Comp rounds to enter “majors”

[Arthur Wedge]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1996278405160145362

 

[D-S]

With no offence to Fergus this is yet another click bait article.

The, and I quote, “drastic action” that the club is “being forced to take” is (hold on to your hats) :-
“As from next year, if you want to enter one of the main club knockout tournaments at Banchory, you will need to have completed at least four counting rounds towards handicap throughout the previous season.”.
Whoop de doo.

 

[rulefan]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1996278405160145362

Just what is he proposing should be done?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Just what is he proposing should be done?

Have you read the article

 

[rulefan]

Have you read the article

I read the page that was posted. No suggestions there. Is there something I have to link to?

PS I'm not a Facebook user.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I read the page that was posted. No suggestions there. Is there something I have to link to?

PS I'm not a Facebook user.

“I think the best way to clarify the golfing public’s view on WHS would be to conduct a nationwide survey – all four of our home golfing unions should collaborate to ask the 4 million golfers across our Isles specific questions on WHS.”

 

[wjemather]

If FB spent half as much time learning about handicapping as he does whining about it, maybe his articles on the subject wouldn't be such utter garbage, based almost entirely on ignorance and entitlement. At least he now recognises the echo chamber he's created for himself; next step is for him to get out of it.

 

[nickjdavis]

If FB spent half as much time learning about handicapping as he does whining about it, maybe his articles in the subject wouldn't be such utter garbage, based almost entirely on ignorance and entitlement. At least he now recognises the echo chamber he's created for himself; next step is for him to get out of it.

Must be sharing intelligence with Tom Carroll over at National Club Golfer who also does little else other than moan about the WHS.

 

[Swango1980]

If FB spent half as much time learning about handicapping as he does whining about it, maybe his articles in the subject wouldn't be such utter garbage, based almost entirely on ignorance and entitlement. At least he now recognises the echo chamber he's created for himself; next step is for him to get out of it.

Sadly, some people are heavily lead about what they read on social media platforms like X and Facebook. Facts are irrelevant, what matters is whether opinions align.

 

[Swango1980]

My take....
WHS needs cards in order to work properly...lots of cards....as many as possible..
Enter a card almost every time you play and your handicap will be a true reflection of your form .
The trouble is that many players don't put in a card almost every time they play either because they simply don't want to or they're playing a social knockabout or playing matchplay or swindles with gimmees etc etc..
England Golf want us to put in cards, many are not putting enough in so many handicaps are inaccurate
EG , effectively, want us to change the way we've played our golf for the last God knows how many years in order for their new handicap system to work.
They've failed to persuade a significant number that this is the way to go.
Right now WHS isn't performing as it should due to the number of rounds being played that aren't being entered.

I'd say that any handicap system needs as many cards as possible to determine as accurate handicaps as possible. It is just that this is more visible with WHS, as we effectively see those last 20 scores.

There were all sorts of complaints with the last system, and the whole 3 cards a year to keep it active. Rightly so, 3 scores a year is nothing. Many people could have false handicaps, too low or too high, but once a player had submitted 3 scores in a year, I guess we generally didn't look at how many scores they entered unless we knew them, or they did well in a competition.

The handicap authorities are damned if they do, damned if they don't. If there was no encouragent for golfers to submit scores, then many would complain that many handicaps are not accurate. If they encourage golfers to submit scores, many golfers moan because they get offended when instructed to do something for the benefit of handicapping.

The handicap authorities are not the problem. The whining golfers who are stuck in their habits are the problem. The highly sensitive golfers who implode as soon as they are asked to submit a score in a social round, but if they don't submit a score are quite happy doing their best to win a few quid in a swindle. It is probably an impossible task for the authorities to convince many of these golfers, who want to do the same thing they have done for many years. It'll be interesting, as the years go on, how general attitudes change. I feel many of the younger golfers are much less stressed about submitting GP scores, and actually embrace it. Their attitudes have not been shaped by many years of habit, and so they are happy to proceed as instructed regarding their handicap responsibilities.

 

[Backache]

The handicap authorities are not the problem. The whining golfers who are stuck in their habits are the problem.

Whether you agree or disagree with the WHS the authorities are absolutely part of the problem.

There is very little engagenent or explanation put out by them to the club golfer.

