Official WHS Survey

[D-S]

Seeing a difference between GP cards handicap and competitive cards handicap doesn't mean they think these people are cheating. They are suggesting that it's easier to play well when doing a GP score, aren't they?

No, the reason they introduced the new policy for elite competitions was that they believed and gave evidence of players seemingly manipulating their handicaps / cheating by entering extremely low GP scores which were entirely at odds with their demonstrated ability in competitions. The policy is to ensure that their handicap accurately reflected their ability in competitive scenarios and their competitions weren't sullied by the amateur version of a Maurice Flitcroft (pre WHS).

Quote from EG "
“We implemented it because we’d had enquiries from people about perceived manipulation of handicaps – not only players but also from some of our counties,” he said.

“Parents were concerned other players were gaining an advantage by submitting general play scores.”

 

[The Fader]

I don't have direct experience as I don't look after the juniors in my club. I talk to a few older ones and the organisers. The organisers say it's more difficult, certainly to pick the scratch teams, since WHS. They need to come up with creative solutions to that and they are volunteers so not fair on them. The low guys who are old enough to remember UHS are the most scathing towards WHS. The general consensus is that they have nothing to play for once they move on from juniors.

So, yes, I guess no need to ask. Hopefully this experiment is not going to ruin a generation of young golfers.

Whataboutery abounds yet again.

At least your brother in arms BB has tried to provide some data not just generalisations..

Most of your postings cover second hand hearsay. This person says this, a bloke I met thought the other etc......

We get it - you hate WHS and its responsible for all golfing ills. Now it's ruining golf for a new generation. Talk about over exaggeration.

And just why is picking a team so difficult with WHS?

Ultimately each player has handicap, same as UHS, just calculated differently. The team manager can either pick on strict handicap order or choose to look at current form. And actually WHS for good or bad gives a better guide. Unless of course these youngsters are getting ahead of the game and manipulating their handicaps early in their golfing journey??

 

[Deleted member 36483]

No, the reason they introduced the new policy for elite competitions was that they believed and gave evidence of players seemingly manipulating their handicaps / cheating by entering extremely low GP scores which were entirely at odds with their demonstrated ability in competitions. The policy is to ensure that their handicap accurately reflected their ability in competitive scenarios and their competitions weren't sullied by the amateur version of a Maurice Flitcroft (pre WHS).

Quote from EG "
“We implemented it because we’d had enquiries from people about perceived manipulation of handicaps – not only players but also from some of our counties,” he said.

“Parents were concerned other players were gaining an advantage by submitting general play scores.”

This is a matter of interpretation. If you put in a GP card you are not under competition pressure and that may well suit some players better than others. If you know you are one of those it suits then you are manipulating your handicap by doing a GP card I guess. What a system we now have, some people are ok with an approach to entering scores, but others not.

Surely a blanket 'no GP cards' is the better approach?

 

[Dunesman]

The procedure itself may be perfectly fine. But they made the change, without foreseeing the collateral damage outside the tiny minority they applied it to in elite golf.

1. It was an acknowledgement that handicaps had a credibility/honesty/manipulability under WHS that did not exist before. But it wasnt just plus golfers qualifying for the English Amateur that were concerned about this new vulnerability, it was wider hacker amateur golf - for whom the handicap actually matters IN the competition, and not just for the getting into it. Handicap confidence matters even more for us than it does for those playing scratch tournaments.

2. They implemented an extra control gate just for THEIR tournaments. With no same or equivalent check on the handicap profile of the rest of us. The 99.999%, who are the real players of handicap golf, and for whom without confidence in the handicap process, the house of cards falls. A let them eat cake message.

The bottom line is any security they brought to their tournaments has caused bad bad optics for WHS so early in its launch.

 

[D-S]

This is a matter of interpretation. If you put in a GP card you are not under competition pressure and that may well suit some players better than others. If you know you are one of those it suits then you are manipulating your handicap by doing a GP card I guess. What a system we now have, some people are ok with an approach to entering scores, but others not.

Surely a blanket 'no GP cards' is the better approach?

So UHS had this wrong as well?

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Whataboutery abounds yet again.

At least your brother in arms BB has tried to provide some data not just generalisations..

Most of your postings cover second hand hearsay. This person says this, a bloke I met thought the other etc......

We get it - you hate WHS and its responsible for all golfing ills. Now it's ruining golf for a new generation. Talk about over exaggeration.

And just why is picking a team so difficult with WHS?

Ultimately each player has handicap, same as UHS, just calculated differently. The team manager can either pick on strict handicap order or choose to look at current form. And actually WHS for good or bad gives a better guide. Unless of course these youngsters are getting ahead of the game and manipulating their handicaps early in their golfing journey??

Yes, my comments are related to my experience and talking to others. I came through the system from the age of 9 and it was a system that sustained my interest and gave me a good golfing life.

The world has changed since then and getting young people into golf can be challenging. Nevertheless, once they do get into the game the ladder of success and enjoyment didn't need a redesign. It was working just fine.

All I'm saying is that redesigning the fundamental system that underpins our game was a risk, and I don't see an improvement. I hope I'm wrong but that's how I see it.

 

[D-S]

This is a matter of interpretation. If you put in a GP card you are not under competition pressure and that may well suit some players better than others. If you know you are one of those it suits then you are manipulating your handicap by doing a GP card I guess. What a system we now have, some people are ok with an approach to entering scores, but others not.

Surely a blanket 'no GP cards' is the better approach?

This is exactly why the survey will not result in any key changes to WHS.

No one in the US for example would or could countenance any such move as this, in essence, would mean the end of any sort of handicap system at all.

Suggestions like this would be dismissed immediately.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

So UHS had this wrong as well?

