4bbb - 90% allowance??

[Deleted member 15344]

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 !

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]

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

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.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[Deleted member 16999]

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

I'm sorry mate, promise to behave😃

 

[User20205]

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

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

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

 

[pbrown7582]

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

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

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

 

[Fish]

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

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

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

 

[duncan mackie]

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.

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]

This player complies with the rules.

 

[Liverbirdie]

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

Maybe in a dress size.:whoo:

 

[Liverbirdie]

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]

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!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

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:

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

 

[duncan mackie]

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

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]

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

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]

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]

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%!

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.