They Exist!

[Deleted member 15344]

between them they have done alot of damage to big prize comps over the last three years.
as for the css. even when it was plus 3, it only gives a cut of an additional 1.2. not much when you're off 20. sometimes Phil you have to see past your usual "black and white". most people are not like you and see the Morrell injustice of this practice. myself and many other no longer play in the club champs because of this.

If they have done a "lot of damage" over the last three years and it's in a Qualfying Comp then they would get the HC changes to reflect that "lot of damage"

The clear difference with what Gary has posted and what happens with various people around is doing the damage in "Non Q" comps where they can win big prizes but keep their HC still high - they also play in Qualifiers but look for the .1 back to manipulate the HC to as high as they can

What your guys appear to be doing is - practising hard , then entering comps and im guessing they are winning them ? So if they are winning them with scores that are way below what their HC is then the system will adjust those HC automatically anyway.

Unless your comp committee are not running the comps correctly which wouldn't be the first time ( was it giving everyone the same score on a hole that was closed yet still putting it through as a qualifier? )

 

[Deleted member 17920]

They have both been given 3.5 shot cut - and it seems to me to because of results in non qualifying team comps ?

Something does seem right

Phil,

Are you missing the point in this all.

They may not be breaking any rules but THEY are playing the system very nicely and going to play in other events that are not qualifiers and winning very easily.

Personally I think its poor form from anyone who is playing in open comps and non qualifiers from dodgy handicaps and just cleaning up.

 

[Soft hands]

At times it must be hard for the handicap committee to decide who is cheating at time, obviously it looks like these two have manipulated their handicaps.

But you have my dad played every comp nearly this season, barely a reduction and won two of the 4 Matchplay competitions (one is a doubles) though. We're now on a shortened course and he's regularly above 40 points and picking up prize money.

He's no bandit but it's one of the reasons I feel we should have a winter handicap too

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Phil,

Are you missing the point in this all.

They may not be breaking any rules but THEY are playing the system very nicely and going to play in other events that are not qualifiers and winning very easily.

Personally I think its poor form from anyone who is playing in open comps and non qualifiers from dodgy handicaps and just cleaning up.

I fully understand what has happened at Gary's place - hence why I said they should be banning them from comps and speaking to the EGU about removing their HC

 

[Fyldewhite]

Phil,

Are you missing the point in this all.

They may not be breaking any rules but THEY are playing the system very nicely and going to play in other events that are not qualifiers and winning very easily.

Personally I think its poor form from anyone who is playing in open comps and non qualifiers from dodgy handicaps and just cleaning up.

They are breaking the rules. CONGU require every player to try to post the best score possible in all qualifying comps. I don't think, on the evidence presented that the first player is doing that (less so with the second). In the disciplinary process the proof required is only "the balance of probability". The longer such a pattern of play goes on, the more improbable the statistical likelihood gets that it is genuine and the easier it is to ban the players concerned. Needs a strong committee/chairman though.

 

[Region3]

They are breaking the rules. CONGU require every player to try to post the best score possible in all qualifying comps. I don't think, on the evidence presented that the first player is doing that (less so with the second). In the disciplinary process the proof required is only "the balance of probability". The longer such a pattern of play goes on, the more improbable the statistical likelihood gets that it is genuine and the easier it is to ban the players concerned. Needs a strong committee/chairman though.

I'm not sure why - maybe to prevent a riot - but a competition was entered on the system a few weeks ago then taken down again the next day.

It was an individual stableford off the yellows in dreadful conditions which the second guy won with 44pts (no blobs, gross 78 off 14). Second place had 36pts.

 

[power fade]

In my club its only winter and team match comps that dont count towards your handicap....the club discussed have done the right thing but if they made all comps counters they wouldnt have to.

 

[Fyldewhite]

I'm not sure why - maybe to prevent a riot - but a competition was entered on the system a few weeks ago then taken down again the next day.

