England Golf General Play Restrictions

[wjemather]

Certainly this is the case here too. 36 hole scratch events in good weather normally had the old CSS increasing a lot against Mens Opens in similar conditions. Although here of course, EG are highlighting difference between GP and all competition scores not just elite ones.

It remains the case. I played 4 scratch opens last year and PCC was +2 in 3 of them, and +1 in the other. Only one of the events was in truly poor/difficult conditions.

 

[rulefan]

Since (on average) players can only be expected to play to handicap one fifth of the time, only about 20% of the field should be playing to handicap in any competition, never mind on a possibly unfamiliar course that is potentially setup stronger than normal. As I've said many times, there is a disconnect between what some perceive scoring should be and what is actually realistic - and when the Course Rating is over 75 and significantly above par, the disconnect is even greater.

Compared to other factors, I see "pressure" as having a comparatively negligible effect for experienced players (which most are); it can even have a positive effect for many as concentration levels are increased.

I would suspect the ones that JC is referring are not that experienced at the elite level.

 

[D-S]

I would suspect the ones that JC is referring are not that experienced at the elite level.

This has nothing. to do with pressure in elite or local competition. The competition scores do not discriminate between the elite or club.
It has to do with the difference between GP scores and competition scores. The inference is that it is very easy to manipulate General Play scores and so they cannot be trusted as much as competition rounds, even if that competition is just the Wednesday roll up Stableford.
In EG’s new regulation the the roll up Stableford score holds the same merit as the first round of the Brabazon - they are both competition scores
It is General Play scores that are under the spotlight here and they are being deemed to be possibly not as representative of ability or open to ‘misuse’.

 

[rulefan]

This has nothing. to do with pressure in elite or local competition. The competition scores do not discriminate between the elite or club.
It has to do with the difference between GP scores and competition scores. The inference is that it is very easy to manipulate General Play scores and so they cannot be trusted as much as competition rounds, even if that competition is just the Wednesday roll up Stableford.
In EG’s new regulation the the roll up Stableford score holds the same merit as the first round of the Brabazon - they are both competition scores
It is General Play scores that are under the spotlight here and they are being deemed to be possibly not as representative of ability or open to ‘misuse’.

If the EG believe there is more widespread abuse of the system, why have they not either banned GP scores until front end software has a robust enough way to prevent (or at least dissuade) manipulation or even recommended their approach to all clubs running competitions.
I must admit I am very surprised that JC said what he did openly. It really puts the concept of GP scores in the UK into the firing line of the heavy artillery.

 

[Swango1980]

If the EG believe there is more widespread abuse of the system, why have they not either banned GP scores until front end software has a robust enough way to prevent (or at least dissuade) manipulation or even recommended their approach to all clubs running competitions.
I must admit I am very surprised that JC said what he did openly. It really puts the concept of GP scores in the UK into the firing line of the heavy artillery.

That would be even more controversial. When singing WHS's praises for many years, and how great it was to submit GP scores, to then ban them would be a risky decision.

So, they've come up with this idea, as a defined method of checking the score make up of elite amateurs that could indicate foul play. Something they heavily suspect is going on.

 

[D-S]

If the EG believe there is more widespread abuse of the system, why have they not either banned GP scores until front end software has a robust enough way to prevent (or at least dissuade) manipulation or even recommended their approach to all clubs running competitions.
I must admit I am very surprised that JC said what he did openly. It really puts the concept of GP scores in the UK into the firing line of the heavy artillery.

To your first point, I have no idea, but obviously they think there is enough of a problem at one end of the system otherwise they would not have taken the action that they have or publicised it as well.
As you say in your second point they have made clear and public statements about the misuses and the possible fact that handicap indexes might not necessarily represent ability when there is a preponderance of GP scores.
The only issue now is that, if there is a mistrust at this level, should there be a mistrust at the other end of the spectrum, by that I mean players using GP scores to regularly manipulate HIs upwards (instead of downwards at the elite level).
Apart from entry to prestigious competitions cheaply and subsequent potentially embarrassing public failure, there is little to be gained from having an HI too low so that it does not represent your ability.
However at the other end of the spectrum there is a clear and obvious financial incentive to having too high an index.
In both ends of the spectrum it makes a nonsense of the competitions themselves.

 

[wjemather]

If the EG believe there is more widespread abuse of the system, why have they not either banned GP scores until front end software has a robust enough way to prevent (or at least dissuade) manipulation or even recommended their approach to all clubs running competitions.
I must admit I am very surprised that JC said what he did openly. It really puts the concept of GP scores in the UK into the firing line of the heavy artillery.

I get the impression that the real frustration at EG is at the failure of a not insignificant number of clubs to even have a handicap committee, let alone one with 3+ members that functions somewhat adequately. Actions they have taken to provide a safety net for their own elite comps to mitigate such problems at club level probably should not be read as a slight on the concept of general play scores counting for handicapping.

