[Chris Hughes]

I didn't ask how many folks at your club are affected by the soft/hard-cap.

Uhhhh…???

What's the number at your club?

--

My question is what % of handicap holders who are both active, and honest, do you believe are affected by soft/hard-cap?

How am I to know whether a golfer I've never met somewhere is "honest"?

I've asked you a few times now and each time you've ducked the question. If you know, what is the answer?

Plus, all that AG said.

By definition, if they are "honest", they are not improperly manipulating their handicap in any way. 

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/softcapandhardcap-detailed.pdf

Maybe read the part under the title "Why does the soft cap and hard cap exist?"

And no, the system isn't working well, at all -- it's penalizing a lot of folks that don't deserve it and isn't catching those who do.

Share your numbers, since you "know."

Also, I disagree that it's "penalizing" and my data doesn't support a normal definition of "a lot."

Can we agree that the purported premise of the "soft/hard-cap" mechanism is to prevent "handicap abuse"?

[Michael Felton]

I think the soft and hard cap are there in part to protect against abuse, but also if someone is playing every day, then they'll have a whole new handicap every three weeks. I don't think it's reasonable that someone's playing ability gets significantly worse over a three week stretch. Except perhaps for injury and in that case, there is a mechanism for changing that person's handicap anyway.

[A.G._Crockett]

Can we agree that the purported premise of the "soft/hard-cap" mechanism is to prevent "handicap abuse"?

Chris,
At the risk of parsing vocabulary, "purported premise" by whom?  The USGA doesn't mention "handicap abuse" in the explanation of hard and soft caps, either in purpose or function, so if that's part of the premise for soft/hard caps, it's only part.

I think the premise of the handicap system is that demonstrated playing ability doesn't vary much over relatively short periods of time, and so neither should indexes.  Counting the best 8 of 20 scores, the soft/hard caps, reviews by the handicap committee; all of those are meant to reinforce the idea of an index at any given moment representing demonstrated playing ability.


I will agree that preventing "handicap abuse" is probably subtext to the official USGA explanation, but I think there is a lot more to it than that, just as there is with other aspects like PCC adjustments. 


And I'll go this far; ANYTHING that prevents the manipulation of the handicap system without placing undue burden on those who don't seek to manipulate their indexes is likely to be a good thing.  You think the soft/hard cap DOES put an undue burden on "honest and active" golfers, and I couldn't disagree more. 

[Michael Felton]

The other thing I'd be curious to see is, for those clubs where there are lots of people affected by the soft/hard cap, how that varies during the year. I can see in the north where there is a significant off season that early in the season while people are beating off the rust, they may find their index going up, possibly enough to hit the soft cap, but that should settle down over the season as they warm up. So I would not be surprised to find the honest people caught in it count dropping significantly as the year goes on.


Separately, it seems really hard to get to the hard cap. You have to go up 3 strokes to meet the soft cap and a further 5 to meet the hard cap. I'm not sure if that maximises the increase at 5.5 strokes or 8 strokes. But even if it's the former, that's a 3 handicap becoming an 11 on paper and that's a big difference.

[Rob Marshall]

Handicap question that came up last night. How does a nine hole score work in the handicap system?

[Michael Morandi]

So what do you do when you are playing a 10 who routinely plays 13 holes as a 5 but has a few blowups on the others?  I know of 2-3 guys at my club who meet this profile and they aren’t blowing up to get a higher handicap.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Handicap question that came up last night. How does a nine hole score work in the handicap system?

How did the treatment of 9-hole scores change under the WHS™ in 2024? Prior to January 2024, one 9-hole score must be combined with another to create an 18-hole Score Differential™ before it could be counted for handicap purposes.
Now, when a player posts a 9-hole score, the WHS will automatically calculate an 18-hole Score Differential for the round, based on the player’s 9-hole Score Differential and expected Score Differential based on their current Handicap Index®, allowing the 9-hole round to be considered in the player’s Handicap Index calculation right away.
As part of this change, golfers are required to play all 9 holes with a valid 9-hole Course Rating™ and Slope Rating™ instead of the previous minimum of 7 holes.


https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/2024-revision/2024-treatment-of-9-hole-scores-FAQ.html

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Can we agree that the purported premise of the "soft/hard-cap" mechanism is to prevent "handicap abuse"?

No. We can agree that the purpose is to "ensure that a temporary loss of form does not cause a player’s handicap to increase to a level inconsistent with their recently demonstrated ability." We can also agree that the purpose is to " ensure equity - as players who have experienced significant upward movement would, without the caps, be more likely to score at or below their Handicap Index compared to more consistent players." We can also agree that if a handicap committee feels that someone's upward movement is warranted, because of an injury or something, they can manually modify the index to allow the player to compete.

