England Golf and General Play Scores

[clubchamp98]

There seems to be discrepancy between the objectives of EG and Devon County. The former are aiming at players ostensibly having artificially low handicaps and the latter (I think) aiming at players having artificially high handicaps.

In a proper system neither of them would exist!
it’s to easy to manipulate. At both ends

 

[Backsticks]

I have no idea what Devon Golf are doing - I am nothing to do with their admin.

But I have to say that (without having knowledge of England Golf's stance) I read it as an attempt to weed out people using general play scores to manufacture an unrealistically high index. So either I've misunderstood Devon Golf's intentions, or Devon Golf has misinterpreted England Golf's intentions.

I think whats sauce for the EG goose is sauce for the Devon gander.
EG have openly questioned the validity of WHS hc indexes. It is easy to argue all counties, and clubs, should be following their lead. EG run the elite competitions. So implementing this restriction for events in their remit. It is only consistent if other bodies act similarly.

 

[cliveb]

Please can I ask that we stop trying to second-guess what DevonGolf's attitude is?
I only made the original posting because the notice started making me wonder what was going on.
It's now clear that DevonGolf may - or may not - have misinterpreted England Golf's announcement.
But until we know more it's pointless speculating.

One thing's for sure: there are people in positions of authority who are getting suspicious about general play scores, which sort of undermines one of the expressed goals of WHS.

 

[doublebogey7]

I think whats sauce for the EG goose is sauce for the Devon gander.
EG have openly questioned the validity of WHS hc indexes. It is easy to argue all counties, and clubs, should be following their lead. EG run the elite competitions. So implementing this restriction for events in their remit. It is only consistent if other bodies act similarly.

EG's are trying to avoid the situation where they have players participating in their elite competetions with artificially low handicaps and therefore depriving a place to players more deserving. In the UHS this was mitigated by not allowing cat1's to submit supplementary scores. In an ideal world clubs would be monitoring these players in order to mitigate the risk as they should for those with artificially high handicaps. It seems to me that EG are simply recognising that clubs are unlikely to do so, as it goes against their own interests. For handicap golf those risks existed before WHS and it was and continues to be the responsibility of clubs, who's interest it is in, to mitigate those risks.

 

[Backsticks]

My point is EG are acknowledging a flaw in the WHS. And yes, mitigating its effect. But if its worth correcting the flaw with limitations for competing scratch players, the principle should apply to us higher hcs who compete a lot at our own level. Our competitions are governed by our clubs, so they should similarly protect the integrity of their competitions. Let the beginners, high hcs, play only for £10 with friends, etc submit all the general play scores they wish. Its a good thing. But protect competitive golf.

 

[doublebogey7]

My point is EG are acknowledging a flaw in the WHS. And yes, mitigating its effect. But if its worth correcting the flaw with limitations for competing scratch players, the principle should apply to us higher hcs who compete a lot at our own level. Our competitions are governed by our clubs, so they should similarly protect the integrity of their competitions. Let the beginners, high hcs, play only for £10 with friends, etc submit all the general play scores they wish. Its a good thing. But protect competitive golf.

Clubs are at liberty to do that if they wish, it is of zero concern of EG.

 

[wjemather]

EG's are trying to avoid the situation where they have players participating in their elite competetions with artificially low handicaps and therefore depriving a place to players more deserving. In the UHS this was mitigated by not allowing cat1's to submit supplementary scores. In an ideal world clubs would be monitoring these players in order to mitigate the risk as they should for those with artificially high handicaps. It seems to me that EG are simply recognising that clubs are unlikely to do so, as it goes against their own interests. For handicap golf those risks existed before WHS and it was and continues to be the responsibility of clubs, who's interest it is in, to mitigate those risks.

Self-interest isn't really a factor at all. The biggest issue is that >>10% of clubs do not have a handicap committee, and a significant proportion of those that do seem to be either unaware of their responsibilities and the tools/reports available to assist them, or are neglecting them. There is a push (albeit a bit of a soft push) from EG through the counties to remedy this; recent workshops have focussed on the basic fundamentals of WHS and highlighting the various reports that committees should be monitoring and the action they should be taking.

 

[wjemather]

My point is EG are acknowledging a flaw in the WHS. And yes, mitigating its effect. But if its worth correcting the flaw with limitations for competing scratch players, the principle should apply to us higher hcs who compete a lot at our own level. Our competitions are governed by our clubs, so they should similarly protect the integrity of their competitions. Let the beginners, high hcs, play only for £10 with friends, etc submit all the general play scores they wish. Its a good thing. But protect competitive golf.

No, this is nothing more than what some people seem desperate to read into it. However, it is not what England Golf are doing at all.

 

[D-S]

Self-interest isn't really a factor at all. The biggest issue is that >>10% of clubs do not have a handicap committee, and a significant proportion of those that do seem to be either unaware of their responsibilities and the tools/reports available to assist them, or are neglecting them. There is a push (albeit a bit of a soft push) from EG through the counties to remedy this; recent workshops have focussed on the basic fundamentals of WHS and highlighting the various reports that committees should be monitoring and the action they should be taking.

I agree fully with this - the disparity between experience, knowledge and diligence across each county is huge.
Four Handicap Committee workshops were held in recently in my County at different times of the day and evening in person and on zoom to enable maximum attendance. Representatives from only 25 of the 40 clubs attended. Individual and refresher courses have also been offered to some of those that didn’t attend but as yet have not been taken up. It is difficult to know what more can be done to ensure basic understanding. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make it drink.

