WHS doesn't work

[Backsticks]

Yes we are agreeing. UHS had the same problem, which I always felt drove handicap padding to some degree. Many people didnt know that their average score should be 3,4,5 worse than their hc. But communication of that message never succeeded in 40 years of that system. People still thought they should be around net par or 36pts typically.

I think there is merit in a two speed system. Or competition handicap, and non competition valid handicap as was.

Those not submitting cards or few, still have a handicap to compete with their buddies, but are ring fenced to some degree from the more legitimate hcs competing for club comps or opens. I dont mind how padded someones handicap is, if they are insulated somewhat from using it to compete against the wider world. I think it would be easier than mass education.

 

[jim8flog]

Thing is thought the handicap system is supposed to give an accurate state of your game.
so if it’s that accurate why are they imposing a penalty on this guy.
I can see his point, unless there is a few dodgy scores (gp cards ) in there.

One of the things that is done in the annual review is that all scores are taken in to consideration not just qualifying scores on a players handicap record. e.g There was an edict from CONGU a few years ago that scores from regularly organised roll ups and swindles should be taken in to consideration.

 

[2blue]

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.

All OK if...
1. Social golf is ALL they use it for
2. Their concept is in line with those who they play golf with.
3. They recognise that if they wish to play in open competition then their H/cap will require "adjustment" otherwise they are a CHEAT!!

 

[jim8flog]

.

I know some clubs have reset their indices based on Stapleford scores. Which is fine for Stapleford, but I've had some right frustrating matches at those courses, where the indices are all over the place. .

We have our SIs based upon difficulty and not some weird and wonderful system that some one pulled out of the air to be used for match play.

Our reasoning is simple - the amount of Stableford rounds played at our course exceeds the number of Match play rounds many fold. Every swindle/ roll up ( at least two every day) uses Stableford, we have about 6 comps a month in summer that use it and every comp between 1st of November and 1st April use it. The seniors regular fortnightly comps use it (or else they are handicap stroke play).

When it comes to matches although we have a number of friendly matches the serious ones are very few and far between, two county leagues and one South West England knockout series that will just as often be played away.

When the system first came out clubs were advised to use two cards with different SIs but so many used the wrong card we gave up on it.

 

[clubchamp98]

One of the things that is done in the annual review is that all scores are taken in to consideration not just qualifying scores on a players handicap record. e.g There was an edict from CONGU a few years ago that scores from regularly organised roll ups and swindles should be taken in to consideration.

So someone could in theory put 50 cards in and still have his handicap adjusted in an AR.
That seems to me that it’s not working.
I can understand if they put few cards in.

But as stated if a player is docked a shot ,he can just put lots of cards in and get 5 shots back.
all in the rules if not the spirit of the system.
but what’s not been answered is , if a player does this what can the comittiee do about it.?
All we have heard is comittiees can do ,but what can they do realistically as technically he’s not broke any rules..?

 

[rulefan]

We have our SIs based upon difficulty

Difficulty for which players? High, middling or low cappers?
Does the algorithm that your club used to make the assessment have the facility to differentiate?
Does it measure gross or net scores?

 

[jim8flog]

So someone could in theory put 50 cards in and still have his handicap adjusted in an AR.
That seems to me that it’s not working.
I can understand if they put few cards in.

It is the aspect of very few cards verses 2 swindles a week (with scores recorded by the organiser) we take in to consideration. If a player is putting lots of scores, we had a very large number with 100 plus, we will use those scores.

One of the ways it does fall down is when organisers fail to record scores or refuse to supply them to the committee. We are not gong to adjust based upon hearsay.

 

[wjemather]

So someone could in theory put 50 cards in and still have his handicap adjusted in an AR.
That seems to me that it’s not working.
I can understand if they put few cards in.

But as stated if a player is docked a shot ,he can just put lots of cards in and get 5 shots back.
all in the rules if not the spirit of the system.
but what’s not been answered is , if a player does this what can the comittiee do about it.?
All we have heard is comittiees can do ,but what can they do realistically as technically he’s not broke any rules..?

If no rules are being broken then the committee would take no action.

However, you are implying that scores are being entered with the goal to "get shots back", which is absolutely not within the rules. The committee would first talk to the player to explain how handicapping works and ensure they are aware of their responsibilities. The committee can also adjust the handicap to an appropriate level, freeze the handicap, and if these measures do not work they can suspend the handicap.

