Handicap manipulation - how to address

[wjemather]

It’s making genuine golfers not enter opens.

Only pot-hunters are attracted by prizes, and enter opens solely to try and win them. Genuine golfers enter opens for a good value away day at nice/new course or to support their home club; they couldn't care less about the prizes (even if it would be nice to win something) and what the winning scores are.

 

[clubchamp98]

Only pot-hunters are attracted by prizes, and enter opens solely to try and win them. Genuine golfers enter opens for a good value away day at nice/new course or to support their home club; they couldn't care less about the prizes (even if it would be nice to win something) and what the winning scores are.

Yes I totally agree.
But there must be a semblance of a chance to win atm there isn’t as the winning scores are ridiculously high.
But in fairness they always have been but not as high as now.

 

[IanM]

If this is public knowledge, then surely competition organisers will be contacting this players club immediately??? And, if his club doesn't get him sorted, then the county unions might be getting a few e-mails

As for the chap with 38 GP scores, I think this is why a lot of Opens are now demanding a certain number of Competition Rounds must appear on the players record.

Yes, it is difficult to determine all bandits, as some will not necessarily jump to the very top of the results sheet in every comp they play, but still hover up in higher places than most. But, there are some people where the results just scream of something fishy, and these players need to be identified and stopped.

I know of several people who have written to their club and England Golf.

They are heading to Woodall Spa next. Maybe they'll throw that one!

 

[wjemather]

Yes I totally agree.
But there must be a semblance of a chance to win atm there isn’t as the winning scores are ridiculously high.
But in fairness they always have been but not as high as now.

What you consider ridiculously high may actually be statistically likely for the field size.

I haven't seen anything extreme (e.g. no 50+ point 4BBB scores) in the dozens of opens I've played in, and almost none in countless other open results I have seen. There are far more unfeasibly bad scores (e.g. 16 points in a 4BBB I played in a couple of weeks ago) than geat ones.

 

[IanM]

How about writing your name on the "nearest the pin" marker, when you were no where near it?

 

[IanM]

What you consider ridiculously high may actually be statistically likely for the field size.

The likelihood drops to virtually zero for the same group doing it twice. In consecutive events!

Ah, maybe they are fine golfers.

 

[wjemather]

The likelihood drops to virtually zero for the same group doing it twice.

Ah, maybe they are fine golfers.

The normal rules of probability don't apply to (alleged) cheats.

 

[IanM]

The normal rules of probability don't apply to (alleged) cheats.

They would if the allegation was unfounded!

 

[wjemather]

How about writing your name on the "nearest the pin" marker, when you were no where near it?

Not sure handicapping has anything to do with that.

 

[pendodave]

Only pot-hunters are attracted by prizes, and enter opens solely to try and win them. Genuine golfers enter opens for a good value away day at nice/new course or to support their home club; they couldn't care less about the prizes (even if it would be nice to win something) and what the winning scores are.

Exactly so. I'm genuinely bemused that anyone thinks that "winning" is a factor when choosing to play an away course in a handicap event. It's a nice day out at a club presented at its best where you have the chance to see how you measure up against the course.
Obviously, completely different for scratch events. An actual genuine competition.

 

[D-S]

Exactly so. I'm genuinely bemused that anyone thinks that "winning" is a factor when choosing to play an away course in a handicap event. It's a nice day out at a club presented at its best where you have the chance to see how you measure up against the course.
Obviously, completely different for scratch events. An actual genuine competition.

Agreed, I’m not sure why clubs waste so much of the entry fees on providing big prizes instead of using the money to make the day more enjoyable for all, e.g. a subsidised halfway house or goodie bag on the first tee. Big prizes are not what interests most entrants (in fact the bigger the prizes the more bandits it attracts and so detracts from the day). Token prizes for the winners would do, a small trophy or a free 4 ball for example.

 

[IanM]

Agreed, I’m not sure why clubs waste so much of the entry fees on providing big prizes instead of using the money to make the day more enjoyable for all, e.g. a subsidised halfway house or goodie bag on the first tee. Big prizes are not what interests most entrants (in fact the bigger the prizes the more bandits it attracts and so detracts from the day). Token prizes for the winners would do, a small trophy or a free 4 ball for example.

Would largely sort the issue overnight!

 

[IanM]

Not sure handicapping has anything to do with that.

Of course not, but stick in it in the file called "cheating scumbags."

 

[clubchamp98]

Would largely sort the issue overnight!

I wonder why it hasn’t happened then.
If anything it’s gone the other way with ever increasing prizes.

 

[DickInShorts]

When I lived in England I recall most of the golf Opens were 4BBB events.
Then I moved to Scotland and most of the Opens are individual so the opportunities for cheating are reduced dramatically- scores count for handicap and ‘mates’ can be split into consecutive tee times rather than playing in the same group.

I seem to recall the main reason English opens were 4BBB was so clubs didn’t have to return scores back to home clubs (by post in those day!)

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Open in the NE of England are almost exclusively 4bbb. They are days out for a group of friends. Change that to a drawn individual competition and the numbers would be decimated. They are good earners for clubs behind the bar, food and drink, and clubs will not want to lose that income.

As people have frequently said on here, drop the prizes. That's the answer.

 

[IanM]

I wonder why it hasn’t happened then.
If anything it’s gone the other way with ever increasing prizes.

It's seen as a way of attracting entries and hence generating revenue. They don't care about cheating until players stay away because of it.

The commercial firms who run these are the worst. Offer a trip to Sawgrass, and up goes the winning score.

 

[rulefan]

When I lived in England I recall most of the golf Opens were 4BBB events.
Then I moved to Scotland and most of the Opens are individual so the opportunities for cheating are reduced dramatically- scores count for handicap and ‘mates’ can be split into consecutive tee times rather than playing in the same group.

I seem to recall the main reason English opens were 4BBB was so clubs didn’t have to return scores back to home clubs (by post in those day!)

In the latter years of CONGU, England Golf started encouraging clubs to send winning 4BBB scores to home clubs as there was a spate of 'issues' with 'mates'.

 

[D-S]

In the latter years of CONGU England Golf started encouraging clubs to send winning 4BBB scores to home clubs as there was a spate of 'issues' with 'mates'.

When the move to 4BB as possibly qualifying was announced for April, EG advised that 4BB scores would be appearing on players records even those that did not end up as an acceptable score. This would enable committees to have a better overview of player's performance outside normal singles qualifying strokeplay. This initiative seems to have been dropped - pity.

 

[clubchamp98]

It's seen as a way of attracting entries and hence generating revenue. They don't care about cheating until players stay away because of it.

The commercial firms who run these are the worst. Offer a trip to Sawgrass, and up goes the winning score.

Maybe a cap on what Ams can win .

Get back to it being a sport not a pot chasing exercise.