In essense, he would be carrying out an experiment to find out who is correct, he or the committee. The committee has no grounds to read his mind. They could only accept the scores.
Handicap manipulation - how to address
- Thread starter Teebs
- Start date
Teebs
Newbie
OP here with an update.
As mentioned earlier, the guys in question all had handicap cuts and played their first comp yesterday under their revised/lower handicaps.
Pairs comp, 85% allowance and they came 10th overall with 41 points (comp was won with 44 points).
If they played with their old handicap, they would've scored 48 points and won by 4..
As mentioned earlier, the guys in question all had handicap cuts and played their first comp yesterday under their revised/lower handicaps.
Pairs comp, 85% allowance and they came 10th overall with 41 points (comp was won with 44 points).
If they played with their old handicap, they would've scored 48 points and won by 4..
Imurg
The Grinder Of Pars (Semi Crocked)
OMG...the system works.......
Data based on US handicaps, so not strictly comparable with us, but nevertheless, an interesting article, with data catching in a nutshell, how unfair WHS is .
www.nationalclubgolfer.com
The just-do-categories push is such a poor fix on a fundamentally flawed system. Reminiscent of Taylormade's LoftUp campaign fix for the SLDR fiasco.
What are the chances of YOU beating your handicap the next time you play golf? - National Club Golfer | National Club Golfer
Fascinating figures from the USGA reveal the probabilities of shooting certain scores based on your World Handicap System index
www.nationalclubgolfer.com
The just-do-categories push is such a poor fix on a fundamentally flawed system. Reminiscent of Taylormade's LoftUp campaign fix for the SLDR fiasco.
YandaB
Newbie
I notice that in the BBC article today regarding the interview with England Golf there was this quote below which seems to be very much against the "We will review the difference between GP and Comp cards if there are too many GP Cards" line:
"We reserve the right to be able to review any handicap that has more than four general play scorecards," Tomlinson insisted. "We have denied players entrance to some of our championships because they've had too many general play cards."
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
Didn't this news 'break' some months back? The review may be done by EG for EG's elite tournaments and representative team events
rulefan
Tour Winner
Isn't the EG restriction more specifically about the proportion of GP to Competition cards?
YandaB
Newbie
I'm not sure, my understanding was that a certain number/proportion only kicked off a review. What got people kicked out was supposed to be a significant difference between the two types of scores. Jeremy Tomlinson now appears to be saying something quite different.
This was BBC interview from yesterday that appears to contradict what was said a number of months back.
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
Yeah I read it. I think its poorly framed but its the EG CEO talking about their events, he says "We have denied players entrance to some of our championships..." I took that to mean the announcement they made some time back for EG run elite AM events etc (especially since he used past tense, "we have denied") so I'm guessing it the same thing
____________________________________________
Separately i see he also says ""The R&A are just about to bring out a specification within the system which will identify where they think manipulation's happening,"
My bold, but this may well be the change I heard rumoured a few weeks ago but rather than a WHS change/update etc its being described as 'a specification within the system'
Last edited:
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
Depresses me how there are so many cheats, liars and fraudsters out there…even in golf…and even if they don’t consider themselves to be one so many are willing to act as one when it best suits their own purposes, self-interest and greed.
rulefan
Tour Winner
Wasn't this the case with UHS or any golf handicap system?Data based on US handicaps, so not strictly comparable with us, but nevertheless, an interesting article, with data catching in a nutshell, how unfair WHS is .
What are the chances of YOU beating your handicap the next time you play golf? - National Club Golfer | National Club Golfer
Fascinating figures from the USGA reveal the probabilities of shooting certain scores based on your World Handicap System index
The just-do-categories push is such a poor fix on a fundamentally flawed system. Reminiscent of Taylormade's LoftUp campaign fix for the SLDR fiasco.
The higher the handicap the wider range in scores.
Arthur Wedge
Well-known member
The statement from EG is very telling
They know people are using GP scores to manipulate handicaps and their App has made it easy
They along with many clubs are restricting people into their Opens
They know people are using GP scores to manipulate handicaps and their App has made it easy
They along with many clubs are restricting people into their Opens
D-S
Well-known member
I don’t think any of this is new just a poor explanation.
