Am I overreacting (update it was a prank)

[RichA]

The high/low quick/slow argument isn't clear cut, a lot depends on the course. As an example my course is heathland with lots of heather and forced carries. Low players might hit 70 odd shots slowly but they are still quicker than a quick higher player hitting 90-100 shots and looking for balls. But on a more open course the higher guys might get round quicker.

I still think it mostly depends on the individual golfer's course management more than their handicap. A 90 hitter might know their limitations and be using their 18+ shots wisely, conservatively striking irons or hybrids down the fairways and rarely actually having to waste time looking for a ball.
A lower handicap golfer might have the shots that give them a really good score and fast play 40% of the time while spending the other 60% of their rounds sticking big drives into the long grass.
I know this thread started on a subject that turned out to be a spoof, but it's a topic that keeps coming back.
Maybe we just need to accept that we're all the same but different and it doesn't matter that much.

I like to think that I'm not too precious about my hobby. If I haven't got 4 or 5 hours to spare, I don't book in for 18 holes of golf. If I'm playing in a comp, I generally play conservatively. If I'm having a solo round and there's nobody behind me, I'm more inclined to muck about with the driver, go for the hero shots and hunt for my lost balls.

 

[PJ87]

Haha - very good prank.

I'm glad it was , otherwise I'd really be fuming lol

I still think it mostly depends on the individual golfer's course management more than their handicap. A 90 hitter might know their limitations and be using their 18+ shots wisely, conservatively striking irons or hybrids down the fairways and rarely actually having to waste time looking for a ball.
A lower handicap golfer might have the shots that give them a really good score and fast play 40% of the time while spending the other 60% of their rounds sticking big drives into the long grass.
I know this thread started on a subject that turned out to be a spoof, but it's a topic that keeps coming back.
Maybe we just need to accept that we're all the same but different and it doesn't matter that much.

I like to think that I'm not too precious about my hobby. If I haven't got 4 or 5 hours to spare, I don't book in for 18 holes of golf. If I'm playing in a comp, I generally play conservatively. If I'm having a solo round and there's nobody behind me, I'm more inclined to muck about with the driver, go for the hero shots and hunt for my lost balls.

Many types of high handicapper aswell , I mean last round out over 3 holes I played bogey. Par then a quad .. the quad I was on the green in 4.. as I had a fat iron then got on green and 4 putted out of frustration / lack of concentration

So whilst I take more shots normally take a lot less time

Same hole week before in comp I had one off tee didn't trust the line as it was close to the danger (bushes)

Quick provisional

Got up there .. found my first just in rough...on green .. could have been a 6 instead of a 4 if not found that 1st ?

 

[Orikoru]

So to answer the topic title, as it turns out, yes you were overreacting. ?

 

[PJ87]

So to answer the topic title, as it turns out, yes you were overreacting. ?

100%

Still haven't heard back from my emails lol

 

[theoneandonly]

Mildy ammusing prank, as for slow play, I'd have to say the slowest golfers I see are the guys of 3, 4, 5 etc who think that if they'd just started to play younger they could have made the big time.
Pacing out a putt from every conceivable angle on a course they have played a 1000 times... Even I don't do that and I'm frikkin awesome!!

 

[williamalex1]

Start charging per half hour or per stroke , that should speed things up

 

[clubchamp98]

The definition is fundamentally flawed though.

This happens at our club championships in the first round. Unfortunately not unusual for the first few 3 balls to take well over 4.5 hours as every shot is played as if its the final hole on Sunday at Augusta! The first few groups are glacial and delays never improve as the (very very long) day goes on. All that it means is a slow round is guaranteed for everyone. It's one of the main reasons I never entered that comp.

We play our normal comps as 4 balls (unfortunately), and I try to be in the earliest group I can. If I'm not already in the bar (pre-covid days) by 4 hours then something has gone wrong.

To the OP - revenge is best served cold - give it a couple of weeks

Yes our best player +4 is like a snail.
But he would be out first .

 

[The Dog.]

