Official WHS Survey

[wjemather]

They have been asked as to what further information they require, they have not responded.

They haven’t been asked to give any specific information about their examination of the players record or their action, a simple acknowledgment would have sufficed - none received.

Their reaction to such a situation is the worst (and most patronising) received from any other ‘club’ and many other clubs have been advised of such situations and have responded promptly and courteously.

Basically their response has been, we don’t believe you but not saying, so far, why.

I've always had a response, even if just an acknowledgement, so haven't shared your experience.
I also didn't find their messages to be particularly patronising, for example:



I guess it depends how you take it. They probably just want more/better evidence before accusing the player of anything untoward. Perhaps they've been caught out with clubs not having good visitor records; who knows.

 

[D-S]

I've always had a response, even if just an acknowledgement, so haven't shared your experience.
I also didn't find their messages to be particularly patronising, for example:

View attachment 55433

I guess it depends how you take it. They probably just want more/better evidence before accusing the player of anything untoward. Perhaps they've been caught out with clubs not having good visitor records; who knows.

Certainly a different response from them that my County has given your club as well as your County, as well as your County has given our County on identical matters. Also as mentioned every other club and County contacted has been courteous and prompt and this is from volunteers not paid staff.

Maybe they should educate the various committed volunteers as to what is required in such, unfortunately frequent, scenarios.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Certainly a different response from them that my County has given your club as well as your County, as well as your County has given our County on identical matters. Also as mentioned every other club and County contacted has been courteous and prompt and this is from volunteers not paid staff.

Maybe they should educate the various committed volunteers as to what is required in such, unfortunately frequent, scenarios.

Looks like we have it in Ireland now. Will be interesting to see if any real uptake as it's not really the same golfing landscape over here, compared to England anyway.

iGolf - friend or foe? - Irish Golfer Magazine

Social media is rarely the place for nuanced discussion, but the initial response to the scheme has largely been negative. So, the question is why?

irishgolfer.ie

Note the author's reference to 'the elephant in the room' being WHS. Widely dispised and regarded as a cheats charter over here as I've already alluded to.

Also Brendan's comment. GI do not have the power that people think and can do nothing but try and adapt the rules a bit but that's failing too.

 

[RichA]

Looks like we have it in Ireland now. Will be interesting to see if any real uptake as it's not really the same golfing landscape over here, compared to England anyway.

iGolf - friend or foe? - Irish Golfer Magazine

Social media is rarely the place for nuanced discussion, but the initial response to the scheme has largely been negative. So, the question is why?

irishgolfer.ie

Note the author's reference to 'the elephant in the room' being WHS. Widely dispised and regarded as a cheats charter over here as I've already alluded to.

Also Brendan's comment. GI do not have the power that people think and can do nothing but try and adapt the rules a bit but that's failing too.

Did you actually read the whole article, which is generally positive towards the scheme and ends with the line, "So, is the iGolf scheme something to be lauded or something to be feared. Everybody will have their own opinion, but ‘bring it on’ is mine."

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Did you actually read the whole article, which is generally positive towards the scheme and ends with the line, "So, is the iGolf scheme something to be lauded or something to be feared. Everybody will have their own opinion, but ‘bring it on’ is mine."

I did read it. What are you suggesting I wonder? Just bringing some extra information to the thread.

Everyone's free to read and take what they want from it.

My comments are simply made to back up my claims about how the WHS is viewed here in Ireland. I think the reader will see how guarded the author is having to be about iGolf which, I think you will agree, suggests he knows that the general opinion of WHS is not good across the clubs and this iGolf is not going to improve that. His attempt to justify it through greater revenue for golf manufacturers etc is weak in my opinion.

iGolf may be exactly what is needed here in Ireland to finally bring this WHS issue to a head.

 

[RichA]

I think the reader will see how guarded the author is having to be about iGolf...

"Everybody will have their own opinion, but ‘bring it on’ is mine" didn't seem especially guarded. He just had the self-awareness to accept that his opinion isn't universally held.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Haven't some clubs refused entries from iGolf folk and players with too many GP scores in their record?

Up the revolution

In Scotland some clubs refuse to accept OpenPlay members at all in their Opens, 100% agree with them

 

[Deleted member 36483]

"Everybody will have their own opinion, but ‘bring it on’ is mine" didn't seem especially guarded. He just had the self-awareness to accept that his opinion isn't universally held.

I think others will read the whole article. You are aware that the author earns his living from the golfing industry?

 

[abjectplop]

If only some clubs don't accept iPlay members, then it follows that some clubs do accept them, so clearly not 100% agreement.

You have an uncanny knack of disproving your own outlandish claims. Bravo.

I think you've misunderstood his post, he's saying he 100% agrees with them.

 

[wjemather]

I think you've misunderstood his post, he's saying he 100% agrees with them.

I see. Thanks.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Even with the errors you made (and the very small sample size), your data proved your outlandish claims to be false - scroll back about 15 pages for a recap.

I've simply chosen not to respond to you because you seem utterly incapable of being civil whenever anyone disagrees with you.

