England Golf General Play Restrictions

[fundy]

Its just a spreadsheet (albeit complicated) not AI.

So quite subjective then

 

[Swango1980]

Just because something is heavily modelled does not ensure the complete removal of subjectivity, reduced for sure, absent highly unlikely, especially in something like this where theres a high level of variables many of which are hard to quantify

Not sure what you mean? If I put two numbers into a spreadsheet, say 2 and 3, and then get the spreadsheet to add them, the answer will be 5. If I do this multiple times, with the same 2 numbers, I always get 5. I wouldn't get different answers, due to subjectivity from the spreadsheet as to how it wants to treat those 2 numbers.

So, if the inputs into the ratings spreadsheet are simply defined measurements from a course, where does the subjectivity come in between that point and getting the answer? I'd understand if a human had to put weighting on several factors based on their perception as to what they think those should be. But, from what I read, nothing like that happens?

 

[fundy]

Not sure what you mean? If I put two numbers into a spreadsheet, say 2 and 3, and then get the spreadsheet to add them, the answer will be 5. If I do this multiple times, with the same 2 numbers, I always get 5. I wouldn't get different answers, due to subjectivity from the spreadsheet as to how it wants to treat those 2 numbers.

So, if the inputs into the ratings spreadsheet are simply defined measurements from a course, where does the subjectivity come in between that point and getting the answer? I'd understand if a human had to put weighting on several factors based on their perception as to what they think those should be. But, from what I read, nothing like that happens?

But youre not just adding those measurements up, youre converting them to an impact on course rating. How you convert from one to another has to have a written calculation (if its not AI driven) and my point is that these conversions are not 100% factual but have a subjective element to them

 

[Swango1980]

But youre not just adding those measurements up, youre converting them to an impact on course rating. How you convert from one to another has to have a written calculation (if its not AI driven) and my point is that these conversions are not 100% factual but have a subjective element to them

Which is what I'm trying to wrap my head around. If the measurements made are all absolutely definable (so you and I or anyone else would get the same numbers), and they go directly into a spreadsheet to do its thing, there is no room for subjectivity.

The only area for subjectivity is if a human being converts those initial measurements into some sort of weighting. Where they use their own judgement as to what that weighting should be, based on their own perception. But, every article I've read on it, and from anyone in here that had done it and spoke about it, this is not the case.

In other words. If you, I, or anyone else where to go and rate the same course, we should get the same ratings (assuming we don't make a mistake). If that isn't the case, then I've been mislead what I've heard from those that do it.

 

[rulefan]

But youre not just adding those measurements up, youre converting them to an impact on course rating. How you convert from one to another has to have a written calculation (if its not AI driven) and my point is that these conversions are not 100% factual but have a subjective element to them

There is no subjectivity on the part of the rater. The rater simply measures and logs a value from a table in the manual.
Eg For men - If a greenside bunker is >3' deep it is rated +1. If it is >6' it is rated +2 etc. For women - If a greenside bunker is >2' deep it is rated +1. If it is >5' it is rated +2 etc.
The size of and distance to the green is rated separately for scratch and bogey players.
Virtually everything relating to play is measured and then rated according to the appropriate table. These 'ratings' are processed by the spreadsheet.

However, it can be argued that the rating value assigned to a measurement is arbitrary (ie "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference") but in this case it is not one person's subjective view but that of many experienced people.

 

[fundy]

Which is what I'm trying to wrap my head around. If the measurements made are all absolutely definable (so you and I or anyone else would get the same numbers), and they go directly into a spreadsheet to do its thing, there is no room for subjectivity.

The only area for subjectivity is if a human being converts those initial measurements into some sort of weighting. Where they use their own judgement as to what that weighting should be, based on their own perception. But, every article I've read on it, and from anyone in here that had done it and spoke about it, this is not the case.

In other words. If you, I, or anyone else where to go and rate the same course, we should get the same ratings (assuming we don't make a mistake). If that isn't the case, then I've been mislead what I've heard from those that do it.

I agree you will get the same rating, but the rating you all get is influenced by how the measurements are chosen to be converted by how the spreadsheet has been set up

 

[rulefan]

If the measurements made are all absolutely definable (so you and I or anyone else would get the same numbers), and they go directly into a spreadsheet to do its thing, there is no room for subjectivity.

