# 4bbb - 90% allowance??



## chrisd (Oct 25, 2015)

MashleyR7 and I played our first winter league game of the season today. We're both off 11 and our opponents were 15 and 18. 

At the moment, we still do 3/4 difference - now Ash and I probably played the course 1, maybe 2 over as a better ball. Ash, parred 12 consecutive holes during the match and we didn't win one of them, and I wasn't much worse for my part !

We lost 5 and 4 - so 90% should add to the games excitement!  :smirk::smirk::smirk:


----------



## duncan mackie (Oct 25, 2015)

We played a for some match today giving 11 shots to a pair of 17 handicap players.

We were about 3 over gross when we shook hands after 18.

We got beaten - nothing to do with handicap allowances!

At 90% we will still be out of step with the majority of the world - only the EGA is at 90%; everyone else has already gone to 100%.


----------



## chrisd (Oct 25, 2015)

Probably the allowance wasnt (in reality) the deciding factor as the 18 h/c just had a great game on the day, but I do feel giving more shots would have given us no chance whatsoever


----------



## robert.redmile (Oct 25, 2015)

I would hope that the r and a have used lots of data to make this change.
the whole point of the handicap is to give everyone the same chance, and u would think that this change was made because statistically speaking , those teams with lower handicaps were winning more often compared with higher handicapped teams.


----------



## Crow (Oct 25, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Probably the allowance wasnt (in reality) the deciding factor as the 18 h/c just had a great game on the day, but I do feel giving more shots would have given us no chance whatsoever
		
Click to expand...

That's normal in golf, some days the opposition will totally outplay you, on others it'll be them crying into their beer.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 25, 2015)

robert.redmile said:



			I would hope that the r and a have used lots of data to make this change.
the whole point of the handicap is to give everyone the same chance, and u would think that this change was made because statistically speaking , those teams with lower handicaps were winning more often compared with higher handicapped teams.
		
Click to expand...

I don't think it's being changed on the back of statistics 

And it's a change by Congu that they believe will encourage high HC golfers to take part in more comps and encourage people to take up the game


----------



## robert.redmile (Oct 25, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I don't think it's being changed on the back of statistics 

And it's a change by Congu that they believe will encourage high HC golfers to take part in more comps and encourage people to take up the game
		
Click to expand...

Doesn't seem fair on the lower handicappers then! Surely the allowances should be based on making it as "fair" as possible, and not skewed to give one group a better chance than another?


----------



## woody69 (Oct 26, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



*I don't think it's being changed on the back of statistics* 

And it's a change by Congu that they believe will encourage high HC golfers to take part in more comps and encourage people to take up the game
		
Click to expand...

You honestly think England Golf have not conducted research into establishing the fair allowance for 4BBB? I'm fairly certain they would have and if anything have still gone against it slightly by compromising on 90% rather than 100% purely to placate the change. It'll be 100% in a year or 2 and low handicappers will still probably win slightly more often than higher handicappers and still moan about the handicap allowance when they don't.


----------



## duncan mackie (Oct 26, 2015)

woody69 said:



			You honestly think England Golf have not conducted research into establishing the fair allowance for 4BBB? I'm fairly certain they would have and if anything have still gone against it slightly by compromising on 90% rather than 100% purely to placate the change. It'll be 100% in a year or 2 and low handicappers will still probably win slightly more often than higher handicappers and still moan about the handicap allowance when they don't.
		
Click to expand...

Completely agree. Huge theoretical and practical evidence to support it - and as keeps cropping up in these threads - it's the presumption by the lower handicap players that they have some right to win most of the time that is actually threatened by change. They still have significant advantage based on the theoretical strength of handicaps - but it's not as great in 4BBB as it was!


----------



## Stuey01 (Oct 26, 2015)

It must suck to be a low handicapper, judging by the huge amount of moaning.


----------



## IanG (Oct 26, 2015)

I wonder if much of the perception of a low handicappers is to do with the distribution of handicaps. There are relatively few low handicappers, so if the handicap system is working perfectly and each match is a 50/50 outcome they will more regularly get beaten by high handicappers than low since they are simply playing against them so much more often.


----------



## Norrin Radd (Oct 26, 2015)

90% still dosent make it fair for the higher capper.
and if you want use stats then it would need to be 105% difference .i think the lowers cappers would be squealing if they did that. 
so until it is made 100%the lower boys have the advantage and will continue to do so ,according to stats.


----------



## Fyldewhite (Oct 26, 2015)

Never had a problem with the full handicap allowance in singles matchplay. There's a good article on the CONGU site explaining the logic and it's hard to argue with tbh. When it comes to better ball though I think there is less of a clear cut case. The whole statistical theory behind handicapping is based around the premise that higher handicappers have more variance and their scores are more widely distributed. So they will have more "day's out" than lower players but will also have more nightmares. Surely this must correlate to scoring in individual rounds too. For example, a 20 handicapper may have 3 pars followed by an 8 and a 9 etc. If this is pairs better ball and the pair do a bit of "Tom and Jerry 'ing" then it's very hard to live with.....even low players don't actually get a raft of birdies every time they go out! I always thought that the reduced allowance of 3/4 was to address this......and worked pretty well.......I've never seen low handicappers cleaning up in 4BBB. In fact I'd say the winners come from the middle more often than not but that's just my perception. Maybe there are some stats?  I'm really not moaning but I do think this will slew things towards higher handicaps in this type of event. Time will tell I suppose.


----------



## Crazyface (Oct 26, 2015)

My mate plays off 28 and to be honest....he can't really play to that. So it has been great fun to turn up to at his place to play in their invitation day knowing he's only going to get 19 shots so I'm basically on my own and I hate the course he plays at. 
i'm looking forward to us being a competitive pairing next season at both our invitation days.


----------



## chrisd (Oct 26, 2015)

The poacher said:



			i think the lowers cappers would be squealing if they did that.
		
Click to expand...

From what I can see, the lower handicappers will set up their own comp and avoid the problem, much as they did when the singles changed to full allowance


----------



## Joff (Oct 26, 2015)

They should just have divisional winners imho. Half combined handicap like a medal or stableford.

*dons flack hat*


----------



## User20205 (Oct 26, 2015)

It's part of the dumbing down of golf. Moving to full difference in singles & now 90% in 4bbb. There's no incentive for the ww's to improve.


----------



## Fish (Oct 26, 2015)

I got knocked out of our winter league singles matchplay yesterday, I had 8 shots as he was a 12 handicapper, I thought I'd played 3 under handicap but after downloading my SkyCaddie this morning I was 5 under and I lost 2&1  

Everyone has there day, this guy trumped mine, it happens, but when you look at those singles or pairs matches from higher handicapped players that take you out early doors, they don't often go on to win knockouts as consistency isn't in our remit.

Some pairs also dovetail very well, I'm looking forward to the new 90% allowance :smirk:


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 26, 2015)

The poacher said:



			90% still dosent make it fair for the higher capper.
and if you want use stats then it would need to be 105% difference .i think the lowers cappers would be squealing if they did that. 
so until it is made 100%the lower boys have the advantage and will continue to do so ,according to stats.
		
Click to expand...

I play plenty singles matchplay with 100% - doesn't bother me one single bit 

Also looked through the thread and haven't seen a "low" HC moaning or complaining


----------



## User20205 (Oct 26, 2015)

Fish said:



			I got knocked out of our winter league singles matchplay yesterday, I had 8 shots as he was a 12 handicapper, I thought I'd played 3 under handicap but after downloading my SkyCaddie this morning I was 5 under and I lost 2&1  

Everyone has there day, this guy trumped mine, it happens, but when you look at those singles or pairs matches from higher handicapped players that take you out early doors, they don't often go on to win knockouts as consistency isn't in our remit.

