Unanswered Questions

The following email was sent out a couple of days ago.  Oddly enough it hasn’t been mentioned on their blog.

Subject: 5pts Last Game

Hello

All Chiang Rai golfers, next Monday 21st Jan will be 5pts last game with the Santi members group before he returns to America. He is going to live in Florida and has already bought a house there and has sold his house here.

We are hoping that a few more people will turn out for this, we have a tee time 8.40am for 3 groups, there is nothing special planned at this stage but if sufficient numbers respond positively to this email then we may try to do something.  Also if we do get a big response then we may need more tee times.

If you want to come along please let me know by replying to this email.  Or perhaps you could just pop a long at lunchtime to say good bye to 5 pts.

If anyone has any ideas about what to do on Monday 21, then please suggest the idea.

5 pts has been a stalwart of the golf community in CR for the last 3 years or so, he has also promoted a competition known as the Community cup which we plan to have later this year on the day after the pro-tournament at Santi, it was a big success last year with Peter S winning. The exact date will be known once we know the date of the Singha CRai Masters comp, last year it was just before songkrang.

Regards

Bruce G

It was sent to 34 golfers but not me.  Perhaps there were worried if I did show up I might ask 0Points the following questions.

  1.  Why has the Members list on the Handicap page not been updated?  It contains one ghost as well as at least one whose membership has lapsed.   It might take as many as 20 seconds to update it.   It appears you are trying to make it look like you have more members than you actually have.  Why have the Friends listing at all?   Colin and Ralph are here for just a month or so and the others you will rarely see if at all.
  2. Why was it acceptable to print someone’s private (email) communication on the member’s blog without the sender’s permission?
  3. For the last 2 months of 2018 there were 17% fewer participants.  So far in January after 7 golf days there has been 32% fewer participants.   Over the years members have come and gone but the participation totals have always been steady or gone up.  Why do you say “I’m proud of our work, and I think we leave the group better than it was when we started.” ?   Why is fewer better?   Fewer suggests to me that  it is isn’t as fun, friendly, fair or welcoming as it was before?
  4. For the last 2 months of the year 24% of the scores weren’t recorded for handicap purposes.  So far in January 17% haven’t been recorded.   Why do you think this is better?   I know that you are proud of the fact that you are “blissfully unaware” but more than once I have suggested that SMAF have a handicap secretary (like most groups do) that records the scores for the entire group taking the responsibility from the individual.  It would drastically reduce errors and manipulation giving the handicaps more credibility.   Why hasn’t this been done?

Perhaps someone that does show up will ask 0Points, The Specialist in Failure those questions.

Advertisements

Do handicaps need to be correct?

To give this some context — remember these 2 statements by 0Points.

Most of us have scored 27 Stableford points on one day and 43 Stableford points on the next round.  When the range of likely scores is that wide, it becomes ridiculous to worry about whether a particular golfer’s handicap is 25.4, 24.8, or 23.4.  In technical terms, the “signal to noise” ratio is too great to fine tune the handicap to that level of detail.

and

The person who “dropped anchor” by avoiding getting 30 or over was well within his rights to do so.  Not a winning strategy long term.

I will refer to this golfer as “Tom” which is not his real name.   Tom was in my group at the city wide competition at Waterford last January 31st.   Tom is honest and someone that takes his golf very seriously.  We were one of the first groups finished and Tom handed in his score of net 72.   The scorekeepers (not the organizers) questioned his handicap.   Tom hadn’t been in Chiang Rai for about 2 or 3 years and didn’t have a local handicap.   After admitting that he didn’t have a verifiable handicap and confessing that he had 42 points a couple of days earlier the scorekeepers immediately cut his handicap and gave him a score of net 74.   The scorekeepers have a history with Tom so it wasn’t a surprise to me that they had done this even without discussing it first with the tournament organizers.  As it turned out someone did come in with a net 71 so Tom wasn’t screwed out of the win and wasn’t upset by it.   I brought this up with the organizers at a later date stating that it was wrong to cut someone after he handed in his score when it looked like he could be the winner.   It could have bit them in the butt.  There has been no point in mentioning this again UNTIL NOW.

