Handicap manipulation - how to address

[clubchamp98]

But what is the check?
It's a card verified by whoever you were playing with...
Previously, would you be called to account if you had a poor round with a 9 and 3 8s..?
No..you had a bad day, the committee had a giggle at your misfortune and put the card on the system - or vice versa..you had 5 birdies and 6 bogeys...a "nice one" and the card went on the system
The Committee couldn't verify scores because they weren't out there..they relied on the integrity of the player to hand in a genuine card...just like now.
If you wanted to buck the system back then you could.
The only difference to now is that you can put a card in every day rather than once a week...
A cheat will cheat no matter which system is used..they'll find a way.

They will I agree.
But with the supplementary cards they knew at least they had to be inputted manually that might have put some cheats off.

 

[Colin L]

Yes but anything out of the ordinary might have been noticed when done manually.
Now it’s just bypassed unless someone points them out.

Do give an example of what could be determined "out of the ordinary" by looking at 18 hole by hole scores on a bit of cardboard.

As said above there was and is no way of checking that the hole by hole scores on a card whether physical or electronic are a true record of the actual scores made.

 

[clubchamp98]

Do give an example of what could be determined "out of the ordinary" by looking at 18 hole by hole scores on a bit of cardboard.

As said above there was and is no way of checking that the hole by hole scores on a card whether physical or electronic are a true record of the actual scores made.

When someone puts 10 cards in two weeks after winning the comp and ends up on his original handicap.

 

[wjemather]

When someone puts 10 cards in two weeks after winning the comp and ends up on his original handicap.

With the available reports, something like that is much more likely to be detected now than it ever would be through manual input and checking of scorecards - which could be done by half a dozen different people and wouldn't happen anyway without cause.

 

[rulefan]

When someone puts 10 cards in two weeks after winning the comp and ends up on his original handicap.

Our h'cap c'ee would have spotted that. Pity yours didn't seem to.

 

[clubchamp98]

Our h'cap c'ee would have spotted that. Pity yours didn't seem to.

under the rules he’s done nothing wrong.

What would your c,ee do.

 

[clubchamp98]

Our h'cap c'ee would have spotted that. Pity yours didn't seem to.

That’s a big assumption it wasn’t at my club .
It was at a friends club.

 

[wjemather]

under the rules he’s done nothing wrong.

What would your c,ee do.

If they truly have done nothing wrong by the rules, then why would the committee need to do anything (other than confirming that)?

 

[rulefan]

That’s a big assumption it wasn’t at my club .
It was at a friends club.

How did that club come to discover that situation?
Of course the player may have had his 'day in the sun' when he won.

 

[Dunesman]

Every single Supplementary Score has to go in front of a Committee member before it touched a players handicap under UHS.

I would go further and suggest that while catered for, Supplementary Scores were rarer than hens teeth. They simply didnt happen to any impacting extent. Most golfers wouldnt even have known they existed. There was always some special circumstance if someone was going to submit one and they were certainly gping to pass some scrutiny by a human, not an algorithm.
Any comparison of GP Score with Supp Scores has no relevance to the issue GP Scores have brought to golf.

 

[AussieKB]

When someone puts 10 cards in two weeks after winning the comp and ends up on his original handicap.

You don't need 10 cards under this system....

 

[Dunesman]

Our h'cap c'ee would have spotted that. Pity yours didn't seem to.

Are you not expecting too much from hc committees ? The theory might be fine. Your committee might be a paragon of diligence. But a system that relies on such vigilance, for so many cards, is not grounded in reality, and as such, inherently doomed to failure.

 

[Colin L]

Do give an example of what could be determined "out of the ordinary" by looking at 18 hole by hole scores on a bit of cardboard.

As said above there was and is no way of checking that the hole by hole scores on a card whether physical or electronic are a true record of the actual scores made.

When someone puts 10 cards in two weeks after winning the comp and ends up on his original handicap.

Not exactly an answer to the question asked.. But no matter. As there is absolutely nothing wrong per se in putting in 10 scores in 2 weeks I'll adapt the question to suit that situation. What could be determined "out of the ordinary" from looking at 10 sets of 18 hole by hole scores whether on a bit of cardboard or on a screen? And here's a helfpul hint: golf scores even amongst the world's best can vary enormously from round to round.

 

[Dunesman]

You don't need 10 cards under this system....

I went from 18.2 to 20.1 in three cards, in 10 days last summer. My golf level had not changed. Both handicaps cannot have been correct. My golf level wasnt declining (the following card 5 days later cut me back to 19.7!).
I was either playing off the wrong handicap when off the 18, or the 20. There cannot be two truths. Thats one of the major WHS flaws.

 

[Colin L]

I went from 18.2 to 20.1 in three cards, in 10 days last summer. My golf level had not changed. Both handicaps cannot have been correct. My golf level wasnt declining (the following card 5 days later cut me back to 19.7!).
I was either playing off the wrong handicap when off the 18, or the 20. There cannot be two truths. Thats one of the major WHS flaws.

Sad to say, but that hints at a rather poor grasp of how WHS works. Your "golf level" had manifestly changed as a result of variations in the average of your best 8 as your last 20 scores moved along, variations that you should expect, knowing the nature of our game. Your subjective view that your "golf level had not changed' has no validity whatsoever.

You also need to take Course Handicaps into account. For instance, the move in your Handicap index back from 20.1 to 19.7 would make no difference to your course handicap on three out of the four measured courses at my club. The conversion to course handicaps does a certain amount of smoothing out of the fluctuations in your handicap index.

 

[AussieKB]

HS works if you have a high handicap more chance to win, and that is a fact Jack,
as a lot of people know, hence the handicap manipulators.

 

[rulie]

When someone puts 10 cards in two weeks after winning the comp and ends up on his original handicap.

Some numbers would help quantify/understand this - what was his handicap index for the comp and what was his original handicap?

 

[rulie]

I went from 18.2 to 20.1 in three cards, in 10 days last summer. My golf level had not changed. Both handicaps cannot have been correct. My golf level wasnt declining (the following card 5 days later cut me back to 19.7!).
I was either playing off the wrong handicap when off the 18, or the 20. There cannot be two truths. Thats one of the major WHS flaws.

Those three cards replaced the three oldest cards in your last 20 (if you had 20). The difference between the three newest scores and the three oldest scores and the 14 scores in between those resulted in the change. It's just math, doesn't mean it's nefarious.

 

[IanM]

Oh yes it is, oh no it isn't.

Approaching 1600 post, still panto season!

 

[AussieKB]

I love how my handicap is decided by something that happened 20 rounds ago......