The only area for subjectivity is if a human being converts those initial measurements into some sort of weighting. Where they use their own judgement as to what that weighting should be, based on their own perception. But, every article I've read on it, and from anyone in here that had done it and spoke about it, this is not the case.

In other words. If you, I, or anyone else where to go and rate the same course, we should get the same ratings (assuming we don't make a mistake). If that isn't the case, then I've been mislead what I've heard from those that do it.

I think fundy is arguing that the initial allocation of a weighting to a measurement is itself subjective. But see my final para above.

In my example eg. Why is the 'cut' at 6' and not 5'6"?

 

[fundy]

There is no subjectivity on the part of the rater. The rater simply measures and logs a value from a table in the manual.
Eg For men - If a greenside bunker is >3' deep it is rated +1. If it is >6' it is rated +2 etc. For women - If a greenside bunker is >2' deep it is rated +1. If it is >5' it is rated +2 etc.
The size of and distance to the green is rated separately for scratch and bogey players.
Virtually everything relating to play is measured and then rated according to the appropriate table. These 'ratings' are processed by the spreadsheet.

However, it can be argued that the rating value assigned to a measurement is arbitrary (ie "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference") but in this case it is not one person's subjective view but that of many experienced people.

This!

At no point have I questioned their experience etc, but it still has a subjective element to it, its not an exact science

 

[Backsticks]

There is no subjectivity on the part of the rater. The rater simply measures and logs a value from a table in the manual.
Eg For men - If a greenside bunker is >3' deep it is rated +1. If it is >6' it is rated +2 etc. For women - If a greenside bunker is >2' deep it is rated +1. If it is >5' it is rated +2 etc.
The size of and distance to the green is rated separately for scratch and bogey players.
Virtually everything relating to play is measured and then rated according to the appropriate table. These 'ratings' are processed by the spreadsheet.

However, it can be argued that the rating value assigned to a measurement is arbitrary (ie "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference") but in this case it is not one person's subjective view but that of many experienced people.

Is the rating not still arbitrary as to the depth of the bunker ?
Depth according to its lowest edge point ? It highest edge point ? Or average ? Or point in the direction of the centre of the green ? If the edge of the bunker that is 3' deep in the sand itself, on the green side has a 6 ft grass rise to the green is the bunker 3' deep, or 9 ft deep ? A bunker on a hill may be shallow wrt to angle of the hill, yet deep from the low end of the bunker to the far high end of the bunker to play in the hole direction - is then a 6" deep bunker or a 10' one due to the hill. etc. Are all of these elements defined, or based on the rater's subjective view ?

 

[rulefan]

Is the rating not still arbitrary as to the depth of the bunker ?
Depth according to its lowest edge point ? It highest edge point ? Or average ? Or point in the direction of the centre of the green ? If the edge of the bunker that is 3' deep in the sand itself, on the green side has a 6 ft grass rise to the green is the bunker 3' deep, or 9 ft deep ? A bunker on a hill may be shallow wrt to angle of the hill, yet deep from the low end of the bunker to the far high end of the bunker to play in the hole direction - is then a 6" deep bunker or a 10' one due to the hill. etc. Are all of these elements defined, or based on the rater's subjective view ?

They are all defined as part of the training.

 

[clubchamp98]

So one day they tell us that our handicaps aren't representative of our ability, unless we put in a card everytime we play. Now they're saying that the handicap isn't representative if we put in loads of general play cards, and that brings our handicaps down?

It's almost as if the WHS system doesn't work hmm

They just don’t like hackers getting in the elite comps.
but it’s ok for everyone else.
the system has proved to easy to manipulate up or down.

 

[rulefan]

They just don’t like hackers getting in the elite comps.
but it’s ok for everyone else.
the system has proved to easy to manipulate up or down.

Presumably you are meaning general play. But didn't supplementary scores provide the same facility?

 

[jim8flog]

There is no subjectivity on the part of the rater. The rater simply measures and logs a value from a table in the manual.
Eg For men - If a greenside bunker is >3' deep it is rated +1. If it is >6' it is rated +2 etc. For women - If a greenside bunker is >2' deep it is rated +1. If it is >5' it is rated +2 etc.
The size of and distance to the green is rated separately for scratch and bogey players.
Virtually everything relating to play is measured and then rated according to the appropriate table. These 'ratings' are processed by the spreadsheet.