 

[jim8flog]

Difficulty for which players? High, middling or low cappers?
Does the algorithm that your club used to make the assessment have the facility to differentiate? Does it measure gross or net scores?

The SIs are based upon the recorded scores over a number of medals which covers all handicaps. It is a very simple press of a button on the ISV system. You would have to ask them about the algorithm.

Whist not knowing how the SIs were set up before all the match play jiggling of the system what the computer system has produced is notable is that par 5s which were once low SIs ( 2, 4 and 6) have become high(er) SIs 13, 17 and 18 and par 3s originally 15, 16, 18 and 8 are now 5, 7, 14 and 3.

 

[sunshine]

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.

Here's an alternative scenario:
A golfer has a purple patch where he scores well, and following this he gets cut 2 shots at annual review.
He says that he's lost his form, he's back to playing his usual standard and his current handicap - based on his ACTUAL SCORES - is a fair reflection. He believes the extra cut is unfair, but this is rejected.
Peeved, he then enters every comp and plays at his normal standard, and he's now off 21.
Like most 21 handicappers, on a good day he's capable of shooting 14 over, but he can't control those days when it all clicks.

I don't see the problem here. If he regains his form and starts shooting 14 over again his handicap will tumble quickly.

 

[sunshine]

The SIs are based upon the recorded scores over a number of medals which covers all handicaps. It is a very simple press of a button on the ISV system. You would have to ask them about the algorithm.

Whist not knowing how the SIs were set up before all the match play jiggling of the system what the computer system has produced is notable is that par 5s which were once low SIs ( 2, 4 and 6) have become high(er) SIs 13, 17 and 18 and par 3s originally 15, 16, 18 and 8 are now 5, 7, 14 and 3.

Does it matter how strokes are distributed in Stableford? Surely it evens itself out over 18 holes.

 

[jim8flog]

Does it matter how strokes are distributed in Stableford? Surely it evens itself out over 18 holes.

Something often quoted but something in my opinion which is very much handicap dependent. When we had the SIs for match on one hole I often felt like not bothering and just walking to the next tee. It is a very tough par 4 which went from S.I. 3 to S.I. 7. (now S.I. 4 )

It is worth remembering the mental aspect can come very much in to play playing a difficult hole without a shot a shot tends to change how it is played against when it has been correctly rated for difficulty and you get a shot.

 

[Swango1980]

The SIs are based upon the recorded scores over a number of medals which covers all handicaps. It is a very simple press of a button on the ISV system. You would have to ask them about the algorithm.

Whist not knowing how the SIs were set up before all the match play jiggling of the system what the computer system has produced is notable is that par 5s which were once low SIs ( 2, 4 and 6) have become high(er) SIs 13, 17 and 18 and par 3s originally 15, 16, 18 and 8 are now 5, 7, 14 and 3.

If that is how your club do it, fair enough. It just means when players do play match play, they may well not get their shot on a longer hole (par 5) when they could do with it. Whilst they may well get it on a longer par 3, perhaps, that is a bit more deflating for the low handicapper. Depending on how the indices are distributed could have a big impact in match play. For example, if most of low ones were early on, the higher handicapper may build up a quick lead if they use the shots, with low player demoralised. Or they may get shots late on, which could mean they run away with lead at end, if low player doesn't build a lead. Or, low player may win match before they get a chance to use many of their shots.

Personally, given mentality is a huge factor on a hole by hole basis in match play, I prefer indices to be set for that format (wasn't that the original intent of indices?). Whereas in Stableford, you play all 18 holes anyway. So, you might not get a shot on a hole you feel tough (to par), but you'll just get that back on a hole you find easier.

 

[jim8flog]

I'd imagine the handicap Committee would have enough recent evidence to cut the chap down again anyway.

However, if an assumption is made that there is a good chance this chap is manipulating the handicap, it would be interesting to know at what end. Is it to get it high enough to do well in club competitions,

If that is how your club do it, fair enough. It just means when players do play match play, they may well not get their shot on a longer hole (par 5) when they could do with it. Whilst they may well get it on a longer par 3, perhaps, that is a bit more deflating for the low handicapper. Depending on how the indices are distributed could have a big impact in match play. For example, if most of low ones were early on, the higher handicapper may build up a quick lead if they use the shots, with low player demoralised. Or they may get shots late on, which could mean they run away with lead at end, if low player doesn't build a lead. Or, low player may win match before they get a chance to use many of their shots.