The winner was someone that was recently referred to as a “serial trophy collector” (“STC”).  His handicap in November 2017 was 5 — Dec 6th it went up to 6 — Dec 30th up to 7 — and Jan 18th (just over a week before the tournament) it went up to 9.   He then played twice before the big competition.   Jan 27th (no skins game) and got 42 points.  Jan 29th (skins game) he got 38 points.  Why was Tom’s handicap cut for getting 42 points that week but not STC?   Do you think a handicap that went up 4 strokes in 20 rounds over 2 months didn’t make a difference to the competition’s results?

STC had a regular side bet going with 0Points.   If one of them failed to get 30 points the bet was cancelled saving the loser 100 baht.   For the 10 rounds preceding the Jan 18th handicap calculation STC failed to get 30 points in 5 of the rounds.  For the 5 of the 20 rounds preceding the city competition there wasn’t a skins game — his scores were 80, 77, 80, 80, 75 — no skins, no bad rounds.  As I see it STC’s handicap went up 4 strokes in 2 months because of the side bet and the skins game.  STC’s handicap at the tournament was certainly more dubious than Tom’s.  For the first 2 years I played with STC I was in charge of the handicaps.   I stuck his handicap on 6 and didn’t need to raise it — he was winning consistently. 

The point of this posting isn’t to dump on STC.   He played with the handicap that was assigned to him, played within the terms of the side bet and played within the terms of skins strategy.  0Points, SMAF’s Specialist in Failure, doesn’t believe in the need for accuracy and threw out oversight of the handicap rules.  That is the problem.

A year ago the handicaps were kept by one person and were reasonably accurate but certainly not legitimate.   The flaw was the side bet and the skins game where it is best if you don’t try to get your best possible score on every hole.  The side bet which encouraged poor scores was dropped last March.  However, skins is still played — not every round as before but probably often enough to affect handicaps.

Some SMAF scores are not recorded accurately and almost a quarter of the scores don’t get recorded at all.   It got so bad that SMAF now hides the scores.  I said before the Tony G competition — “Only honestly will repair the damage of SMAF’s credibility within the community.  You will probably find that some honesty for once will probably shut me up for good.”   Now one of your members was labelled (not by me) a “serial trophy collector”.

There are golfers that play in city competitions for the social aspect of it and don’t care about handicaps.   There are others that enjoy the competitive aspect and expect it to be fair.   I know there are 2 or 3 golfers that didn’t play in the Tony G competition simply because they knew they had no chance of winning.   I predicted the winner before the first ball was hit.  It was that obvious. 

Previously I have suggested that one person be responsible for recording everyone’s score as well as go back to posting all the scores.  It hasn’t been done and no one has said why it is unacceptable.  Why doesn’t SMAF do it right and give non-SMAF members like Tom a chance to win the competitions?

Changes made by SMAF in 2018

Prior to this past year there were few changes.   When someone suggested a change (for the better) it was discussed openly among as many members as possible.   The details of the discussion were put on the blog in an unbiased manner so all would know what is going on.  In 2018, SMAF became a dictatorship under the rule of 0Points with Graham’s assistance.   “We do the work, we make the rules.”  Group discussions became a thing of the past and often the changes were hidden from view.   Here is a list of some of the changes.

January 2018:   Showing due respect to all Santiburi Members present at the golf course was no longer necessary.   Members are now allowed to refuse to play with any other member for any reason no matter how trivial.

March 2018:  “Anchor Dropping” is an acceptable practice.  If you can’t win a hole in the skins game it makes sense to wipe the hole.

The “new” Santiburi Members blog was created giving the dictatorship the right to only accept comments from those that agree with the dictator’s views.   The old blog that they abandoned was given to me to “do whatever I want with it”.

