Colin L
Tour Winner
Scottish Golf will be providing a terminal for each club. At the moment it is to be an iPad, but I think it has been pointed out that it is far too small for ease of use.
Supplementary card from away course and who can mark it?
- Thread starter howbow88
- Start date
rulefan
Tour Winner
I think that the specifically designed PSIs from ClubV1 are significantly cheaper (and with larger screens) than iPads
rosecott
Money List Winner
Club Systems, in conjunction with England Golf, are offering discounted PSI units to clubs who do not yet have PSI - the catch being that you have to switch software provider to Club Systems. I don't think the other software providers were too happy about this, and it seemed that the discounted units were not much of a bargain. These are 10-inch touchscreen units which I think will not be big enough.
williamalex1
Money List Winner
rulefan
Tour Winner
I am told we have just done a deal for 22" screens
rosecott
Money List Winner
Well, I hope they let us know before we commit.
Old Skier
Tour Winner
Been to a couple of clubs with the 10" and tbh they are plenty big enough however we seem to have just ordered the 22".
rulefan
Tour Winner
I agree. We have two at the moment.
Jacko_G
Blackballed
Can't wait to see how low some people get when playing "counting" rounds with their mates at any course they chose!!!
A cheats paradise.
A cheats paradise.
isn't that the idea, we all end up with handicaps comparable with our American Cousins....
jim8flog
Journeyman Pro
RE the OP
At the workshop yesterday the Officials doing the presentation were of the opinion that any responsible person can mark the card.
At the workshop yesterday the Officials doing the presentation were of the opinion that any responsible person can mark the card.
Swango1980
Well-known member
It does seem more open to abuse, if you were that way inclined. Probably to move in whichever direction you wanted.
Let's say you had a big handicap competition coming up in August, maybe a Trilby Tour event or a club champs that offers a nett prize. Between now (February) and then, it seems pretty simple to me anyway, that all a golfer need to do is submit a maximum of 20 cards (and maybe not that many depending on your recent playing history) of generally bad scores, and get +5.0 (hard cap) added to their handicap index. They don't even need to submit 100% bad cards. For example, they could still play well and try to win one or 2 competitions between now and August, so long as the other 6-7 scores that make up your best 8 generally a lot worse scores that your best 1 or 2. You could just put that down to being "flash in the pan results" when you put one decent score in along the way.
So, come August, your handicap Index is +5.0 higher. If the slope of the course is a reasonably standard 135, say, that is a course handicap increase of +6.0. So, even if playing handicap is 95%, that is +5.7. So, come that big competition in August, you now have 6 extra shots (12 extra shots if it is the club champs over 2 rounds)
The only argument against the above seems to be either:
1. Players will not do that.
2. Even if player purposely put in bad rounds, it won't matter because they will fall outside their best 8 rounds anyway.
3. If players do do that, then the handicap secretary can adjust their handicap manually back down.
My concerns and responses to the above are:
1. I agree, the vast majority probably won't do that. But, I cannot say 100% of golfers will not do that. I've heard from people on here that at their clubs, some will submit a supplementary card just to get 0.1 back and get an extra shot on their handicap if they were at x.4. Well, if players are willing to do that for a 0.1 increase, surely they'll be licking their lips about WHS. Personally, if I were to submit 4 bad scores next, my handicap will go up over 2 shots based on the spread of my previous scores. So, I could easily work on getting my handicap up rapidly.
2. This is just wrong. Bad rounds will still be part of you last 20 rounds. If they are not in your best 8, there is a fairly high chance that they will push a score into your best 8 that wouldn't have been good enough to be there had they played their hardest to score well for the full round. And, given that players do not usually play near the top of their ability for 40% or rounds (i.e. 8 out of 20 cards that count), then if a player sticks on the brakes as soon as they know they are out of contention, then there WILL be scores in their top 8 that count to handicap, where they have purposely scored higher than they could have achieved). So, this is likely to always favour players who are massively inconsistent. It will be interesting to me to see how consistent golfers, usually low handicappers, will get on in competitions once this system has taken hold. In a large field, will they stand much of a chance if there are quite a few inconsistent golfers competing? I know lower handicappers often do struggle to beat the inconsistent golfer that comes in with 45+ points at the moment, but I'm not convinced WHS will make it any easier for consistent golfers?
