WHS abuse

[wjemather]

One of the basis differences between SSs and GPs is that with SSs you had to sign a book before you went out and all cards went via the office before adding to a players record, the club should have been applying a NR to all players not returning their cards. Now with the apps available for GPs all of this can be avoided and players in the know can delete the app sign up if they do not like the round.

I do not know what other clubs do but we no have requirement for cards to be returned to the office when using the app and I doubt that anything would be done with them anyway with over 40 GPs rounds a day being submitted (too much work for the office).

This doesn't happen with committees monitoring deleted intents, and following up invalid reasons with the player concerned.

 

[nickjdavis]

In terms of limiting GP rounds, I guess it is worth consideration if this issue needed to be dealt with. Although, the weakness is that it would effectively punish 99% of honest golfers. For example, it I was to go weeks golf trip to various courses, would be nice to submit scores each day.

I’m not sure limiting the number of general play cards to one per week is going to help overall, I might play 7 times in a week, subbing one card only makes no sense, that card could well be the worst of the 7 or best, but that would effectively change my HCI to something I’m not necessarily playing to.
For me the problem lies with the people who cheat the system.

I get what you are both saying about it being a restriction on "honest golfers" but, the one thing I keep reading over and over again is, about how cheats can manipulate their handicap easily by submitting lots of rounds in a very short space of time to cleanse their last 20 scores. (Whether those scores were as a result of actually playing or "manipulating the technology" is a different issue). Restricting their ability to submit cards would remove this concern....if indeed it is valid/

Before posting I did check my own clubs records to see who the most prolific GP submitters were. I found one guy who had submitted 90 GP cards this year....over the course of the year his index had varied from 22 to 26 (and back) with no real trend....at his peak he was probably submitting 5 cards a week....but more often it was 3 or 4 cards.

Of the other top 4 or 5 GP submitters (around 60 cards) again they were submitting maybe around 3-4 cards per week at the peak and again their handicap varied across the time period by 3 or 4 shots.

None of the players are active in competition golf.... their entire record is GP....there has been no obvious trend in their indexes to suggest any sort of manipulation.

My suggestion would be unfair on these golfers, no doubt about it. But if there is a problem with players cleansing their records, as seems to be the opinion of many, then something needs to be done.

 

[AussieKB]

In OZ we play all year round, I put through over 120 cards a year with ease as most of my friends do.....
our handicaps move no more then 4 shots on average, depending on our highs and lows, but we do see
and know of a lot of people who manipulate there handicap, and under this system it is very easy.

 

[IanM]

Just to pick up on 2/3 points...

There was substantial "stakeholder engagement", much of it conducted through local authorities, including focus groups and many public surveys/questionnaires throughout the process.

In the run-up to transition, the unions distributed vast quantities of guidance which included cultural/behavioural differences. This material was redistributed by counties and clubs to their members. Two years on, it remains highly visible at many clubs.

The system facilitates submission of scores from any rated course in the world, including 10 miles away from your home, and did so from day 1. Requiring fully integrated software would have been an unreasonable and unnecessary hurdle that would have delayed implementation by years.


P.S. The R&A and USGA don't understand golf?

Pleased to hear it. Although I've yet to meet a golfer who attended anything of that sort. I also didn't see the "vast quantities of guidance " you refer to.

I tested this with our county rep who was equally bemused. Most of what we got was pretty superficial. I learned more from chat on here than any official channel

As to your final point, maybe some of their actions might lead you to think that if they understand golf, they don't understand golfers.

Having said that... matchplay cards for handicap? Mmm, maybe they are losing their grip on reality?

 

[nickjdavis]

In the run-up to transition, the unions distributed vast quantities of guidance which included cultural/behavioural differences. This material was redistributed by counties and clubs to their members. Two years on, it remains highly visible at many clubs.

Pleased to hear it. Although I've yet to meet a golfer who attended anything of that sort. I also didn't see the "vast quantities of guidance " you refer to.