Many of the calculations for things like PCC, 4BBB competition adjustments 9 hole cards are black box computations with little explanation and no need for them to be black box it disenfranchises people when they cannot see what is happening and there is no explanation of how it happens.

There was an exercise where golfers were asked their opinion on WHS. There was no feedback publicly given to the golfers who filled in the feedback. No one has informed any ordinary golfer what the concerns were whether they were valid and crucially if not shown any data to suggest that they are not valid.

If you are a club member you have a compulsory tariff taken to belong to your handicapping authority but no information given about whether things are working or not.

People are saying that FB should educate himself. Where is the information publicly available to demonstrate his concerns are without foundation?

I have read plenty of statements that they are without foundation I have not seen any publicly available data to suggest they are well founded or ill founded.

If the authorities are going to not engage with the club golfer to the extent of giving him or her this information and feedback on questionnaires it is not surprising that many are dissaffected.

 

[Swango1980]

Whether you agree or disagree with the WHS the authorities are absolutely part of the problem.

There is very little engagenent or explanation put out by them to the club golfer.

Many of the calculations for things like PCC, 4BBB competition adjustments 9 hole cards are black box computations with little explanation and no need for them to be black box it disenfranchises people when they cannot see what is happening and there is no explanation of how it happens.

There was an exercise where golfers were asked their opinion on WHS. There was no feedback publicly given to the golfers who filled in the feedback. No one has informed any ordinary golfer what the concerns were whether they were valid and crucially if not shown any data to suggest that they are not valid.

If you are a club member you have a compulsory tariff taken to belong to your handicapping authority but no information given about whether things are working or not.

People are saying that FB should educate himself. Where is the information publicly available to demonstrate his concerns are without foundation?

I have read plenty of statements that they are without foundation I have not seen any publicly available data to suggest they are well founded or ill founded.

If the authorities are going to not engage with the club golfer to the extent of giving him or her this information and feedback on questionnaires it is not surprising that many are dissaffected.

How would you like them to do this? Organise a meeting at every golfers house so that they can talk them through WHS? Give them a phone call?

For club golfers that are interested, they could first go on to the England Golf website, and read through a good amount of material there. They could also contact a person on their Golf Club's Handicap Committee to talk through anything in more detail. 99% of club golfers won't be bothered, but for the 1% that are bothered, that is what their Committee can be used for.

So, the question is then not about the direct link between the ordinary club golfer and England Golf. It is about the direct link between the ordinary golfer and their Handicap Committee. Then the link between the Handicap Committee and the Local Union. And then the Local Union and the Handicapping Authority.

Most golfers that moan about WHS do so not because they are moaning about something that is factually wrong with it. They just moan because that is what they are wired to do, and they have formed an opinion that they just don't like it, and they can blame it for some of their sorrows. Perhaps 1% of golfers would really love to know how PCC works, but 99% have absolutely no interest. For those that do stay up at night worrying about PCC, then perhaps they would have enough interest to get involved with the clubs Handicap Committee. They can then use this enthusiasm to research it more, and give their feedback more directly to the powers above. And get access to more information that isn't simply published on the website. I was handicap secretary during the changeover to WHS, and I e-mailed England Golf directly several times (for example, asking by CR-Par was not part of the equation at the time). In fairness to England Golf, they always replied and gave a detailed and personal response.

Also, I'm not sure what would be gained about sharing the concerns golfers have. Given that most of these concerns will be opinion based rather than based on any expertise in the area, publishing these concerns can simply add to the confusion golfers may have with WHS. I'd say it is a good thing that they are at least asking golfers to share concerns. With that information, they can then look into these areas more, and see if any of these concerns have merit in changing how parts of the system works, and how many of these concerns simply require better education. I'm no longer on the Committee as I changed clubs, but I'm sure Handicap Committees are updated fairly regularly on anything handicap related, and it is their responsibility to transfer that info to the ordinary golfer.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Whether you agree or disagree with the WHS the authorities are absolutely part of the problem.

There is very little engagenent or explanation put out by them to the club golfer.

Many of the calculations for things like PCC, 4BBB competition adjustments 9 hole cards are black box computations with little explanation and no need for them to be black box it disenfranchises people when they cannot see what is happening and there is no explanation of how it happens.

