WHS doesn't work

[LincolnShep]

Regarding this post.

I remember that you recently dismissed somebody who told you that your posts were too long.

He wasn't wrong.

And I did read it all, as you suggested in a previous post, just to confirm that I agreed anyway.

You must be the most verbose writer in the forums that I read.

When you say Swango's posts are too long, you really mean they are too long for you. There is no standard against which posts can be measured.

I think it's strange to criticise someone for sharing their experience and contributing to the discussion. As long as a post is on topic and not offensive what difference does the length make? We're not curing cancer here so it doesn't matter if you choose to skip a post because it's too long for you.

 

[John Evans 9]

As the chair of our Handicap Committee, I ‘bristled‘ when I read the above question, but then on reflection thought that is a very good question. Perhaps someone with greater forum knowledge could create a way of ascertaining a method of trying to find the answer. The ‘vote buttons’ ( can’t think what the proper term is ) could be used - but the clever bit is composing the questions.

I have an hilarious example where the Handicap Committee have failed spectacularly.
A 30 handicapper was the winner of a stableford comp with possibly a world record start to his round. Two birdies plus a hole-in-one on a par 4 , giving him 16 points for the first three holes. He was relieved of his prize and disqualified when the penny dropped that the gross scores and stableford points had been transposed for those holes. Player and marker both signed the card. HC took no action regarding WHS and his abnormal score still stands on his record.
I have little faith that our HC are addressing any handicap anomalies.

 

[NearHull]

I have an hilarious example where the Handicap Committee have failed spectacularly.
A 30 handicapper was the winner of a stableford comp with possibly a world record start to his round. Two birdies plus a hole-in-one on a par 4 , giving him 16 points for the first three holes. He was relieved of his prize and disqualified when the penny dropped that the gross scores and stableford points had been transposed for those holes. Player and marker both signed the card. HC took no action regarding WHS and his abnormal score still stands on his record.
I have little faith that our HC are addressing any handicap anomalies.

I think that the story above highlights the ‘lower end’ of a Handicap Committee achievements. But I do hope that we could accept that there also many diligent committees out there - but how to quantify it?

 

[Swango1980]

I have an hilarious example where the Handicap Committee have failed spectacularly.
A 30 handicapper was the winner of a stableford comp with possibly a world record start to his round. Two birdies plus a hole-in-one on a par 4 , giving him 16 points for the first three holes. He was relieved of his prize and disqualified when the penny dropped that the gross scores and stableford points had been transposed for those holes. Player and marker both signed the card. HC took no action regarding WHS and his abnormal score still stands on his record.
I have little faith that our HC are addressing any handicap anomalies.

I've known a Senior to record a Hole in 1 on a 500 yard par 5. Excellent score, as he was always known as a short hitter. Score remained on his record, albeit it didn't matter too much as his overall score was about 120 gross (par 70) and he went up 0.1 (pre WHS). Worked out well, he didn't have to buy the drinks (as he actually scored at least a 10) and he got a free Hugo Boss watch for recording a hole in one

Another Handicap Secretary I know at another club, forced players to hand in any scores over 36 points they scored in their weekly roll ups, but to not bother submitting good scores. Their club went from winning the County Handicap League, and about 3/4 years later relegated to the bottom division, as most of their players were off handicaps way too low for them. I hasten to add, I would like to think this type of behaviour is more rare from Committee, as they are actively going against their responsibilities.

 

[Captain_Black.]

Despite all the protests on here from handicap committee members or those who claim to know the workings of the handicap committee.
I don't believe that virtually any of these committees would take any action during the season on any player that is obviously playing off the wrong handicap.
They would all leave it to the end of season review.
Unless any of you know better of course?

 

[rosecott]

Despite all the protests on here from handicap committee members or those who claim to know the workings of the handicap committee.
I don't believe that virtually any of these committees would take any action during the season on any player that is obviously playing off the wrong handicap.
They would all leave it to the end of season review.
Unless any of you know better of course?

Yes, I do know better.

I attend meetings of our Handicap committee which meets every 2 months. All members of the committee are encouraged to ask the committee to look at the playing record of any member they think should be considered. The introduction of WHS has seen fewer occasions where action is needed but action will be taken if that is what the committee decides. Any action is much more likely to be taken for players with recently awarded handicaps.

Perhaps you might consider putting yourself forward for your Club Committee with a view to joining the Handicap Committee and finding out how it all works.

 

[doublebogey7]

Despite all the protests on here from handicap committee members or those who claim to know the workings of the handicap committee.
I don't believe that virtually any of these committees would take any action during the season on any player that is obviously playing off the wrong handicap.
They would all leave it to the end of season review.
Unless any of you know better of course?

I sit on our Handicap Committee and we review anyone that comes to our attention at any time, either when a member expresses a view formally to us or if a player has regularly scored well in non qualifying competitions. Fully accept though that does not happen everywhere. If that is your experience, can I suggest you volunteer.

