D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
H'cap committee still conducts annual reviews, the system will throw out suggestions. the fact he's so against the cut suggests they have got it right
WHS doesn't work
- Thread starter Captain_Black.
- Start date
For me, an objection to a AR cut, is itself proof that the cut is correct.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Not sure I understand that logic? You suggest they got it right, because he is against it?
That would imply that no golfer should ever object to an AR change because if they do then it suggests Committee got it right.
Last edited:
D-S
Well-known member
It should be an evidence based decision, if the evidence stacks up or is compelling then he hasn’t got a leg to stand on. If there is no evidence then a quiet word from the County prior to the formal appeal will sort it out. I would advise the Committee to flag it up to the County before it gets official.
That would be my logic assuming nothing crazy. Anyone being cut a short or two should suck it up no matter what.
In fact, the rules would be improved by forbidding any objections to cuts below 3 shots.
Objections indicates a faulty mentality towards handicapping.
Captain_Black.
Well-known member
I know someone who was cut 2x shots after the annual review.
He appealed to the H/C Committee & the golf union, he lost the appeal.
He then entered every qualifier he could & within a very short space of time he had regained those 2x shots.
He didn't just stop there though, he carried on entering all the minor qualifiers & has now gained a further 3x shots (so 5 in total)
He is now off 21, but can (when he wants too) play to about 14
The H/C Committee are aware, but as yet have failed to act.
There are others doing something very similar, although maybe not so blatantly, but it has made entering competitions pointless.
He appealed to the H/C Committee & the golf union, he lost the appeal.
He then entered every qualifier he could & within a very short space of time he had regained those 2x shots.
He didn't just stop there though, he carried on entering all the minor qualifiers & has now gained a further 3x shots (so 5 in total)
He is now off 21, but can (when he wants too) play to about 14
The H/C Committee are aware, but as yet have failed to act.
There are others doing something very similar, although maybe not so blatantly, but it has made entering competitions pointless.
Swango1980
Well-known member
Indeed, for such a small cut, I would agree most would just suck it up, even if they felt the process was flawed.
However, if they chose to object to it, that would not imply the Committee were correct. I know a chap who won his first ever comp with 32 points (37 plays to handicap), and Committee cut him a shot. Their reasoning, anyone who wons a comp automatically gets cut.
That would be an example where the player would be correct.
In this case, I'm sure the Committee had good reason, probability wise. But, if a player complains, they may well have sone fair logic behind their frustration.
woofers
Medal Winner
If I understand this correctly:
Before the Annual Review he was off 18, he got cut to 16 and is now up to 21.
He won't go up any further as he will have reached his "hard cap", (5 shots higher than the lowest HI in the last 12 months)
If he plays in a competition off 21 and submits a score equivalent to a handicap of 14, he will get an exceptional score reduction in addition to the new 'averaged' HI.
It would appear that the player, and others at your club, are not acting with integrity and are using the system for the purpose of gaining an unfair advantage.
The Handicap Committee should be looking at this closely but need to be sure of the facts and evidence before acting.
I don't think this is a case of 'WHS doesn't work' (thread title), but the actions of an aggrieved individual.
Swango1980
Well-known member
That seems like a pretty solid case of manipulation. Unless it is just coincidence that, after arguing he got a cut, suddenly happened to enter scores at a high frequency, and they just so happen result in the handicap shooting up so much. The scores must be significantly worse than the submissions before the cut, to go up that rapidly.
Captain_Black.
Well-known member
As I say.
The H/C are aware, but solid proof & taking any kind of action is another thing entirely.
D-S
Well-known member
So they must have had ‘solid proof’ for the initial cut.
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Exactly the system is far to easy to abuse.!
that’s blatant but all above board.
rosecott
Money List Winner
No it's not. The Handicap Committee is perfectly capable of identifying the issue and taking any necessary action.
Captain_Black.
Well-known member
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
He’s just put his cards in.!
short of calling him a cheat what are they going to do ?
so what action ?
tobybarker
Active member
how, physically, is this checked? upon registration, or if and when they win, some poor soul has to look up the player's record?
2blue
Journeyman Pro
Yes..... hard to believe but it's volunteers all over the land doing this for, often, unappreciative members. However these volunteers continue as its a job that needs to be done & they are happy to do so for their sport. This kind of workload is happening in all sports.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
I know plenty of golfers as described above.
A typical profile would be someone who gets very little pleasure from club competitions and handing in scores. They find this type of golf rather tedious.
Their main pleasure is in playing social golf betterball matchplay.
They would typically hand in only a handful of scores each year. They have little interest in seeing their handicap go lower than what they feel comfortable with.
They want a handicap that they feel able to play to most (maybe 80%) of the time for their main pastime of social golf.
They have paid little attention to the calculations of the new handicap system.
A handicap that you play to, or beat, only around 20% of the time is not something that they are likely to agree with. This is not a concept of "a handicap" in their mind.
They will have played a lot of social golf with members. Some of these will have noted that this player is of very similar ability to themselves, but has a much higher handicap.
This player does not need "punishment" or sanctions.
What is required is conversation, subtle education and persuasion.
A typical profile would be someone who gets very little pleasure from club competitions and handing in scores. They find this type of golf rather tedious.
Their main pleasure is in playing social golf betterball matchplay.
They would typically hand in only a handful of scores each year. They have little interest in seeing their handicap go lower than what they feel comfortable with.
They want a handicap that they feel able to play to most (maybe 80%) of the time for their main pastime of social golf.
They have paid little attention to the calculations of the new handicap system.
A handicap that you play to, or beat, only around 20% of the time is not something that they are likely to agree with. This is not a concept of "a handicap" in their mind.
They will have played a lot of social golf with members. Some of these will have noted that this player is of very similar ability to themselves, but has a much higher handicap.
This player does not need "punishment" or sanctions.
What is required is conversation, subtle education and persuasion.
Then they need to run their own handicap system like some societies or workplace social golf groups do.
If they want a WHS, then they cannot have the expectation of playing to their WHS 80% of the time or whatever.
They cannot have it both ways, or cheat the WHS because they want it to be something it is not.
Voyager EMH
Slipper Wearing Plucker of Pheasants
And the "conversation, education and persuasion" needs to be more subtly educational and persuasive than this.
You don't need to convince me of the correctness and facts of what you say. I agree with it.
It is a matter of convincing the notional person that I describe that their concept of what their handicap should be, based on several decades of playing golf the way that they want to, needs to change.