Slow players come in all shapes and handicaps. The notable slow players at my club are nearly all mid to high handicappers although one of my best mates is +2 and is also a culprit. Whoever slow players are, they are the scourge of the game and I am in favour of strong censure and penalties for them.

To the wider question that the OP raised, I am afraid my view may be a little controversial. I don't think major board comps should be won by people with very high handicaps. If you are over 24HC, your performance on the course is simply not good enough to be rewarded with titles and prize money. You are in a different bracket of golfer that has got to get better in order to qualify to compete in competitions. Or alternatively, get the handicap maximum reduced to 24 for men and 36 for women and then everyone can enter. Just my opinion although one shared by the majority of my golfing pals I would say.

 

[PJ87]

Slow players come in all shapes and handicaps. The notable slow players at my club are nearly all mid to high handicappers although one of my best mates is +2 and is also a culprit. Whoever slow players are, they are the scourge of the game and I am in favour of strong censure and penalties for them.

To the wider question that the OP raised, I am afraid my view may be a little controversial. I don't think major board comps should be won by people with very high handicaps. If you are over 24HC, your performance on the course is simply not good enough to be rewarded with titles and prize money. You are in a different bracket of golfer that has got to get better in order to qualify to compete in competitions. Or alternatively, get the handicap maximum reduced to 24 for men and 36 for women and then everyone can enter. Just my opinion although one shared by the majority of my golfing pals I would say.

I'd agree with major comps

Not the monthly ones tho

 

[Voyager EMH]

Yep, board comps maximum playing handicap of 24 at my club - higher handicaps may enter, but for winning prizes they are 24. Weekday medals and stablefords - no limit. Seems sensible to me.

 

[hairball_89]

Yep, board comps maximum playing handicap of 24 at my club - higher handicaps may enter, but for winning prizes they are 24. Weekday medals and stablefords - no limit. Seems sensible to me.

Out of interest, is there any thinking behind 24?

Based on a 'standard' par 72, 28 hcp as "max" has always made sense as it equals out at 100. Moving to 36 makes sense at 2 shots per hole. Cutting shots to 18 makes sense - 1 shot per hole. 24? 96 total is a weird arbitrary choice and 2 shots up to SI 6 seems odd too.

 

[howbow88]

In fairness to the club, I can see the logic... Better players in general take less time to play, because they hit less shots and don't often need to look in the trash for lost balls.

But I'm totally with the thread starter - that is pretty outrageous and I wouldn't be happy either.

 

[RichA]

I would have thought that if amateur golfers are good enough to compete at county or district level, then they needn't worry about having to go up against higher handicappers.
If they're only good enough to compete in their club competitions, even the "majors" (???), then they should get over themselves, accept the handicap system that's been part of golf since the flood and play against whichever other recreational golf club members they're drawn against.
Or maybe find specific golf clubs for golfers who think they are elite amateurs.
I'd be interested to know the handicaps of those who think high handicaps should be excluded from certain competitions. I have a theory I would like to test.

 

[PJ87]

In fairness to the club, I can see the logic... Better players in general take less time to play, because they hit less shots and don't often need to look in the trash for lost balls.

But I'm totally with the thread starter - that is pretty outrageous and I wouldn't be happy either.

It was a prank, maybe I should ammend the opening post

 

[Voyager EMH]

Out of interest, is there any thinking behind 24?

Based on a 'standard' par 72, 28 hcp as "max" has always made sense as it equals out at 100. Moving to 36 makes sense at 2 shots per hole. Cutting shots to 18 makes sense - 1 shot per hole. 24? 96 total is a weird arbitrary choice and 2 shots up to SI 6 seems odd too.

Never been on H&C so don't know. Sometime in the 1980s it was raised from 20 to 24 and that is where it has stayed. Getting H&C to change anything is a difficult process.

 

[PJ87]

Never been on H&C so don't know. Sometime in the 1980s it was raised from 20 to 24 and that is where it has stayed. Getting H&C to change anything is a difficult process.

I know a lot of top course used to insist on 24 max handicap men

Was something to do with 28 was the max

24 showed you could get around the course