Some pairs also dovetail very well, I'm looking forward to the new 90% allowance :smirk:
		
Click to expand...


yep I bet you are, should make it 50% & give you an incentive to get rid of that chicken wing & get cut >>>>>:thup:


----------



## Smiffy (Oct 26, 2015)

Fish said:



			I thought I'd played 3 under handicap but after downloading my SkyCaddie this morning I was 5 under
		
Click to expand...

That's very unusual Robin
:smirk:


----------



## Fish (Oct 26, 2015)

therod said:



			yep I bet you are, should make it 50% & give you an incentive to get rid of that chicken wing & get cut >>>>>:thup:
		
Click to expand...


----------



## User20205 (Oct 26, 2015)

Fish said:



View attachment 17337

Click to expand...


:cheers:


----------



## Fish (Oct 26, 2015)

Smiffy said:



			That's very unusual Robin
:smirk:
		
Click to expand...

It was compared to my last 2 outings where I was carving my drives all over the shop, I only carved 1 yesterday on our 10th plus 1 huge block on the 4th but still managed a respectable bogey, otherwise I was hitting greens in regulation or chipping close for single putts and pars but he was a birdie machine, turns out he used to be off single figures but now doesn't play that often so he done me good & proper


----------



## Region3 (Oct 26, 2015)

woody69 said:



			It'll be 100% in a year or 2 and low handicappers will still probably win slightly more often than higher handicappers and still moan about the handicap allowance when they don't.
		
Click to expand...




Stuey01 said:



			It must suck to be a low handicapper, judging by the huge amount of moaning.
		
Click to expand...




The poacher said:



			90% still dosent make it fair for the higher capper.
and if you want use stats then it would need to be 105% difference .i think the lowers cappers would be squealing if they did that.
		
Click to expand...

Bit of a sweeping generalisation, especially since i can't see any gripes on this thread about it.

If you'd said Asian people moan about it you'd be racist.
If you'd said women moan about it you'd be sexist.

But it's ok to say a particular group of golfers moan about it?

Yes, I'm moaning about being told I moan


----------



## Norrin Radd (Oct 26, 2015)

you can be the lower capper even if you are off 22 ,if you are playing a 28 capper.


----------



## woody69 (Oct 26, 2015)

Region3 said:



			Bit of a sweeping generalisation, especially since i can't see any gripes on this thread about it.

If you'd said Asian people moan about it you'd be racist.
If you'd said women moan about it you'd be sexist.

But it's ok to say a particular group of golfers moan about it?

Yes, I'm moaning about being told I moan 

Click to expand...

Are you honestly trying to align racism and sexism with the assertion that lower handicapped players are more likely to have a grumble when beaten by a player with a higher handicap?


----------



## Region3 (Oct 26, 2015)

woody69 said:



			Are you honestly trying to align racism and sexism with the assertion that lower handicapped players are more likely to have a grumble when beaten by a player with a higher handicap?
		
Click to expand...

Not equating them at all but why should it be ok to bash low hc's, especially for something that hasn't reared its head on this thread.

I should have put it better.

In fact, I should have not taken the bait and just kept my trap shut


----------



## User20205 (Oct 26, 2015)

woody69 said:



			Are you honestly trying to align racism and sexism with the assertion that lower handicapped players are more likely to have a grumble when beaten by a player with a higher handicap?
		
Click to expand...

it's a ism and a valid one at that. All of this unpleasantness would be avoided if you lot just worked a bit harder


----------



## Foxholer (Oct 26, 2015)

There is a reason why I believe that *some* low cappers should be allowed to moan about *some* higher ones - and that is where they are 'equally talented', but one has (successfully) worked extremely hard to get down, while the other (for any number of reasons) has simply 'taken advantage of' the way the handicap system works and stayed at their original level - but with significant headroom for having a really good day! In this case, I'd probably back the higher capper over a series of matches, though anything can happen in a single match!

As for the change to 90% for 4BBB, it certainly has used statistics to support the change, along with results from other countries that have changed to 100%!


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 26, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I don't think it's being changed on the back of statistics
		
Click to expand...

We were assured that it had been done on stats. Since the introduction of all Q scores being uploaded to the central system they have been able to run many different models based on all kinds handicap configurations with accurate up to date data.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 26, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			We were assured that it had been done on stats. Since the introduction of all Q scores being uploaded to the central system they have been able to run many different models based on all kinds handicap configurations with accurate up to date data.
		
Click to expand...

How many q scores off 3/4 HC or 4BBB scores of 3/4 HC have you entered into the system - for us it is a grand total of "zero" 

How can data from full HC single qualifiers be used

They haven't asked clubs how they felt about 3/4 HC for 4BBB and KO nor asked golfers 

So where have they got the "stats" to back up any change

We were told they got opinions from "focus" groups - the make up of these they didn't say


----------



## Region3 (Oct 26, 2015)

I think that the stats will still favour lower handicaps overall.

There's something in the annual review recommendations (I think it was mentioned on here a year or two ago) that gives a rough formula as to what each handicap category should average over the season if their handicap is accurate.

I may not have explained that very well but hopefully you know what I mean.

So a cat1 might be expected to average 3 over handicap over a season, and a cat3 average 6 over handicap. Figures probably wrong, I'm just guessing.

Anyway, changing from 3/4 to 90% is going to bring the two players average games closer together. The low guy is still at a slight statistical advantage as his average game is closer to his handicap.

As there is a bigger variance in score the higher handicap you look at, I think a cat3 on a good day is at a big advantage over a cat1 on a good day. If you look at what the Americans like to call a career day, the cat1 has almost zero chance.

Fair enough maybe? Cat1 has an advantage at one end of the scale and cat3 at the other end.

But, I don't expect to be competitive on an average day. I think I should have to play very well to have a chance at winning anything.

I hope that doesn't sound like a moan, it's not intended to be, but if it is then so be it.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 26, 2015)

If I ever get to the holy grail of Cat 1, I am going to moan like a banshee, all you/me hackers better watch out&#128515;


----------



## pokerjoke (Oct 26, 2015)

Region3 said:



			I think that the stats will still favour lower handicaps overall.

There's something in the annual review recommendations (I think it was mentioned on here a year or two ago) that gives a rough formula as to what each handicap category should average over the season if their handicap is accurate.

I may not have explained that very well but hopefully you know what I mean.

So a cat1 might be expected to average 3 over handicap over a season, and a cat3 average 6 over handicap. Figures probably wrong, I'm just guessing.

Anyway, changing from 3/4 to 90% is going to bring the two players average games closer together. The low guy is still at a slight statistical advantage as his average game is closer to his handicap.

As there is a bigger variance in score the higher handicap you look at, I think a cat3 on a good day is at a big advantage over a cat1 on a good day. If you look at what the Americans like to call a career day, the cat1 has almost zero chance.

Fair enough maybe? Cat1 has an advantage at one end of the scale and cat3 at the other end.

But, I don't expect to be competitive on an average day. I think I should have to play very well to have a chance at winning anything.

I hope that doesn't sound like a moan, it's not intended to be, but if it is then so be it.
		
Click to expand...

You obviously play well a lot then because you seem to do alright.


----------



## Region3 (Oct 26, 2015)

pokerjoke said:



			You obviously play well a lot then because you seem to do alright.
		
Click to expand...

Apart from teams comps when I can play dump and let other people carry me


----------



## pokerjoke (Oct 26, 2015)

Region3 said:



			Apart from teams comps when I can play dump and let other people carry me 

Click to expand...