Also, you're still ducking the questions.

[archie_struthers]

 
   


Ok just finished playing again this afternoon ....played bad shot a high score and have not shot my handicap in over a month . 12 rounds without a score that reflects my lousy 7.0 index. Got killed by my buddies but that's ok .


The system sucks it doesn't track the way you are trending at present and if I happen to play good next week just once my number will likely drop, it's a joke but so be it .    Gotta be a better way than just trying to stop a few sandbaggers


Imagine playing for a month strait playing a two or three times a week posting all the scores religiously and never once shooting your index without any adjustment.   Hahahah

[A.G._Crockett]

   


Ok just finished playing again this afternoon ....played bad shot a high score and have not shot my handicap in over a month . 12 rounds without a score that reflects my lousy 7.0 index. Got killed by my buddies but that's ok .


The system sucks it doesn't track the way you are trending at present and if I happen to play good next week just once my number will likely drop, it's a joke but so be it .    Gotta be a better way than just trying to stop a few sandbaggers


Imagine playing for a month strait playing a two or three times a week posting all the scores religiously and never once shooting your index without any adjustment.   Hahahah

So you’ve played 12 consecutive rounds without playing to your index.  Does that mean that the 8 scores that count toward your index are the oldest 8 scores?  8 in a row that counted, and now 12 in a row that haven’t?

[Chris Hughes]

Can we agree that the purported premise of the "soft/hard-cap" mechanism is to prevent "handicap abuse"?

Chris,
At the risk of parsing vocabulary, "purported premise" by whom?  The USGA doesn't mention "handicap abuse" in the explanation of hard and soft caps, either in purpose or function, so if that's part of the premise for soft/hard caps, it's only part.


And I'll go this far; ANYTHING that prevents the manipulation of the handicap system without placing undue burden on those who don't seek to manipulate their indexes is likely to be a good thing.  You think the soft/hard cap DOES put an undue burden on "honest and active" golfers, and I couldn't disagree more.

Hi A.G.,


This is the exact language from a 2020 issued USGA memo titled:


USGA Handicap System to World Handicap System – Change Summary - Limit of Upward Movement of a Handicap Index (Cap)

"The automatic calculation prevents extreme upward movement of a Handicap Index and assists Handicap Committees as an anti-abuse safeguard."

https://www.usga.org/content/dam/usga/pdf/Cap_Change_Summary_2020.pdf

What % of honest and active golfers do you feel are affected by the "cap"?  And what % should be, in your opinion?

[archie_struthers]

 

A.G.


Nope , my bad only 11 straight , consistent as Iron Byron in reverse!


Just shows that the system doesn't reflect how you have been playing recently, no matter how you may spin it. That's ok if those are the rules but playing your trend seemed a lot better to me. If it was someone other than me in our group and he was getting drilled I
would feel bad for him , just saying. 


So when I shoot a low score (which I will ) and my handicap goes to 5 or 6 it will really suck  :'( :'(   Will be happy to shoot a good score but will feel abused when it drops

[Chris Hughes]

Can we agree that the purported premise of the "soft/hard-cap" mechanism is to prevent "handicap abuse"?

No. We can agree that the purpose is to "ensure that a temporary loss of form does not cause a player’s handicap to increase to a level inconsistent with their recently demonstrated ability." We can also agree that the purpose is to " ensure equity - as players who have experienced significant upward movement would, without the caps, be more likely to score at or below their Handicap Index compared to more consistent players." We can also agree that if a handicap committee feels that someone's upward movement is warranted, because of an injury or something, they can manually modify the index to allow the player to compete.

Also, you're still ducking the questions.

I don't agree on any of that...

...the language from the USGA specifically says it's "an anti-abuse safeguard".

In addition, you mention "consistent players" -- the referenced USGA memo says this in that regard:

"This procedure favors the consistent player, as players who have significant volatility in their scoring history over a 12-month period will be impacted by it more often."

Why should the "consistent player" be favored over any other player?

Given that we know it's an anti-abuse safeguard, what % of honest and active handicap holders do you believe should be held accountable for "handicap abuse"?

PS...what question/s is it you want answered?

NOTE:  I acknowledge that the committee can adjust for, frankly, any reason...but it doesn't happen.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Ok just finished playing again this afternoon ....played bad shot a high score and have not shot my handicap in over a month . 12 rounds without a score that reflects my lousy 7.0 index. Got killed by my buddies but that's ok.