Cheating is no longer condemned.  The following was removed from the About/Code of Conduct — “Outright cheating is defined as knowingly breaking the rules with the intention of getting an unfair gain.  Outright cheaters will be told not to compete with us again.”

June 2018:  BIRDIE handicaps were introduced even though at first BIRDIE wasn’t calculating the handicaps correctly.

The dictatorship chose to use the member’s blog to publicly discredit another member after they were warned that the membership was going to be made aware of the discrepancies in the handicaps.

July 2018:   For the first time ever, SMAF didn’t mention a city wide competition in the coming events.   Seven members even made a point of boycotting the competition.   The dictator had previously written that he preferred not to play with any douchebags.

November 2018:   The member’s blog no longer posts all the scores (or money won/lost) in an effort to prevent peer review.   This opened the door for handicap manipulation to get much worse.   No one knows what the correct handicaps are.

0Points announces that he is resigning as the dictator and on the member’s blog publishes an attack on a former member.

Self promoting 0Points says:  “I think we (he and Graham) leave the group better than it was when we started.”

Really???

From Nov 1 – Dec 31 members failed to record 24% of their scores.   A couple of members handicaps are a figment of their imagination.

Rounds played by Santiburi Members and Friends Nov 1 – Dec 31, 2017 :   236

Rounds played by Santiburi Members and Friends Nov 1  – Dec 31, 2018  :  196

The last 2 months show a participation drop of 17%.

Number of non-members that showed up to play during the Santiburi New Year’s Eve promotion :  0   (no interest from the rest of the community)

A year ago insulting another member on the blog was unthinkable.   Road trips were “all are welcome whether members or not”.   All our scores with SMAF were posted on the blog and were included in our handicaps.  We stuck together as a group and supported all local competitions.  Is SMAF in better shape than a year ago?  The comment section is always open — you tell me.

 

 

 

Peer Review (Nov 1 – Dec 31, 2018)

Happy New Year.

Notes for the peer review:

  • Due to the fact that SMAF no longer posts their scores it is not possible to determine if the scores were entered accurately.
  • There isn’t a published policy whether scores from non-SMAF events should be included in the handicap calculation.   On the recent road trip one member entered his score, the others didn’t.   For the Tony G competition, some entered their scores, some didn’t.   Three members recorded scores on Dec 26th.   How many actually played on that day isn’t known because it wasn’t important enough to mention on the blog.  For this review I used only the names and dates listed on their blog.

Andrew — didn’t record scores for Nov 10, 13, 19, 26, Dec 6, 10, 22, 24, 31

Brian — didn’t record scores for Nov 13 and Dec 3

Bruce G — didn’t record scores for Nov 13, Dec 15, 22, 24

Bruce K — didn’t play

Darryl — all scores recorded

Egbert — all scores recorded

Jim — didn’t record scores for Dec 15, 17, 20, 31

0Points — all scores recorded

John P — didn’t record scores for Dec 1, 24

Les —  all scores recorded

Marc — didn’t record scores for Nov 19, Dec 20 (but it is possible that he recorded them using the wrong date)

Paul & Young — both didn’t record scores for Dec 3, 8

Peter — didn’t record scores for Nov 5, 29, Dec 1, 29

Steve — didn’t record score for Nov 17

Over the 2 months the  members played a total of 134 rounds of which 32 were not recorded (24%).

On the member’s blog the list of handicaps has not been updated.   There is 1 ghost.   Has anyone’s membership expired?  If so, they shouldn’t be listed as a member.