I haven't even mentioned it

To be honest we all did our part,at least you didn't 3 putt from 20 feet


----------



## duncan mackie (Oct 26, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			How many q scores off 3/4 HC or 4BBB scores of 3/4 HC have you entered into the system - for us it is a grand total of "zero" 

How can data from full HC single qualifiers be used

They haven't asked clubs how they felt about 3/4 HC for 4BBB and KO nor asked golfers 

So where have they got the "stats" to back up any change

We were told they got opinions from "focus" groups - the make up of these they didn't say
		
Click to expand...

Whilst they can use returned cards to create theoretical pairs competitions (valid) there has also been a lot of practical evaluation, which started from direct returns from clubs in respect of their knockout events when then moved to 100% ( NZ golf union  went first). 

The argument put forward by some regarding those who wish to compete v those who wish to improve their handicap has no specific bearing on 4BBB - it applies to every form of competitive golf.


----------



## User20205 (Oct 26, 2015)

On a semi serious point. Full allowance and 90% in 4bbb encourage match play 'specialists' aka massive bandits. There are a couple at my place. They play 3 qualifiers a year, but play the roll up every week. They target and invariably clean up in handicap match play. 

Any changes to the allowance should be accompanied by an increase in the no of min qualifiers. I go at least 5 maybe 7 in a 12 month period. 

I don't mind giving shots if the handicap is valid.


----------



## chrisd (Oct 26, 2015)

therod said:



			On a semi serious point. Full allowance and 90% in 4bbb encourage match play 'specialists' aka massive bandits. There are a couple at my place. They play 3 qualifiers a year, but play the roll up every week. They target and invariably clean up in handicap match play. 

Any changes to the allowance should be accompanied by an increase in the no of min qualifiers. I go at least 5 maybe 7 in a 12 month period. 

I don't mind giving shots if the handicap is valid.
		
Click to expand...

Good point!


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 26, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			How many q scores off 3/4 HC or 4BBB scores of 3/4 HC have you entered into the system - for us it is a grand total of "zero" 

How can data from full HC single qualifiers be used

They haven't asked clubs how they felt about 3/4 HC for 4BBB and KO nor asked golfers 

So where have they got the "stats" to back up any change

We were told they got opinions from "focus" groups - the make up of these they didn't say
		
Click to expand...

If you can't work out the simple way of working it out using models with all of the data that they receive then your beyond my help. But to put it simply, if you know scores and handicaps of individual players by simple spreadsheets and formulas you could work out most combinations.

My understanding is from some of your posts is that you joined your club committee at the beginning of this year so as these things get discussed over a number of years it's possible that you have not yet received your personal invite.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 26, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			If you can't work out the simple way of working it out using models with all of the data that they receive then your beyond my help. But to put it simply, if you know scores and handicaps of individual players by simple spreadsheets and formulas you could work out most combinations.

My understanding is from some of your posts is that you joined your club committee at the beginning of this year so as these things get discussed over a number of years it's possible that you have not yet received your personal invite.
		
Click to expand...

My personal invite ? 

Have spoken to a number of people at Congu and been invited to a number of meetings. Hence why I said that I was informed there were focus groups in regards the change in allowance for 4BBB - that was from a Congu rep


----------



## duncan mackie (Oct 26, 2015)

therod said:



			On a semi serious point. Full allowance and 90% in 4bbb encourage match play 'specialists' aka massive bandits. There are a couple at my place. They play 3 qualifiers a year, but play the roll up every week. They target and invariably clean up in handicap match play. 

Any changes to the allowance should be accompanied by an increase in the no of min qualifiers. I go at least 5 maybe 7 in a 12 month period. 

I don't mind giving shots if the handicap is valid.
		
Click to expand...

Disagree 

Absolutely no point in changing the system in a manner that will have no impact at all on your 'target group'  and create real issues for the innocent.

As an example 7 Q cards would probably exclude over 50% - for no reason at all. The number of cards returned is absolutely no measure of capability if the player doesn't want it to be.

If the roll ups want to give them their money that's their choice - if the club doesn't believe they have inappropriate handicaps (in knockouts) then that's that.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 26, 2015)

therod said:



			On a semi serious point. Full allowance and 90% in 4bbb encourage match play 'specialists' aka massive bandits. There are a couple at my place. They play 3 qualifiers a year, but play the roll up every week. They target and invariably clean up in handicap match play. 

Any changes to the allowance should be accompanied by an increase in the no of min qualifiers. I go at least 5 maybe 7 in a 12 month period. 

I don't mind giving shots if the handicap is valid.
		
Click to expand...

Surely your wanting to change/adjust rules for a "couple" of bandits at your place, how many genuine people enter the comps? 
I agree with you something should be done, I'm just not sure what, any system introduced the dishonest will find a way round it.


----------



## User20205 (Oct 26, 2015)

duncan mackie said:



			Disagree 

Absolutely no point in changing the system in a manner that will have no impact at all on your 'target group'  and create real issues for the innocent.

As an example 7 Q cards would probably exclude over 50% - for no reason at all. The number of cards returned is absolutely no measure of capability if the player doesn't want it to be.

If the roll ups want to give them their money that's their choice - if the club doesn't believe they have inappropriate handicaps (in knockouts) then that's that.
		
Click to expand...

5 is probably more realistic. It may be a clumsy measure but the more qualifiers the more realistic the measure. It's more difficult to do the minimum. 

It may be unenforceable generally, but I'd support my club introducing a no of qualifiers above and beyond the current requirement as a stipulation for entry into club knock outs. 

How can someone not manage to play 5 qualifiers in a calendar year but manage to fit in a load of knockout matches? The current system is open to abuse, the above, whilst not perfect, reduces that.


----------



## Fish (Oct 27, 2015)

therod said:



			It may be unenforceable generally, but I'd support my club introducing a no of qualifiers above and beyond the current requirement as a stipulation for entry into club knock outs. 

How can someone not manage to play 5 qualifiers in a calendar year but manage to fit in a load of knockout matches? The current system is open to abuse, the above, whilst not perfect, reduces that.
		
Click to expand...

I agree, we have someone at my club who is never seen at the weekends or any singles comps, I'm told he puts in 3 supps a season but miraculously he enters all the team and pairs events and if he doesn't win outright, is always in the frame for some winnings?

There are definitely weak areas that allow this to happen and be exploited so I too would support an increase in having to play more than the current 3 single qualifier comps to at least 5 for starters to be able to enter pairs & team knockouts.


----------



## Stuey01 (Oct 27, 2015)

What's the difference between 3 qualifying rounds required and 5 qualifying rounds required?
2 x 0.1
Or maybe 2 x buffer.
That's what.

If the person wants their handicap to stay high to clean up in knockouts then making them play extra qualifiers per year is going to make diddly squat difference.


----------



## User20205 (Oct 27, 2015)

If somebody wanted to abuse the system by deliberately playing badly they still could, it just makes it more obvious. More common are those who see qualifiers as a chore, and a barrier to matchplay glory 

 having to play 5 would reinforce the need with these fellas to have a legitimate handicap. It would remove the serious banditry accusations and sell the change better to those giving shots.

Otherwise it just reinforces the belief that golf, in a club environment, rewards mediocrity.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 27, 2015)

If every club has these 2-3 people, maybe it's time they were confronted and questioned about their playing habits by the clubs, it's not the rules that are the issue here!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			If every club has these 2-3 people, maybe it's time they were confronted and questioned about their playing habits by the clubs, it's not the rules that are the issue here!
		
Click to expand...

