WHS doesn't work

[Swango1980]

Who made rule saying the low handicappers must always win net competitions? I thought handicaps were to give all individual players an equal chance. As there are more players worse than 5 cap than better than 6, then more net comps will be won by higher cappers.

No one said that. And we all know individual golfers do NOT have an equal chance.

 

[Backsticks]

No one said that. And we all know individual golfers do NOT have an equal chance.

But equal enough. Low hcs had an advantage for 40 years. There wasnt uproar, and we got on with our golf. The system was improved and made fairer, so that's good. We should all just carry on playing our golf.

The biggest eye opener for me in this discussion is that some regard gross scores being relevant to handicap golf. Bizarre misunderstanding there.

 

[Backache]

The overwhelming concern that I see is people worried that very high or low (depending on whether one is talking medal or Stableford) Nett scores have become far more prevalent since the introduction of WHS.
This would indicate that inaccurate handicapping had become more prevalent.

 

[Backsticks]

The overwhelming concern that I see is people worried that very high or low (depending on whether one is talking medal or Stableford) Nett scores have become far more prevalent since the introduction of WHS.
This would indicate that inaccurate handicapping had become more prevalent.

Yet the data shies the situation is more level than ever. Indicating people are made paranoid by change, even when the change is an improvement.

 

[Swango1980]

Yet the data shies the situation is more level than ever. Indicating people are made paranoid by change, even when the change is an improvement.

Does it though? No one answered my question? Did the data in the link earlier in this thread indicate the average Stableford score was now much more similar for all handicap ranges?

 

[Backache]

Yet the data shies the situation is more level than ever. Indicating people are made paranoid by change, even when the change is an improvement.

Which data?

 

[Backsticks]

Which data?

Banchory's link from hiwdidido, which corresponded well with a specific club analysis done by one poster here.

 

[Deleted member 15717]

Could there also be an element of fact that there are more higher handicap players playing in comps, which in turn leads to a higher probability that a score would be turned in.

as others have said, I haven’t seen it at my own course. unless it was very early in the year and temporary greens were in play which basically meant there is no trouble around any ‘green’ and you could putt from 50 yards away. Non-qualifiers though, so wouldn’t affect handicap in any way

 

[Backache]

Banchory's link from hiwdidido, which corresponded well with a specific club analysis done by one poster here.

The data was of average scores which may well not be relevant to winning scores which by definition are the furthest deviation from that average on any given day. If higher handicappers have a higher deviation they are systematically more likely to win.
If your head is in the oven and your feet in the freezer your average ambient temperature may well be perfectly comfortable but you certainly won't feel it.
There is no point in telling folk it's fair if the chances of winning are systematically higher for the higher handicappers.

 

[Russty]

WHS is a ‘Cheats’ charter! Under normal circumstances a general play round should be lower than your competition round. I’m a handicap secretary & we have one individual currently off 12 after the summer comps but has put in 2 recent 9 hole general play scores of 46 and 47 when his last 2 comp scores were 38!!!
OK, it conforms To WGH rules
BUT
It doesn’t conform to player responsibilities of trying to put in as low a round as possible & it appears there is nothing i or the handicap committee can do!

 

[Slab]

It's interesting that all the ones reported are relatively short courses which suggests that more players will reach the green in regulation. Length being a major factor in CR.

Yeah it kinda got me wondering if 113 in some territories might not be as natural as intended

I mean by modern standards some of these examples I'd describe as exceptionaly short courses

 

[Imurg]

WHS is a ‘Cheats’ charter! Under normal circumstances a general play round should be lower than your competition round. I’m a handicap secretary & we have one individual currently off 12 after the summer comps but has put in 2 recent 9 hole general play scores of 46 and 47 when his last 2 comp scores were 38!!!
OK, it conforms To WGH rules
BUT
It doesn’t conform to player responsibilities of trying to put in as low a round as possible & it appears there is nothing i or the handicap committee can do!

So as soon as 2 poor scores come in there is an implication of handicap manipulation.??
Are people not allowed to have a bad day or 2?
He may be playing the system but he may just be playing poorly
I'm perfectly capable of shooting 3 under for 9.....or 8 over..
Looking at my WHS record my scores drift from 74 to 92...and I'm a 5.4 index. 18 shots....
Does that automatically mean those high scores are an attempt to get a few shots back?
Or have I just had a bad round and played crap?
It annoys me that when someone has a good or bad day there's almost an immediate cry of foul.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

So as soon as 2 poor scores come in there is an implication of handicap manipulation.??
Are people not allowed to have a bad day or 2?
He may be playing the system but he may just be playing poorly
I'm perfectly capable of shooting 3 under for 9.....or 8 over..
Looking at my WHS record my scores drift from 74 to 92...and I'm a 5.4 index. 18 shots....
Does that automatically mean those high scores are an attempt to get a few shots back?
Or have I just had a bad round and played crap?
It annoys me that when someone has a good or bad day there's almost an immediate cry of foul.

