WHS doesn't work

[rulefan]

I think there is confusion as to a limit on increase under UHS (which I don’t believe there was) and the prompt to the HC when a player had 7 0.1 increases consecutively. There was then a prompt to look at the players record and consider a further 1 shot increase - there was a flowchart which was aimed at making sure only declining golfers would be affected not just a poor run of form.
This was done to speed up the process of handicaps catching up with declining golfers‘ ability outside the annual review. I don’t believe there was any limit on increases.

PRINCIPAL CHANGES INTRODUCED IN THE 2016 REVISION - Continued
• Continuous Handicap Review: There is now a computer-generated report which flags players with 7 consecutive 0.1 handicap increases. Handicap Committees are recommended to review the performance of such players giving due consideration to applying a handicap increase.

 

[D-S]

PRINCIPAL CHANGES INTRODUCED IN THE 2016 REVISION - Continued
• Continuous Handicap Review: There is now a computer-generated report which flags players with 7 consecutive 0.1 handicap increases. Handicap Committees are recommended to review the performance of such players giving due consideration to applying a handicap increase.

Thanks - if I could have found that it would have saved a lot of typing!

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

One obvious issue I see is when a player does not submit cards over a period, winter specifically, and improves significantly. A first card submitted will reflect the significant improvement but the reduction in HI will not reflect the improvement as it is averaged out over the eight. That player will be playing early round or two of comps with a HI way higher than it should be. The previous system made immediate cuts that reflected his improvement.

 

[Voyager EMH]

PRINCIPAL CHANGES INTRODUCED IN THE 2016 REVISION - Continued
• Continuous Handicap Review: There is now a computer-generated report which flags players with 7 consecutive 0.1 handicap increases. Handicap Committees are recommended to review the performance of such players giving due consideration to applying a handicap increase.

Boring anecdote warning!

I got one of those 1 shot increases for 7 consecutive +0.1. Three scores missing the buffer by one or two shots in September, then 4 weekday nine-hole comps in October.
The 0.7 increase was enough to make me a bit of a bandit for the winter. The 1.7 increase was fantastic.
Won a medal the following April by 4 shots. Had the best gross score as well - next best gross was 6 shots behind. Got a 0.8 cut. Won the club championship later that year.
I had told the chairman of H&C that I would be happy for the 1 shot increase to be not applied. He decided it should and would be applied.

 

[D-S]

Boring anecdote warning!

I got one of those 1 shot increases for 7 consecutive +0.1. Three scores missing the buffer by one or two shots in September, then 4 weekday nine-hole comps in October.
The 0.7 increase was enough to make me a bit of a bandit for the winter. The 1.7 increase was fantastic.
Won a medal the following April by 4 shots. Had the best gross score as well - next best gross was 6 shots behind. Got a 0.8 cut. Won the club championship later that year.
I had told the chairman of H&C that I would be happy for the 1 shot increase to be not applied. He decided it should and would be applied.

There was a flowchart that stopped the increase of 1 shot being applied automatically. I believe, if you had played within your buffer zone in the current season or had played to your handicap in the past year the club was instructed not to apply the increase (it was intended for long term declining golfer). Some clubs did not apply this properly.

 

[Voyager EMH]

There was a flowchart that stopped the increase of 1 shot being applied automatically. I believe, if you had played within your buffer zone in the current season or had played to your handicap in the past year the club was instructed not to apply the increase (it was intended for long term declining golfer). Some clubs did not apply this properly.

Just had a look at my scores back then for the year leading up to the 7 consecutive poor score.
Played to or below my handicap 8 times from April to September. But there were far more than eight +0.1 scores, before the 7 consecutive ones. I did not bother counting buffer zone scores.
The 1.0 increase had been applied automatically - I was not successful in persuading H&C chairman to nullify it.

I would have still won the comp that April if my handicap had been two shots lower - something that I had to take great pains to tell everyone after my winter as a bandit.
No such scenario would have ensued, if WHS had been running.

 

[Swango1980]

Just had a look at my scores back then for the year leading up to the 7 consecutive poor score.
Played to or below my handicap 8 times from April to September. But there were far more than eight +0.1 scores, before the 7 consecutive ones. I did not bother counting buffer zone scores.
The 1.0 increase had been applied automatically - I was not successful in persuading H&C chairman to nullify it.

