Two interesting motions at the GUI AGM

Russman · 25-02-2014 04:42PM

GreeBo wrote: »

If I had a day where everything went my way I'd come in 10 under at the moment, I think thats way too far off my current handicap (which is too far away from my ability)

Nothing is wrong with that, I just dont think you should be competitive when, by your own admission, you are in a slump and playing below your own ability.

But do you not think there's at least an element of denial there ? I mean say in your own case (or someone similar for the purpose of the discussion), you fervently believe than your handicap is too high for your ability, fair enough. BUT, what if its not, and its your vanity that makes you think you're better than you are ? (ok not you specifically, its just an example). or what if your results simply don't back that up ? Its very hard for someone to be objective about their own level.
Someone could be potentially on their deathbed after 40 years of golf saying, "its ok, I'm going to start playing to my ability any day now"

If you view the whole idea of a handicap as basically a mechanism whereby we all compete on a reasonably level playing field, it makes perfect sense that it will fluctuate as your form/ability/motivation/luck change.

GreeBo · 25-02-2014 04:42PM

shaneon77 wrote: »

which brings us perfectly back on track for this thread. Once the new rules kick in, you will have that choice.

What choice will you have? Keep playing after you get 20 0.1s?

josie19 · 25-02-2014 04:45PM

GreeBo wrote: »

What choice will you have? Keep playing after you get 20 0.1s?

I think he means doing NRs for bad rounds to keep the handicap down. So if I took just my cuts in the last 10 years and no .1s I'd be about +15 not -10

PARlance · 25-02-2014 05:09PM

GreeBo wrote: »

I live in the real world, so no worries there.

I dont want a static handicap, I just want it to not go up so quickly because of a dip in form. I dont want or expect to be competitive when playing badly. The lads on the pitch wouldnt stop tackling you just because you cant shoot to save your life at the moment, you'd likely be pissed if they did.
Perhaps you should only get 0.1 (or more) if you are X over par more than y times in a row (similar to the ESR)?
So make the bugger zone bigger, then if within 6 months you are never within 2 shots of your handicap, give you a full extra shot to play with, forget about the 0.1 increments that really dont help anybody be more competitive if they have lost ability.

I really don't see the problem with the 0.1 for the honest golfer.
Most of us play on average once a week I'm guessing, if you're playing more than once a week for a considerable time and getting nothing but 0.1's then you need all the 0.1s you can get imo.
So for someone playing once a week, it may take circa 2-3 months before they are even getting close to getting a second shot back.
I would say that 2-3 months of 0.1s is more than a "slump" if we are being honest.

GreeBo wrote: »

Im not sure what you think I am in denial about? You think I am worse than I think I am?

I don't think you're worse than you are, I've never seen you play for one. And I didn't want it to be like that.
I said "denial" and maybe that was harsh, but I it sounds like you are off 10 at present and trying to cling on to a 7 or 8 HC in your head.

GreeBo wrote: »

So if the system is flawed we should just ignore it because handicap secs cant be expected to do what the system asks of them?

If it is flawed, then any suggested improvement should be realistic and achievable. Your idea is neither imo.
HC Sec's can#t go about figuring out what class of golfer is within each HC. He's a 10 with poor CM, He's a 10 with a bad grip, He's a 10 but he's been at the range twice this week, He's a 10 that just got more forgiving clubs...

GreeBo wrote: »

Why change anything so? Why even have the conversation? Unless and until someone comes up with a system that can, without any human intervention, keep track of a persons ability and distinguish between a slump and a genuine loss of ability and also a hot streak compared to a genuine advance in ability we will either always need human intervention (observation) OR just shut up and deal with the results and gaps in the system.

I'm not looking for this magic system that tracks the golfer outside of rounds, you are, I don't think it's possible.
Be it human intervention or some system, it would be some feat to be able to tailor something that can pick up when I was on the sauce the night before, when I was up all night with the child, when I had the flu, when I got to the course 2 mins before tee time.

The problem you are trying to solve does not exist in the real world, be it through human intervention (which isn't practical anyway) or in some other form.

GreeBo · 25-02-2014 05:19PM

PARlance wrote: »

I really don't see the problem with the 0.1 for the honest golfer.

I think it inflates your handicap to keep you competitive, needlessly.

PARlance wrote: »

I don't think you're worse than you are, I've never seen you play for one. And I didn't want it to be like that.
I said "denial" and maybe that was harsh, but I it sounds like you are off 10 at present and trying to cling on to a 7 or 8 HC in your head.

I guess you are entitled to your opinion about me...albeit based on my online play!