 

[doublebogey7]

Self-interest isn't really a factor at all. The biggest issue is that >>10% of clubs do not have a handicap committee, and a significant proportion of those that do seem to be either unaware of their responsibilities and the tools/reports available to assist them, or are neglecting them. There is a push (albeit a bit of a soft push) from EG through the counties to remedy this; recent workshops have focussed on the basic fundamentals of WHS and highlighting the various reports that committees should be monitoring and the action they should be taking.

I can't say for sure that it is a factor in EGs decision It is self evident though that even well run HCs are very unlikely to increase the handicap of a member from say +2 to scratch on the basis if a few potentially dodgy GP scores, as there are only downsides for the club in doing so. It is clearly different when taking shots off members.
I do though agree with the rest of your post.

 

[D-S]

We had a player whose handicap went from 0.7 to +1.6 with one very good score (a proper one, nothing dodgy at all) so it is not impossible to go from no chance in a ballot to probably getting in with one score.

 

[rulefan]

I can't read into EG's condition that they believe there is a flaw in the system. All they have done is add an additional factor in how to determine ties in HIs when there is an oversubscription. If the comp is not oversubscribed everyone can play. If that wasn't the method of choice how else would it be done?
As a by-product, EG are discouraging elite low handicap 'fiddlers'.
Some Clubs (it would seem from posts here) have a bigger issue with vanity cappers or more commonly, higher handicap 'cheats' or pot hunters. And many are not activly discouraging the practice.

I'm not convinced the WHS is the real problem. There have always been bandits about. Playing in their club competitions and scoring poorly to maintain their high handicap. Then entering Open 4ball comps and taking home big prizes. There were a few high profile cases a few years ago when EG and Counties (including mine) took strong disciplinary action.
I fact my club agreed with 4 or 5 other local clubs that we would not accept entries from teams which included 'known' players. The word got around to other clubs and these guys disappeared off the scene.

 

[doublebogey7]

I can't read into EG's condition that they believe there is a flaw in the system. All they have done is add an additional factor in how to determine ties in HIs when there is an oversubscription. If the comp is not oversubscribed everyone can play. If that wasn't the method of choice how else would it be done?
As a by-product, EG are discouraging elite low handicap 'fiddlers'.
Some Clubs (it would seem from posts here) have a bigger issue with vanity cappers or more commonly, higher handicap 'cheats' or pot hunters. And many are not activly discouraging the practice.

I'm not convinced the WHS is the real problem. There have always been bandits about. Playing in their club competitions and scoring poorly to maintain their high handicap. Then entering Open 4ball comps and taking home big prizes. There were a few high profile cases a few years ago when EG and Counties (including mine) took strong disciplinary action.
I fact my club agreed with 4 or 5 other local clubs that we would not accept entries from teams which included 'known' players. The word got around to other clubs and these guys disappeared off the scene.

I agree, it's a pity then that EG have no interest in allowing 4 ball competitions to be acceptable scores. That would make the work of club and county much easier to counter those involved in such practises.

 

[D-S]

I agree, it's a pity then that EG have no interest in allowing 4 ball competitions to be acceptable scores. That would make the work of club and county much easier to counter those involved in such practises.

If 4 better ball scores were acceptable it would make manipulation even easier.

 

[wjemather]

I agree, it's a pity then that EG have no interest in allowing 4 ball competitions to be acceptable scores. That would make the work of club and county much easier to counter those involved in such practises.

I think CONGU might like to but are reluctant because it would be a significant cultural change and there would likely be a huge backlash - a taste of which we've already seen on these forums at the mere suggestion that it could happen.

 

[doublebogey7]

If 4 better ball scores were acceptable it would make manipulation even easier.

It wouldn't for those players with active handicap committees as all scores would be available. There are many players flying around playing in opens who's scores are simply not visible to those who have been tasked with the monitoring.

 

[D-S]

It wouldn't for those players with active handicap committees as all scores would be available. There are many players flying around playing in opens who's scores are simply not visible to those who have been tasked with the monitoring.

If it was better ball then you would have to use MLS for non completed holes which, as there is an element of judgement (dependent on shot difficulty and player ability) then you could manipulate. All scores of both players would not be available for the HC to scrutinise.

 

[doublebogey7]

If it was better ball then you would have to use MLS for non completed holes which, as there is an element of judgement (dependent on shot difficulty and player ability) then you could manipulate. All scores of both players would not be available for the HC to scrutinise.

They would if both players were from the same club. MLS scores would also be visible so could monitored. At the moment these such players are able to manipulate their handicao by nit submitting any competition scores, these people know that nobody is monitoring their competition scores.

 

[D-S]

They would if both players were from the same club. MLS scores would also be visible so could monitored. At the moment these such players are able to manipulate their handicao by nit submitting any competition scores, these people know that nobody is monitoring their competition scores.

If it is better ball then they don’t need to submit both scores as you only need 18 scores not 36, how can a HC interpret scores which haven’t been made?

 

[doublebogey7]

If it is better ball then they don’t need to submit both scores as you only need 18 scores not 36, how can a HC interpret scores which haven’t been made?

Might be missing something here. If 4 balls became acceptable scores then players would be required to enter scores for all holes they started, that may or may not include some scores that are MLS. So each player would submit their full 18 hole scores.