Personally, given mentality is a huge factor on a hole by hole basis in match play, I prefer indices to be set for that format (wasn't that the original intent of indices?). Whereas in Stableford, you play all 18 holes anyway. So, you might not get a shot on a hole you feel tough (to par), but you'll just get that back on a hole you find easier.

I have always played match play hole by hole and not really worried about where a player gets their shots off me (except for when playing a clear bandit) in recent years I have only played one match the other way round (getting shots). Our rated S.I.s produce a reasonable spread anyway and I wonder how many course would actually see similar. The amount I won and lost has not really changed pre and post the changes and I would not really think about it because who wants to start a match in a negative frame of mind.

See post #912 for my comments about Stableford mentality.

 

[Swango1980]

I have always played match play hole by hole and not really worried about where a player gets their shots off me (except for when playing a clear bandit) in recent years I have only played one match the other way round (getting shots). Our rated S.I.s produce a reasonable spread anyway and I wonder how many course would actually see similar. The amount I won and lost has not really changed pre and post the changes and I would not really think about it because who wants to start a match in a negative frame of mind.

See post #912 for my comments about Stableford mentality.

One of the clubs in our county handicap league set their holes SIs for Stableford. They have a stretch of holes, say 4-12 that have 7 of the lowest 8 SIs. Some holes are relatively short, but also have a lower par. So, anyone that gets up to 7 shots, pretty much get them relentlessly in that part of the round.

All I know is that a lot of home and away players ridicule it from a match play perspective. Just feels very odd indeed in that format.

But, it may be that your course is lucky enough that there is a decent spread. Vice versa for them.

Ideally, you'd have separate indices for each format. But, I doubt many clubs do that, as not overly practical.

 

[Jacko_G]

WHS - Great system everyone just needs to stop gurning and submit cards.

 

[clubchamp98]

If no rules are being broken then the committee would take no action.

However, you are implying that scores are being entered with the goal to "get shots back", which is absolutely not within the rules. The committee would first talk to the player to explain how handicapping works and ensure they are aware of their responsibilities. The committee can also adjust the handicap to an appropriate level, freeze the handicap, and if these measures do not work they can suspend the handicap.

That’s accusing them of cheating.
basically saying the cards you have put in are not genuine.
The system is flawed as it lets this happen to easily.

 

[jim8flog]

Ideally, you'd have separate indices for each format. But, I doubt many clubs do that, as not overly practical.

As already said when we did it we found too many players playing off the wrong card

I tried to get it in at our club but it was turned down. The simplest idea in my opinion would be to have both stroke indexes on one card.

Just before the WHS came in we had just ordered a few thousand new cards so it was never going to be implemented quickly anyway.

PS I have just noticed the lady's stroke indexes are still set up for match play. Might be because they play many more interclub match play comps than the men, maybe it is because nobody on the lady's committee requested the change back or they just were against the change when it was put forward many years ago. Looking at it kind of reverses what happens on the men's card. On the men's the par 5s are high SI and the 3s low on the lady's the 5s are low SIs and the 3s high.

 

[clubchamp98]

Does it matter how strokes are distributed in Stableford? Surely it evens itself out over 18 holes.

It might in a card play off.
if all the low holes were on the front nine ,a low capper has no chance of winning a CPO

 

[clubchamp98]

If that is how your club do it, fair enough. It just means when players do play match play, they may well not get their shot on a longer hole (par 5) when they could do with it. Whilst they may well get it on a longer par 3, perhaps, that is a bit more deflating for the low handicapper. Depending on how the indices are distributed could have a big impact in match play. For example, if most of low ones were early on, the higher handicapper may build up a quick lead if they use the shots, with low player demoralised. Or they may get shots late on, which could mean they run away with lead at end, if low player doesn't build a lead. Or, low player may win match before they get a chance to use many of their shots.

Personally, given mentality is a huge factor on a hole by hole basis in match play, I prefer indices to be set for that format (wasn't that the original intent of indices?). Whereas in Stableford, you play all 18 holes anyway. So, you might not get a shot on a hole you feel tough (to par), but you'll just get that back on a hole you find easier.

Our par 3s are like you described.
208 yds difficult 3 but easy 4. But SI 6.
if your giving a decent player a shot it’s a tough ask.