PARlance wrote: »

If it is flawed, then any suggested improvement should be realistic and achievable. Your idea is neither imo.
HC Sec's can#t go about figuring out what class of golfer is within each HC. He's a 10 with poor CM, He's a 10 with a bad grip, He's a 10 but he's been at the range twice this week, He's a 10 that just got more forgiving clubs...

I'm not looking for this magic system that tracks the golfer outside of rounds, you are, I don't think it's possible.
Be it human intervention or some system, it would be some feat to be able to tailor something that can pick up when I was on the sauce the night before, when I was up all night with the child, when I had the flu, when I got to the course 2 mins before tee time.

The problem you are trying to solve does not exist in the real world, be it through human intervention (which isn't practical anyway) or in some other form.

I'm not looking to track golfers outside of rounds at all...I think looking at one round in isolation is a poor idea. In any field you want a large sample space to make any judgements. In golf we reckon we can do it with a sample space of 1.
The whole point is that it doesnt have to pick up on individual rounds, thats what we do today. They system should look at a number of rounds and draw conclusions. The human intervention would be that the system flags that Joe hasnt been within 10 shots of his handicap in the last 30 rounds; might be time for the Handicap Sec to have a chat with Joe and see what the story is, especially considering that for the previous year Joe consistently played to 5.

If no problem exists "in the real world" then we do we have a thread about 2 new proposals? Clearly they are trying to address something. Also, what was the EST about if everything is hunky dory. Why do we have countless threads about sandbagging and handicap minding?

I think a simple solution is as I outlined in an earlier post, go back to when increases weren't immediate, make them part of an automated review after X rounds. Whats wrong with such a system? (serious question, point out some flaws and we can discuss)

BoardsMember · 25-02-2014 05:26PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Its fine if you think you should remain competitive during a slump, I dont believe you should, do you?

Why is it too much to ask for? All it would need to reviewing scores after X rounds or X months and then applying the cut/increase based on a larger sample set. trying to ascertain a slump versus a loss of ability by only looking at each individual round in isolation seems farcical. They brought in the ESR to help identify an advance in ability, why not do the same for true loss of ability?

Do you think a few .1s is going to keep you competitive?

Anyhow, to answer your question, yes - I think handicaps should fluctuate based on the round you have had.

GreeBo · 25-02-2014 05:31PM

BoardsMember wrote: »

Do you think a few .1s is going to keep you competitive?

Anyhow, to answer your question, yes - I think handicaps should fluctuate based on the round you have had.

If its not, then why add them on? What purpose does it serve? Just gives you more buffer on your way back down after a good round.

Why not use the slope system, why not weigh good rounds equally with bad rounds, why have a buffer zone, etc, etc?

BoardsMember · 25-02-2014 05:31PM

GreeBo wrote: »

They brought in the ESR to help identify an advance in ability, why not do the same for true loss of ability?

This is a good idea, i.e. to have the ESR applied for both ways. But, like the current ESR, it should sit alongside the regular .1s you get. So, if you're playing badly for a few weeks, you might get the small consolation of an additional effective shot if you're lucky.

Miley Byrne · 25-02-2014 05:41PM

GreeBo wrote: »

I think it inflates your handicap to keep you competitive, needlessly.

QUOTE]

But the .1 on it's own doesn't make you more competitive immediately(unless you are on x.4 or whatever. It's the accumulation of them that does this. And if you are struggling that badly a one shot increase after 10 rounds outside the buffer zone isn't going to make you magically competitive. If it is only a slump then a cut should be around the corner and you are back where you began. Why an increase of a shot or 2 makes you think you are well capable of shooting 10 under your handicap is beyond me.

If you are playing off of 10 and trying your best then that is your handicap under the current handicapping system. And the fellas off 8 that are trying etc are 8 handicappers. Until that system changes or you improve and get cut (or not and you go north to 11) you are a 10 handicapper I'm afraid.

BoardsMember · 25-02-2014 05:54PM

GreeBo wrote: »

If its not, then why add them on? What purpose does it serve? Just gives you more buffer on your way back down after a good round.

Why not use the slope system, why not weigh good rounds equally with bad rounds, why have a buffer zone, etc, etc?

I dont know anything about the slope system so cant comment on that. Regarding why add them on, well it serves a purpose - because of how it was intended to work, if you have a bad round your handicap tends towards giving you an additional shot. I don't see the harm in it, and I see it as being fair when fairly applied.

The current method of going out in handicap and the opposite to ESR dont have to be mutually exclusive, in the same way as the ESR and dropping shots work well together.

