WHS doesn't work

[wjemather]

EG said that the Expected Score issue was being sorted out via a fix that they were putting in. Plainly this fix that they put in did not cover all courses or all 9 holes, hence when Expected Scores continued not to work at some clubs, resulting in acceptable scores not being able to be uploaded to the system resulting in player’s having and, still having, wrong HIs playing in subsequent competitions, the fix that EG put in plainly hasn’t worked for all clubs.

Per the comms issued by EG, one of the prerequisites is having all F9 and B9 loops available on the WHS Platform - EG have people working through adding them for clubs that didn't input them originally and didn't subsequently request them, but it's obviously not something that can be done quickly and so isn't yet complete.

 

[Slab]

Absolutely ridiculous situation but nothing new.
I've said it for decades..... golf is the only sport that gets harder to win the better you get.

As an aside, would this thread not qualify for the Rules and handicapping section?

​

Aren’t all sports harder to win the better you get?

e.g its harder to win an F1 race than a go-cart race, Harder to win the FA Cup than the johnsons paint trophy, harder to win the Masters than a monthly medal

Only the very very best even get a chance to do the former

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Absolutely ridiculous situation but nothing new.
I've said it for decades..... golf is the only sport that gets harder to win the better you get.

As an aside, would this thread not qualify for the Rules and handicapping section?

​

The only way to make it a fair competition it to scrap handicaps. Then it will be a true meritocracy! Best score wins.

My son beat me by 14 Stableford points on Saturday. But in reality, I beat him by 29 shots.

Handicaps only give the impression that people with differing skill levels are competing on an equal basis.

 

[Swango1980]

Aren’t all sports harder to win the better you get?

e.g its harder to win an F1 race than a go-cart race, Harder to win the FA Cup than the johnsons paint trophy, harder to win the Masters than a monthly medal

Only the very very best even get a chance to do the former

Nope. The better you get, the easier it is to win.

I've very little chance to win lowest gross in our monthly medals. A better scratch golfer has a much greater chance. If Scheffler played in one, he'd be guaranteed the victory.

In your example, it is nothing to do with the better individuals finding it harder to win, which defies logic. You are comparing the quality of the competitions as a whole, and thus the quality of your opponents.

But, even then, winning is simply down to where you stand relative to competitors. Many will struggle for years to win a club competition, while Scheffler looks almost unbeatable at the highest level.

 

[wjemather]

That hasn’t happened to the boy. All diffs are the same as they were prior to his round on Saturday.

His most recent 20 scores are all showing on the WHS Platform with a -2.0 or -3.0 adjustment (due to an earlier ESR).
The true score differential for the 108 was 33.2 ( [108-71.6] * [113/124] ).

 

[Slab]

Nope. The better you get, the easier it is to win.

I've very little chance to win lowest gross in our monthly medals. A better scratch golfer has a much greater chance. If Scheffler played in one, he'd be guaranteed the victory.

In your example, it is nothing to do with the better individuals finding it harder to win, which defies logic. You are comparing the quality of the competitions as a whole, and thus the quality of your opponents.

But, even then, winning is simply down to where you stand relative to competitors. Many will struggle for years to win a club competition, while Scheffler looks almost unbeatable at the highest level.

Yeah that's exactly what I was doing. If a player stays in the 'starter/beginner division' of any sport despite getter better and better, then eventually it must be made harder for them to win or by definition it ceases to be a competition

As you say; if he enters then Scheffler cleans up the medal comp, and ppl would turn up to watch/compete for a week or two. Same if Hamilton chooses to suit up for a go-cart race

But after a few weeks everyone is bored of the procession and they'd both need to give the field a head start of some sort or they'll have no-one to play with

If a scratch or + golfer chooses to compete against a field with lots of lesser ability/28 handicappers week after week, month after month, year after year then that 'head start' is gonna grow and grow up to and maybe beyond its limit (otherwise where's the challenge for either player)

They scratch/+ player might better easing up being the 'big fish' and instead compete against their peers

 

[D-S]

Per the comms issued by EG, one of the prerequisites is having all F9 and B9 loops available on the WHS Platform - EG have people working through adding them for clubs that didn't input them originally and didn't subsequently request them, but it's obviously not something that can be done quickly and so isn't yet complete.

Oh, sorry, I didn't realise that you were not aware that even with courses whose F9 and B9 loops were only added late in the recent process there are still problems.

This is evident with scores from the same group, (same tees, same tee time, same entry method, with the same hole out of play) the addition of the loops only fixed 2 out of 4 scores. This is under investigation with EG. I understand there are some similar cases elsewhere.

 

[IanM]

Why are things put to live, when they don't work?

We know the answer

 

[bobmac]

Nope. The better you get, the easier it is to win.

I've very little chance to win lowest gross in our monthly medals. A better scratch golfer has a much greater chance. If Scheffler played in one, he'd be guaranteed the victory.

I agree in scratch comps if your club has them.
My last club had two....the club champs and the scratch knockout, everything else was net.

 

[Swango1980]

Why are things put to live, when they don't work?

We know the answer

Because it was April Fools Day, so they wanted to live to the name

 

[wjemather]

Oh, sorry, I didn't realise that you were not aware that even with courses whose F9 and B9 loops were only added late in the recent process there are still problems.

This is evident with scores from the same group, (same tees, same tee time, same entry method, with the same hole out of play) the addition of the loops only fixed 2 out of 4 scores. This is under investigation with EG. I understand there are some similar cases elsewhere.

