Handicap manipulation - how to address

[Imurg]

It would be very difficult to cheat in that environment. And if you include pre-registration, almost impossible.

I wonder if anyone are aware of the methods that cheats would use in those days

The obvious way is deliberately missing a few putts or slicing one OB...not dissimilar to what could happen today
Not difficult and hard to prove.....

 

[3offTheTee]

If people want to cheat they will cheat (steal) where money/ prizes are involved. What is worse, marginally, is a 4 man scramble or Stableford team event.

If you asked say the same 4 players would they go into M and S and steal a tie I am sure the answer would be a resounding NO. Why because they could be caught and let's face it ALL golfers are honest!

There is no difference in my opinion as it is more difficult to be caught with manipulation of handicap and the consequential results.
A cheat is a cheat is a cheat. Let them sleep well at night!

 

[bobmac]

I was cut from 9-5 back in the late 80s, mostly on general play cards as I think they were called.
After getting to Cat I, I was cut a further 3 shots but only in comps.
Never won anything of course, except scratch stuff.
So there have always been cheats people having one of those special days.

 

[rulefan]

The obvious way is deliberately missing a few putts or slicing one OB...not dissimilar to what could happen today
Not difficult and hard to prove.....

I was thinking more of cheating by avoiding the technical/procedural requirements of the system.

 

[rulefan]

I was cut from 9-5 back in the late 80s, mostly on general play cards as I think they were called.
After getting to Cat I, I was cut a further 3 shots but only in comps.
Never won anything of course, except scratch stuff.
So there have always been cheats people having one of those special days.

Was this before the UHS (CONGU) system? I don't remember the UHS having a provision to alter handicaps as a result of competitions.
They were called Supplementary Scores in UHS. They are described as General Play in WHS.

 

[clubchamp98]

I was thinking more of cheating by avoiding the technical/procedural requirements of the system.

It was not impossible but the procedure made it difficult with pre registration and Comittiee checks.
I’m sure some tried it .
Plus it was only .1 back so hardly worth it.

But computers and apps have made it easier ( we’re still discussing it four years on ) are we not

Maybe some don’t consider it cheating just playing the system.
Golfers think it’s” levelling the playing field “ I have heard them say that.

But before this app was rolled out I don’t think the powers that be considered properly the scale of manipulation.
Winning scores have gone up by about 4/5 shots in most of the comps I have played in especially opens.

But like AA we need to admit something is wrong before putting it right ,I don’t think that’s going to happen any time soon.

This is my honest opinion of playing club golf for 40+ years.

 

[clubchamp98]

The obvious way is deliberately missing a few putts or slicing one OB...not dissimilar to what could happen today
Not difficult and hard to prove.....

Yes but you only got .1 back.

Now if your losing a good score and replacing it with a poor one you get a lot more than .1

That’s the problem imo.

 

[wjemather]

I wonder if anyone are aware of the methods that cheats would use in those days

Mostly the same methods they use now: opportunistic score submission (to 'gain' a stroke) and/or false scores, most often in collusion with at least one other.

However, handicap manipulation is a minor problem in comparison to the more blatant cheating that goes on, especially in 3 & 4 person events where players are marking and certifying their own scores; e.g. recording false scores, illegitimate (free) drops, gimmes when putts have been (carelessly) missed, improved lies, foot wedges, claiming spot prizes (2s, NtP, LD, etc.) when they haven't actually achieved them, etc.

 

[D-S]

There is always the passive cheating of those who 'deliberately' do not know the rules, so when they give themselves a favourable drop or ruling, they can claim ignorance not deliberate cheating. When people don't know the rules very often the preferable option is chosen over the right one.

I still think clubs need to insist on Level 1 rules knowledge for competition entry rather than focussing so much on x cards in y time frame.

 

[nickjdavis]

I seem to remember that you could only submit 10 cards a year and only 1 a week.
Cat 1 were added after a couple of years.

You were limited to 1 a week. There was no annual limit.

Cat 1s were initially excluded but allowed to submit cards a few years later.

 

[Thintowin]

Yes, this meant that they were relatively rare at my club (although we did publicise them and had the correct procedures in place).
They tended to be done by those who were just starting and wanted to get a stable handicap. The only ‘regular’ golfers who ever submitted them were those trying to get a ‘competition’ handicap to ensure they had 3 scores in the past year to allow them to enter comps, this was a handful of players every year.
As they had to be manually entered, they were closely monitored and I cannot recall any instances or even allegations of players trying to manipulate their handicaps by regular submission Ig supplementary scores. Manipulation and cheats were of course around then but, certainly at my club, supplementary scores were not the method.
Their volume, frequency and purpose are all chalk and cheese with GP scores.