3. My example above is purposely an extreme case to make it simple as a demonstration. However, the fact that I have mentioned that a player could still submit 1 or 2 good rounds, as long as the others were a lot worse, already shows it is difficult for a handicap secretary to know whether the player is being devious, or just massively inconsistent but generally playing very very badly. And, even if I could safely put this players handicap back down to where it was without too much argument (apart from the player maybe), at what point does it become obvious. What if their handicap goes up 2, 3, 4 shots etc? At what point is it taking the piss?
If one is NOT a handicap secretary, then maybe they are not overly concerned, because ultimately you don't have to deal with it. You don't have to worry about members complaining and criticising your role because they believe a player has an unfair handicap. I don't really get that too much at the moment, and if players do have concerns about handicaps, the way the current system works usually gives me solid ground in defending a players handicap. If a player is actually being devious, it becomes obvious fairly quickly. I said before, for the example above, the player would need to hand in 60 bad scores in a row to get the 6.0 increase, and they certainly couldn't shoot any good scores along the way, otherwise they'd get a cut and waste a lot of those other bad scores in trying to go up. Firstly, that is a lot of effort that probably makes it completely unfeasible. And, if a player did try it on, by say submitting 5-7 supplementary cards a week of bad scores, it is going to ring alarm bells very quickly. Under WHS, you are ultimately only as good as your last 20 rounds, with the only thing trying to tie you down being the hard cap of 5.0. But, an increase in 5.0 to index, and around 6.0 in course handicap, does seem to be quite a big jump. Difference between 36 points or 42 points for example. And, I'm sure some players could easily get 20 rounds in during a 2-3 month period.
Will I go into this level of concern next week at the WHS meeting. No, because whether we like it or not, it is going to happen. It is a bit like being a remainer and Brexit, just got to get on with it. And, no doubt I will be told not to worry about it by giving the same 3 main responses above. I hope it all works out fine. I've never played with Americans under their handicap system, I've only heard the stories that their handicaps seem to be quite unbelievable at times. To me, it would be a great shame if the WHS system results in the same sort of feeling about our clubs over here, and a general feeling that it is not better than the current system. The only "benefits" seem to be, a higher handicapper will get more shots relative to a low handicapper at higher slope courses (I'm sure low handicappers will enjoy that benefit) and that you can use your handicap at any course and competition in the world (I know literally nobody that will require that, as they don't play competitively abroad)
Rant over, better get back to work
Old Skier
Tour Winner
Makes I laugh, if people want vanity handicaps that's up to them, means they aren't going to win much. It also surprises me how many golfers on this forum seem to know a lot of cheats. If you think people are cheating go through the appropriate channels and report them.
its the couple of bad eggs that are the problem, at the moment it would take them a lot of comps to get a rather high handicap, with the new system they could do it in a matter of weeks. The vanity handicap thing i see the point, but you should be low by winning comps or at least shooting good scores in those, rather than a few dodgy rounds with your mates
Jacko_G
Blackballed
Not sure who the second last sentence is aimed at. I don't know any but have certainly heard rumours and seen elbows being pointed.
Re cheating you cannot accuse anyone or question anyone unless you have proof. A suspicion isn't enough.
Old Skier
Tour Winner
Not pointed at anyone in particular, get the elbow pointers and rumour mongers to put their money where there mouth is, soon shuts them up.
mikejohnchapman
Challenge Tour Pro
You make a lot of good points - many of which I totally agree with.
I actually feel for the handicap secretaries going forward as they are effectively being asked to police the system yet they will have little knowledge of the many of the scores being submitted. The WHS authories rely heavily on the personal integrity of the players not to manipulate the system in the ways you describe. I hope their trust is justified.
rulefan
Tour Winner
1) Cheats will always cheat
2) Markers who allow players to cheat are cheats
3) The major difference from the US is that clubs can control who are acceptable markers.
4) Soft and Hard Caps have been introduced to inter alia help identify cheats
5) There will be more reporting facilities available to h'cap secs to enable them to nip such cheating in the bud.
6) 'Peer Review' means there will be greater access to playing records. Although what that means in practice is not yet clear.