 

[clubchamp98]

To your first point, I have no idea, but obviously they think there is enough of a problem at one end of the system otherwise they would not have taken the action that they have or publicised it as well.
As you say in your second point they have made clear and public statements about the misuses and the possible fact that handicap indexes might not necessarily represent ability when there is a preponderance of GP scores.
The only issue now is that, if there is a mistrust at this level, should there be a mistrust at the other end of the spectrum, by that I mean players using GP scores to regularly manipulate HIs upwards (instead of downwards at the elite level).
Apart from entry to prestigious competitions cheaply and subsequent potentially embarrassing public failure, there is little to be gained from having an HI too low so that it does not represent your ability.
However at the other end of the spectrum there is a clear and obvious financial incentive to having too high an index.
In both ends of the spectrum it makes a nonsense of the competitions themselves.

Totally agree but we have been talking about handicap abuse before WHS was even implemented.
if EG are only seeing it now they havnt been listening to golfers.
Its effecting their elite comps now and suddenly there’s a problem.

There have been enough stories of 50 pts scores but it’s was the clubs fault apparently.
WHS is like VAR unnessesary and has caused more problems than it’s solved.

 

[rulefan]

Totally agree but we have been talking about handicap abuse before WHS was even implemented.
if EG are only seeing it now they havnt been listening to golfers.
Its effecting their elite comps now and suddenly there’s a problem.

There have been enough stories of 50 pts scores but it’s was the clubs fault apparently.
WHS is like VAR unnessesary and has caused more problems than it’s solved.

But seemingly this is one it hasn't caused.

 

[D-S]

I get the impression that the real frustration at EG is at the failure of a not insignificant number of clubs to even have a handicap committee, let alone one with 3+ members that functions somewhat adequately. Actions they have taken to provide a safety net for their own elite comps to mitigate such problems at club level probably should not be read as a slight on the concept of general play scores counting for handicapping.

There is an element of truth to this frustration.
One of the reasons for the series of seminars that EG have requested the Counties to run for Handicap Committees is certainly to reduce the number of calls/emails they receive from club members requesting advice on basic topics that could/should be answered by the Handicap Committee. However they need to be aware also of best practice and the basics and nuances of this now not so new WHS.
The difficult thing is to get committee members to attend, I believe that anything over 50% of clubs attending seems the norm despite multiple seminars being held at different locations and also via Zoom.
The breadth of experience, diligence and knowledge across Committees is very, very wide and who knows what it is like in the ‘difficult to get at‘ clubs.
A system that relies heavily on peer review is wide open to abuse (or misuse as EG term it).

 

[D-S]

But seemingly this is one it hasn't caused.

Under UHS there, of course, were also supplementary scores. However there were various checks and balances put in place, changed or removed over time.
I recall that at one time Cat 1 players couldn’t submit them, also no more than one per week was allowed and even no more than 10 per year (was this right?).
However the very strong push to have as many as possible submitted and the way that this has been embraced by many (sadly including unscrupulous players) has created a different dynamic.
In the past a player with 100, 150 or 200 scores on their record would stick out like a sore thumb, now it is commonplace - this is a different landscape for committees.
I think one easy solution would be to make the GP vs Competition scores a bit more user friendly. Having it highlight players with a 2 or more shot differential between the two score types (without having to download it into Excel) would be a simple start. I choose 2 as a differential as EG use this as automatic disqualification from entry so that says something.

 

[clubchamp98]

But seemingly this is one it hasn't caused.

Yes it has!
elite players must play enough competitive golf I would imagine that they shouldn’t need GP Cards.
WHS has caused this problem I struggle to see how you think it hasn’t.

 

[rulefan]

Yes it has!
elite players must play enough competitive golf I would imagine that they shouldn’t need GP Cards.
WHS has caused this problem I struggle to see how you think it hasn’t.

You suggested that handicap abuse was a problem before WHS.

 

[wjemather]

There is an element of truth to this frustration.
One of the reasons for the series of seminars that EG have requested the Counties to run for Handicap Committees is certainly to reduce the number of calls/emails they receive from club members requesting advice on basic topics that could/should be answered by the Handicap Committee. However they need to be aware also of best practice and the basics and nuances of this now not so new WHS.
The difficult thing is to get committee members to attend, I believe that anything over 50% of clubs attending seems the norm despite multiple seminars being held at different locations and also via Zoom.
The breadth of experience, diligence and knowledge across Committees is very, very wide and who knows what it is like in the ‘difficult to get at‘ clubs.
A system that relies heavily on peer review is wide open to abuse (or misuse as EG term it).

This is absolutely true, and it's becoming a real problem now we're over two years in. EG are clearly more than aware as their current workshop still doesn't go much beyond covering the basics (again).

Our county advisor estimated that a fifth of clubs in the area do not have a committee (most of these clubs have a single person, often the pro or admin staff, performing only basic tasks), and at least as many more clubs that are not doing everything they should. I also know from personal experience that several clubs in an adjacent county are not complying with requirements. It is inconceivable that this isn't being seen at a similar scale across the country, and it's unclear what the plan is to bring these clubs up to speed.