Confront them and say what - "excuse me but we need to have a word about you playing to the rules to keep your HC active"


----------



## robert.redmile (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Confront them and say what - "excuse me but we need to have a word about you playing to the rules to keep your HC active"
		
Click to expand...

You should never be upset if you are beaten by a cheat, or someone who manipulates the system. (Easy to say, much harder to do!)
take pride in what you can control and in your own performance, and enjoy the game - winning a comp is great, but if you're beaten by someone with dubious credentials it's pointless getting worked up about it.
the only solution I can see issue the rest of the members to take the mick, and in some way "shame" the perpetrators into changing their ways!
rob


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2015)

robert.redmile said:



			You should never be upset if you are beaten by a cheat, or someone who manipulates the system. (Easy to say, much harder to do!)
take pride in what you can control and in your own performance, and enjoy the game - winning a comp is great, but if you're beaten by someone with dubious credentials it's pointless getting worked up about it.
the only solution I can see issue the rest of the members to take the mick, and in some way "shame" the perpetrators into changing their ways!
rob
		
Click to expand...

Let's be clear you can't call this guys cheats or manipulating systems etc etc or "shaming" them and you can't "gang up to shame them "

They are following the rules set out by the governing body - you can't be a cheat if you are just following the rules


----------



## chrisd (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Let's be clear you can't call this guys cheats or manipulating systems etc etc or "shaming" them and you can't "gang up to shame them "

They are following the rules set out by the governing body - you can't be a cheat if you are just following the rules
		
Click to expand...

I don't recall everyone being that way minded when "a certain televised tour" was (rightly) pilloried :smirk:


----------



## duncan mackie (Oct 27, 2015)

therod said:



			5 is probably more realistic. It may be a clumsy measure but the more qualifiers the more realistic the measure. It's more difficult to do the minimum. 

It may be unenforceable generally, but I'd support my club introducing a no of qualifiers above and beyond the current requirement as a stipulation for entry into club knock outs. 

How can someone not manage to play 5 qualifiers in a calendar year but manage to fit in a load of knockout matches? The current system is open to abuse, the above, whilst not perfect, reduces that.
		
Click to expand...

My point is that such individuals will easily comply with all and any limits you apply but it will not make the slightest difference to their handicaps - none; zilch.

It won't be any more obvious either - no idea why you think that. 

Yes your club can have any CoC restrictions it likes - they won't catch these people either but they can be a good idea. We have a requirement that people have played in 3 club competitions within the previous 12 months for such events for a similar reason.

If people are manipulating the handicap system then the handicap committee need to act - it's nothing to do with any perceived flaws in the system. The most extreme individuals I have been aware of actively play more Q comps (in order to increase their handicaps!).


----------



## duncan mackie (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Let's be clear you can't call this guys cheats or manipulating systems etc etc or "shaming" them and you can't "gang up to shame them "

They are following the rules set out by the governing body - you can't be a cheat if you are just following the rules
		
Click to expand...

Indeed - if you are following all the rules; including the one that requires you to try to play to the best of your ability in Q comps.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2015)

chrisd said:



			I don't recall everyone being that way minded when "a certain televised tour" was (rightly) pilloried :smirk:
		
Click to expand...

Well that's gets the critics for a number of reasons and there are certain players who seem to have HC that are different depending on which event and certain people have done the bare minimum and then continue their merry way on all these events where they are non qualifying. 

They aren't "cheats" as such and even though some certain people have been "shamed" and indeed understand banned from some comps

I fully agree with Nick that the amount of qualifying cards required should be increased to keep an "Competitve" HC and they should include a mandatory amount of "qualifiers"

Until then comp organisers should look at their conditions of entry to tackle the guys who just do the bare minimum


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Confront them and say what - "excuse me but we need to have a word about you playing to the rules to keep your HC active"
		
Click to expand...

The club committee Phil, do you have suspicions about anyone at your place, or are you saying it's OK for them to do this!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Well that's gets the critics for a number of reasons and there are certain players who seem to have HC that are different depending on which event and certain people have done the bare minimum and then continue their merry way on all these events where they are non qualifying. 

They aren't "cheats" as such and even though some certain people have been "shamed" and indeed understand banned from some comps

I fully agree with Nick that the amount of qualifying cards required should be increased to keep an "Competitve" HC and they should include a mandatory amount of "qualifiers"

Until then comp organisers should look at their conditions of entry to tackle the guys who just do the bare minimum
		
Click to expand...

So one minute they're doing nothing wrong and the next you want to change rules and conditions of entry, in the mean time, we'll go round and riund in circles and Clubs do nothing?


----------



## pokerjoke (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Let's be clear you can't call this guys cheats or manipulating systems etc etc or "shaming" them and you can't "gang up to shame them "

They are following the rules set out by the governing body - you can't be a cheat if you are just following the rules
		
Click to expand...




chrisd said:



			I don't recall everyone being that way minded when "a certain televised tour" was (rightly) pilloried :smirk:
		
Click to expand...

Whats your response to this Phil.


----------



## pokerjoke (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Let's be clear you can't call this guys cheats or manipulating systems etc etc or "shaming" them and you can't "gang up to shame them "

They are following the rules set out by the governing body - you can't be a cheat if you are just following the rules
		
Click to expand...




chrisd said:



			I don't recall everyone being that way minded when "a certain televised tour" was (rightly) pilloried :smirk:
		
Click to expand...




Liverpoolphil said:



			Well that's gets the critics for a number of reasons and there are certain players who seem to have HC that are different depending on which event and certain people have done the bare minimum and then continue their merry way on all these events where they are non qualifying. 

They aren't "cheats" as such and even though some certain people have been "shamed" and indeed understand banned from some comps

I fully agree with Nick that the amount of qualifying cards required should be increased to keep an "Competitve" HC and they should include a mandatory amount of "qualifiers"

Until then comp organisers should look at their conditions of entry to tackle the guys who just do the bare minimum
		
Click to expand...

Ok lets say now you decide to do the minimum of 3 qualifiers in 12 months and your handicap is 5.1 the worst you can be is 5.4 the same as if someone was 12.1
Your only actually protecting your current handicap.

A bandit or cheat whichever you want to call it will have to play a helluva lot of qualifiers and play poorly to get a false handicap,so as someone said the one who only plays in 3 qualifiers a year has a more realistic handicap.

It is the ones who have had a lower handicap and has played a lot of qualifiers and played rubbish to get his handicap up we should be worried about.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			The club committee Phil, do you have suspicions about anyone at your place, or are you saying it's OK for them to do this!
		
Click to expand...

Ok to do what ? Play within the rules ? 

Again what would I be able to do ? 

I have a few people that just to supplementary cards to keep an active HC - but there is nothing I can do about them


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			So one minute they're doing nothing wrong and the next you want to change rules and conditions of entry, in the mean time, we'll go round and riund in circles and Clubs do nothing?
		
Click to expand...

By the rules of Congu they are doing nothing wrong - it is as simple as that


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			By the rules of Congu they are doing nothing wrong - it is as simple as that
		
Click to expand...

So why the need for change?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Ok to do what ? Play within the rules ? 

Again what would I be able to do ? 

I have a few people that just to supplementary cards to keep an active HC - but there is nothing I can do about them
		
Click to expand...

If questioned whether they are restricting the comps to manipulate handicap, they have to answer and the question being asked may be enough for them to change!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			So why the need for change?
		
Click to expand...

Because I don't believe people should be able to keep an active HC on such a small amount and indeed without playing any qualifying comps


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			If questioned whether they are restricting the comps to manipulate handicap, they have to answer and the question being asked may be enough for them to change!
		