I can safely say that I don't know of anyone who ever entered a general play card under UHS. Once someone had entered their 3 cards and been assessed for their first handicap then competition cards were the only scores entered. There may have been an option to enter GP scores but I believe it was an exception rather than the rule and certainly not happening at the elite level.

 

[D-S]

I can safely say that I don't know of anyone who ever entered a general play card under UHS. Once someone had entered their 3 cards and been assessed for their first handicap then competition cards were the only scores entered. There may have been an option to enter GP scores but I believe it was an exception rather than the rule and certainly not happening at the elite level.

So I can safely say that your experience of UHS does not accurately reflect everyone else’s.

 

[The Fader]

Yes, my comments are related to my experience and talking to others. I came through the system from the age of 9 and it was a system that sustained my interest and gave me a good golfing life.

The world has changed since then and getting young people into golf can be challenging. Nevertheless, once they do get into the game the ladder of success and enjoyment didn't need a redesign. It was working just fine.

All I'm saying is that redesigning the fundamental system that underpins our game was a risk, and I don't see an improvement. I hope I'm wrong but that's how I see it.

And your answer to my question about what's the difficulty picking teams is.....?

 

[wjemather]

...
2. They implemented an extra control gate just for THEIR tournaments...

Yes, because they run their tournaments; they do not run anyone else's.

2. (cont.) With no same or equivalent check on the handicap profile of the rest of us. The 99.999%, who are the real players of handicap golf, and for whom without confidence in the handicap process, the house of cards falls. A let them eat cake message.

The bottom line is any security they brought to their tournaments has caused bad bad optics for WHS so early in its launch.

Competition committees are free to implement the same (or similar) policies through their own terms of competition. However, club competitions should not need such terms because the club handicap committee has first-hand knowledge of their members, and should already be regularly monitoring the reports that provide the same information as being reviewed by EG's elite event policy, and taking appropriate action when necessary.

WHS detractors will spin their own tale and make out like the house is falling down, but the policy is little more than a security net to catch miscreants that have not (yet) been caught by their handicap committee.

 

[Dunesman]

This is exactly why the survey will not result in any key changes to WHS.

No one in the US for example would or could countenance any such move as this, in essence, would mean the end of any sort of handicap system at all.

Suggestions like this would be dismissed immediately.

Why not a change to the .95 factor ?
Already catered for in WHS, just hobbled locally.
The dont need a survey to crunch tge numbers.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

So I can safely say that your experience of UHS does not accurately reflect everyone else’s.

Apparently so, assuming you are speaking for everyone else.

 

[Dunesman]

Yes, because they run their tournaments; they do not run anyone else's.


Competition committees are free to implement the same (or similar) policies through their own terms of competition. However, club competitions should not need such terms because the club handicap committee has first-hand knowledge of their members, and should already be regularly monitoring the reports that provide the same information as being reviewed by EG's elite event policy, and taking appropriate action when necessary.

WHS detractors will spin their own tale and make out like the house is falling down, but the policy is little more than a security net to catch miscreants that have not (yet) been caught by their handicap committee.

While they will probably never hear of it even when implemented so will be none the wiser, they dont allow in theory anyway, clubs to modify the terms of their competitions and use a factor such as 0.93 or 0.9 for singles competitions. Again, a message of, we will modify as we see fit for our tournaments, but forbid you to modify the terms of yours.
Without arguing the merits or otherwise of the actual measures, I am sure you would agree that their mixed messaging is coming across all wrong.

 

[wjemather]

While they will probably never hear of it even when implemented so will be none the wiser, they dont allow in theory anyway, clubs to modify the terms of their competitions and use a factor such as 0.93 or 0.9 for singles competitions. Again, a message of, we will modify as we see fit for our tournaments, but forbid you to modify the terms of yours.
Without arguing the merits or otherwise of the actual measures, I am sure you would agree that their mixed messaging is coming across all wrong.

The message from EG is just the opposite. They are actively encouraging clubs to create and amend their own terms of competition. However, there are restrictions in certain areas as to what can be in those ToCs. For example: they cannot be discriminatory; they can require competition scores but cannot restrict GP scores; appendix C allowances are mandatory; etc.

Unfortunately, people are making judgements based on their own lack of knowledge and/or misunderstanding of the applicable rules, guidance and policies - that is not mixed messaging from EG at all.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

And your answer to my question about what's the difficulty picking teams is.....?

Pretty obvious!

 

[Backache]

. For example: they cannot be discriminatory; they can require competition scores but cannot restrict GP scores; appendix C allowances are mandatory; etc.

So they cannot discriminate against the area where cheating is most likely.
Talk about a dystopian system George Orwell would love it.

 

[D-S]

Apparently so, assuming you are speaking for everyone else.

Nope, I’m just basing my comment on my own experience and that experience is at odds with yours so therefore your experience of WHS does not reflect everyone else’s - one (certainly) or perhaps many disagree with you.

 

[D-S]

Why not a change to the .95 factor ?
Already catered for in WHS, just hobbled locally.
The dont need a survey to crunch tge numbers.

You are right, EG or CONGU can easily change factors such as handicap allowances, restrict the frequency of GP scores or increase them by introduction of Most Likely Score. However these are not key changes in WHS just the local variations and they can be done easily. My understanding was that the survey was more universal not just a local one and as such major changes to suit just irritations voiced from the UK, I feel, will not come from it.
If it was just an EG survey for example, then local issue changes would be more likely if there wa enough of a ground swell.

 

[Deleted member 36483]

Nope, I’m just basing my comment on my own experience and that experience is at odds with yours so therefore your experience of WHS does not reflect everyone else’s - one (certainly) or perhaps many disagree with you.

You're saying that you disagree I think. There may be others but equally there may be others that have the same experience as mine.