It was an individual stableford off the yellows in dreadful conditions which the second guy won with 44pts (no blobs, gross 78 off 14). Second place had 36pts.

Sounds like your committee need to get a grip. All I meant was that the record of the first player in my view is more suspicious than the second. Not saying I don't suspect the second guy is also up to no good, just that from the record it's harder to be sure. It would need further evidence.......which appears to be there in abundance!!

 

[Region3]

Sounds like your committee need to get a grip. All I meant was that the record of the first player in my view is more suspicious than the second. Not saying I don't suspect the second guy is also up to no good, just that from the record it's harder to be sure. It would need further evidence.......which appears to be there in abundance!!

Yes, sorry I didn't mean it to sound like I was rubbishing your post. More just my way of saying they're both up to it and the second guy is way better than 14.

 

[Region3]

In my club its only winter and team match comps that dont count towards your handicap....the club discussed have done the right thing but if they made all comps counters they wouldnt have to.

Only 4 of the 20 NQ comps listed could have been made qualifying. The rest were BB/Team.

 

[rksquire]

There is a body of evidence here, but I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the name and shame - could it not have been done anecdotally? There also isn't any right to reply for the individuals actually named - may be different if they are posters?

I've done nothing wrong (honest guv!) but I still wouldn't be happy with my Masters Scorecard being publicly linked (and I do accept it is available but there's no way I would have stumbled upon it) scrutinized without being able to give an account of myself.

This is not to say I don't agree with the general sentiments presented, it's just a bit of unease.

 

[Fyldewhite]

Yes, sorry I didn't mean it to sound like I was rubbishing your post. More just my way of saying they're both up to it and the second guy is way better than 14.

:thup:

 

[NorfolkShaun]

Our place changed the rule on non qualifiers this year to a minimum of 5 qualifying events to be able to enter.

We had a number of people who would only compete in the minimum then play rather well as soon as a non qual came about.

 

[Old Skier]

No. Hdid is very open. Sign in and you can see all sorts of data from thousands of clubs. Its just not as nicely presented as the ops system

You will only see results and handicaps. Unless you have a linked friend on HDID you will not be able to see a complete playing history like you can when you go to the link.

 

[Old Skier]

I'm not sure why - maybe to prevent a riot - but a competition was entered on the system a few weeks ago then taken down again the next day.

Something very strange going on here. Why . My first Q was,was it a qualifier next has this happened before.

 

[Old Skier]

Can anyone who has access to this system in any club that uses it have full access to another players full playing record.

 

[Region3]

Something very strange going on here. Why . My first Q was,was it a qualifier next has this happened before.

Not happened before that I know of, but then if I don't look at the results I wouldn't know it wasn't there. I just happened to look at this one at the right time.

No, it wasn't a qualifier.

Can anyone who has access to this system in any club that uses it have full access to another players full playing record.

Some clubs require a password to access it and some don't. We're obviously the latter, but I've never understood the need to password protect stuff like this anyway.
After all, it's only handicaps and competition results. It's not like there's any personal information on there.

I don't know if it's just our club or not, but it's like a rolling 9-12 months. Every now and then the oldest stuff drops off so you can never see your complete playing record.

 

[hovis]

Some clubs require a password to access it and some don't. We're obviously the latter, but I've never understood the need to password protect stuff like this anyway.
After all, it's only handicaps and competition results. It's not like there's any personal information on there.

i agree. why do scores and handicap need to be private. it would only protect this type of person

 

[Fyldewhite]

Can anyone who has access to this system in any club that uses it have full access to another players full playing record.

In a nutshell, yes, by default. As with most platforms it's pretty configurable and it's up to the club how they administer it. For example, it's possible to show a membership number rather than name or it can be configured to use individual passwords. I guess most leave it as default.

 

[Old Skier]

I still find iut strange that you can see a full playing record and history but I am not up to scratch on that particular system. Does it also show the CDH No?