SMAF appears to have a lot of friends as there are 11 friends listed.   One is Thai with a provisional handicap that hasn’t been seen in months.   One friend suddenly left town owing his landlord a good sum of money — extremely doubtful we will see him again.   Three have confided in me that they have no interest in playing with SMAF again.   SMAF might see two of them 3 times (or less) a year.   One might actually be the member that “joins you infrequently”.   That leaves a total of three that you can really call “Friends” (play 5 rounds or more a year).    Even I have that many friends.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tony G Tournament — alternate report

Tony Gallagher was a stickler for the rules.  I will forever remember the day he told me that if you don’t play golf by the rules you are not playing golf — it is something else.

Knowing the Tony G Tournament was approaching my 3 previous postings were regarding suspect SMAF handicaps.  Of the 25 participants 8 were SMAF members.  Out of the top 6, 3 were SMAF members.

The winner whose handicap was mentioned in the previous posting played off a handicap of 8.   This is indeed his Birdie handicap for the white tees at Waterford.  Unfortunately he doesn’t recognize that a Birdie handicap and the handicaps that are used by Chiang Rai Golfers are calculated differently and his should to be adjusted when he plays with them especially from the white tees.   His score of 76 is consistent with the other two white tee scores he had playing with them in the past month (76, 78).  His mates congratulated him for his win saying “you deserved it”.   It’s true, he did.  He would have won if he played with a more realistic handicap of 5.

A SMAF member boasted to me that they have successfully stopped me from doing their handicaps.  He was extremely proud of the fact that I lost the battle to get their handicaps done correctly.    SMAF members may perceive that wrong is better than right, the rest of the community knows the truth.   Do they really think I can’t find mistakes even if they don’t post their scores?   I mentioned to the boastful one that he had 42 points last Saturday (he agreed).  I mentioned that he had recorded an 87 as his score (he agreed) .    That would be a handicap of 21 — he corrected me and said his handicap was 20.    Well that would make his score 86, not 87.   He explained that he had adjusted it because he had wiped a hole. WRONG!!!!  He obviously doesn’t know what ESC is and that you don’t adjust scores up.   I asked why he didn’t record his score from last Thursday.   He replied that it wasn’t a good score and he wanted his handicap to go down.    He must have had a lot of bad scores lately– the blog says he played on Nov 10, 13, 19, 22, 26, Dec 6, 10 as well as this tournament.   None of the scores have been recorded.   That also is WRONG!!!!  All scores must be recorded.   If you are embarrassed by your high handicap there is nothing wrong with declaring a lower handicap at the start of the day (unless you are playing a team game).   To be fair, unlike the “serial trophy collector” he didn’t use his Birdie handicap (20) and reduced it to 16 for this competition.   For that I have to give him credit.   He won a prize and he also deserved it.

Keith did a lot of work to make this competition happen.  For those that haven’t organized a local tournament it has been best described as “like herding cats”.  People dropping out at the last minute can really complicate things.  Those that show up late to the first tee or awards presentation just adds to the frustration.  It isn’t fair to the organizer or the other competitors to have to hang around and wait for those that can’t be punctual.

The last person to arrive at the first tee was late.   He was last seen by many of us riding in his cart making a strange noise something like this (link).   Late and making an ass of himself at the same time.   No one was impressed.  I wonder if his caddie had a good day.

To cheer you all up I have a very catchy tune from 1956.  (link)

Everyone I spoke to enjoyed the day.   I hope you give Keith your thanks and encourage him to do it again next year.

 

 

 

Perception #3

0Points has written “We all know what everyone’s handicap is.”  Nobody knows the handicaps better than I.   I can look up any member’s handicap on any given date.  In Part #2 I showed how one member’s handicap had gone from 5.6 to 7.9 over a period of a few months.  It was 6.0 on Nov 3rd the last day SMAF published it’s scores.

I was going to do the same thing with another member.   His last published score was Aug 9th and at that time his handicap was 15.5.  It is currently listed as 17.7.   As this is one of my so-called “perceived enemies” it might be interpreted as a hit piece if I were to say any more.   Trying to be as constructive as possible in today’s post I won’t waste your time and mine going into detailed analysis.