Back in 2022 I attended an EG workshop where Janes Crampton, EG Championship Chairman, outlined this policy with examples ofthe issues that they had at an eliete level. He cited cases where golfers competition scores were averaging over 3 but were +5 in GP scores, the result allowed them entry to elite events. Their policy introduction was to allow them to trigger a review of the difference between a players GP and Competition scores if they had 4 or more GP scores on their record. If the review found the difference was small then they are allowed to enter the elite competition. This is still the case
It looks as there is a misunderstanding or misquote, as proportion has nothing to do with it or their stated policy.
The last thing on earth EG want or will do would be to reduce the number of GP scores as their funding from Sport England is all to do with increasing participation and the metric is engagement via scores on the portal.
Back in 2022 I attended an EG workshop where Janes Crampton, EG Championship Chairman, outlined this policy with examples ofthe issues that they had at an eliete level. He cited cases where golfers competition scores were averaging over 3 but were +5 in GP scores, the result allowed them entry to elite events. Their policy introduction was to allow them to trigger a review of the difference between a players GP and Competition scores if they had 4 or more GP scores on their record. If the review found the difference was small then they are allowed to enter the elite competition. This is still the case
It looks as there is a misunderstanding or misquote, as proportion has nothing to do with it or their stated policy.
The last thing on earth EG want or will do would be to reduce the number of GP scores as their funding from Sport England is all to do with increasing participation and the metric is engagement via scores on the portal.
wjemather
Well-known member
Indeed it was. This data shows nothing that we didn't already know - see Dean Knuth's website.
Unfortunately, there is almost no useful analysis, so the article is just an invitation for some people to get excited over nothing.
D-S
Well-known member
It would be good if the reports on the portal were better though. If they prompted clubs when players had distinct differences between GP and Comp scores (given enough scores posted) rather than having to export reports and manipulate them. Also I the system generated prompts when a level of of penalty scores or unsatisfactory deleted score intents or when hard/soft cap are reached or who has created scorecards after rounds rather than before.
I think a monthly report with key indicators (such as those above) for Committees pointing them in the right direction would make the job, that is diligently done by some clubs, easier for clubs whose committees don’t have the time, experience , knowledge or motivation. EG should be looking at ways of making volunteers jobs easier and therefore as a whole improve performance.
I think a monthly report with key indicators (such as those above) for Committees pointing them in the right direction would make the job, that is diligently done by some clubs, easier for clubs whose committees don’t have the time, experience , knowledge or motivation. EG should be looking at ways of making volunteers jobs easier and therefore as a whole improve performance.
wjemather
Well-known member
My understanding is that improving tools for handicap committees, particularly with regards to manipulation, is one of the things that is being focussed on.
D-S
Well-known member
I really hope so, however the recent seminar was all about telling committees about all the existing reports that they should be regularly reviewing and exporting and manipulating the data. This appeared to be the message that tools were there and needed to be used. Having spoken to some clubs afterwards they were slightly overwhelmed about the increased workload over what they thought they should be doing. There was nothing proactive or any improved or new reports or analysis or, sadly, promises of any more help.
Even doing something simple like making it impossible to download a scorecard on the App after sunset at the location would help, as would the originally promised geolocation of the attester.
wjemather
Well-known member
Too many remain unclear about exactly what they should be looking at and how often, but more problematic is not having the skills to analyse the data & interpret the reports in any useful way.
I understand attester geo-location is coming soon, along with same day & attestation.
SwingsitlikeHogan
Major Champion
…and (as I have mentioned elsewhere previously) we are excluding GP cards submitted away from home when assessing a members record in meeting requirements for entry into any board comps (and we have many). Not an answer to the bigger problem but probably all we can do as a club - as well as having very diligent and questioning handicap and comp secretaries.
LincolnShep
Head Pro
If EG (or clubs on instruction from EG) begin looking at differences between comp scores and general play scores then I'm likely to pop up on some report somewhere.
I've got 26 rounds on my handicap record in the last 12 months, 10 comps and 16 general play. The average score differential of the comp rounds is 27.5, the average of the general play rounds is only 20.8 - nearly seven shots different.
Am I going to be accused of artificially keeping a vanity handicap (of 17!)?
I've got 26 rounds on my handicap record in the last 12 months, 10 comps and 16 general play. The average score differential of the comp rounds is 27.5, the average of the general play rounds is only 20.8 - nearly seven shots different.
Am I going to be accused of artificially keeping a vanity handicap (of 17!)?