For the third time as you keep posting and running, what was this error?

 

[wjemather]

For the third time as you keep posting and running, what was this error?

See #525 (again).

 

[AussieKB]

I love this thread......
When the supposed World HS came to OZ I told my GM's in England that it would cause conflict,
a shame I was right, I think the R & A have a lot to answer for, the USGA do not give a sh--
as they do not play golf like anywhere else in the world.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

22-Jun: won by a 16 handicapper on countback
10-Aug: won by a 10 handicapper (typo?)

22-Jun: Indeed, 16 handicapper beat the 27 handicapper on countback, and both sections by 4 shots from category 1. I'm not seeing a big win for you there?
10-Aug: yes a typo, still a cat 2 winner so no change there

and that's it? That's the sum of the error? As I said at the time I was balancing a laptop on my knee, I'm quite pleased that's the sum of it really. No wonder you didn't spell out the error

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I love this thread......
When the supposed World HS came to OZ I told my GM's in England that it would cause conflict,
a shame I was right, I think the R & A have a lot to answer for, the USGA do not give a sh--
as they do not play golf like anywhere else in the world.

Been saying the same for some time, they are the world governing body, they let an org that looks after mostly casual golf set the standard for competitive golf, and here we are as a result

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Been saying the same for some time, they are the world governing body, they let an org that looks after mostly casual golf set the standard for competitive golf, and here we are as a result

You can't help but think, why? It's got to be money, that's usually the reason.

Here's a theory, shoot it down if you wish but it's a possibility.

The majority of golf equipment is made in USA. It's over priced and they love to bring out a new version every year. But most long-term golfers know the score. Yes, sometimes you need a new set but no one is fooled by the claims that it's going to help you much, if at all. The newness soon wears off and you're back to that pull hook off the tee despite spending £500+.

However when you're in that honeymoon period of learning the game, improvement comes in fits and starts. Sometimes you even have to get worse before you get better. That experience is quite a surprise to some and therefore you're more likely to believe the claims of a manufacturer that a full fitting will fix your bad shots. I'm afraid it won't but it will probably cost you £1000s in equipment.

So it's great business sense to focus on the improvers.

I can see how WHS has brought more of them, and therefore more revenue for the manufacturers, into the game but I just think they could have done it more elegantly and not broken the core club game.

 

[wjemather]

22-Jun: Indeed, 16 handicapper beat the 27 handicapper on countback, and both sections by 4 shots from category 1. I'm not seeing a big win for you there?
10-Aug: yes a typo, still a cat 2 winner so no change there

and that's it? That's the sum of the error? As I said at the time I was balancing a laptop on my knee, I'm quite pleased that's the sum of it really. No wonder you didn't spell out the error

This is a discussion forum not a contest.

You made numerous claims (to support your anti-WHS stance) that were proved wrong by your own analysis of your own (away) clubs competition results.
I'm not sure why you are still pushing this more than 400 posts later.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

This is a discussion forum not a contest.

You made numerous claims (to support your anti-WHS stance) that were proved wrong by your own analysis of your own (away) clubs competition results.
I'm not sure why you are still pushing this more than 400 posts later.

I made numerous claims, and on one line there was an issue where I gave the win to cat 3, when it was a tie between cat 2 & 3 (and still they smashed the Cat 1s), it was still a win for the high handicappers. The other is a typo. And that invalidates the fact I proved a whole seasons results were badly skewed against low handicaps?

I have no doubt you went through line by line or you wouldn't have found those two, and that is the best you could do?


For those arriving late.....

 

[wjemather]

I made numerous claims, and on one line there was an issue where I gave the win to cat 3, when it was a tie between cat 2 & 3 (and still they smashed the Cat 1s), it was still a win for the high handicappers. The other is a typo. And that invalidates the fact I proved a whole seasons results were badly skewed against low handicaps?

I have no doubt you went through line by line or you wouldn't have found those two, and that is the best you could do?

Given I'd already gone through the results, cross-checking your table took seconds.

Among other things, and contrary to your claims, the results showed:
Division 3 players did not win "almost every" one-round trophy over the last 2 years; they won fewer than half.
Division 1 players did not have no chance of winning; they returned a top 5 score overall in almost every competition, while winning several and losing out on countback in others.
Division 1 players did not win zero trophies over the last 2 years.
There were very few exceptional scores that might be considered unattainable by really low handicappers.
There were no "tough to beat 30 handicappers".
Division 1 is not always by far the largest division.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Given I'd already gone through the results, cross-checking your table took seconds.

Among other things, and contrary to your claims, the results showed:
Division 3 players did not win "almost every" one-round trophy over the last 2 years; they won fewer than half.
Division 1 players did not have no chance of winning; they returned a top 5 score overall in almost every competition, while winning several and losing out on countback in others.
Division 1 players did not win zero trophies over the last 2 years.
There were very few exceptional scores that might be considered unattainable by really low handicappers.
There were no "tough to beat 30 handicappers".
Division 1 is not always by far the largest division.

It doesn't really matter now, does it? Everyone seems to understand the problem with WHS now, don't they?