Many in the city are aware of the questionable accuracy of SMAF handicaps.   What do you think the reaction will be if a SMAF member wins this Wednesday’s city wide competition?  Suppose I can show that the person’s handicap has gone up just enough for them to win?  How will the winner be perceived?

Going back to the beginning of all this.   0Points and Graham decided without having an ABAGM to change the handicap system.   We weren’t told exactly why.   My perception is that Graham was in over his head trying to manage the handicaps.   He and 0Points decided changing to Birdie was a good option.  

At the time I said that it was very unlikely that you could get all the members to enter all their scores accurately.   As well a few members might try to game the system as it was being opened up to corruption.   Time and time again I have shown that to be correct.  The official SMAF response has been “Don’t listen to Leo” or it doesn’t matter if the handicaps are out by a stroke or two.

Currently, rather than correcting errors SMAF has decided to hide the results from everyone allowing the corruption to get even worse.

The solution:   Read the Code of Conduct that is published both on the official blog as well as this one.   The Code of Conduct which 0Points has dismissed as guidelines were put there specifically to avoid any controversy and conflicts.   Who is the Commissioner?  Who is the Fairness Specialist (Handicap Secretary) and who is the Organizer of the Day?  When was the last ABAGM?   What was discussed?   Where is the report?

The goal in switching to Birdie was to make your scores more transparent.  SMAF has done the opposite.   I have previously suggested that only your handicap secretary input only SMAF scores into Birdie and post all the results.   This eliminates any corruption.   If that is not acceptable, say why.   If you feel that corrupt handicaps are better, say why.  However in doing so don’t travel to baffle me with BS like signal to noise ratios or saying that I have despicable tactics, a stunning disregard for ethics and have lost all perspective.

Only honestly will repair the damage of SMAF’s credibility within the community.  You will probably find that some honesty for once will probably shut me up for good.

Have an ABAGM, discuss it, and come out with an official statement.   

As always, you can call me if you need any information and assistance.   Also, comments are always welcome and never deleted.

 

Perception — Part 2

About a week ago I gave a perfectly good way to handle handicaps.   The handicap secretary collects the scores and inputs them into Birdie for all members.   Only SMAF scores count and all SMAF scores are posted on the blog.   (Basically the way it was done up until a few months ago.)

SMAF prefers to allow all members to enter their own scores.  As I have shown time and time again there were omissions and inaccuracies.  It got so bad that SMAF stopped publishing the scores in order to cover up all the errors.  Does anyone think that a few months from now anyone will believe a statement that the handicaps are all correct now.   If anything when you cover up something you ultimately make it worse.   No one is watching so you are free to enter anything you like.   You may now enter correct or incorrect scores (or omit the ones you don’t like) from unrated local courses, away trips and practice rounds.  0Points is most insistent that this is better yet never provides any evidence as to why.

The other flaw with SMAF is playing numerous bad holes in the skins game is a good strategy.  Skins does not encourage you to shoot the best score possible.

0Points has previously stated “To call someone a “cheater” or a “sandbagger” over one, two or even more handicap strokes, or to condemn a handicap system over such trivial irregularities, is antithetical to our stated purpose as a golf group:  To play golf and have fun.  It gets in the way of us achieving our goals. ”  0Points fails to recognize that one, two or even more handicap strokes makes a difference to the outcome.  It is hardly a trivial irregularity.   The primary purpose of any golf group should be to play fair and have fun.

I am not going to call someone a “cheater” or a “sandbagger” but answer the following questions.  Who has got their name on the most trophies in the past 3 years?  Who has won the most money at skins?   Who defended anchor dropping as acceptable?  Who stopped posting the scores on the blog?  Who’s handicap (May 6th – just before the Birdie announcement) was 5.6 and is now 7.9?  Who participated in 5 November skins games and shot 83 (Nov 29th), 86 (24th), 87 (19th), 82 (17th), 82 (10th) and in the 2 city wide Stableford competitions shot 76 (Nov 22nd) and 78 (15th) playing off a handicap of 7 or 8?

