4bbb - 90% allowance??

[Old Skier]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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!

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]

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"

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

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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

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]

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

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

 

[duncan mackie]

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.

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]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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

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]

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"

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]

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

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]

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

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

Whats your response to this Phil.

 

[pokerjoke]

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

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

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

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.