Official WHS Survey

[RichA]

Cheats are going to cheat whatever happens. WHS or any other system can't stop them doing good good gimmes when they're playing together or kicking their ball out of a bad lie in a comp when nobody's watching.
Many of these problems are about the integrity of the players, not the way that the database analyses the spreadsheet.

 

[Springveldt]

Tell me about it .my games shocking atm.
7 hcap I’m more likley to shoot 89 not 79.
But I had 5 bad scores coming off so it hasn’t moved one iota.
That’s about to change with four good scores.
I’ll be dangerous off 12

Enjoy the pro shop credit coming your way!

 

[Backache]

Cheats are going to cheat whatever happens.

Numerous studies in other walks of life suggest this is not actually true to a large extent. Dishonesty is far more frequent when it becomes easier to be dishonest.

 

[RichA]

Numerous studies in other walks of life suggest this is not actually true to a large extent. Dishonesty is far more frequent when it becomes easier to be dishonest.

Hence the dwindling prison population now that we have so much CCTV and forensic science.

 

[clubchamp98]

Hence the dwindling prison population now that we have so much CCTV and forensic science.

But no coppers to arrest them.

 

[NearHull]

I don't necessarily mind WHS - I was off 5.5 prior to it's introduction, i'm now off 4.1 which gets me 6 shots at my course. I haven't fluctuated much and it probably represents my golf well.

Some quick fire observations about it;

• Caused havoc with Opens, lots of vanity handicaps
• Several instances of people using GP cards to knock a good score off, or increase handicap prior to matches
• I'm not interested in general play cards - haven’t submitted one and will not submit one.
• I feel sorry for the super low golfers - who spent years under old system grinding to +3 or +4… and a bad patch of form has them back closer to scratch.

Agreed that this system is reflective of form, not ability. I had some putting yips, but my all round game was improving. I went from 4 to 6, and everyone who played with me said 6 was a bit silly. Needless to say, I won the recent medal as I’ve resolved my putting woes and therefore 6 is not reflective of my ability but my form.

Primarily though, I wish the app did a bit more.
For example;

Select the format (medal, individual matchplay, 4BBB matchplay)

Select the course

Select handicaps of players, or even enter the players (as you can already search for people, using that functionality)

Then the app calculate and output the shots…

At the moment, it feels like… Lookup everyone’s index, use the chart, is it 90%, 95%, no one knows… often feels like fag packet maths on the 1st tee as we try to establish the shots!

We created a course Playing Handicap Calculater that can be downloaded to your phone. You input your HI,select the tee colour then the format and it gives you the machine calculated Playing Handicap.

 

[clubchamp98]

Cheats are going to cheat whatever happens. WHS or any other system can't stop them doing good good gimmes when they're playing together or kicking their ball out of a bad lie in a comp when nobody's watching.
Many of these problems are about the integrity of the players, not the way that the database analyses the spreadsheet.

This is true.
But why put a system in that makes it easier for them.?
At least to do them things they have to actually play.

 

[RichA]

This is true.
But why put a system in that makes it easier for them.?
At least to do them things they have to actually play.

From people's comments I get the impression that this system makes it easier to identify the cheats. Or at least point fingers and discuss them without actually confronting or reporting them.

 

[D-S]

From people's comments I get the impression that this system makes it easier to identify the cheats. Or at least point fingers and discuss them without actually confronting or reporting them.

Too true, although it depends on the competence, knowledge and diligence of Club Handicap Committees which is wildly variable and is surprising which ones are good and which ones aren’t.
It doesn’t split down ‘well run traditional member clubs’ vs ‘pay and play proprietary club’ lines, it’s almost solely down to the people who choose to be involved or not.

 

[clubchamp98]

From people's comments I get the impression that this system makes it easier to identify the cheats. Or at least point fingers and discuss them without actually confronting or reporting them.

How can you accuse someone of cheating for doing what the system wants you to.