I have absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing by the member.   That said, under the current system how can you be sure there isn’t any wrongdoing?  It’s all about perception.  0Points, the Specialist in Failure, admits to being “blissfully unaware”. Perhaps “conveniently ignorant” is more accurate as he advises all not to listen to me.  Questions such as the ones above never get asked when you do away with the skins game, publicly post all scores and correctly maintain the handicaps.

 

 

Perception — Part One

The one thing about 0Points is that when he writes something he makes it sound true even when he has no facts to back it up.   It’s all about perception.  If you baffle someone with enough BS to make it sound true then it must be true.

His repeated attacks on our group can only be characterized as shameful, especially the recent post in the immediate aftermath of Graham’s passing that masqueraded as remembrance but only served as an opportunity to once again attack his perceived enemies.”  Tell me 0Points, do you really think I woke up in the morning and thought how can I attack my perceived enemies today?   Oh, I know, I’ll write a remembrance to Graham.   You just won’t accept it was just that … a remembrance to Graham.  I posted a picture of Graham and I having a laugh together.   If there are any immature adults that took offence to me handing Graham a picture of 2 cartoon characters it is no concern of mine.   Explain to me what are “perceived enemies”?   You make a couple of individuals sound a lot worse than they really are.   Can a person that you claim has lost all perspective have perceived enemies?

He is simply a bully like all the bullies from the playgrounds of our youth.”  Once again 0Points makes a statement without backing it with any facts.   Here are some facts:

  • 0Points took part in the verbal gang bang of me on anchor dropping day.
  • 0Points and Graham when asked why it wasn’t necessary to consult with the members before changing to Birdie said “Because we said so”.
  • It was made very clear to me a long time ago that I was not allowed to question 0Points authority.   Any time I tried to resolve anything I was rudely shut down.  Opposing opinions are not allowed on his blog.
  • After I warned 0Points that I was going public with the errors in the handicaps he responded by using the member’s blog to discredit me.   He used words like blackmail, coercion, unethical, despicable.
  • His farewell notice says I am unbalanced, shameful, got an axe to grind, advance a war, and made repeated attacks on the group.

I ask you who do you perceive is the bully?

It is easy to stand on the sidelines and sharpshoot or otherwise criticize the work of others.   It is harder to be constructive and provide feedback that helps improve the group.”  He is correct.  It is easy and he has just done it.  There was nothing constructive in his criticism of me.   Over and over I have explained that skins are not fair and the handicaps aren’t being done correctly.   As he claims to be blissfully ignorant he conveniently never noticed the many times I advised on how easy it is to do correctly.   A week ago I posted “Goodbye 5Points” which gave a simple solution to correcting the handicaps.  At the time I offered to help.  Previously I was maintaining the handicaps until forced to stop.  I have been as constructive as possible.

Everyone should be keeping their own score and the score of at least one other in their group.”   Seriously??? A golf group with members that can’t even accurately record their own scores and do it so badly that they stopped publishing their scores are going to check up on at least one other?  “which is the true essence of peer review” — More words that sound meaningful but after reading them again you think “huh, what?”.

Re-phrasing 0Points signal to noise statement.   We are a group of inconsistent golfers who play well one day and not so well on others.   We are capable of winning any day we play very well.   As such our handicaps don’t need to be accurate — they only need to be what others will perceive is fair.  “We all know what everyone’s handicap is.”   In the next posting I will show how dangerous that can be.   How others perceive the group’s integrity both individually and collectively is far more important than 0Points has imagined.

 

 

 

 

 

 

0Points — A Specialist In Failure

On June 19th,  5Points wrote “we are resolved that Leo will never be allowed to occupy any leadership position in SMAF ever again.  He has demonstrated a stunning disregard for ethics and a persistent inability to put aside personal animosities for the good of the group — two qualities that are essential for leadership. ”

I knew I was leaving the group at the beginning of August and never for one moment suggested that I wanted to occupy any leadership position.   Today I think it is only fair to examine the 5Points leadership technique.