I attended several of the regional meetings where this material was presented. Many of the issues that commonly appear in these threads were raised by club officials at these meetings. They were largely dismissed as "not likely to be a problem" or "well the system is going to allow different regions to adopt different policies" by the EG authorities. So yes...the cultural/behavioural differences were understood, but my interpretation is that there were problems effectively being "kicked down the road", because they were too difficult to solve at the time when the WHS itself was trying to be implemented.

 

[Backsticks]

Do you not also think the software product is an integral part of whs?

It isnt. It is part of a local regions implementation of WHS.

 

[IanM]

It isnt. It is part of a local regions implementation of WHS.

Yep, that's me talking "user experience" again!! Can't quite quit the day job!

 

[Deleted member 25575]

I get what you are both saying about it being a restriction on "honest golfers" but, the one thing I keep reading over and over again is, about how cheats can manipulate their handicap easily by submitting lots of rounds in a very short space of time to cleanse their last 20 scores. (Whether those scores were as a result of actually playing or "manipulating the technology" is a different issue). Restricting their ability to submit cards would remove this concern....if indeed it is valid/

Before posting I did check my own clubs records to see who the most prolific GP submitters were. I found one guy who had submitted 90 GP cards this year....over the course of the year his index had varied from 22 to 26 (and back) with no real trend....at his peak he was probably submitting 5 cards a week....but more often it was 3 or 4 cards.

Of the other top 4 or 5 GP submitters (around 60 cards) again they were submitting maybe around 3-4 cards per week at the peak and again their handicap varied across the time period by 3 or 4 shots.

None of the players are active in competition golf.... their entire record is GP....there has been no obvious trend in their indexes to suggest any sort of manipulation.

My suggestion would be unfair on these golfers, no doubt about it. But if there is a problem with players cleansing their records, as seems to be the opinion of many, then something needs to be done.

I see what you’re saying, and not disagreeing but wonder if there is a way of stopping the cheating without damaging the people you mentioned above.
HCI moves of more than ~5% upwards or 10% downward in a month raises a flag and these players cards are scrutinised, as you say above you can see what a player has done over the year(s) and a constant quick move in a single direction would warrant a discussion with that person?
If there is a suspicion of foul play, said person needs to play a round with a committee member before they are allowed to enter any further comps. Would that put off the cheats?
Why do people cheat anyway? To get their name up on a board? To win £30 shop credit? To have a vanity handicap which they can’t play to anyway?
It all seems really odd to me

 

[Backsticks]

I’m not sure limiting the number of general play cards to one per week is going to help overall, I might play 7 times in a week, subbing one card only makes no sense, that card could well be the worst of the 7 or best, but that would effectively change my HCI to something I’m not necessarily playing to.
For me the problem lies with the people who cheat the system.

Submitting a card a week makes good sense. It is much better than none. It doesnt matter that you played 6 other times a week.....as long as the submitted round isnt a rigged experiment and only decided after the even. If its registered before you tee off, come score what may, then its still a good sampling to ensure you hc is accurate.

 

[woofers]

...."sod off...we will send you the scores by all means, but you (EG for example) can develop the back end analysis tools".

I think this is what has happened with General Play scores, the IG system allows GP scores to be input and uploaded with no attestation requirement, or other means of verification, it seems that they have developed the “front end” but are relying on clubs to verify the authenticity of rounds played but not using their system. From an earlier post it seems that HowDidIDo are similar.
The club, of course, has the facility to switch off the input of GP scores from ISV Apps and touchscreens, and request that GP scores that would have been input this way to use the EG App which has the attestation requirement, (I know and agree that there are ways to manipulate this, as already pointed out).The EG WHS Platform has reports that can assist with GP cards including download and input times, penalty scores and deleted score intents.

 

[Backsticks]

Can you or anyone provide details of the stakeholder engagement that was conducted before the changes were made? I suspect there was none.

Yes. The changes were made by the representatives of the golfing unions. Thats 100% stakeholder engagement. It was not imposed by an outside, disassociated, authority.

 

[IanM]

Yes. The changes were made by the representatives of the golfing unions. Thats 100% stakeholder engagement. It was not imposed by an outside, disassociated, authority.

