough.

As a cricketer, I knew I had to play my way into the first team. I never felt excluded. I worked harder to improve.

Thankfully, (at most clubs) golf is a great deal more inclusive now, and people aren't made to feel that they are not good enough.

Also, your scratch medal and cricket analogies involve players competing without handicaps, so have no relevance to handicapping.

 

[Swango1980]

Thankfully, (at most clubs) golf is a great deal more inclusive now, and people aren't made to feel that they are not good enough.

Also, your scratch medal and cricket analogies involve players competing without handicaps, so have no relevance to handicapping.

Except the people on these forums who feel they are not good enough to shoot circa 50 points. But, let us not worry about them, as long as the newbies keep scoring remarkably high and unbeatable scores, I'm sure 99.999% of golfers will be happy.....

 

[IanM]

Also, your scratch medal and cricket analogies involve players competing without handicaps, so have no relevance to handicapping.

Eh? The discussion was about getting people over the hurdle of getting a handicap and INTEGRATED to the sport/club. Those comments (you choose to dismiss) are hugely relevant in the development, integration and participation in a sport. Not to mention the psychology of inclusion.

I don't want to appear rude, but I thought the point was pretty clear.

 

[nickjdavis]

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.

I largely agree that three scores does not deliver any true indicator of the players ability, but, 20 scores is too many to impose restrictions on.....my experience is that usually after about 7 rounds a player's index has settled to a level where it is not quite as volatile and can then change with reasonable consistency based on scores entered.

So perhaps a system where an initial index is calculated as 80% of the best score out of three, then when 4 scores are in its 85% of the lowest, rising to 90% after 5, 95% of the average of the lowest 2 after 6 and finally after 7 rounds the average of the lowest 2 without any "adjustment" would be something along the lines of what you propose?

 

[wjemather]

Except the people on these forums who feel they are not good enough to shoot circa 50 points. But, let us not worry about them, as long as the newbies keep scoring remarkably high and unbeatable scores, I'm sure 99.999% of golfers will be happy.....

This was covered earlier (perhaps in another thread), but to repeat... exceptional scores (which you appear to be hung up on) have nothing to do with the equity of the system. The aim of handicapping is to give everyone an equitable chance of winning, not an even chance of returning an exceptional score.

 

[clubchamp98]

We had someone off a 33 handicap win with 56 points yesterday, at course near me.....
I only had to shoot 16 under par to match it.

That will be the clubs fault!

 

[clubchamp98]

I largely agree that three scores does not deliver any true indicator of the players ability, but, 20 scores is too many to impose restrictions on.....my experience is that usually after about 7 rounds a player's index has settled to a level where it is not quite as volatile and can then change with reasonable consistency based on scores entered.

So perhaps a system where an initial index is calculated as 80% of the best score out of three, then when 4 scores are in its 85% of the lowest, rising to 90% after 5, 95% of the average of the lowest 2 after 6 and finally after 7 rounds the average of the lowest 2 without any "adjustment" would be something along the lines of what you propose?

They will never go with that.
It’s far to sensible.

We all know 3 cards is not enough but how long has it been like that ?

 

[Backsticks]

They will never go with that.
It’s far to sensible.

We all know 3 cards is not enough but how long has it been like that ?

Since always. Long before WHS.

 

[Backsticks]

That will be the clubs fault!

Most likely, but also possibly the player concealed prior golf experience. Good hc secretaries do push for this info, but it takes some initiative, and not just take the best minus 2 at face value.




5.2
Calculation of a Handicap Index
Allocation of an Initial Handicap IndexBased on any additional evidence available about a player’s demonstrated ability, a Handicap Committee may modify a player’s initial Handicap Index upward or downward (see Rule 7.1a).

 

[clubchamp98]

Thankfully, (at most clubs) golf is a great deal more inclusive now, and people aren't made to feel that they are not good enough.

Also, your scratch medal and cricket analogies involve players competing without handicaps, so have no relevance to handicapping.

That first sentence in a nutshell is all that’s wrong here.

Golf is a competitive sport we don’t all get medals just for turning up.
If you want to win in a comp you should be 28 cap at least.
Earn the right to tee it up with other competitors in a handicap format that just dosnt give you loads of shots to hide your lack of ability.
In golf you need to learn you lose a lot more than you win but that’s life.