I would have still won the comp that April if my handicap had been two shots lower - something that I had to take great pains to tell everyone after my winter as a bandit.

The continuous review was not an automatic adjustment. The software did not simply add 1 shot on. All that happened was a report was produced, and listed players who had more than 7 0.1 increases. It was up to Committee to manually increase handicap if they wanted. At least, that is how Club V1 did it

 

[Voyager EMH]

The continuous review was not an automatic adjustment. The software did not simply add 1 shot on. All that happened was a report was produced, and listed players who had more than 7 0.1 increases. It was up to Committee to manually increase handicap if they wanted. At least, that is how Club V1 did it

I think the H&C chairman regarded the report as automatically generated by the software. I was unable to persuade him that it was advisory and that the increase depended on his decision.

 

[garyinderry]

After the 53 points shenanigans of the other week we had our first proper comp of the year. Typically one of the hardest on St Patrick's day with the course played off the back tees and the place soft as anything. No run at all on irish parkland fairways.

42 won it.

I'm happy enough to see that as a winning score.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

One obvious issue I see is when a player does not submit cards over a period, winter specifically, and improves significantly. A first card submitted will reflect the significant improvement but the reduction in HI will not reflect the improvement as it is averaged out over the eight. That player will be playing early round or two of comps with a HI way higher than it should be. The previous system made immediate cuts that reflected his improvement.

Interesting that I see my HI reduced by 0.2 after a ‘1-under’ yesterday…from 8.3 to 8.1…and of course that is because I had a 9.4 in my best eight. Previously it would have been a 0.1 cut. So my friend with the ‘way too high’ HI for his improved ability will have scores in his best eight that reflected his ‘before’ scoring/ability. And so his HI is likely to see a quite significant cut based upon just one score and the differential against his previous ‘worst of eight’ - even taking into account WHS averaging.

 

[Backsticks]

The move to an unchecked quick 3 shot increase and a slightly slower up to 5 shot increase in a year, is quite a revolution.

 

[AussieKB]

I'm interested to know if you've played at this place.
I've not come across a course in the UK where the CR is above par, but the SR is below 113.
What is it about this course, I wonder, that makes it such a special case?

View attachment 46993

My mate is a member there, and have played it loads of times, I agree with the CR but the Slope Rating is too low, think it is more like 118, I play a lot of different courses and very rarely do I agree with Slope Rating, some way too high and some way too low, main problem I see is a US system trying to rate OZ courses on US conditions, hence my comment about being made to play the course first before rating.

 

[AussieKB]

A rater does not rate a course. It is a team of 3 or 4 who will have been fully trained and work to tightly defined rules. Have you ever read the Rating Manual?

Out here it was rushed through, anyone could do the course and then get sent out to rate course, hence one of the course I was a member was Slope Rated at 113 initially by and 18 handicapper who had never played the course, after a year we asked for the course to be re rated.

The new guy carried the old course info, and found numerous errors, the new rating went up to 119, surely you have played courses and do not agree with the rating ?

 

[rulefan]

Out here it was rushed through, anyone could do the course and then get sent out to rate course, hence one of the course I was a member was Slope Rated at 113 initially by and 18 handicapper who had never played the course, after a year we asked for the course to be re rated.

The new guy carried the old course info, and found numerous errors, the new rating went up to 119, surely you have played courses and do not agree with the rating ?

"found numerous errors" That would be down to it being rushed through and there only being one, presumably inexperienced, rater. It is very unlikely that one man could correctly rate a course on his own in one day. An experienced rater would have refused to do the job.

The corrected rating would/should have been done by an experienced team (minimum 3). And in the early days, almost every team would have been accompanied by a trainee. In addition the conversion of recorded measurements to rating values would be checked off-site by the rating manager or by another team leader.
Bogey Rating is a more contentious figure to assign than Scratch (Course) Rating as scratch players are far more likely to conform to the 'model'. Bogey players are very variable in nature. eg Long hitters compensating for poor putting or bunker play. It very much depends where and what the particular obstacles are as to how a bogey player is affected by the course.
The only (very few) courses I had queries from were those where par was out of kilter with CR and courses had pushed par to the limits in order to make the course 'attractive' to potential visitors.

 

[AussieKB]

"found numerous errors" That would be down to it being rushed through and there only being one, presumably inexperienced, rater. It is very unlikely that one man could correctly rate a course on his own in one day. An experienced rater would have refused to do the job.