The system sucks it doesn't track the way you are trending at present and if I happen to play good next week just once my number will likely drop, it's a joke but so be it .    Gotta be a better way than just trying to stop a few sandbaggers

Uhhhh, play better?

Imagine playing for a month strait playing a two or three times a week posting all the scores religiously and never once shooting your index without any adjustment.   Hahahah

Rare but can happen. Keep playing poorly and your handicap will go up. It's only 20 rounds, and if you've played 12 rounds without seeing a change, then the 8 that are next to fall off will be your low ones.

Just shows that the system doesn't reflect how you have been playing recently, no matter how you may spin it.

It depends on your definition of "recent." To the WHS, that's your last 20. Not just your last 11.

So when I shoot a low score (which I will ) and my handicap goes to 5 or 6 it will really suck  :'( :'(   Will be happy to shoot a good score but will feel abused when it drops

If you shoot a score that drops your index from 7 to 6 or 5, then your 7 wasn't really "wrong" now was it? 

Jeez. You're only supposed to play to a little better than your index 20% of the time. Sometimes when you flip a coin you get heads five times in a row despite those odds being 50%.

I don't agree on any of that......the language from the USGA specifically says it's "an anti-abuse safeguard".

I quoted the USGA. I realize you did, too, but you quoted a change document from 2020, I quoted the current public facing documentation.

You're still ducking the question. And you were wrong about not asking me about "my club."

Given that we know it's an anti-abuse safeguard, what % of honest and active handicap holders do you believe should be held accountable for "handicap abuse"?

Stop ducking the question.

PS...what question/s is it you want answered?

Oh please.

[archie_struthers]

 


Now this is really the end, thankfully


Eric, appreciate a lot of the math you do for all of us relative to the game...but "ughh play better"
 waxes polemic
Pretty bad system if you play for a month with similar bad results and it has no impact, then play one good round and get punished for an anomoly in your scoring 


 obviously I don't give a flying you know what about the WHS and it's idiotic system that is akin to batting 2/5 in baseball and your batting average wasn't .300  but 1,000  It was bad at 10/20  and they made it worse



    Isn't the system supposed to make for a fair match ?  So opining that you would  be better throwing out your highs and lows over a specified time frame seems far more equitable


On that note I say adieu to this subject, at least for another 12 months .....gonna play better 

[Chris Hughes]

I quoted the USGA. I realize you did, too, but you quoted a change document from 2020, I quoted the current public facing documentation.


The "soft/hard-cap" system hasn't changed since 2020 -- the date of officially published USGA comments is not relevant.  They clearly designed this mechanism as "an anti-abuse safeguard".

You're still ducking the question. And you were wrong about not asking me about "my club."


Nonsense.  Curious, how many "active" members do you have in that "eClub"?  And how many members of the attendant Handicap Committee are there? 

What % of honest and active handicap holders do you believe should be held accountable for "handicap abuse"?

[Chris Hughes]

Clearly lots of folks have strong opinions on this subject...


...is there any one person in the good ol' USA who is seen as the definitive authority in the field?

[Steve Lang]

 


Chris, i'm with you as bad as the old system was it's better than this mess they developed.

WOW... this thread has gone from A to Z, nice to see Frank Zappa lyric being quoted!


Hey Archie, ever played a TX 12?




1000% agree.


The soft/hard cap provision is described in USGA documents as tool to "assist Handicap Committees as an anti-abuse safeguard".


"...an anti-abuse safeguard..."



Ludicrous.


Sandbaggers are managing their handicap 24/7/365 (always inflated) -- unlike the previous system where an "extraordinary tournament score) had real ramifications -- there is literally nothing in the "new" system to hold sandbaggers accountable.


On the flipside, the "soft/hard cap" provision is an indiscriminate seine-net scooping up "honest golfers" at a pace hitherto unknown to the people of this area but destined to take the place of the mudshark in your mythology.   


All joking aside, I'm aware of a club where I estimate 98% of the rounds are played by 50% of the members.  There are fewer than 10 known/legitimate sandbaggers yet over 70 members are caught up in the "soft/hard cap". 


Put another way -- 28% of the of the active golfers at the club are caught up in the "anti-abuse" seine-net know as the "soft/hard cap" -- the USGA has unfairly slapped a scarlet "S" on the chest of a LOT of "honest golfers"!!!


Absurd.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Pretty bad system if you play for a month with similar bad results and it has no impact, then play one good round and get punished for an anomoly in your scoring

Nah. Hard disagree there.

Isn't the system supposed to make for a fair match?

If you're capable of shooting a round tomorrow that would drop your handicap to 6 or 5, then arguing both sides of this is really kinda dumb.