I am aware of other issues but your description lacks sufficient detail for me to comment without just speculating. Perhaps you could give specific examples (via dm)?

 

[D-S]

I am aware of other issues but your description lacks sufficient detail for me to comment without just speculating. Perhaps you could give specific examples (via dm)?

It’s under investigation by EG/DotGolf , I’ll DM you once we are further down the track.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

His most recent 20 scores are all showing on the WHS Platform with a -2.0 or -3.0 adjustment (due to an earlier ESR).
The true score differential for the 108 was 33.2 ( [108-71.6] * [113/124] ).

Ah, that makes sense.

Thanks.

 

[woofers]

As an aside, would this thread not qualify for the Rules and handicapping section?

​

Ah, it probably should but it depends.
The whinge, moan and generally slag off element should stay here.
The learn, understand and fix element should be in the R&H section

 

[rulefan]

Ah, it probably should but it depends.
The whinge, moan and generally slag off element should stay here.
The learn, understand and fix element should be in the R&H section

'Rules of Golf and Handicapping' didn't exist as a combined forum when this thread started.
It was only 'Rules of Golf'

I have asked if it can be moved.

 

[D-S]

Not really. At least one ISV misunderstood that they only needed to send the competition Stableford scores (i.e. using 85%), and instead have been sending adjusted Stableford scores using 100% CH.
All the (85% to 100%) adjustments are done by dotgolf so by sending 100% scores, the scores have been further elevated by dotgolf.
The problem is exacerbated when players with different handicaps are both flagged as having the counting score.

Apparently according to IG's statement (in italics below) below they confirm that they were advised by DotGolf to provide the information at 100%.

"As per the instructions from the WHS Platform software provider, all 4BBB scores were initially uploaded using the Full Course Handicap."

 

[wjemather]

Apparently according to IG's statement (in italics below) below they confirm that they were advised by DotGolf to provide the information at 100%.

"As per the instructions from the WHS Platform software provider, all 4BBB scores were initially uploaded using the Full Course Handicap."

Yes, I've just seen that. It contradicts what I read (or heard) in February.

The blame game continues...


Edit: also, as I've said elsewhere, the problem with sending uplifted scores is glaringly obvious. Submissions using full CH make zero sense when only sending a single set of Stableford hole scores for the pair where both players (with potentially very different handicaps and significantly different 85-100% uplifts) can be flagged as scoring on any given hole. Plus, the information material had a simple CH-PH uplift, not recalculated hole scores. All software providers need to have better knowledge of WHS.

 

[D-S]

Yes, I've just seen that. It contradicts what I read in February.

The blame game continues...


Edit: also, as I've said elsewhere, full CH submissions would make zero sense when only sending a single set of Stableford hole scores for the pair where both players (with potentially very different handicaps with different 85-100% uplifts) can be flagged as scoring on any given hole. And, the information material had the CH-PH uplift being done at the end.

Wouldn’t the fact that they were uploading 100% CH not 85% be stark staring obvious in the very first and any test of the system prior to going live on 1st April?
Even if they were dumb enough not to have ever run one test comp prior to going live, then it would still be stark staring obvious on checking the first submission in the first few days of April?
People were highlighting problems early and surely someone from EG/Dotgolf would be cross referring submissions from each of the ISVs with them, surely?
Here we are 29 days later with a fix being put in despite I would assume many hundred players having vastly reduced SDs put on their record and with significant changes to HI as a lot have resulted in Exceptional Score adjustments.

 

[wjemather]

Wouldn’t the fact that they were uploading 100% CH not 85% be stark staring obvious in the very first and any test of the system prior to going live on 1st April?
Even if they were dumb enough not to have ever run one test comp prior to going live, then it would still be stark staring obvious on checking the first submission in the first few days of April?
People were highlighting problems early and surely someone from EG/Dotgolf would be cross referring submissions from each of the ISVs with them, surely?
Here we are 29 days later with a fix being put in despite I would assume many hundred players having vastly reduced SDs put on their record and with significant changes to HI as a lot have resulted in Exceptional Score adjustments.

If I had to guess, I'd say testing was limited to confirmation that the scores that were received by dotgolf corresponded exactly with those sent by the ISVs and flagged correctly for each player, and dotgolf testing that those scores were then processed and uplifted on the platform correctly - all done with the assumption they were receiving the competition scores (at 85%).

 

[Oldbutwise]

If I had to guess, I'd say testing was limited to confirmation that the scores that were received by dotgolf corresponded exactly with those sent by the ISVs and flagged correctly for each player, and dotgolf testing that those scores were then processed and uplifted on the platform correctly - all done with the assumption they were receiving the competition scores (at 85%).

I'm not sure it's the ISVs fault. Here is an extract from a Handicapmaster email sent on 20th Mar - it clearly states "based on full handicap":

(a) A critical update to software ...

Last week we received a request from the Golf Unions to change the way data is sent to the WHS servers for handicapping Four Ball competitions from 1st April.
This change requires reporting player's equivalent Stableford Points based upon their Full Course Handicap (rather than reporting the player's gross scores) and has invalidated the programming we had previously released.

That was followed by one on 19th April from DotGolf:
"- Please resend us all four-ball-better-ball scores posted since 1 April 2024 at 85% [of Course Handicap] to be processed and recalculated by DotGolf. "