Click to expand...

So you start questioning them just because they are following the rules 

You can't challenge them unless they are doing something wrong and then need proof


----------



## User20205 (Oct 27, 2015)

duncan mackie said:



			My point is that such individuals will easily comply with all and any limits you apply but it will not make the slightest difference to their handicaps - none; zilch.

It won't be any more obvious either - no idea why you think that. 

Yes your club can have any CoC restrictions it likes - they won't catch these people either but they can be a good idea. We have a requirement that people have played in 3 club competitions within the previous 12 months for such events for a similar reason.

If people are manipulating the handicap system then the handicap committee need to act - it's nothing to do with any perceived flaws in the system. The most extreme individuals I have been aware of actively play more Q comps (in order to increase their handicaps!).
		
Click to expand...

I agree it's not perfect, but it's a barrier. It's those that shoot 40+ points every roll up and are disappointed if the score 36 that would be shown up by this system (Liverpool Phil)

 If the very same fella doesn't repeat that performance in x5 qualifiers I think questions can justifiably be asked. I don't buy the 'cant do it with a card in may hand' nonsense.

All the above does is put this practice in a sharper focus, then it can be handled by peer pressure etc. 

is it really that hard to play x5 qualifiers in a 12 month period?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So you start questioning them just because they are following the rules 

You can't challenge them unless they are doing something wrong and then need proof
		
Click to expand...

Manipulating your Handicap is against the rules isn't it?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Manipulating your Handicap is against the rules isn't it?
		
Click to expand...

Prove they are manipulating their HC ? 

You can't accuse people unless you can prove that is what they are doing.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Prove they are manipulating their HC ? 

You can't accuse people unless you can prove that is what they are doing.
		
Click to expand...

So your pearl of wisdom is to raise the amount of qualifiers needed from 3 to 5/6/7 etc, so what do you propose Clubs do while we wait for this change, if it ever happens!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			So your pearl of wisdom is to raise the amount of qualifiers needed from 3 to 5/6/7 etc, so what do you propose Clubs do while we wait for this change, if it ever happens!
		
Click to expand...

As I have already said in a previous post -  change the conditions of entry into their comps


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 27, 2015)

Just to put a little context on this at the last SW Congu meeting I attended I asked if the amount of qualifiers played to hold on to a "C" handicap should be increased.  This was a well attended meeting and less than a 1/4 of the assembled body in the SW felt that the current system needed changing.

 If players have an issue with this they should let their clubs know via an AGM and get it fed up the chain.  Changing conditions of entry for internal comps can easily resolve the matter as has already been stated.

If you are up to speed on the matter you will know that:

CONGUs original concerns where that players would use them to artificially lower their handicaps
Players can only submit a max of 10 sup cards
Cat 1 players have restrictions placed on them


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			So your pearl of wisdom is to raise the amount of qualifiers needed from 3 to 5/6/7 etc, so what do you propose Clubs do while we wait for this change, if it ever happens!
		
Click to expand...

Many people may be playing over 20 Q in a year - are they doing it to raise their handicap or lower it?  Players only using the Sup system are playing less.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			As I have already said in a previous post -  change the conditions of entry into their comps
		
Click to expand...

That only stops them at their course!! Does nothing for the ones visiting other courses.
Surely if at an AR certain players were discussed, it wouldn't be wrong to mention it to them infomally, almost lightheartdly to see how they react, it might just prick their conscience.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			That only stops them at their course!! Does nothing for the ones visiting other courses.
Surely if at an AR certain players were discussed, it wouldn't be wrong to mention it to them infomally, almost lightheartdly to see how they react, it might just prick their conscience.
		
Click to expand...

As i said already - change conditions of entry in competition - never said its restricted to home only

Again you can't single out people unless you have proof they are doing something wrong - lightheartedly or not


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			As i said already - change conditions of entry in competition - never said its restricted to home only

Again you can't single out people unless you have proof they are doing something wrong - lightheartedly or not
		
Click to expand...

Didn't say they were doing anything wrong, just mentioning what was discussed&#128515;


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Didn't say they were doing anything wrong, just mentioning what was discussed&#128515;
		
Click to expand...

So nothing to be done until they do something wrong - got there in the end


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			So nothing to be done until they do something wrong - got there in the end
		
Click to expand...

Eh, he's been approached informally and you hope he gets the message, far better than the nothing you're suggesting until such a time CONGU, who as Old Skier said, don't have an issue, becomes an issue!
P.S. You still haven't answered Pokerjokes posts!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			Eh, he's been approached informally and you hope he gets the message, far better than the nothing you're suggesting until such a time CONGU, who as Old Skier said, don't have an issue, becomes an issue!
P.S. You still haven't answered Pokerjokes posts!
		
Click to expand...

Who has been approached ? You can't approach anyone formally or informally unless you can come up with some sort of proof first that he is doing anything wrong


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Who has been approached ? You can't approach anyone formally or informally unless you can come up with some sort of proof first that he is doing anything wrong
		
Click to expand...

That's just a cop out, you constantly go on about rules are rules etc, but your not willing to have a chat with someone !


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			That's just a cop out, you constantly go on about rules are rules etc, but your not willing to have a chat with someone !
		
Click to expand...

A chat about what - the fact he is following the rules 

Until any prove arrives that someone is doing to bare minimum " on purpose " to manipulate his HC in some then no I won't have a chat because I believe that is the right way to act instead of being suspicious and accusing formally or informally


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			A chat about what - the fact he is following the rules 

Until any prove arrives that someone is doing to bare minimum " on purpose " to manipulate his HC in some then no I won't have a chat because I believe that is the right way to act instead of being suspicious and accusing formally or informally
		
Click to expand...

What if heard these rumours suspicions about a mate, would you keep the same point of view or mention it to him so he can dispell them or sort it out?
P.P.S. Pokerjokes still waiting.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			What if heard these rumours suspicions about a mate, would you keep the same point of view or mention it to him so he can dispell them or sort it out?
P.P.S. Pokerjokes still waiting.
		
Click to expand...

Rumours are rumours - don't make anything valid and certainly not enough to confront someone 

I can read what Pokerjoke has posted and everything I have posted answers what he asked - don't need you to continuely bring it up.


----------



## woody69 (Oct 27, 2015)

I agree with people that increasing the number of qualifiers would be counter intuitive, because it a player wanted to falsely manipulate their h/cap UP, they would want to play more qualifier. Play the bear minimum and you are more likely to stay the same.

Funny how CONGUs main concern is players trying to falsely manipulate their handicap down, where as most people on here seems to take umbrage at golfers falsely maintaining higher handicaps to win comps.

One possible solution is to increase the buffer for CAT 2, 3 and 4 and increase the shots cut for these players as well. You could also change it so you only went up by 0.1 for every other round that was outside buffer.

Not sure it's really needed though because personally these mythical players that "everyone" seems to know are rarer than unicorns. I think the biggest issue is people's perception when they lose to players who aren't as good as them at golf. All of that could go away if everywhere always ran both the NET and a GROSS comp or maintained divisions, but that all goes against the overall spirit of what the handicap system is about.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Rumours are rumours - don't make anything valid and certainly not enough to confront someone 

I can read what Pokerjoke has posted and everything I have posted answers what he asked - don't need you to continuely bring it up.
		
Click to expand...

What's with the aggressive language (confront) why can't you just talk to someone, they may not see what their doing as an issue.

P.P.P.S. Not sure you have answered what Pokerjoke has asked, just saying!