Snitch. “Do you know he’s put five GP cards in this week”

Comittiee. “ That’s what your supposed to do what’s your point”?

And we were assured that Comittiee workload would not rise.

 

[RichA]

How can you accuse someone of cheating for doing what the system wants you to.

Snitch. “Do you know he’s put five GP cards in this week”

Comittiee. “ That’s what your supposed to do what’s your point”?

And we were assured that Comittiee workload would not rise.

Do you not read the forum?

 

[clubchamp98]

Do you not read the forum?

Unfortunately yes but it hasn’t sorted anything.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Irrelevant, really, for the purpose of the survey. But that's why you're allowed to give your answers. Sorry I didn't ask you what I should put before I entered my answers

That aside, I'm interested to know why you think course ratings are a flaw. Do you mean their presence, or their implementation?

I didn't say they were a flaw, I said they were flawed, very badly

To your first point, again, "you never played under UHS" but you said you didn't see an issue, well you would if you had, see? And that was the point you made, I'm not talking about how you responded to the survey per se, just your logic on your posts

 

[sjw]

I didn't say they were a flaw, I said they were flawed, very badly

To your first point, again, "you never played under UHS" but you said you didn't see an issue, well you would if you had, see? And that was the point you made, I'm not talking about how you responded to the survey per se, just your logic on your posts

I'd suggest reading your post back

 

[2blue]

Completed & a 90% positive return.
WHS has been very well received at our Club & particularly for those folk who play at other Clubs that have much tougher courses where they can now compete more evenly. It's a no brainer!!

 

[Deleted member 30522]

I'd suggest reading your post back

OK, this is clearly difficult for someone who is trying to compare a system that he didn't ever see with a new one, the flaw in SSS were the ratings were almost wholly based on length, with other factors tweaking that score by not nearly enough. An adjuster to par is obviously essential, par is no guide to how hard a course is, but it's been done very badly since SSS was introduced

 

[sjw]

OK, this is clearly difficult for someone who is trying to compare a system that he didn't ever see with a new one, the flaw in SSS were the ratings were almost wholly based on length, with other factors tweaking that score by not nearly enough. An adjuster to par is obviously essential, par is no guide to how hard a course is, but it's been done very badly since SSS was introduced

Appreciate you finally answering my original question.

Bored now.

 

[IanM]

It facilitates the wrong behaviours.

Arrived at the course yesterday. Blowing a gale. Ooh, says my buddy. I'll put a GP card in as I need to get a few back next month's Opens!!

He didn't break 100. Most of his gp cards are over 100. He's broken 90 in virtually every Open Comp he's played this year. Maybe he tries harder.

 

[rulefan]

OK, this is clearly difficult for someone who is trying to compare a system that he didn't ever see with a new one, the flaw in SSS were the ratings were almost wholly based on length, with other factors tweaking that score by not nearly enough. An adjuster to par is obviously essential, par is no guide to how hard a course is, but it's been done very badly since SSS was introduced

SSS pre-dated the USGA CR system and was very similar but not as detailed. The main difference being that it was only a rating based on the scratch player whose primary strength is length. There was no concept of bogey rating and Slope.
Many years ago CONGU (with exception of the EGU (ie England MEN)) switched to the USGA rating and used the rounded CR as the SSS.
Just prior to and anticipation of WHS (and under pressure by England women who had merged with the EGU to form England Golf), EG adopted the USGA rating system

 

[chrisd]

I did the survey, and was chatting at pre match lunch with a fellow team vet who travels, and plays, in the lower handicap end of the game. We both filled in the survey with plenty of negative comments. He didn't like people putting in lots of "vanity cards" with low scores when it's obvious that they really can't play to their handicap. Also, players putting in a high number of high scores so that their handicaps are blatantly false so that they can win at other clubs opens.

I find that the new system, which I understand was supposed to reflect your current form is being affected more by the scores that were played at least a year ago. I, like Maninblack don't submit general play cards because most of our casual golf is match play format and I don't see why I'm expected to change our golf just to suit the new system.