However, it can be argued that the rating value assigned to a measurement is arbitrary (ie "Based on or subject to individual judgment or preference") but in this case it is not one person's subjective view but that of many experienced people.

so it was subjectivity to begin with - somebody had to decide what the factors should be

 

[jim8flog]

Presumably you are meaning general play. But didn't supplementary scores provide the same facility?

Not for the old Cat 1 players. They were only allowed to submit sufficient Sup Scores to maintain a C status and only had a limited time span in which to submit them.

 

[Swango1980]

Presumably you are meaning general play. But didn't supplementary scores provide the same facility?

For submitting general play cards for most golfers (i.e. Cat 2 and higher)? The answer is yes.

But, if clubchamp is also referring to the few golfers out there that like to manipulate their handicaps up or down, then the answer would be no. We all know the WHS system itself allows handicaps to shoot up much more rapidly, so General Play rounds are much more potent than Supplementary scores for golfers that can do this. I'm not sure handicaps come down as quickly as they were pre-WHS, under the system itself. But, the technology developed to assist functionality around WHS makes submitting General Play scores much more easily than Supplementary scores. So, if a golfer wants to get their handicap down, it is simply easier for them to do this. I know there are features in the tech that can try and reduce the chances of this happening, but as it stands it is still fairly easy for the few players who want to manipulate their handicap either way.

As it stands though, I think we just have to accept it is what it is. Just before WHS started, there were a lot of voices of concern that the system could be much more easily manipulated. There was a perception that handicaps in the UK were generally much "fairer" and representative than those handicaps of Americans and how they used their system. Therefore, the worry was that WHS would just encourage more manipulation, and we would, in general, lose some integrity in being able to manage the system. But, WHS was not going to be "better" in every single metric you could think of compared to the old system. There'd always be pros and cons, and you hope the pros outweigh the cons. I do believe it is nice that honest golfers can choose to officially submit scores from every round if they wish, as to many it adds something extra to a social round of golf (me included). The process is easier, and technically there is less work for Committee as scores go straight onto a players record without them having to accept them first (with the manipulation being the downside to that point). And, the addition of Slope is a good thing, as it means that the handicap difference between low and high players isn't fixed, regardless of the course you play. Instead, it means at a relatively easy course, higher handicappers will get less shots on the low handicapper, but they'll get more shots on relatively very difficult ones.

 

[clubchamp98]

Presumably you are meaning general play. But didn't supplementary scores provide the same facility?

They did but not for cat1 players.

 

[Jacko_G]

I never knew that the new World approved index system where you were/are encouraged to submit regular GP scores - in some cases reported as "every time you play" was actually a two tier discriminatory system.

You're welcome to enter our competition however if you have not played enough medals due to work commitments, family commitments, ill health, we may ballot you out in favour of someone else.

Nonsense

 

[clubchamp98]

I never knew that the new World approved index system where you were/are encouraged to submit regular GP scores - in some cases reported as "every time you play" was actually a two tier discriminatory system.

You're welcome to enter our competition however if you have not played enough medals due to work commitments, family commitments, ill health, we may ballot you out in favour of someone else.

Nonsense

They knew this before they implemented it.
does this happen in the rest of the world.
many players have complained about dodgy handicaps but its affecting the elite comps so now it’s on their radar.

 

[Jacko_G]

They knew this before they implemented it.
does this happen in the rest of the world.
many players have complained about dodgy handicaps but its affecting the elite comps so now it’s on their radar.

Yeah I understand that. However all elite players are not Monday - Friday workers. More and more people work over a 7 day period with different days off. Combine that with a young family and you may get 1 medal in a month.

I like the new system and I like the flexibility of GP scores, I also believe it's a more accurate reflection on my current form. However if golf organisations are now going to impose sanctions and display what amounts to discriminatory practices I now question why we changed to it!

Anyway England Golf doesn't affect me. Elite amateur competitions are way above my ability so I guess I shouldn't get me Y fronts in a twist over it.

??

 

[Bdill93]

I never knew that the new World approved index system where you were/are encouraged to submit regular GP scores - in some cases reported as "every time you play" was actually a two tier discriminatory system.

You're welcome to enter our competition however if you have not played enough medals due to work commitments, family commitments, ill health, we may ballot you out in favour of someone else.

Nonsense

Its not nonsense though is it, I could achieve a + handicap within 2 weeks if I fancied it.

Just submit GP scores ive totally made up and get my best mate to approve them on the app.

Bosh, plus handicapper, opens here I come.