----------



## Fish (Oct 27, 2015)

I unsubscribe to more and threads like this on a daily basis &#128164;&#128164;&#128164; where's that horse, I need to flog it a bit more.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Oct 27, 2015)

Fish said:



			I unsubscribe to more and threads like this on a daily basis &#128164;&#128164;&#128164; where's that horse, I need to flog it a bit more.
		
Click to expand...

I'm sorry mate, promise to behave&#128515;


----------



## User20205 (Oct 27, 2015)

Fish said:



			I unsubscribe to more and threads like this on a daily basis &#55357;&#56484;&#55357;&#56484;&#55357;&#56484; where's that horse, I need to flog it a bit more.
		
Click to expand...

you should pay attention, you're part of the problem :ears:

25 qualifiers for you next year. YOTF my hairy ....


----------



## pbrown7582 (Oct 27, 2015)

therod said:



			you should pay attention, you're part of the problem :ears:

25 qualifiers for you next year. YOTF my hairy ....

Click to expand...

 I saw it on the interweb thingy hes off 10 now?


----------



## Fish (Oct 27, 2015)

therod said:



			you should pay attention, you're part of the problem :ears:

25 qualifiers for you next year. YOTF my hairy ....

Click to expand...

I missed 20 qualifiers being injured for 4 months, if not I might have got down to 19


----------



## duncan mackie (Oct 27, 2015)

woody69 said:



			I agree with people that increasing the number of qualifiers would be counter intuitive, because it a player wanted to falsely manipulate their h/cap UP, they would want to play more qualifier. Play the bear minimum and you are more likely to stay the same.

Funny how CONGUs main concern is players trying to falsely manipulate their handicap down, where as most people on here seems to take umbrage at golfers falsely maintaining higher handicaps to win comps.

One possible solution is to increase the buffer for CAT 2, 3 and 4 and increase the shots cut for these players as well. You could also change it so you only went up by 0.1 for every other round that was outside buffer.

Not sure it's really needed though because personally these mythical players that "everyone" seems to know are rarer than unicorns. I think the biggest issue is people's perception when they lose to players who aren't as good as them at golf. All of that could go away if everywhere always ran both the NET and a GROSS comp or maintained divisions, but that all goes against the overall spirit of what the handicap system is about.
		
Click to expand...

More relevant is that those unicorns that do exist operate in the non-Q competition world of teams & pairs or trilby type events.

The odd situation crops up from time to time in respect of board events but that's rarely a serial offender and they get cut for their success.


----------



## Region3 (Oct 30, 2015)

This player complies with the rules.


----------



## Liverbirdie (Oct 30, 2015)

Fish said:



			I missed 20 qualifiers being injured for 4 months, if not I might have got down to 19 

Click to expand...

Maybe in a dress size.:whoo:


----------



## Liverbirdie (Oct 30, 2015)

With the advent of 36 h/caps for next year in club competitions, I can't wait for the first weekend warrior thread of:-

"Me and my mate who are off 18 and 24 gave them 18 shots each, and they were 10 over gross for 12 holes, when we shook hands on our dog licence".:whoo:


----------



## delc (Oct 30, 2015)

My impression after playing many 4BBB matches over the years is that lower handicap pairs on average tend to win, because of their better standard of play. However if a high handicap opponent has a good day, then you have no chance!


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Oct 30, 2015)

Liverbirdie said:



			With the advent of 36 h/caps for next year in club competitions, I can't wait for the first weekend warrior thread of:-

"Me and my mate who are off 18 and 24 gave them 18 shots each, and they were 10 over gross for 12 holes, when we shook hands on our dog licence".:whoo:
		
Click to expand...

I'll be amazed if many clubs increase players HC beyond 28 - I know we won't be doing it


----------



## duncan mackie (Oct 30, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'll be amazed if many clubs increase players HC beyond 28 - I know we won't be doing it
		
Click to expand...

Nope - it's a complete mess. Over 28 becomes non CONGU as we understand it so they aren't able to enter opens etc etc and won't thank anyone for going up to 29 for more than 10 seconds.
Should be in, but should be full CONGU category. Any clubs or opens wishing to limit entry handicaps could then do so (seperate issue) and the world works well. Now we will still have a load of 28.0 and they will count for CSS calculation as well. Lose lose result by CONGU.


----------



## Old Skier (Oct 31, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			I'll be amazed if many clubs increase players HC beyond 28 - I know we won't be doing it
		
Click to expand...

We already have two players playing of 36 due to the disability facility and where we have players who have not the capability to play of 28 anymore we will review and make a sensible decision as to whether increasing their handicap will make them more competitive. We as a club will also look at rules of entry in comps to ensure nobody is disadvantaged.

I cannot see where increasing the handicap of someone who will never play to it causes any concern.


----------



## Norrin Radd (Oct 31, 2015)

At my club we have several seniors that would struggle ,even off 36.
you only have to check their scores every comp and its always the same names that are shooting in the high 120`s


----------



## the smiling assassin (Nov 1, 2015)

Foxholer said:



			As for the change to 90% for 4BBB, it certainly has used statistics to support the change, along with results from other countries that have changed to 100%!
		
Click to expand...

Other countries which have a completely different system for assigning and adjusting handicaps. Some of these countries even include Matchplay scoring and bounce games for determining the current handicap.

our system is set up fine for medal play, though personally I find it a little slow to reflect current playing ability introducing in-season ESRs would no doubt assist here. Personal if there was one thing I could scrap in the current system it would be 0.1 increases full stop. Any required increase should be doled out at an end of season review or by committee during the season in exceptional cases, which is more than quick enough for normal increases. This would all but wipe out silly banditry we see.

on the Matchplay front, the only way to get accurate Matchplay handicaps is to include Matchplay, perhaps even bounce game scoring in handicap calculations. then the case for 100% allowance could be made, introducing it now simply highlights how simplistic and detrimental our current handicap system is becoming. 

Just for for the avoidance of doubt... Personally I have no issue with potential increases in allowances. The issue I see is establishing appeopriate handicaps in the first place. I am involved in a largish group of around 50 or so golfers at our club and run 4bbb league and an order of merit system based on results from comps. I'm also a member of our club handicap committee. My observations are that there are an extraordinary number of club golfers who do not have a handicap appropriate to their ability. Until this is addressed, arguing about 75/90/100% allowances will actually just be a waste of time. 

Under the current system I can't see much of a way forward. Club golfers need loads more than 3 cards a year to determine an appropriate hcp. 3 medal scores + 9 supplementary cards would be a decent start, these could be bounce game and or Matchplay returns. Having at least a dozen cards would help committees no end in assessing handicaps at reviews too.


----------



## bobmac (Nov 1, 2015)

14% of fatal car accidents in 2013 were caused by one or both drivers being drunk.
86%  of fatal car accidents in 2013 were caused by sober drivers.
Proof that drunk people are better drivers.
Don't you just love statistics

Please drink responsibly.

On a serious note, as an ex low Cat I golfer, I didn't mind losing if we both played well and I was pipped on the last.
What I did object to was playing well and getting stuffed out in the country by someone who only plays 3 medals a year.

I would like to see it go back to how it was 40 years ago when the best net score got a 'token prize' and the main prize was for the best gross. Of course it will never happen
Sadly, it's the opposite and at some clubs there isnt even a gross prize.
Golf, the only sport where 300 people enter a competition and the best score doesn't win.


----------



## Ross61 (Nov 1, 2015)

bobmac said:



			I would like to see it go back to how it was 40 years ago when the best net score got a 'token prize' and the main prize was for the best gross. Of course it will never happen
Sadly, it's the opposite and at some clubs there isnt even a gross prize.
Golf, the only sport where 300 people enter a competition and the best score doesn't win.
		