 

[wjemather]

Despite all the protests on here from handicap committee members or those who claim to know the workings of the handicap committee.
I don't believe that virtually any of these committees would take any action during the season on any player that is obviously playing off the wrong handicap.
They would all leave it to the end of season review.
Unless any of you know better of course?

Yes, some of us do know better.

I chair our handicap committee (and competition committee). We monitor WHS system reports and competition results (weekly or fortnightly; but some reports more frequently), hold regular meetings (every few months), and when necessary, apply adjustments. This is done during all seasons (summer, spring, autumn and winter) because there is no playing season. And then there is the annual review at the end of each year. All properly functioning handicap committees will be doing similar.

Just because you don't see it (and why would you, unless the handicap of you of one of your playing partners was adjusted) doesn't mean it isn't happening.

 

[Swango1980]

It would be interesting to know what % of clubs reviews are continually made throughout the year, and in how much detail (i.e. actively monitoring, rather than reacting to a complaint I guess, which would then be an easy thing to get the ball rolling)

I don't think anyone in here truly knows, they just know what their experiences are. Given that we are clearly enthusiastic enough to continually post comments in here, I'd expect nothing less in you being part of one of the most efficient, best run Committees in the UK. But, most clubs do not have a regular poster in here, and so there will be a huge range of experience, knowledge, time commitments, etc. that could imply there are many clubs that get nowhere near the "Rolls Royce" treatment

At my last club, before I was handicap sec, there were no regular reviews of handicap. Except that, the Seniors "Handicap Sec" got the login details of the system, went rogue, and just cut any player he so fancied. Without telling the Club Handicap Sec. When I was Handicap Sec, I'd conduct the Continuous Review before every Committee meeting (every 2 months or so). At my current club, I've certainly seen no sign of players getting their handicap adjusted mid season by Committee. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it isn't something I've noticed.

I think the difficulty is, if a player is submitting scores in qualifiers, then the system should be doing its job anyway. If they are entering scores outside of these, it is probably impossible for a handicap sec to know this, unless they know them personally. You might get stories from their mates, angry that they keep winning the money. However, I learnt to treat these accusations with caution. Sure, they may do well in official match play comps, but that isn't going to highlight every player whose handicap is too high, just those that played and did well. And, even if they do well in match play, it may still be difficult to know if their handicap is too high, or they just played well on the day (or their opponent badly).

So, I would have thought to reduce a players handicap mid season would require enough evidence to really convince you that you are doing the right thing. Several ridiculously good results in matchplay, playing with the player and watch them shoot 40+ points nearly every week or have another club report them for smashing 1st place in an Open. So probably rare. Maybe easier if most handicap members also play comps, making them "visible". At my last club, membership was about 600/700, but only 20/30 played regular in comps, maybe another 20/30 a handful of times a year and possibly about 30/40 in Seniors. Ohh, and no Juniors and about 5 ladies. So, there were probably at least 400 I would never see at any time (a few hundred with a handicap), and I'd truly have no idea how realistic their handicap was.

 

[wjemather]

It would be interesting to know what % of clubs reviews are continually made throughout the year, and in how much detail (i.e. actively monitoring, rather than reacting to a complaint I guess, which would then be an easy thing to get the ball rolling)

I don't think anyone in here truly knows, they just know what their experiences are. Given that we are clearly enthusiastic enough to continually post comments in here, I'd expect nothing less in you being part of one of the most efficient, best run Committees in the UK. But, most clubs do not have a regular poster in here, and so there will be a huge range of experience, knowledge, time commitments, etc. that could imply there are many clubs that get nowhere near the "Rolls Royce" treatment

At my last club, before I was handicap sec, there were no regular reviews of handicap. Except that, the Seniors "Handicap Sec" got the login details of the system, went rogue, and just cut any player he so fancied. Without telling the Club Handicap Sec. When I was Handicap Sec, I'd conduct the Continuous Review before every Committee meeting (every 2 months or so). At my current club, I've certainly seen no sign of players getting their handicap adjusted mid season by Committee. Not saying it doesn't happen, but it isn't something I've noticed.

I think the difficulty is, if a player is submitting scores in qualifiers, then the system should be doing its job anyway. If they are entering scores outside of these, it is probably impossible for a handicap sec to know this, unless they know them personally. You might get stories from their mates, angry that they keep winning the money. However, I learnt to treat these accusations with caution. Sure, they may do well in official match play comps, but that isn't going to highlight every player whose handicap is too high, just those that played and did well. And, even if they do well in match play, it may still be difficult to know if their handicap is too high, or they just played well on the day (or their opponent badly).

So, I would have thought to reduce a players handicap mid season would require enough evidence to really convince you that you are doing the right thing. Several ridiculously good results in matchplay, playing with the player and watch them shoot 40+ points nearly every week or have another club report them for smashing 1st place in an Open. So probably rare. Maybe easier if most handicap members also play comps, making them "visible". At my last club, membership was about 600/700, but only 20/30 played regular in comps, maybe another 20/30 a handful of times a year and possibly about 30/40 in Seniors. Ohh, and no Juniors and about 5 ladies. So, there were probably at least 400 I would never see at any time (a few hundred with a handicap), and I'd truly have no idea how realistic their handicap was.

