Changes to WHS in April 2024

[Backsticks]

It’s certainly one of the themes of James Luke’s interview in the podcast, as well as seemingly regretting not introducing CR-Par at the inception of WHS.

He does clarify definitively that you do 'get' shots in WHS, whenever or whatever format of round you are playing.

 

[Backsticks]

What is complex from the players point of view, simply enter your 4 Ball score into the ISV as yopu would normally do, EG will do the rest.

4 Ball scores are also where, I as a memeber of the HC, get the most grieve from members. So this is a good change from my point of view and I should hope from our members, although I would have liked to seen them go further.

Yes, maybe little from the players point of view. Listenening to the algorithm vocalised though sounded impenetrably complex. But yes, if the computer simply spits an answer, then I guess it works.

 

[Voyager EMH]

If the course is qualifying and it gets won with a score of 45 points and one of the players doesn’t get cut (if they have fulfilled the criteria), I can imagine a lot of the field questioning the committee as to why they have decided to ignore EG regulation. This new feature of WHS will be welcomed by the vast majority of players and clubs who decide t disregard the policy will be open to suspicion.

45 points can be easily achieved if the two players combine well. Player A completing on 8 holes scores two 4-pointers, two 3-pointers and four 2-pointers.
Player B makes merely three 3-pointers and seven 2-pointers.

Player B could be a few shots under handicap for the ten holes completed only, (not the other eight where he was useless and way over handicap) but could receive no cut if the calculated score differential for those 10 holes merely equals his disappearing score.

 

[Swango1980]

EG introduced that measure to keep entries restricted to proven low cappers. They have to show a recent and consistent low handicap performance. If the specified field size is greater than the number of entrants providing their cap is low enough they would get in regardless of the new elimination qualifications. This was not about keeping sandbaggers out.

Your statement was simply made about a whether a marker would identify such a ploy, a ploy that goes against the principles of handicapping. My response was that a marker wouldn't necessarily identify, or at least raise this ploy.

The EG measure wasn't simply there to show a "recent and low handicap performance". A player could have submitted 20 GP rounds in the last 4 weeks, to get an Index of +2.0, and the EG criteria could refuse them entry to a player who has an Index of 0.0, has their last 20 scores submitted over the last 12 months, but 15 of them are from competitions. Therefore, it sounds to me that EG are putting less faith in the Index of +2.0 with 20 recent GP scores. If so, sounds to me that they are putting less faith in the markers abilities to certify their rounds?

 

[wjemather]

EG introduced that measure to keep entries restricted to proven low cappers. They have to show a recent and consistent low handicap performance. If the specified field size is greater than the number of entrants providing their cap is low enough they would get in regardless of the new elimination qualifications. This was not about keeping sandbaggers out.

Isn't it more about ensuring proven competition/tournament performers do not miss out to players who only seem to be able to score well in general play rounds (and tend to blow up in competitions/tournaments), in addition to identifying possible manipulation that has been missed by handicap committees.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Don't you think their marker(s) would spot such a ploy?

Of the Opens I play in, all 4BBB, pretty much all of the groups are together. It is rare a 2 turns up and doesn't know the other 2 in their group. Whilst we would all hope that collusion doesn't happen I'm not sure I believe it doesn't.

 

[rulefan]

Your statement was simply made about a whether a marker would identify such a ploy, a ploy that goes against the principles of handicapping. My response was that a marker wouldn't necessarily identify, or at least raise this ploy.

Doesn't a marker verify the actual score for each hole?
That score will update the WHS and probably affect the HI. Apart from the effect on their handicap it will be available to the h'cap sec in the AR.

We send suspicious scores to players' home clubs

 

[Backsticks]

We send suspicious scores to players' home clubs

You are probably a rarest exception in that regard I would guess.

 

[Swango1980]

Doesn't a marker verify the actual score for each hole?
That score will update the WHS and probably affect the HI. Apart from the effect on their handicap it will be available to the h'cap sec in the AR.

We send suspicious scores to players' home clubs

Going back, I presume you were responding to my middle comment, which was:

"Or even just ensure that both players enter proper scores for every hole, and look for patterns where they may "cheat" and put a blob every time their partner scores?"