Click to expand...

If a club runs a scratch comp as you are suggesting it would not get enough entrants within the club to make it viable.
 The reason club comps work is because everybody starts on a level playing field. Be thankful that golf is the one sport that handicapping actually works to the greater degree.
As for golf being the only sport that the best score doesn't win. There are many levels of professional and amateur golf that does exactly that!


----------



## chrisd (Nov 1, 2015)

bobmac said:



			14% of fatal car accidents in 2013 were caused by one or both drivers being drunk.
86%  of fatal car accidents in 2013 were caused by sober drivers.
Proof that drunk people are better drivers.
Don't you just love statistics

Please drink responsibly.

On a serious note, as an ex low Cat I golfer, I didn't mind losing if we both played well and I was pipped on the last.
What I did object to was playing well and getting stuffed out in the country by someone who only plays 3 medals a year.

I would like to see it go back to how it was 40 years ago when the best net score got a 'token prize' and the main prize was for the best gross. Of course it will never happen
Sadly, it's the opposite and at some clubs there isnt even a gross prize.
Golf, the only sport where 300 people enter a competition and the best score doesn't win.
		
Click to expand...

If the winner was always the best gross score, only about 10 players at my club need enter, then the prize wouldn't be worth having.


----------



## bobmac (Nov 1, 2015)

Ross61 said:



*If a club runs a scratch comp as you are suggesting* it would not get enough entrants within the club to make it viable.
		
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I said the main prize was for the best gross. There would still be a net prize




			The reason club comps work is because* everybody starts on a level playing field*. Be thankful that golf is the one sport that handicapping actually works to the greater degree.
		
Click to expand...

My trophy cupboard tells a different story




			As for golf being the only sport that the best score doesn't win. There are many levels of professional and amateur golf that does exactly that!
		
Click to expand...

As the majority of forum members play normal club golf, that's the level I was referring to.


----------



## bobmac (Nov 1, 2015)

chrisd said:



			If the winner was always the best gross score, only about 10 players at my club need enter, then the prize wouldn't be worth having.
		
Click to expand...

That's not what I said. I said the main prize was for the best gross. There would still be a net prize.

But those 10 players you mention have virtually no chance of winning the net. And they are good players.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 1, 2015)

Shouldn't the main prize be aimed at the majority of the players ? 

Making the main prize to the best gross then it would be one by the same person about 8 times this year and people would just stop playing in the comps 

Medals etc are Handicap competitions as is most club comps.

Everyone who starts has the same chance of winning the main prize which is the net prize.


----------



## Ross61 (Nov 1, 2015)

bobmac said:



			That's not what I said. I said the main prize was for the best gross. There would still be a net prize.

But those 10 players you mention have virtually no chance of winning the net. And they are good players.
		
Click to expand...

So You want everyone to pay to enter a comp that they can't win to provide the prize money for the low cat 1 players to clean up every time. But you would graciously allow a tiny amount of the prize money to be given out for the lowest net that the cat1 players are likely to win anyway?

 Sounds so appealing to the average player, they would be fighting to enter that format!


----------



## bobmac (Nov 1, 2015)

Ross61 said:



			So You want everyone to pay to enter a comp that they can't win
		
Click to expand...

That's what the Cat I guys do every week and they are good players.

If I started a new sport and I wasn't very good, I wouldn't expect to win anything but I wouldn't stop trying




			But you would graciously allow a tiny  amount of the prize money to be given out for the lowest net *that the  cat1 players are likely to win anyway?

*

Click to expand...

The last medal I played in I was 2 under par off 5 and didn't win so dont tell me that Cat I are likely towin all the net prizes


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 1, 2015)

bobmac said:



			That's what the Cat I guys do every week and they are good players.

If I started a new sport and I wasn't very good, I wouldn't expect to win anything but I wouldn't stop trying



The last medal I played in I was 2 under par off 5 and didn't win so dont tell me that Cat I are likely towin all the net prizes
		
Click to expand...

Bob - I have won three comps this year all net prizes 

Another cat 1 has won two medals 

Another cat 1 has won a couple stablefords and won the annual combined summer stableford

In the Grand Prix which is a points accumulations of all the comps there is currently 2 cat 1 in the top 3


----------



## bobmac (Nov 1, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Bob - I have won three comps this year all net prizes 

Another cat 1 has won two medals 

Another cat 1 has won a couple stablefords and won the annual combined summer stableford

In the Grand Prix which is a points accumulations of all the comps there is currently 2 cat 1 in the top 3
		
Click to expand...


Things have obviously changed for the better in the last 11 years then


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Nov 1, 2015)

bobmac said:



			Things have obviously changed for the better in the last 11 years then 

Click to expand...

The winners of our comps seem to be a nice even spread from the low HC to the high HC 

Certainly a level playing field from the start


----------



## chrisd (Nov 1, 2015)

bobmac said:



			That's not what I said. I said the main prize was for the best gross. There would still be a net prize.

But those 10 players you mention have virtually no chance of winning the net. And they are good players.
		
Click to expand...

Nonsense Bob, I've seen loads of our honour board comps won by single figure and cat 1 players. You also only offer a "token" prize for the h/c winner - why bother playing for that?


----------



## IanG (Nov 1, 2015)

Just counted our major club medals/meetings for this past season 

Cat 1 5 wins
Cat 2 3 wins
Cat 3 3 wins
Cat 4 no wins

Small sample but doesn't look like a problem to be fixed.


----------



## bobmac (Nov 1, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Nonsense Bob, I've seen loads of our honour board comps won by single figure and cat 1 players.* You also only offer a "token" prize for the h/c winner - why bother playing for that?*

Click to expand...

When I was playing, Cat I players didn't even get.
As I said, things may have changed for the better.


----------



## bobmac (Nov 1, 2015)

IanG said:



			Just counted our major club medals/meetings for this past season 

Cat 1 5 wins
Cat 2 3 wins
Cat 3 3 wins
Cat 4 no wins

Small sample but doesn't look like a problem to be fixed.
		
Click to expand...

As I said, things may have changed for the better


----------



## chrisd (Nov 1, 2015)

bobmac said:



			When I was playing, Cat I players didn't even get.
As I said, things may have changed for the better.
		
Click to expand...

Low handicap players always still moan when comps are won by "bandits" and vice versa when cat 1 players prevail, but we can't have meaningful comps without everyone.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 1, 2015)

Forward thinking committees will think of ways where all categories of players are happy with the way comps are run and not use the excuse that this or that handicap will suffer by implementing the new changes.


----------



## duncan mackie (Nov 1, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Forward thinking committees will think of ways where all categories of players are happy with the way comps are run and not use the excuse that this or that handicap will suffer by implementing the new changes.
		
Click to expand...

When it was originally outlined as a CONGU cat 5 we were 100% behind it. When they changed it to a club only non CONGU handicap we asked some basic questions and got no replies; or rather replies saying they had no answers at this time - at which point the area discussion meetings also got put on hold.

Basically you are already able to do exactly what now seems to be being implemented via the Junior handicap category (there's no age limit on Juniors and the handicaps would seem to have the same validity ie whatever your club committee decide).


----------



## chrisd (Nov 1, 2015)

duncan mackie said:



			When it was originally outlined as a CONGU cat 5 we were 100% behind it. When they changed it to a club only non CONGU handicap we asked some basic questions and got no replies; or rather replies saying they had no answers at this time - at which point the area discussion meetings also got put on hold.

Basically you are already able to do exactly what now seems to be being implemented via the Junior handicap category (there's no age limit on Juniors and the handicaps would seem to have the same validity ie whatever your club committee decide).
		