Jan 2018 — Graham had told a member that if he wished to play he would have to take part in the draw for playing partners.  5Points overruled Graham and informed the member that he would not need to go in the draw.   5Points failed to get Graham’s approval and he failed to discuss this issue with the group.   This was a violation of the Code of Conduct and the member was not required to show due respect to ALL the members.  This was the beginning of disharmony in the group.

March 2018 — The Anchor Dropping.   5Points failed to mention the incident in the daily report including the fact that a member had left the group.  5Points failed to check to see if anchor dropping was against any rules.  5Points commented “the person who dropped anchor was well within his rights to do so.  Not a winning strategy long term.”  After finding out that it was clearly against the rules 5Points failed to report it on the blog, failed to advise the members that anchor dropping is unacceptable and certainly failed to mention that he had made a mistake or apologize.   In doing so, he lost control of this blog instructing me to do whatever I wanted with it.   He failed to realize that he had opened up an alternate version to his Fake News reporting.   He wrote “5Points and Graham consider Leo’s plan to use this SMAF blog (and the voice of Santiburi Members and Friends) to broadcast publicly his personal opinions to be grossly inappropriate.”  5Points failed to observe his own advice as he twice used the new blog to broadcast publicly his personal opinions.

May 24th, 2018 — BIRDIE — 5Points failed to discuss the change to Birdie with the members as required by the Code of Conduct.  He claimed “we do the work, we make the rules.”  That is another way of saying we are above the rules because we can change the rules to suit us at any time.  The members were coerced into accepting Birdie because that was the only handicap that SMAF would be using.   He failed to realize that all members would not be able to accurately maintain their handicaps and he failed to notice (or care) that at that time Birdie wasn’t even doing the calculations correctly.  When asked why switch to Birdie at that time and not wait until all the members are in town he failed to answer the question.

June 2018 — He published a private email that was sent to him but failed to ask for permission to do so.  Rather than admit that the Birdie experiment was not producing correct handicaps he failed to realize how stupid his “signal to noise” excuse sounded.  He failed to understand that the purpose of handicaps is to make all competitions fair.  Instead he chose to try and discredit the one who actually discovered all the errors.

July 2018 — 5Points and 6 other SMAF members boycotted the Canada Cup tournament.  It was insulting not just to the organizers but to the participants as well when he wrote that SMAF would rather play golf and have fun somewhere else.    He insinuated that those that played in the Canada Cup didn’t have fun.   He failed to realize that Chiang Rai Golfers supported the competition and encouraged many participants to join them thus taking away several SMAF Friends for good.

Aug 2018 — 5Points failed to accept that after I had done extensive research into skins that it is an unfair competition.   Skins also encourages handicap manipulation.   SMAF continues to play skins most of the time.

Sept 2018 — 5Points failed to complete the round at Waterford.  He failed to shake any of his playing partner’s hands and he failed to pay his competition fee.

What possible positive does 5Point’s farewell post do for the group?   He writes it in a place where all comments unfavourable to him are not published.  The coward takes a shot and runs away.  The farewell post is exactly what he said about me “a stunning disregard for ethics and a persistent inability to put aside personal animosities for the good of the group.”

All in all I would say that 5Points is a specialist in failure.

He can not admit he did something wrong.   Have you every tried to point out a flaw in his golf swing or his chipping stroke?   Most of us learn from our mistakes — 5Points doesn’t want to know about his so he just keeps making the same mistakes over and over.  He claims he doesn’t read my blog.  I suspect he does occasionally but then again he is the type that doesn’t want to be told he did something wrong.   Ignorance is bliss.