It’s a sport not a school PE day.

 

[Backsticks]

That first sentence in a nutshell is all that’s wrong here.

Golf is a competitive sport we don’t all get medals just for turning up.
If you want to win in a comp you should be 28 cap at least.
Earn the right to tee it up with other competitors in a handicap format that just dosnt give you loads of shots to hide your lack of ability.
In golf you need to learn you lose a lot more than you win but that’s life.

It’s a sport not a school PE day.

Thats what a handicap is for EVERYBODY who plays with a handicap - shots to make up for your lack of ability.

 

[Swango1980]

I largely agree that three scores does not deliver any true indicator of the players ability, but, 20 scores is too many to impose restrictions on.....my experience is that usually after about 7 rounds a player's index has settled to a level where it is not quite as volatile and can then change with reasonable consistency based on scores entered.

So perhaps a system where an initial index is calculated as 80% of the best score out of three, then when 4 scores are in its 85% of the lowest, rising to 90% after 5, 95% of the average of the lowest 2 after 6 and finally after 7 rounds the average of the lowest 2 without any "adjustment" would be something along the lines of what you propose?

Yes. Ages ago I posted a more detailed example, where there would be a higher restriction after, say 10 scores (and higher for higher handicaps). After 10 scores, that restriction was halved, and after 15 scores halved again. So, as they build towards 20 scores, there is refinement of any restriction to be less severe.

Of course, that idea was rubbished by you know who, because it discriminated apparently.

 

[Swango1980]

Since always. Long before WHS.

You mean that flawed system we used to use, that WHS fan boys are now happy to be critical of. That one?

 

[Swango1980]

Most likely, but also possibly the player concealed prior golf experience. Good hc secretaries do push for this info, but it takes some initiative, and not just take the best minus 2 at face value.




5.2
Calculation of a Handicap Index
Allocation of an Initial Handicap IndexBased on any additional evidence available about a player’s demonstrated ability, a Handicap Committee may modify a player’s initial Handicap Index upward or downward (see Rule 7.1a).

I must say, that is rubbish. Have you been a handicap secretary!? Although that can be another reason, it is rarely the case. All golfers start the game at some point, and when they do they have no history to speak of. Of course, everyone accepts they are the most likely to make rapid improvements as they play more and more. So, there is absolutely no accusation of them hiding anything. They simply handed in 3 scores, from effectively an arbitrary point in time (in terms of how form, weather, etc may impact those scores), and they can often be given an initial handicap far too high for them. There is no evidence that the handicap secretary can act upon to cut them further, they can only rely on the system. Hence, it is not unusual for them to shoot crazy good scores, before the handicap catches up and gives a better reflection of their ability.

 

[wjemather]

Since always. Long before WHS.

For comparison, the old Australian system also required 3 scores; the old USGA, South African and Argentine systems required 5 scores; the EGA system required just 1.

 

[Backsticks]

You mean that flawed system we used to use, that WHS fan boys are now happy to be critical of. That one?

Well, the point being, if people are ascribing wild scores to incorrect initial handicaps due to basing on only 3 cards in WHS, it was the same effectively under UHS.

 

[rulefan]

They simply handed in 3 scores, from effectively an arbitrary point in time (in terms of how form, weather, etc may impact those scores), and they can often be given an initial handicap far too high for them. There is no evidence that the handicap secretary can act upon to cut them further, they can only rely on the system. Hence, it is not unusual for them to shoot crazy good scores, before the handicap catches up and gives a better reflection of their ability.

Now they have a handicap that is possibly faulty. Why not simply let them play in order to get more information and prevent them from winning any or some competitions? Fiddling with the handicapping formula is about as useful as choosing a new leader for a political party. A couple of schemes have been posted here but how many agree with the details. If the issue is about the reliability of the data used to determine handicap as opposed to cheating, wait until the data is reliable.

 

[rulefan]

Has anyone published any reliable information on the real nationwide incidence of these outlandish scores and their cause, whether it be cheating, inappropriate allocation of new caps or day in the sun etc)?