PARlance · 25-02-2014 06:06PM

GreeBo wrote: »

If no problem exists "in the real world" then we do we have a thread about 2 new proposals? Clearly they are trying to address something.

Yes, it seems quite clear that they are trying to address Bandits.
Not Greebo losing a few shots.

GreeBo wrote: »

Also, what was the EST about if everything is hunky dory. Why do we have countless threads about sandbagging and handicap minding?

That's something completely different than you were talking about. Your new "proposal/idea" is not concerns with bandits, and it's not banditproof either, so nothing new there.

I don't think everything is Hunky Dorey... I also don't think your idea adds anything solve the problem with bandits, the would find away around it.
Your system is heavily centered around increased/excessive manual intervention... manual intervention is there at present, it could be applied to bandits.

GreeBo wrote: »

I think a simple solution is as I outlined in an earlier post, go back to when increases weren't immediate, make them part of an automated review after X rounds. Whats wrong with such a system? (serious question, point out some flaws and we can discuss)

I didn't play golf at the time... why did they get rid of it? I don't know.
Can you shed any light on it?

My guess it was something to do with lessening the load for volunteers within clubs that could cope with the workload, or clubs inabilities to finance a salary for someone to do this.

PARlance · 25-02-2014 06:09PM

BoardsMember wrote: »

This is a good idea, i.e. to have the ESR applied for both ways. But, like the current ESR, it should sit alongside the regular .1s you get. So, if you're playing badly for a few weeks, you might get the small consolation of an additional effective shot if you're lucky.

There are guys with sombrero's dancing at the thoughts.....

That (increasing the potential of HC increases) is something that I would gladly leave in the hands of the HC Sec in his year end review.

PARlance · 25-02-2014 06:21PM

josie19 wrote: »

I think he means doing NRs for bad rounds to keep the handicap down. So if I took just my cuts in the last 10 years and no .1s I'd be about +15 not -10

Fair play Josie, I'm not quite sure it would work like that... unless of course you shoot -15 to -18 under from time to time

BoardsMember · 25-02-2014 06:23PM

PARlance wrote: »

There are guys with sombrero's dancing at the thoughts.....

That (increasing the potential of HC increases) is something that I would gladly leave in the hands of the HC Sec in his year end review.

Ok, I take your point. I suppose the handicap sec is there to make adjustments for things like illness leading to ongoing inability to play to old handicap and other more serious/long-term/irreversible issues.

Sandwlch · 25-02-2014 06:53PM

Russman wrote: »

But do you not think there's at least an element of denial there ? I mean say in your own case (or someone similar for the purpose of the discussion), you fervently believe than your handicap is too high for your ability, fair enough. BUT, what if its not, and its your vanity that makes you think you're better than you are ?

You can check Greebo's, or your hypothetical golfer's handicap for 'correctness' by running the annual review calculation. It is a very good test which compares your spread of scores, not just your average or a handful of recent scores, against the normal spread for a golfer of your handicap. This is why (despite the gruff rebuff it prompted) I believe it is underused as a test-and-correct mechanism on the normal increment decrement round by round adjustment. If even just to reassure golfers, despite whatever their gut tells them, that their handicap is indeed correct.

GreeBo · 25-02-2014 08:22PM

Delaying increases until after 20 rounds or something does address bandits. If you are trying to inflate your handicap but you dint get the shots until 6 months later, a few less might not bother, playing badly for half a year would keep you out of most competitions you would be trying to win...?

Russman · 25-02-2014 08:49PM

Sandwlch wrote: »

You can check Greebo's, or your hypothetical golfer's handicap for 'correctness' by running the annual review calculation. It is a very good test which compares your spread of scores, not just your average or a handful of recent scores, against the normal spread for a golfer of your handicap. This is why (despite the gruff rebuff it prompted) I believe it is underused as a test-and-correct mechanism on the normal increment decrement round by round adjustment. If even just to reassure golfers, despite whatever their gut tells them, that their handicap is indeed correct.

Fair enough, but I'd be very reluctant to either cut or increase a golfer's handicap based on how they should statistically perform. Their actual results are the only definitive evidence IMO.
It probably does give a baseline to work off, but it just somehow doesn't seem right to me.
Is it fair to say that there should in theory be as many increases as cuts if you run this test ?

Russman · 25-02-2014 08:57PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Delaying increases until after 20 rounds or something does address bandits. If you are trying to inflate your handicap but you dint get the shots until 6 months later, a few less might not bother, playing badly for half a year would keep you out of most competitions you would be trying to win...?

But are the bandits who are trying to increase their handicap really THAT big a deal that the vast majority of genuine cases of players playing badly should be deprived their increase for 6 months, just in case they might be a bandit ?