He’s too big a coward to accept email from me.  He fears I might be criticizing him.  If I were to email him in attempt to end all this.   Here is what I get.

atl4****61.registeredsite.com rejected your message to the following email addresses:   **** ***** (******29@********.***)
Your message couldn’t be delivered because the recipient’s email server (outside Office 365) suspected that your message was spam. 

Years ago I noticed that when someone under the age of 60 retires their golf game improves significantly.   I stated shortly after meeting 5Points that I wouldn’t be surprised if his handicap comes down over the next year.  His handicap when he joined us was 28.   His handicap 3.5 years later is 30.   I was the one that recommended that he take over as the Organizer of the Day when the previous one had to leave.   I have no problem saying “I was wrong, I made a mistake”.   His leadership skills suck as bad as his golf game.

I was the one that gave him the name 5Points after he got 5 Stableford points twice in about a month.   Other than the fact that he is excellent at writing self-promoting fake news or doing a hatchet job on his enemies there is nothing at all positive to say about him.   He uses his charm and his ability to baffle you with BS to get you to do what he wants.  From this point forward I will be referring to him as “No Points”  (0Points).

(I will have more to say on his farewell address tomorrow if I have time.)

 

 

Goodbye 5Points

For those that don’t read the Fake News Blog 5Points has moved to the USA.   Before leaving he posted his farewell notice and naturally he had to take another shot at my credibility.   You can read it here.   They don’t allow comments on their blog that may disagree with the posting and 5Points never admits he was wrong about anything.   I will have a lot more to say about it in the next couple days.    I did email Bruce suggesting that in the interest of fair play he post the following few paragraphs.   He didn’t post it, nor did he respond to tell me why.    Why is a question SMAF has a problem answering.

Subject:  There is a simple solution, why not use it?

Wasn’t that a lovely self-promoting farewell speech from 5Points.    5Points is good, good, good and the “former member” is bad, bad, bad.   5Points, isn’t it a contradiction to claim you stopped reading my posts long ago and then criticise the content of my last 2 postings?

So let me try to be as constructive as possible.

First the criticism:   Previously SMAF had a handicap system that accurately recorded the scores.   All scores were posted on the blog and could be checked by any member at any time.  There were never any handicap disputes.  Now anything goes.  Members can enter anything they want and in most cases there is no way of checking its accuracy.

The solution:   There is always a person who at the end of the day collects the scores and determines the winner.   Birdie has the capacity for a “Group Administrator” to enter all of your scores at the end of the day.  For a group of 10 people it would take him not more than 5 minutes to do so.   The Birdie system then sends out an email advising the member that his score has been posted.  At this point the member has the ability to question the accuracy and request a correction if necessary.

I was previously entering all your scores until I was forced to stop.  I have always maintained that there is no reason why the members can’t have correct handicaps. I have always said that if someone else was willing to do it properly I wouldn’t have a problem with it and would assist if requested.

I have previously stated that all SMAF scores should be posted and only SMAF scores should be included in the handicap calculation.   Scores from improperly rated courses or scores from non-SMAF events can’t be easily verified and should be excluded.   That said, if a member were inclined to maintain his own handicap apart from the official SMAF handicap that isn’t a problem either.   In fact, it would make an interesting conversation at a later date if the 2 handicaps varied significantly.

I know of 10 “Friends” that won’t be playing with SMAF in the next low season because the group’s handicaps are dubious.   I am guilty of ranting continuously about the fact that no one can tell me why the group changed the handicap process.  Why allow anyone to put in wrong scores or omit scores when it doesn’t have to be that way?   Who in their right mind would think that inputting incorrect information would result in a correct answer? 

The solution is simple and easy.  My understanding is the switch to Birdie was made to give your handicaps more credibility.   If you use it correctly then you have accomplished your goal.

For me this issue has never been personal.  I ask why do it wrong and 5Points has twice answered by trying to discredit me.  It is unfortunate that the members have got stuck in this pissing match but you have to decide.   What is more important?   The group’s integrity or 5Points’ ego?