WHS doesn't work

[Deleted member 1147]

Yes we play a regular fourball midweek.
One lad is left handed so on our short par three we play left handed with his club.
He plays right handed with our clubs.
It’s just for fun, but if you have a bit of a lead it can disappear on this hole.
Social golf is the bedrock of golf imo.
If I had to put a card in every time I play I just would not enjoy it as much.

On your last statement I think if you can’t put 20 cards a year in your wasting your time being a member of a club.
A minimum of three is just a joke imo.

I only managed about a dozen cards this year.
Mainly as I was injured/had been operated on in march, so couldn’t play until June.
I then played all the club matches I could upon my return to play. Which are mainly on Saturday. Which are match play better ball.
I also mostly play match play with my mates.
So I got a huge amount of value out of my club membership. Just that I didn’t put many cards in.

 

[Junior]

There is some right nonsense in there. A lot of anecdotal or isolated incidents that are presented as sweeping generalisations that hold true for the entire WHS.

It's not anecdotal if that's the writers experience, also, reading through this thread it appears the incidents are not isolated. Many (including me) saw the same at their club as what the writer describes.

Ive come to my own conclusion that WHS is a good system. It isn't perfect, neither was the last. It works if people submit cards for handicap on a frequent basis. Some people will, some people won't so there will always be conflicts.

As ive said earlier in the thread , i think PCC still needs looking at, and, i think something should be done about cat 1 golfers. Handicap secretary's also need to keep an eye on the winners of knockouts and adjust accordingly to avoid what @patricks148 describes above.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

It's not anecdotal if that's the writers experience, also, reading through this thread it appears the incidents are not isolated. Many (including me) saw the same at their club as what the writer describes.

Ive come to my own conclusion that WHS is a good system. It isn't perfect, neither was the last. It works if people submit cards for handicap on a frequent basis. Some people will, some people won't so there will always be conflicts.

As ive said earlier in the thread , i think PCC still needs looking at, and, i think something should be done about cat 1 golfers. Handicap secretary's also need to keep an eye on the winners of knockouts and adjust accordingly to avoid what @patricks148 describes above.

It only works if people submit cards with integrity, If people are using the system to "Cheat" their handicap then no system will work

 

[Backsticks]

I was going to post this. An excellent piece on the subject and sums up all these pages well.


4. Handicaps reflect form and not ability and this is contentious.

Which was always what even UHS was intended to be. But its failure, and thus indicating ability rather than form, has conditioned the thinking of UHS veterans that this failure was in how it should be.
We now have a system that works - and indicates form much better - but they are struggling to realise than and change their mindset.

 

[Backsticks]

I agree.

I'm a golf badger. Mildly obsessed with the game. It occupies my mind on various levels most days.

That said, I've only played 27 qualifying rounds this Summer (most Saturdays and the odd open). My qualifying rounds have all been competitions. I just haven't got in the mindset of submitting a card each time I play. I dont think i will ever embrace this change. I love evening bounce games over 12 holes (various formats depending on number of players) and can't see me registering these scores for handicap.

27 cards a year is more than ample. 15 or so would be a good target for most I think, whether competition ones, or casual ones.

 

[Backsticks]

It only works if people submit cards with integrity, If people are using the system to "Cheat" their handicap then no system will work

The same as before, but there was, I guess, a higher barrier to entry to cheating. You had to pay into a competition, and sacrifice the competition. That tempered things for a great majority of the minority prone to handicap management.

 

[patricks148]

And of course it defeats the whole purpose of handicaps.

If a 40 capper has no chance of winning, why enter. If he doesn't enter comps why bother joining a club? How does the club make up the lost subs?

But it's OK for a low handicap to have no chance of winning?

 

[Alan Clifford]

If you had 40 players of my standard in a competition, one of us is going to have a magnificent round. A low handicapper doesn't stand a chance. So you need divisions in competitions.

I also think it would be a good idea to have two handicaps and you play competitions off your lowest. One would be an everything handicap and the other would be a competition handicap (although the definition of a "competition" might be a bit tricky).

 

[rulefan]

But it's OK for a low handicap to have no chance of winning?

If the committee is doing its job all handicappers should have an equal chance of winning.

 

[IanM]

If the committee is doing its job all handicappers should have an equal chance of winning.

No chance. The Committee can't make every player in the club behave in exactly the same way.

 

[clubchamp98]

If the committee is doing its job all handicappers should have an equal chance of winning.

Should have ! But that’s not the reality of what’s happening.
I can’t shoot 46 + points that’s what is winning at mine.

 

[rulefan]

Should have ! But that’s not the reality of what’s happening.
I can’t shoot 46 + points that’s what is winning at mine.

Have you or anyone else looked at the winner's playing record?

We have a strong and active handicaps & comps committee. We have not had any outlandish scores. Coincidence?

 

[clubchamp98]

Have you or anyone else looked at the winner's playing record?

No I havnt.
It’s not the same person all the time.

It’s getting that the members are saying “ I need to go up a few shots to have a chance”

 

[rulefan]

No I havnt.
It’s not the same person all the time.

Does you committee at least do an annual review?
Are they players who have just got handicaps?

 

[clubchamp98]

Does you committee at least do an annual review?
Are they players who have just got handicaps?

No they are not they are a mixture of middle and high.
But no single figure player has scored anywhere near that.

 

[clubchamp98]

Have you or anyone else looked at the winner's playing record?

We have a strong and active handicaps & comps committee. We have not had any outlandish scores. Coincidence?

Imo this was always going to be a problem for hcap comittiee volunteers doubling or trebling their workload.

 

[rulefan]

Imo this was always going to be a problem for hcap comittiee volunteers doubling or trebling their workload.

We aren't doing any more or less than we have for the last umpteen years

No they are not they are a mixture of middle and high.
But no single figure player has scored anywhere near that.

I wouldn't expect that score of a low capper. But I am very doubtful about the diligence of your hcap committee. Have you queried any of these scores with the c'ee? If not, why not?

 

[clubchamp98]

We aren't doing any more or less than we have for the last umpteen years
I wouldn't expect that score of a low capper. But I am very doubtful about the diligence of your hcap committee. Have you queried any of these scores with the c'ee? If not, why not?

Yes there’s been a lot of complaints
Simple answer is they are not breaking any rules.
It’s wide open to abuse ,and some are taking advantage.

 

[rulefan]

Yes there’s been a lot of complaints
Simple answer is they are not breaking any rules.
It’s wide open to abuse ,and some are taking advantage.

If the player is not following 1.3(i) clauses 1, 2 or 4 the committee can and should take disciplinary action.

 

[IanM]

If the player is not following 1.3(i) clauses 1, 2 or 4 the committee can and should take disciplinary action.

I see a problem with this response ?