So, from the first part of that comment, you will see I was actually suggesting both players ACTUAL hole scores were submitted, rather than what I believe is proposed. So the first part of that statement implies that I think, in general, that is a good idea and the scores can be trusted. The second part of that statement caveats that, by highlighting a potential issue:

If the desire that 4BBB scores are officially submitted is there, it may suggest that there are some bandits out there. Players with untrustworthy high handicaps. Sure, some may be innocently high as they play a lot of 4BBB and not submitted many handicap scores. But others may enter these events knowing their handicap is protected, and they have a good chance of winning. To get the handicap they have now, suggests there could be some dodgy stuff going on. Maybe they just intentionally score poorly when submitting scores, and there is no way for marker to know if they are cheating, or just having a rubbish day. If their 4BBB scores suddenly counted, and they are already the sort of person / team who has been manipulating the system, then it is naive to think they couldn't still manipulate the system. Their team mate is in an excellent position, so the other picks the ball up before making the green to get a blob, even if 1 or 2 points was still very achievable. Their partner sinks a birdie for 4 points, they "rush" their shot for 3 or 4 points and miss, miss the next, and just blame poor concentration. Plenty of ways to suddenly drop several points on quite a number of holes, once you know your partner is safely going to score

Perhaps the above behaviour is why the 4BBB scoring automatically awards a certain number of points to a player, if their partner scores, regardless of what the actual player scores themselves? Or perhaps it is to speed up play? Or a bit of both.

 

[D-S]

Perhaps the above behaviour is why the 4BBB scoring automatically awards a certain number of points to a player, if their partner scores, regardless of what the actual player scores themselves? Or perhaps it is to speed up play? Or a bit of both.

Does it though? From what James Luke has said, if a player does not score and his partner scores 0 he scores 0 as well, if 1 then 1, if 2 or more then 1.5. However, if Player A scores 3 points and so does player B, In your scenario Player B would only be awarded 1.5 points, that can’t be right can it?

 

[Swango1980]

Does it though? From what James Luke has said, if a player does not score and his partner scores 0 he scores 0 as well, if 1 then 1, if 2 or more then 1.5. However, if Player A scores 3 points and so does player B, In your scenario Player B would only be awarded 1.5 points, that can’t be right can it?

I don't think it can be right either way, it is a made up score after all. Which is why I made my comment on this that rulefan responded to.

It is why I think, surely, would it not just be better to put BOTH players scores down for every hole, and use their actual score? Then their handicap would be based on their actual score, and not a made up one.

As they are apparently not doing that, I'm trying to figure out why? Is it because they don't trust the score of the player who didn't contribute for the team? Are they worried about players putting down blobs by purposely not finishing the hole, when in reality they could easily have scored?

 

[D-S]

I don't think it can be right either way, it is a made up score after all. Which is why I made my comment on this that rulefan responded to.

It is why I think, surely, would it not just be better to put BOTH players scores down for every hole, and use their actual score? Then their handicap would be based on their actual score, and not a made up one.

As they are apparently not doing that, I'm trying to figure out why? Is it because they don't trust the score of the player who didn't contribute for the team? Are they worried about players putting down blobs by purposely not finishing the hole, when in reality they could easily have scored?

They have stated this in the CONGU Guidance.
"The standard approach to Fourball competition should continue to be used – as soon as the best score has been recorded, the other player should pick up in order not to impact pace of play. Handicap Committees will be justified in disregarding scores for handicapping purposes where scores for both players are recorded on a significant number of holes on a regular basis."
How on earth Handicap committees are going to divine when to disregard certain 'scores for handicapping purposes' I really don't know.
Also as many of the gripes of 4BB bandits come from Open competitions, this will be a job for the local committee not that of the players themselves if they are away members, so how do they know they have done this on a regular basis?

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Don't you think their marker(s) would spot such a ploy?

Sadly, even if they do I'm not sure they would report it. There is a reticence to stick your head above the parapet and the normal reaction is to shrug and moan about bandits afterwards.

Even when we had someone referred to our handicap committee for frequent low scores, the analysis just showed he was improving having taken lessons and played more. So success isn't always the result of manipulation.

 

[mikejohnchapman]

They have stated this in the CONGU Guidance.
"The standard approach to Fourball competition should continue to be used – as soon as the best score has been recorded, the other player should pick up in order not to impact pace of play. Handicap Committees will be justified in disregarding scores for handicapping purposes where scores for both players are recorded on a significant number of holes on a regular basis."
How on earth Handicap committees are going to divine when to disregard certain 'scores for handicapping purposes' I really don't know.
Also as many of the gripes of 4BB bandits come from Open competitions, this will be a job for the local committee not that of the players themselves if they are away members, so how do they know they have done this on a regular basis?