You: "my handicap hasn't gone up after 11 poor rounds" (ignoring how rare it would be that a non-counting score didn't drop in 11 rounds).
Also you: "my handicap could drop to 6 or 5 if I play a good round tomorrow."

So opining that you would  be better throwing out your highs and lows over a specified time frame seems far more equitable

No. It's a measure of your demonstrated ability closer to your ceiling, not your average or your floor.

The "soft/hard-cap" system hasn't changed since 2020 -- the date of officially published USGA comments is not relevant.  They clearly designed this mechanism as "an anti-abuse safeguard".

Chris, I quoted a more recent USGA/WHS document and you simply said you "don't agree." It's got nothing to do with whether you "agree" with a document or not, the document exists and I quoted it. You can "not agree" that 2+2=4 but it doesn't change the fact that it is.

Since you STILL can't/won't answer the question, I'm done. I don't appreciate the intellectual dishonesty you've continued to display.

[Rob Marshall]

Now this is really the end, thankfully


Eric, appreciate a lot of the math you do for all of us relative to the game...but "ughh play better"
 waxes polemic
Pretty bad system if you play for a month with similar bad results and it has no impact, then play one good round and get punished for an anomoly in your scoring 


 obviously I don't give a flying you know what about the WHS and it's idiotic system that is akin to batting 2/5 in baseball and your batting average wasn't .300  but 1,000  It was bad at 10/20  and they made it worse



    Isn't the system supposed to make for a fair match ?  So opining that you would  be better throwing out your highs and lows over a specified time frame seems far more equitable


On that note I say adieu to this subject, at least for another 12 months .....gonna play better 

Archie, this is why guys who play for a lot of money at their clubs don't use the USGA handicap. They just negotiate the strokes before the round.

[Michael Felton]

Now this is really the end, thankfully


Eric, appreciate a lot of the math you do for all of us relative to the game...but "ughh play better"
 waxes polemic
Pretty bad system if you play for a month with similar bad results and it has no impact, then play one good round and get punished for an anomoly in your scoring 


 obviously I don't give a flying you know what about the WHS and it's idiotic system that is akin to batting 2/5 in baseball and your batting average wasn't .300  but 1,000  It was bad at 10/20  and they made it worse



    Isn't the system supposed to make for a fair match ?  So opining that you would  be better throwing out your highs and lows over a specified time frame seems far more equitable


On that note I say adieu to this subject, at least for another 12 months .....gonna play better 

Hi Archie - I know you're not going to respond, but I'm curious about one thing. If you played a match against someone whose handicap was 5.0 at the end of April, played a dozen rounds in May and early June and had a handicap of 14.0 and you played them in a match off 14.0 and they shot a 78, would you feel that was fair or would you feel that the handicapping system should have done something to limit their upward movement?

[archie_struthers]

 


So true Rob  Love a little action on the game but it's  not good to bet too much with friends. Also takes away a bit of fun when it's super serious all the time.  Nice for a club championship and occasional shoot out to really play hard at medal play.






As a great one said there's golf and there's tournament golf !

[archie_struthers]

 


Michael , no gag order on me yet so glad to respond , just no more bitchin on this subject. If the guy was a good guy and got injured and now recovered , he or she would have fixed the problem thru their pro. If they really sucked for a couple months then they earned it! Don't know how you could go from a 5-14 too easily under any decent system that was devised.


Moreover , not likely to play with this person in my twice weekly skins game at the club. None of us would bring a guest into the game who would get that many shots,  If they earn it though thru lots of bad play they should play off that number.  Just not in the mindframe (should have won the Belmont by the way ) of setting up a complete system to protect against some scummy sandbaggers!   that's it

[Garland Bayley]

Archie,

You have my sympathy as you have engaged A.G. and Erik. Knuth tried to cover a complex system with statistics that seem to be overmatched for the job. My condolences for the bad treatment and monetary loss inflicted by such a system.

[archie_struthers]

 


Garland as always answered like a true Renaissance Man.


You get it !  It's part of life that things don't always go as planned ! Some wonderful people get sick, have horrible tragedies and play on! They deserve sympathy and certainly my prayers always go to them. Many of us here have felt this and this crazy game sometimes helps us muddle thru. For that my eternal gratitude to all of them and you here on board..


However , when some math twits try to explain to me equity in gambling it's hard to swallow. Those of us who have shot some low scores, one a few championships and maybe took a few too many risks in life don't need someone with a slide rule and pocket protector explain why I'm giving shots to a guy who is better than me makes sense


God Bless

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()