Fair enough. Although I might challenge 100% as they are not all the stakeholders.

So, the issue was more implementation than design?

Mind you, I think most golfers just get on with it, blissfully unaware of the chatter on here.

 

[wjemather]

Pleased to hear it. Although I've yet to meet a golfer who attended anything of that sort. I also didn't see the "vast quantities of guidance " you refer to.

I tested this with our county rep who was equally bemused. Most of what we got was pretty superficial. I learned more from chat on here than any official channel

The websites of all the relevant governing bodies were awash with information (and still are, and updated over time). If you truly weren't getting any information through your club/county, it wouldn't have taken much effort to find some.

• https://www.whs.com/
• https://www.randa.org/handicapping
• https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping.html
• https://www.englandgolf.org/world-handicap-system
• https://www.walesgolf.org/world-handicap-system-home/
• https://scottishgolf.org/handicapping-homepage/world-handicap-system/
• https://www.golfireland.ie/handicap-system

 

[Neilds]

Is the problem actually as widespread as some people are making out? I know that no system is perfect and some people, if they are so inclined, will find ways to 'get round' the system but looking at some of the posts you would think that over half of all gofers are cheats and most general play cards are submitted fraudulently. I am sure this isn't the case and some people have been spending too much time listening to gossip in the bar or posts on this forum!

 

[Swango1980]

I get what you are both saying about it being a restriction on "honest golfers" but, the one thing I keep reading over and over again is, about how cheats can manipulate their handicap easily by submitting lots of rounds in a very short space of time to cleanse their last 20 scores. (Whether those scores were as a result of actually playing or "manipulating the technology" is a different issue). Restricting their ability to submit cards would remove this concern....if indeed it is valid/

Before posting I did check my own clubs records to see who the most prolific GP submitters were. I found one guy who had submitted 90 GP cards this year....over the course of the year his index had varied from 22 to 26 (and back) with no real trend....at his peak he was probably submitting 5 cards a week....but more often it was 3 or 4 cards.

Of the other top 4 or 5 GP submitters (around 60 cards) again they were submitting maybe around 3-4 cards per week at the peak and again their handicap varied across the time period by 3 or 4 shots.

None of the players are active in competition golf.... their entire record is GP....there has been no obvious trend in their indexes to suggest any sort of manipulation.

My suggestion would be unfair on these golfers, no doubt about it. But if there is a problem with players cleansing their records, as seems to be the opinion of many, then something needs to be done.

There could be various ways of the system automatically detecting suspicious scoring patterns, hopefully that can be improved over time when this has been researched.

Maybe one potential idea is the ability to set each round as either Competition or General Play. There then might be a way of comparing the scores from each type of round, maybe even working out an estimated Index (not the real Index, just one for evaluation reports) for Competition Rounds only and for General Play rounds only. If the difference is big, this would be reported on a generated list of players this is relevant to. Who knows, perhaps there could be an automated process that in the future, if the difference is very large, the players index might automatically be reduced in competition golf, with a warning to highlight why this is.

 

[Swango1980]

Is the problem actually as widespread as some people are making out? I know that no system is perfect and some people, if they are so inclined, will find ways to 'get round' the system but looking at some of the posts you would think that over half of all gofers are cheats and most general play cards are submitted fraudulently. I am sure this isn't the case and some people have been spending too much time listening to gossip in the bar or posts on this forum!

In many cases, we will never really know how widespread it is. We've obviously heard of some reports on this forum where golfers have been caught. At my own club, we have a society that go out every weekend day if there is no comp on (and they play in the comp if one is on), and there have always been 5 or 6 golfers within that group that are known to put the handbrake on when they know they cannot win the society that day, so they at least get a shot back (they have their own handicap system, but now also submit all scores to WHS).

But, we'll never know how widespread it is, because it is ridiculously difficult to identify. How can any Committee know for sure that a golfer is cheating, or just genuinely having a period of rubbish golf? Unless they are caught red handed not actually playing the round having registered, admitted cheating or putting in false scores, it is tricky.