I get the pace of play argument but a lot of tactics apply in 4BBB - specifically players putting out of sequence to give their partner a "free" put if they can score a higher number of points. This doesn't impact the pace of play as they would put out of sequence anyway. (yes the second player could pick up if they miss rather than tap-in but not a major time consuming act).

Not sure why they didn't bite the bullet and go with MLS in this situation.

 

[IanMcC]

If the course is qualifying and it gets won with a score of 45 points and one of the players doesn’t get cut (if they have fulfilled the criteria), I can imagine a lot of the field questioning the committee as to why they have decided to ignore EG regulation. This new feature of WHS will be welcomed by the vast majority of players and clubs who decide t disregard the policy will be open to suspicion.

It does not say in the guidance if this is mandatory or not. That's why I said 'if allowed'.
To me, this goes against the original tenet of WHS, which was, put as many scores in as you can, good or bad, and you will find your level.
In only considering the best 4BBB scores, this will skew the handicaps of regular, honest golfers who shoot a decent score in a 4BBB. Im sure that honest golfers make up over 99% of most fields. This is clearly a ploy attacking the >1%.
It is also a different mindset in 4BBB. Often different shots are attempted, or putts more aggressive.
It is also plain daft to include a representation of your partners score in the score for the player being adjusted. Absolutely nothing warrants this. Its like having my markers score added to my card if I dont play a hole in singles.
I say again, if I can set them up as non qualifiers, which I am certain that I will be able to, then non qualifiers they shall be.

 

[clubchamp98]

I think in 4bbb opens clubs need to look at prizes.
They are far too generous and encourage cheating imo. ( handicaps or dodgy pencil)

Its a hobby and we should not be winning 3 figure sums.

Free Entry next year and a Crystal trophy is ample imo.
This could bring prices down if not funding a big prize table.

 

[D-S]

It does not say in the guidance if this is mandatory or not. That's why I said 'if allowed'.
To me, this goes against the original tenet of WHS, which was, put as many scores in as you can, good or bad, and you will find your level.
In only considering the best 4BBB scores, this will skew the handicaps of regular, honest golfers who shoot a decent score in a 4BBB. Im sure that honest golfers make up over 99% of most fields. This is clearly a ploy attacking the >1%.
It is also a different mindset in 4BBB. Often different shots are attempted, or putts more aggressive.
It is also plain daft to include a representation of your partners score in the score for the player being adjusted. Absolutely nothing warrants this. Its like having my markers score added to my card if I dont play a hole in singles.
I say again, if I can set them up as non qualifiers, which I am certain that I will be able to, then non qualifiers they shall be.

Are you the entire handicap committee?

 

[Swango1980]

They have stated this in the CONGU Guidance.
"The standard approach to Fourball competition should continue to be used – as soon as the best score has been recorded, the other player should pick up in order not to impact pace of play. Handicap Committees will be justified in disregarding scores for handicapping purposes where scores for both players are recorded on a significant number of holes on a regular basis."
How on earth Handicap committees are going to divine when to disregard certain 'scores for handicapping purposes' I really don't know.
Also as many of the gripes of 4BB bandits come from Open competitions, this will be a job for the local committee not that of the players themselves if they are away members, so how do they know they have done this on a regular basis?

I think this is ridiculous in a sense. Encourage players to pick up early as they're worried about pace of play? Yet playing stroke play singles, in a four ball, it perfectly acceptable in golf. Furthermore, how much time is truly saved? I'd say a lot of a time both partners will spend the majority of their time playing shots to green, and therefore the time saved may simply be for one player to hit a putt or 2 from fairly medium to short range.

I guess pace of play is more important than the integrity of a players handicap?

 

[IanMcC]

Are you the entire handicap committee?

Im a third of it. The other 2/3 are digesting the info right now

 

[D-S]

With regard to the possibility of an acceptable score in 4BB if the criteria are met - one of the criteria is the pair must achieve 42 points or more, is that 42 points using the Playing Handicaps (i.e. 85% of the CH) or of their Course Handicap? Equally a player must have an upscaled score of 36 points or more, again is that at 85% of their PH?
Secondly, if for example the 4 ball better ball comp takes up all the available tee times in a day will a PCC be created by the players playing in a 'sort of' non acceptable format and would that apply to the 4BB scores? And if a PCC is created by the non acceptable scores and other players put in GP rounds, would that PCC apply to their scores?