Click to expand...

Seems like a right botch Duncan?


----------



## woody69 (Nov 2, 2015)

the smiling assassin said:



			Under the current system I can't see much of a way forward. Club golfers need loads more than 3 cards a year to determine an appropriate hcp. 3 medal scores + 9 supplementary cards would be a decent start, these could be bounce game and or Matchplay returns. Having at least a dozen cards would help committees no end in assessing handicaps at reviews too.
		
Click to expand...

If anything I think this will cause more people to have their handicaps increased.


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 2, 2015)

duncan mackie said:



			When it was originally outlined as a CONGU cat 5 we were 100% behind it. When they changed it to a club only non CONGU handicap we asked some basic questions and got no replies; or rather replies saying they had no answers at this time - at which point the area discussion meetings also got put on hold.
		
Click to expand...

Interesting but my understanding at the time was that handicaps >28 would be looked at by the software the same way as juniors handicaps and therefore would come down at the appropriate rate.  Is it now your understanding that this is not so.


----------



## the smiling assassin (Nov 2, 2015)

woody69 said:



			If anything I think this will cause more people to have their handicaps increased.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't say they should all be lowered - plenty handicap golfers out there with a number too low. I'd include myself in that - due to reduced golf this year my handicap does not reflect my current scoring ability - the system has been extremely slow to react to my decline in scoring.

Up or down, an extraordinary number of club golfers I've come across have a handicap which does not reflect their ability. 

Does the US system not base your hcp on your last 20 scores - including competitive, matchplay and bounce games? - Our system is screaming out for a move to something like this. Handicaps that reflect current scoring ability, not snail like adjustments.

Time to scrap it all and start over with something suitable for the 'instant' 21st century.


----------



## daverollo (Nov 2, 2015)

the smiling assassin said:



			Does the US system not base your hcp on your last 20 scores - including competitive, matchplay and bounce games? - Our system is screaming out for a move to something like this. Handicaps that reflect current scoring ability, not snail like adjustments.

Time to scrap it all and start over with something suitable for the 'instant' 21st century.
		
Click to expand...

They take the average of your best 10 scores from the last 20 rounds to calculate the handicap, including bounce games and 9 hole games.

However, it is a tad more complex as they also take into account the slope rating (difficulty) of a course along with the USGA course rating and work out what they refer to as a players Handicap Index (Handicap).  If they play on a course of average difficulty (Slope rating 113) then that is the handicap they play off for that course.  If the slope rating is higher, then they get more shots to play with, or lower slope rating leads to less shots to play with.

What I also like about their system is that if a player has 2 exceptional scores (2 rounds better than 3 shots to their index) then they can make an adjustment to a players index.

It's a lot more complex, but far more reflective of 'current' form for someone.


----------



## Fish (Nov 2, 2015)

daverollo said:



			They take the average of your best 10 scores from the last 20 rounds to calculate the handicap, including bounce games and 9 hole games.

However, it is a tad more complex as they also take into account the slope rating (difficulty) of a course along with the USGA course rating and work out what they refer to as a players Handicap Index (Handicap).  If they play on a course of average difficulty (Slope rating 113) then that is the handicap they play off for that course.  If the slope rating is higher, then they get more shots to play with, or lower slope rating leads to less shots to play with.

*What I also like about their system is that if a player has 2 exceptional scores (2 rounds better than 3 shots to their index) then they can make an adjustment to a players index.*

It's a lot more complex, but far more reflective of 'current' form for someone.
		
Click to expand...

We now also adopt this down here but not in Scotland, its called an an ESR, Exceptional Scoring Reduction.


----------



## chrisd (Nov 2, 2015)

Fish said:



			We now also adopt this down here but not in Scotland, its called an an ESR, Exceptional Scoring Reduction.
		
Click to expand...

Only you need 2 scores of at least -4 each of CSS


----------



## Old Skier (Nov 2, 2015)

Fish said:



			We now also adopt this down here but not in Scotland, its called an an ESR, Exceptional Scoring Reduction.
		
Click to expand...

Unfortunately it's not compulsory and some clubs are known to ignore it.


----------



## duncan mackie (Nov 2, 2015)

Old Skier said:



			Interesting but my understanding at the time was that handicaps >28 would be looked at by the software the same way as juniors handicaps and therefore would come down at the appropriate rate.  Is it now your understanding that this is not so.
		
Click to expand...

No, that is my understanding. Exactly as the adminiatratation of the existing Junior. But when they go outside 28.4 they go outside CONGU until they get back below this. So they should work fine for improves but are of mixed benefits to those floating around the 28 level.


----------



## Fish (Nov 3, 2015)

duncan mackie said:



			No, that is my understanding. Exactly as the adminiatratation of the existing Junior. But when they go outside 28.4 they go outside CONGU until they get back below this. So they should work fine for improves but are of mixed benefits to those floating around the 28 level.
		
Click to expand...

So if anyone goes above 28.4 do they lose their competition (c) handicap and as you describe, go out of CONGU, are they not allowed to enter any club or open competitions if they were declared at a maximum allowance of 24 or 28, could they not play off the maximum allowance of say 24 if allowed?  As such, do they only play with other Cat5 players or put in Supps until back down to Cat4? 

I enter comps that are a maximum 18 and simply have to play off that, would they be excluded from everything because of being outside CONGU?


----------



## duncan mackie (Nov 3, 2015)

Fish said:



			So if anyone goes above 28.4 do they lose their competition (c) handicap and as you describe, go out of CONGU, are they not allowed to enter any club or open competitions if they were declared at a maximum allowance of 24 or 28, could they not play off the maximum allowance of say 24 if allowed?  As such, do they only play with other Cat5 players or put in Supps until back down to Cat4? 

I enter comps that are a maximum 18 and simply have to play off that, would they be excluded from everything because of being outside CONGU?
		
Click to expand...

They can play in their club comps (on the basis that no club would add the category and then rule them out via CoC (would they?).
(C) status is irrelevant in this context.
The issue would be Opens and competitive golf outside their own club environment. An example would be a local seniors league.

There's also a few ? around what happens if a player goes above 28 at their home club which has added the category internally but is also an away  member at a club that hasn't! I'm not raising it for debate - simply that answers haven't been forthcoming!

Everything made a lot of sense and was joined up under the original proposals. As frequently happens when quick accommodations are made; it now appears to be a mess.


----------



## Ross61 (Nov 3, 2015)

Fish said:



			So if anyone goes above 28.4 do they lose their competition (c) handicap and as you describe, go out of CONGU, are they not allowed to enter any club or open competitions if they were declared at a maximum allowance of 24 or 28, could they not play off the maximum allowance of say 24 if allowed?  As such, do they only play with other Cat5 players or put in Supps until back down to Cat4? 

I enter comps that are a maximum 18 and simply have to play off that, would they be excluded from everything because of being outside CONGU?
		
Click to expand...

The problem I see is if someone has a handicap of 32 say, and then enters a qualifier and plays off the max of 28, which sounds fine. The problem occurs if they then happen to score 40 points. Which handicap would the reduction happen on the 32 or the 28?


----------



## Stuey01 (Nov 3, 2015)

Ross61 said:



			The problem I see is if someone has a handicap of 32 say, and then enters a qualifier and plays off the max of 28, which sounds fine. The problem occurs if they then happen to score 40 points. Which handicap would the reduction happen on the 32 or the 28?
		
Click to expand...

Their handicap calculation is worked out based on the CSS, and their actual handicap, 32.
In your example they don't have a handicap of 28 it is just the maximum amount of strokes allowed in the comp, very different.


----------