Yes, absolutely. Trying to argue for WHS on the basis that non competitive cards have always been in place is a stretch to say the least and just wanting to argue for the sake of it. Isn't that trolling?

 

[Colin L]

Yes, absolutely. Trying to argue for WHS on the basis that non competitive cards have always been in place is a stretch to say the least and just wanting to argue for the sake of it. Isn't that trolling?

I'm not aware that anyone has been.

 

[3 jabber]

You could see it that way I guess but I don't. Trying to make out that WHS hasn't caused the manipulation situation we now see is, quite frankly, talking rubbish.

You're partly correct. It's always been possible to manipulate your handicap but under the old system it took 10 rounds to go up 1 shot whereas now you can easily go up that much in 1 or 2 rounds depending on your 8 counting scores. I've always maintained there is no foolproof system and as we know golf is based on player integrity which unfortunately is lacking in some people.

 

[wjemather]

You're partly correct. It's always been possible to manipulate your handicap but under the old system it took 10 rounds to go up 1 shot whereas now you can easily go up that much in 1 or 2 rounds depending on your 8 counting scores. I've always maintained there is no foolproof system and as we know golf is based on player integrity which unfortunately is lacking in some people.

... depending on your 8 counting scores and your next best scores.

But we could also say...
Under UHS one bad round could give you an extra stroke (if you were at x.4), and under WHS 12 bad rounds could result in no change (if the 8 most recent are counting).

 

[D-S]

... depending on your 8 counting scores and your next best scores.

But we could also say...
Under UHS one bad round could give you an extra stroke (if you were at x.4), and under WHS 12 bad rounds could result in no change (if the 8 most recent are counting).

I guess the better example is that in the old system it could take 20 rounds to go up 2 shots but you could go 5 shots higher in the new system by doing the same in a much shorter time frame.
However, as others have stated, Supplementary Scores were rarely used to manipulate handicaps, GP scores certainly are.

 

[Colin L]

It's evident that there is no need to defend the WHS system since the detractors have not really been saying anything about the actual system. Rather they have been pointing up a problem of manipulation (largely on anecdotal "evidence") resulting from the electronic returning of General Play scores. Interesting as it is, there is no point in arguing about that in defence or otherwise of the WHS system as it has nothing to do with it. The system is about calculating handicaps in the first place, maintaining handicaps by making adjustments and applying handicaps to the game about to be played. That, in a rather simplistic form is what the system is about. Whether your score is returned electronically, on a printed scorecard, a bit of paper torn out of a notebook or, on the back of a fag packet (a bit out of date that one) is irrelevant.. If there are any problems arising from the chosen method, they are not caused by the WHS system. To leap from a manipulation problem being the result of the method of returning a score via an app to wholesale condemnation of the WHS system is a leap way too far. Generalising from a particular is never a sound move but worse when the particular isn't even relevant. How about an argument as to why the system is so bad based on the actualities of the system - such as
the calculation of an initial handicap;
the use of slope rating;
the maintenance of a handicap including
the averaging system,
the use of the 8 best out the the last 20;
safeguards like low handicap index, soft cap, hard cap and exceptional score reduction;
the value of slope rating in calculating course handicaps.

Go on Thintowin. I'm sure from your absolute rejection of the WHS system you can do it.

 

[wjemather]

I guess the better example is that in the old system it could take 20 rounds to go up 2 shots but you could go 5 shots higher in the new system by doing the same in a much shorter time frame.
However, as others have stated, Supplementary Scores were rarely used to manipulate handicaps, GP scores certainly are.

One extreme example is no better than any other.

What is seen now is no different to what would have been seen with UHS under the same circumstances, i.e. increased supplementary scores via apps with automatic submission (something that was going to happen).

 

[LincolnShep]

Anyone who regularly scores better at away clubs than their own course is surely at it!

I do, and I'm not.

 

[sunshine]

Anyone who regularly scores better at away clubs than their own course is surely at it!

My home course is quite tough, I nearly always score better at an away course. A few of my playing partners at my club have observed the same thing with their game. There are clearly flaws in the rating system.

 

[rulie]

My home course is quite tough, I nearly always score better at an away course. A few of my playing partners at my club have observed the same thing with their game. There are clearly flaws in the rating system.

Are you comparing scores or differentials?