Indeed…sometimes if after a few holes I can see or feel that it’s not going to be a good day I’ll start taking on shots from places that I might not otherwise take on…because I want to find out if I can play the shots. Now if they come off my score could end up much better than things were looking. If they don’t my score could be grim. That’s not ‘not trying’, is trying differently.

And it’s definitely not ‘throwing’ a round for handicap manipulation purposes; though in truth I can see how some might well view it that way.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

WHS is a ‘Cheats’ charter! Under normal circumstances a general play round should be lower than your competition round. I’m a handicap secretary & we have one individual currently off 12 after the summer comps but has put in 2 recent 9 hole general play scores of 46 and 47 when his last 2 comp scores were 38!!!
OK, it conforms To WGH rules
BUT
It doesn’t conform to player responsibilities of trying to put in as low a round as possible & it appears there is nothing i or the handicap committee can do!

Why?

 

[Swango1980]

WHS is a ‘Cheats’ charter! Under normal circumstances a general play round should be lower than your competition round. I’m a handicap secretary & we have one individual currently off 12 after the summer comps but has put in 2 recent 9 hole general play scores of 46 and 47 when his last 2 comp scores were 38!!!
OK, it conforms To WGH rules
BUT
It doesn’t conform to player responsibilities of trying to put in as low a round as possible & it appears there is nothing i or the handicap committee can do!

So, I agree in that WHS can allow such golfers to unfairly get their handicaps up more quickly.

However, I'd be extremely cautious accusing any individual as a cheat if they happen to post a few higher scores. Especially if you are in the position of handicap secretary. Player scores can fluctuate massively from one round to another. I've been level par, or close to that after 9 holes. I've also been close to 15 over, and I certainly tried to shoot much lower than that. But, done days I am just rubbish. Might have a few blow up holes, or just play scrappy golf throughout.

If you are going to accuse someone of being a cheat, you'd need a heck of a lot of evidence, or an admission. That in itself may make it harder to identify those trying to manipulate things, and it is hard to tell the difference in someone intentionally playing a bit scrappy to inflate a score, and those that are just scrappy.

 

[rulefan]

WHS is a ‘Cheats’ charter! Under normal circumstances a general play round should be lower than your competition round. I’m a handicap secretary & we have one individual currently off 12 after the summer comps but has put in 2 recent 9 hole general play scores of 46 and 47 when his last 2 comp scores were 38!!!
OK, it conforms To WGH rules
BUT
It doesn’t conform to player responsibilities of trying to put in as low a round as possible & it appears there is nothing i or the handicap committee can do!

What's the difference between Supplementary Scores and General Play scores. As hcap Sec did you not encourage the former? How did did you handle 'cheating' then?

 

[wjemather]

WHS is a ‘Cheats’ charter! Under normal circumstances a general play round should be lower than your competition round. I’m a handicap secretary & we have one individual currently off 12 after the summer comps but has put in 2 recent 9 hole general play scores of 46 and 47 when his last 2 comp scores were 38!!!
OK, it conforms To WGH rules
BUT
It doesn’t conform to player responsibilities of trying to put in as low a round as possible & it appears there is nothing i or the handicap committee can do!

Handicap secs should know better than to immediately leap to accusations of cheating based on 2 good and 2 not-so-good scores.

Of course, if you know that player responsibilities were not fulfilled, you need to fulfil yours and remove the offending unacceptable score(s). Further action is also available to the committee.

 

[clubchamp98]

Yeah it kinda got me wondering if 113 in some territories might not be as natural as intended

I mean by modern standards some of these examples I'd describe as exceptionaly short courses

Ours is 6500 yds and 129 slope.
It’s not long but not short for most ams.
We still get some very silly scores.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Even without such a review though, you are pleased with WHS and that it is a more equal system than the old one, and a big step forward ?

do you really misconstrue every comment to this degree? There is nothing about WHS I like, it is a much poorer system in every respect, PCC/CSS, the ease of moving higher, the sloweness of moving down, the changing of handicap from course to course, literally nothing is good about it. And yes I do understand it, I'm a H'cap Sec and I take that responsibility seriously, it's a load of (Mod Edit, infraction issued) IMO, so please don't misrepresnt me as badly as you possibly could. What a facile comment to make

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Banchory's link from hiwdidido, which corresponded well with a specific club analysis done by one poster here.

Be good if you actualy took the time to read an understand it though,