As has already been explained, any handicap system can be manipulated if a golfer wishes, and are cunning enough to not be obvious about it. However, that does not simply mean all handicap systems are the same. WHS and the tech that comes with it make it significantly easier to manipulate, and for significantly better increases in handicap, compared to pre-WHS.

It only takes one or 2 to do it, and they can completely ruin a competition of 100+ golfers in it by having an unfair advantage. Some of us might be lucky if we are at clubs with regular competitors, where we are confident everyone would be pretty legitimate about handicapping. Others might not be at clubs were this is the case. However, if you are the type playing in Opens, it does bring in a lot of doubt. This was the case pre-WHS anyway, as participants may never been seen at their own club, and thus handicaps way too high. But, now add in the ease at which WHS can be manipulated, and inclusion of igold members with effectively no Committee checks, it adds serious fuel to the fire.

 

[wjemather]

There could be various ways of the system automatically detecting suspicious scoring patterns, hopefully that can be improved over time when this has been researched.

Maybe one potential idea is the ability to set each round as either Competition or General Play. There then might be a way of comparing the scores from each type of round, maybe even working out an estimated Index (not the real Index, just one for evaluation reports) for Competition Rounds only and for General Play rounds only. If the difference is big, this would be reported on a generated list of players this is relevant to. Who knows, perhaps there could be an automated process that in the future, if the difference is very large, the players index might automatically be reduced in competition golf, with a warning to highlight why this is.

The system already does this, and a report is available to handicap committees (for EG at least).

 

[nickjdavis]

There could be various ways of the system automatically detecting suspicious scoring patterns, hopefully that can be improved over time when this has been researched.

Maybe one potential idea is the ability to set each round as either Competition or General Play. There then might be a way of comparing the scores from each type of round, maybe even working out an estimated Index (not the real Index, just one for evaluation reports) for Competition Rounds only and for General Play rounds only. If the difference is big, this would be reported on a generated list of players this is relevant to. Who knows, perhaps there could be an automated process that in the future, if the difference is very large, the players index might automatically be reduced in competition golf, with a warning to highlight why this is.

This is already done. Rounds within a players handicap record are marked as G or C. It is quite easy to manually compare a players GP scores with his Comp scores at a high (averaged) level...what is harder is to then drill down into the detail and extract specific scores....you can get a list of a players GP scores...but it only shows the recorded gross...it doesnt give you the detail of any nett double bogey adjustments. You cannot run a report within the EG portal to pull off a players competition scores.....or indeed a report that will pull off all rounds for a particular player. Even if you could, you would then need some means of analysing the data....importing into Excel...getting the data in a usable format etc etc....most handicap secs skills are limited in this regard.

The data exists in the WHS system....it's just a matter of rather than providing a set of "canned reports" for handicap secs to look at, there needs to be a "bespoke report generator" where users can define their own report and extract information that is useful to them.

 

[Swango1980]

This is already done. Rounds within a players handicap record are marked as G or C. It is quite easy to manually compare a players GP scores with his Comp scores at a high (averaged) level...what is harder is to then drill down into the detail and extract specific scores....you can get a list of a players GP scores...but it only shows the recorded gross...it doesnt give you the detail of any nett double bogey adjustments. You cannot run a report within the EG portal to pull off a players competition scores.....or indeed a report that will pull off all rounds for a particular player. Even if you could, you would then need some means of analysing the data....importing into Excel...getting the data in a usable format etc etc....most handicap secs skills are limited in this regard.

The data exists in the WHS system....it's just a matter of rather than providing a set of "canned reports" for handicap secs to look at, there needs to be a "bespoke report generator" where users can define their own report and extract information that is useful to them.

Well, sounds like a good start at least. Something with a little refinement that could become quite powerful.

 

[nickjdavis]

The system already does this, and a report is available to handicap committees (for EG at least).

It is quite limited though....doesnt really give enough detail to help determine whether a player is swinging the lead....an example of one of the players at my club (for Swango)....