There was an exercise where golfers were asked their opinion on WHS. There was no feedback publicly given to the golfers who filled in the feedback. No one has informed any ordinary golfer what the concerns were whether they were valid and crucially if not shown any data to suggest that they are not valid.

If you are a club member you have a compulsory tariff taken to belong to your handicapping authority but no information given about whether things are working or not.

People are saying that FB should educate himself. Where is the information publicly available to demonstrate his concerns are without foundation?

I have read plenty of statements that they are without foundation I have not seen any publicly available data to suggest they are well founded or ill founded.

If the authorities are going to not engage with the club golfer to the extent of giving him or her this information and feedback on questionnaires it is not surprising that many are dissaffected.

The survey was a perfect example

We filled that out a while back now

Where are the results from that ? What feedback did they gain from it

Is there a reason why they arent communicating what the general feeling is

 

[Backache]

How would you like them to do this? Organise a meeting at every golfers house so that they can talk them through WHS? Give them a phone call?

Publishing the information on the website would be a good start.

I have asked how PCC works it appears to be a black box calculation.

I have been onto the EGU and Golf Scotland website I have still seen no data. Is it secret?

 

[D-S]

Whether you agree or disagree with the WHS the authorities are absolutely part of the problem.

There is very little engagenent or explanation put out by them to the club golfer.

Many of the calculations for things like PCC, 4BBB competition adjustments 9 hole cards are black box computations with little explanation and no need for them to be black box it disenfranchises people when they cannot see what is happening and there is no explanation of how it happens.

Whilst you are correct that the PCC and scale up for non started holes are algorithms which are the property of the R&A and USGA and not publicly available (I assume so other companies cannot copy and sell ‘official’ handicaps), I would just point out that the 4BB adjustments were widely publicised to clubs and golfers on introduction and can be requested from your handicap committee (if they can’t help, your County Handicap Advisor can point them in the right direction and explain anything to them), they are also available on the EG website.

 

[D-S]

The survey was a perfect example

We filled that out a while back now

Where are the results from that ? What feedback did they gain from it

Is there a reason why they arent communicating what the general feeling is

I am fairly certain they sent headline results out in newsletters earlier this year. All clubs will have received them. I seem to remember them also being part of the seminars that EG held which all clubs were invited to.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I am fairly certain they sent headline results out in newsletters earlier this year. All clubs will have received them. I seem to remember them also being part of the seminars that EG held which all clubs were invited to.

Can’t recall anything being sent - will have a dig

 

[Backache]

I'm sure Handicap Committees are updated fairly regularly on anything handicap related, and it is their responsibility to transfer that info to the ordinary golfer.

With respect to handicap commitees if the information is there why not publish it on a central website so that everyone can see it rather than getting a handicap committee members interpretation of what is there, a classic recipe for 'Chinese whispers'.

Can anyone point to a set of data that demonstrates the concerns FB raises are invalid?

 

[D-S]

With respect to handicap commitees if the information is there why not publish it on a central website so that everyone can see it rather than getting a handicap committee members interpretation of what is there, a classic recipe for 'Chinese whispers'.

There is a lot of information on the EG website which is available to all - this is the detail page which has all the main documents, infographics, videos on how to use the portal, viewable versions of the seminars, beginners guides , FAQs on WHS and My EG - https://www.englandgolf.org/resource-listing?topics=1 . Also there is info here on handicap appeals etc. a lot aimed at golfers not just committees.

There is also a recording of the seminars they ran where I believe some of the survey results are highlighted, it is in the first part of the video.

Oh and by the way, there is also detail on how the 4BB calculation is used just to answer another of your points.

This is an incredibly comprehensive 'central website' available to all - no need for Chinese Whispers or conspiracy theories.

 

[wjemather]

I am fairly certain they sent headline results out in newsletters earlier this year. All clubs will have received them. I seem to remember them also being part of the seminars that EG held which all clubs were invited to.

Correct. The headlines were also communicated through regional advisors, and mentioned in at least one NCG article & podcast (think it was an interview with Jeremy Tomlinson).

Worth remembering that it was a global R&A/USGA survey and as such, GB&I unions do not have full access to the responses or results. Also worth noting that, from memory, there were fewer than 50k responses from GB&I so rather limited in it's usefulness.