Other than the annual review, reviews are a formal process triggered on request or at the committee's discretion that are done on an individual basis. They should not be conflated with routine duties such as monitoring.

 

[Captain_Black.]

Yes, some of us do know better.

I chair our handicap committee (and competition committee). We monitor WHS system reports and competition results (weekly or fortnightly; but some reports more frequently), hold regular meetings (every few months), and when necessary, apply adjustments. This is done during all seasons (summer, spring, autumn and winter) because there is no playing season. And then there is the annual review at the end of each year. All properly functioning handicap committees will be doing similar.

Just because you don't see it (and why would you, unless the handicap of you of one of your playing partners was adjusted) doesn't mean it isn't happening.

I actually am going to put myself forward to the Handicap committee because certainly at my club despite some obviously glaring anomalies in certain members Handicaps, I never see any action taken on this.
I do review qualifier results & I keep tabs on the Handicaps of those who I suspect of "playing the system" but I never see any action taken.
Maybe it's time someone rocked the boat a little?

 

[2blue]

I actually am going to put myself forward to the Handicap committee because certainly at my club despite some obviously glaring anomalies in certain members Handicaps, I never see any action taken on this.
I do review qualifier results & I keep tabs on the Handicaps of those who I suspect of "playing the system" but I never see any action taken.
Maybe it's time someone rocked the boat a little?

Good man.... that's exactly what got me involved some 7 or 8 years ago. And lo & behold a few others then also stepped up & together changes happened. Asking questions & prompting action is often all that is required. Good luck!

 

[LincolnShep]

I actually am going to put myself forward to the Handicap committee because certainly at my club despite some obviously glaring anomalies in certain members Handicaps, I never see any action taken on this.
I do review qualifier results & I keep tabs on the Handicaps of those who I suspect of "playing the system" but I never see any action taken.
Maybe it's time someone rocked the boat a little?

I applaud anyone who volunteers (I was Treasurer at my last club for about 4 years and we struggled to get people to join the committee) but might be better to go with an attitude of 'wanting to help' rather than one of 'rocking the boat'! At least publicly!

 

[rulefan]

I used to chair our H&C committee and 'retired' after 10 years. A couple of years later I was asked to sit on the committee again as a handicaps and rules advisor. We meet formally every month and informally as required. The assistant manager is now chair and secretary. Members are me, the pro, an experienced male & female member and the male & female captains. In addition the incoming captains are invited to attend without votes in the months just before they take up their captaincies.
Player performances and other member comments are monitored continuously and some tweaks are made on the run. But these are really only done for long term injury, old age and new players improving week on week. I can't remember when we last had an 'out of kilter' situation.

 

[clubchamp98]

Unfortunately 18 is probably not low enough for some in Opens - 10-12 handicappers masquerading as 15-16 are often the most dangerous. I think having a set number of competition rounds over the past 12 months is one of the ways forward. Too easy to manipulate on GP rounds, at least putting in a lot of competition rounds is a slight cost to the individual (also the temptation to play well and therefore win a prize), comp scores are also perhaps more visible to Peer review.
Also reducing the value of Open prizes would be a help.

Yes if it’s good enough to limit how many GP cards in elite comps it should be the same for us mere handicap players.

 

[rosecott]

I actually am going to put myself forward to the Handicap committee because certainly at my club despite some obviously glaring anomalies in certain members Handicaps, I never see any action taken on this.
I do review qualifier results & I keep tabs on the Handicaps of those who I suspect of "playing the system" but I never see any action taken.
Maybe it's time someone rocked the boat a little?

We will expect a full report on your first Handicap Committee meeting.

 

[2blue]

Yes if it’s good enough to limit how many GP cards in elite comps it should be the same for us mere handicap players.

Yes, & your Club can do that through their Comp T & C's

 

[rulefan]

Yes if it’s good enough to limit how many GP cards in elite comps it should be the same for us mere handicap players.

Why not simply restrict their ability to win prizes but allow them to put in handicap qualifying scores?

Edit: I meant competition scores of course.

 

[D-S]

I think having a standard report on the WHS platform that highlighted players who have a 2 or more shot differential between their GP scores and Competition scores would be of use to Handicap Committees - the base report already exists and is useful for checking up on named individuals but a warning report would be good. EG already must have a custom one for elite events but having a standard one would help committees spot manipulation early.

 

[clubchamp98]

Why not simply restrict their ability to win prizes but allow them to put in handicap qualifying scores?

Why not indeed .
but that hasn’t happened.
but we have been reporting very silly scores for a long time now ,it can’t all be new players
As has been said “ some clubs are struggling with this”
The system is to easily abused. Simple as that.!
but imho it’s not big high cappers abusing it, but established players playing the system

To many people blaming the comittiee of volunteers while telling us their workload won’t change.
I am not suprized nobody will go on comittiees nowadays.