With the age profile of golfers in the country, the majority of whom never win anything, and who are probably more interested in winning the €2 from their buddies than anything, telling some lad who's 65 years old that he has to wait 6 months for a handicap increase if he's playing badly, seems a little bit of overkill IMO.

GreeBo · 25-02-2014 09:09PM

Russman wrote: »

But are the bandits who are trying to increase their handicap really THAT big a deal that the vast majority of genuine cases of players playing badly should be deprived their increase for 6 months, just in case they might be a bandit ?

With the age profile of golfers in the country, the majority of whom never win anything, and who are probably more interested in winning the €2 from their buddies than anything, telling some lad who's 65 years old that he has to wait 6 months for a handicap increase if he's playing badly, seems a little bit of overkill IMO.

Well it's at most holding back two shots, assuming he never plays better than his handicap. I also think it's unlikely that a 65 year old suddenly loses their ability over the space of 6 months, more likely a gradual loss over many years. If there it's a genuine reason for the loss then it should be discussed with the handicap sec.
It's also not just to address bandits, an improving golfer shouldn't get a couple of .1s in the middle of a stretch cuts...clearly they are improving not getting worse.

Sandwlch · 25-02-2014 09:11PM

Russman wrote: »

Fair enough, but I'd be very reluctant to either cut or increase a golfer's handicap based on how they should statistically perform. Their actual results are the only definitive evidence IMO.
It probably does give a baseline to work off, but it just somehow doesn't seem right to me.
Is it fair to say that there should in theory be as many increases as cuts if you run this test ?

I dont know. Its possible, but not necessarily. It is still based on the actual results as you put it - just a more mathematically sophisticated model.

However individual we like to think ourselves to be, or however 'spurious' we might like to think a given round is (but for : a missed tap in, leaving the ball behind in a bunker-'which I never do', a ball just getting a 'cruel' bounce off a tree, or whatever), we do all conform to a general pattern or spread of scores. There is nothing to understanding the increment/decrement part of the handicap system as we have known it for years - any chancer knows how to get point one back if he doesnt fancy an unattractive prize if a cut will come with it, or not returning his card if he wants to keep his handicap low. But except for those with a particularly good aptitude for statistics as well as a desire to manipulate their handicaps, it pretty hard to beat the review system. Most people dont even know its there, let alone understand it. The mistake for me was its half hearted, once a year implementation, and worse, hobbling it further by handing 'discretion' back to a committee.

For some more on it :
http://www.congu.com/faqs/old_site/Review%20of%20Handicaps.pdf

josie19 · 25-02-2014 09:21PM

PARlance wrote: »

Fair play Josie, I'm not quite sure it would work like that... unless of course you shoot -15 to -18 under from time to time

An exaggerated example no doubt but it would lead to guys not returning cards to stay on the handicap their vanity allows. Not casting any judgement on Greebo, but he's currently off 10, used to be 8 - If I felt the way Greebo does about his current slump I wouldn't return a card for fear of going further out to 11. It's a common conception for honest players trying to get lower but it will create falsely low handicaps that people just can't play to.

alxmorgan · 25-02-2014 09:29PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Well it's at most holding back two shots, assuming he never plays better than his handicap. I also think it's unlikely that a 65 year old suddenly loses their ability over the space of 6 months, more likely a gradual loss over many years. If there it's a genuine reason for the loss then it should be discussed with the handicap sec.
It's also not just to address bandits, an improving golfer shouldn't get a couple of .1s in the middle of a stretch cuts...clearly they are improving not getting worse.

I assume you would apply cuts immediately ? Could an argument not be made that they should be considered over a longer time period too.
Say I shoot 5 better than my handicap on a given day. Why assume that this is a sign I am improving if it is surrounded by poor rounds both before and after ?

Russman · 25-02-2014 09:36PM

GreeBo wrote: »

an improving golfer shouldn't get a couple of .1s in the middle of a stretch cuts...clearly they are improving not getting worse.

I think its an essential part of keeping the system current though, that every competition round counts and not just the good ones. I don't think golfers' improvement comes in a linear fashion, its often two steps forward, one step back. We wouldn't suggest holding back a cut for a few weeks just to see how good someone really is.

TBH I think the system works well enough as it is (apart from the idiocy that is ESR, but that's another day's debate

). People will always slip through even the most stringent systems. Putting even more responsibility into H/Cap Sec's hands wouldn't be right, they're mostly volunteers with no additional knowledge than the next joe blogs, and frequently less ! They'd be inundated with letters claiming all sorts of ailments if increases weren't done via the 0.1 mechanism and could be brought forward.