The corrected rating would/should have been done by an experienced team (minimum 3). And in the early days, almost every team would have been accompanied by a trainee. In addition the conversion of recorded measurements to rating values would be checked off-site by the rating manager or by another team leader.
Bogey Rating is a more contentious figure to assign than Scratch (Course) Rating as scratch players are far more likely to conform to the 'model'. Bogey players are very variable in nature. eg Long hitters compensating for poor putting or bunker play. It very much depends where and what the particular obstacles are as to how a bogey player is affected by the course.
The only (very few) courses I had queries from were those where par was out of kilter with CR and courses had pushed par to the limits in order to make the course 'attractive' to potential visitors.

Some of the errors were trees being in play for drives, when it was re rated he asked our captain (h'cap 5) if they were hit, his comment was all the time by all level of handicaps.

Not sure how someone off site who has never played or seen the course could make a judgement call.

Hope to make the trek back to England next year and see for myself how the course rating is working, will talk with a few GM's I know and get their feel for it.

 

[rulefan]

Some of the errors were trees being in play for drives, when it was re rated he asked our captain (h'cap 5) if they were hit, his comment was all the time by all level of handicaps.

Not sure how someone off site who has never played or seen the course could make a judgement call.

Hope to make the trek back to England next year and see for myself how the course rating is working, will talk with a few GM's I know and get their feel for it.

If these trees are near (defined) a 'landing zone' (defined) they will be included and factored in the rating. If they are not in this area then your players are not as good as they would like to believe.
If however the trees are simply 'in range' of the tee shot (defined) they should have been a forced layup and rated as such. But that would be unlikely for the same tree(s) for both a scratch and bogey player, given that there is a 30 yard difference in tee shot distances. But the expectation is that players play the course as it is, not as they would wish it to be.

By the way, a Course Rating is based on yardage, effective playing length corrections and 10 obstacle factors to the extent that they affect the scoring ability of a scratch golfer.
It would seem that your initial rater did not follow the related procedures.

 

[rulefan]

My mate is a member there, and have played it loads of times, I agree with the CR but the Slope Rating is too low, think it is more like 118, I play a lot of different courses and very rarely do I agree with Slope Rating, some way too high and some way too low, main problem I see is a US system trying to rate OZ courses on US conditions, hence my comment about being made to play the course first before rating.

The US has as varied a set of conditions as you will find in the world in general. The Rating system is designed to account for all. Temperature, rainfall, height above sea level. You name it, it's in there somewhere.
Incidentally, as you are concerned about slope, what is your handicap? Are you a long/short hitter? How do you fare out of bunkers or with putting? The problem is that there are few real 'standard' bogey players

 

[AussieKB]

The US has as varied a set of conditions as you will find in the world in general. The Rating system is designed to account for all. Temperature, rainfall, height above sea level. You name it, it's in there somewhere.
Incidentally, as you are concerned about slope, what is your handicap? Are you a long/short hitter? How do you fare out of bunkers or with putting? The problem is that there are few real 'standard' bogey players

Currently I play off 5 at one course and 4 at the other, have been on single figures for 40 years or so, been as low as 2 under the old system and WHS, average in length but getting shorter every year due to age.

Those trees are either side of fairway which is about 10-15 yards wide, about 40 feet high and it is an uphill tee shot, 170 yards to reach, we normally say we kick a goal when you go through them, ha ha

 

[rulefan]

Currently I play off 5 at one course and 4 at the other, have been on single figures for 40 years or so, been as low as 2 under the old system and WHS, average in length but getting shorter every year due to age.

Those trees are either side of fairway which is about 10-15 yards wide, about 40 feet high and it is an uphill tee shot, 170 yards to reach, we normally say we kick a goal when you go through them, ha ha

That should almost certainly have been rated as a 'chute'. The evaluation can be a bit complicated and many new raters will not recognise or will undervalue the situation as it is not that common.

 

[jim8flog]

Although I agree with implementing divisions, to me the necessary use of them only goes to prove a flawed H/C system.
If the H/C system worked as it should, divisions wouldn't be needed.

.

I have played at the same club for nearly 40 years. We have always had divisions even when it was a handicap max of 24 to play in a comp.

The main 'problem' will always be newly handicapped and fast improving golfers.