 

[D-S]

This is absolutely true, and it's becoming a real problem now we're over two years in. EG are clearly more than aware as their current workshop still doesn't go much beyond covering the basics (again).

Our county advisor estimated that a fifth of clubs in the area do not have a committee (most of these have one person, often the pro or admin staff, performing only basic tasks), and at least as many that are not doing everything they should. I also know from personal experience that several clubs in an adjacent county are not complying with requirements. It is inconceivable that this isn't being seen at a similar scale across the country, and it's unclear what the plan is to bring these clubs up to speed.

Until you visit many clubs and talk with them, you don't realise the vast differences in cultures and expectations of members and committees alike.
It is a condition of affiliation that you have a committee, a minimum of three people, the majority should be members (not employees), preferably an odd number and they should represent all sections of the club. Threatening a club with disaffiliation is a very last resort.
However, EG and the County have little or no input as to how the committee is run in practice. How you educate those who do not want to be educated and how you ensure the task is carried out effectively and responsibly is beyond me. If you want to be unscrupulous there are a few clubs where it would be very easy to do so and as they can be at the lower end of the cost spectrum (but not exclusively so), they are easy to get into.
EG are doing their best to provide resource tools to make the job easier, and there is more that can and probably will be done, but if the job isn't being done making it easier or being more helpful won't work.

 

[clubchamp98]

You suggested that handicap abuse was a problem before WHS.

No I didn’t.
i said “ we were talking about abuse before it was even impleminted”
we here on the forum could see this coming, pity EG couldn’t.
maybe I never worded it correctly.

there must have been abuse before WHS.
but you must concede WHS has just made it easier if your that way inclined.

but EG have only recognised the problem now it’s affecting their flagship events.
us less elite players obviously don’t count as much.

 

[rulefan]

No I didn’t.
i said “ we were talking about abuse before it was even impleminted”
we here on the forum could see this coming, pity EG couldn’t.
maybe I never worded it correctly.

there must have been abuse before WHS.
but you must concede WHS has just made it easier if your that way inclined.

but EG have only recognised the problem now it’s affecting their flagship events.
us less elite players obviously don’t count as much.

Prior to WHS the issue being discussed was primarily about 4BBB Open pothunting as a result of supplementary scores. Certainly EG were aware as they took disciplinary action in many cases; a number of which I initiated obo my county. Elite comps weren't a problem because of the cat 1 clause.
I can't remember any one predicting that ahead of WHS. But removing that restriction has certainly made 'elite' manipulation easier.

 

[D-S]

I think the biggest thing that EG have done with their recent moves is to create a significant division between GP and Competition scores. Though they are marked differently in a record, they were both deemed to be of equal validity. Now seemingly they are not. This cannot just be the case at elite level unless we believe only elite golfers manipulate handicaps.
Restrictions were in place about supplementary scores but these were totally removed - now one wonders what the rationale was behind the restrictions, did they not trust them then?
It is commonplace now to see full recent records comprising exclusively of GP scores, I for one cannot remember this much if at all under UHS and certainly not large numbers of them.
The question for the future is whether this divide in perceived ‘quality’ will deepen and how clubs and, perhaps, authorities will handle it.

 

[clubchamp98]

Prior to WHS the issue being discussed was primarily about 4BBB Open pothunting as a result of supplementary scores. Certainly EG were aware as they took disciplinary action in many cases; a number of which I initiated obo my county. Elite comps weren't a problem because of the cat 1 clause.
I can't remember any one predicting that ahead of WHS. But removing that restriction has certainly made 'elite' manipulation easier.

Yes I agree nobody saw the Elite players manipulating their handicaps.
But there was plenty of talk about the rest of us predicting What would eventually come to pass.

 

[wjemather]

I think the biggest thing that EG have done with their recent moves is to create a significant division between GP and Competition scores. Though they are marked differently in a record, they were both deemed to be of equal validity. Now seemingly they are not. This cannot just be the case at elite level unless we believe only elite golfers manipulate handicaps.
Restrictions were in place about supplementary scores but these were totally removed - now one wonders what the rationale was behind the restrictions, did they not trust them then?
It is commonplace now to see full recent records comprising exclusively of GP scores, I for one cannot remember this much if at all under UHS and certainly not large numbers of them.
The question for the future is whether this divide in perceived ‘quality’ will deepen and how clubs and, perhaps, authorities will handle it.

Nothing to do with trust - the old UHS system was designed as a competition handicap system; the supplementary scores process was introduced in order to mitigate lack of opportunity to submit competition scores, not as an alternative to competitions.

WHS is a system for all golf, not just competitions. Players, including a great many who were dis-enfranchised by UHS, are now simply taking advantage of the unrestricted ability to submit scores without entering competitions. With a handicap that is now reflective of their ability, some of them are re-engaging with competitions. This is a good thing.