Ideally I'd love to go to a course rating type system, but I can't see that coming down the line anytime soon.

I don't mean this disparagingly, but I bet the old system of many moons ago (25 yrs maybe ?) was more to your liking ? Where you got cut a full shot for every shot you broke SSS by, and if you played to your handicap once in the year, you couldn't get a shot back.

Sandwlch · 25-02-2014 09:42PM

GreeBo wrote: »

It's also not just to address bandits, an improving golfer shouldn't get a couple of .1s in the middle of a stretch cuts...clearly they are improving not getting worse.

But you cannot read the future - you dont know its in the middle of a stretch of cuts until after the event. So adjustments must be made on the evidence of a given round and previous ones. I would be in favour of a counterpart of the ESR (which accelerates downward adjustments), which would have a more fast-response action to limiting upward revisions than the latest proposal of limiting the number of 0.1 in a year (this effectively has a 20 round delayed action - not so useful in the middle of a typical 6 month golf season). Something along the lines of : no 0.1s will apply for a minimum number of cards (say 6) after any given cut. It would limit the quick 'recovery' of lost shots by bandits, and expose them to exposing themselves if such a pattern of bad scores followed a cut in a statistically improbable sequence.

GreeBo · 25-02-2014 09:45PM

You don't need to know is the middle of a cut streak if all increases are delayed...

Russman · 25-02-2014 09:56PM

Sandwlch wrote: »

Something along the lines of : no 0.1s will apply for a minimum number of cards (say 6) after any given cut. It would limit the quick 'recovery' of lost shots by bandits, and expose them to exposing themselves if such a pattern of bad scores followed a cut in a statistically improbable sequence.

That's not the worst idea in fairness.
But, and its a big but, if as someone said earlier (think it was Greebo ?), you're only supposed to play to your handicap 2 out of 7 times, by definition its almost guaranteed that after a good round you'll shoot some bad ones, that would be normal. You'd be penalising someone for essentially scoring as they are expected to.
The system seems designed to aid (or at least not prevent) that recovery of lost shots, but as you only get back 0.1 at a time, your cuts will outweigh your recovery if you are improving. That's the safeguard right there IMO. I think !:)

GreeBo · 26-02-2014 09:50AM

Russman wrote: »

That's not the worst idea in fairness.
But, and its a big but, if as someone said earlier (think it was Greebo ?), you're only supposed to play to your handicap 2 out of 7 times, by definition its almost guaranteed that after a good round you'll shoot some bad ones, that would be normal. You'd be penalising someone for essentially scoring as they are expected to.
The system seems designed to aid (or at least not prevent) that recovery of lost shots, but as you only get back 0.1 at a time, your cuts will outweigh your recovery if you are improving. That's the safeguard right there IMO. I think !:)

You arent penalizing them, you are just delaying the increase until after the period (# cards, # months etc)
The algorithm can then make informed decisions and decide not to add on either of the 0.1's that you would have received normally, since outside of those two occasions you were level or under par. If on the other hand you were no where near your (new) handicap then it adds them on, and maybe adds on more than just X 0.1s, maybe it gives you a full shot if your scores are outside a particular threshold.

I wouldnt have an issue with your handicap only changing every X cards or X times a year based on your performance in the previous period.

Alrite Chief · 28-02-2014 06:24PM

It made no sense giving .1 back for a non return in the first place. Thats just assuming the person isn't returning because of a bad score. What basis is there for such assumption? On the other scale its not punishing someone who is protecting their h/c. Its very simple imo. If you were able to sign into the comp you are well able to enter your card. If you have a NR you should have to explain yourself. A warning should be issued and if you have another within a year you should be suspended. End of.

J6P · 28-02-2014 07:11PM

Alrite Chief wrote: »

It made no sense giving .1 back for a non return in the first place. Thats just assuming the person isn't returning because of a bad score. What basis is there for such assumption? On the other scale its not punishing someone who is protecting their h/c. Its very simple imo. If you were able to sign into the comp you are well able to enter your card. If you have a NR you should have to explain yourself. A warning should be issued and if you have another within a year you should be suspended. End of.

Strokes comps/scratch cups would go on forever...especially on links courses.

Alrite Chief · 28-02-2014 07:23PM

J6P wrote: »

Strokes comps/scratch cups would go on forever...especially on links courses.

Why? If you throw in the towel go into the clubhouse and fill out your score as normal with all your scratches. At least this way you can get your .1 back justifiably with evidence. Just heading off is a joke.

Two interesting motions at the GUI AGM

Comments