7) I'm not as pessimistic as some
2) Markers who allow players to cheat are cheats
3) The major difference from the US is that clubs can control who are acceptable markers.
4) Soft and Hard Caps have been introduced to inter alia help identify cheats
5) There will be more reporting facilities available to h'cap secs to enable them to nip such cheating in the bud.
6) 'Peer Review' means there will be greater access to playing records. Although what that means in practice is not yet clear.
7) I'm not as pessimistic as some
Swango1980
Well-known member
My response:
1) Cheats will always cheat
I agree. But, in my opinion WHS will give cheats even more ammunition to abuse the system than we have at the moment
2) Markers who allow players to cheat are cheats
I agree. Same as above, but also: Unless the cheat openly admits to cheating, a marker cannot prove that the cheat is putting on the brakes, maybe they are just playing really badly? Maybe their head went down and just got rubbish for last few holes. A marker can identify an actual rule break in most cases, they are usually clear cut. But, are we now saying markers need to be able to determine what is going on in somebody's head?
3) The major difference from the US is that clubs can control who are acceptable markers.
Not sure that will help my concerns above, unless we can say an acceptable marker is a mental health expert of a psychic?
4) Soft and Hard Caps have been introduced to inter alia help identify cheats
Yes, they will certainly stop, say a 5 handicapper becoming a 25 handicapper in 20 rounds. But, 5 shots is still a big jump. Even getting a shot back always seems lovely and relaxing, so getting 2-5 shots back could feel like heaven (if you want a higher handicap)
5) There will be more reporting facilities available to h'cap secs to enable them to nip such cheating in the bud.
I hope so, something like the process that helps during Annual Review for example. But, although these may pick up some obvious trends resulting in handicap changes, I doubt they'll pick up more subtle things like in my example. i.e. has a player gone up 5 shots in 3-6 months because they have just hit a rotten patch of form (and therefore justify the increase), or have they managed to manipulate scores to their advantage along the way? Pretty much impossible to prove, so I can only see the handicap secretary being able to intervene IF there is a routine in WHS that basically says they absolutely must. Otherwise, if they intervene they could get massive grief from the player who insists they just can't hit a ball at the moment. If they don't intervene, all other golfers at the club criticise the handicap secretary for being weak. And God knows what to do if this happens more than once, and trying to be consistent in your decision each time, given players involved will have varying circumstances to consider.
6) 'Peer Review' means there will be greater access to playing records. Although what that means in practice is not yet clear.
Probably see my Answer to 5 above. But, I suspect if handicap secretaries do find they need to really dig deep into playing records, that is just going to be an added headache. Currently, I rarely need to do this. Usually, I only get into this sort of detail during Annual Review, and I did a bit more this year as Seniors annoyingly played most of their summer comps as non-qualifiers, so I needed to look at all the non-qualifying results to see if any players scores jumped out as being very good more often than not, whilst also looking at those that consistently played badly.
7) I'm not as pessimistic as some
I can see that, and I certainly do not criticise you for that in the slightest. No problem with being positive. And, I hope I am being overly pessimistic. Maybe the truth is somewhere in the middle, we'll see. If I was a regular golfer, I think I'd still have my concerns that some playing in competitions could be finding methods to get higher handicaps. But, I'd not have looked into it in much detail at all, so I'd probably be blissfully unaware of many potential issues. But, since researching it, and this forum has been great, more and more questions arise, which then result in more and more concerns. And, most of them may not be to do with ma as a golfer, but me as a handicap secretary. I'm not bothered about learning how to apply a new system, on the face of it it isn't complicated. It is more to do with trying to ensure all golfers can go out and compete without constantly complaining about one or 2 players they thing are getting an unfair advantage
One particular handicap manipulator up here has over the years won multiple winter league rounds to the extent he is off 5 in that now (his handicap is 13) Texas scrambles a MP games in the club he’s a member at no one will now play him in a handicap knock out ( he was off 5) now. The winter league Net comp is already in the bag for him with some gross scores that I would be happy with..
Many have tried to do something about it, but how can you prove they manipulate the system, it took him 60 ish rounds to get where he wanted to be, the new system will be far less.
Guess who the handicap sec is at that club this year at his club
