Bandits a 3 o clock.

[Deleted member 15344]

If I was h/cap sec and someone came to me asking for a cut, I would oblige no problems. Nothing silly mind, just one or two shots off.
At the end of the day, if the player cant play to it, it's nobody elses fault but his own and nobody else gets hurt.

I think they should earn the cut - would rather not give the cuts in case it starts to produce too many false vanity handicaps.

Go out and play qualifiers and let the handicap sort itself out

 

[Birchy]

If I was h/cap sec and someone came to me asking for a cut, I would oblige no problems. Nothing silly mind, just one or two shots off.
At the end of the day, if the player cant play to it, it's nobody elses fault but his own and nobody else gets hurt.

Possibly chop them 1 shot and tell them to come back with the results to prove you should be even lower and I will oblige etc.

 

[rosecott]

If I was h/cap sec and someone came to me asking for a cut, I would oblige no problems. Nothing silly mind, just one or two shots off.
At the end of the day, if the player cant play to it, it's nobody elses fault but his own and nobody else gets hurt.

That's not quite true. Let's say he gives in to demands and chops several 21/22 handicappers by 2 shots each. As soon as they play in qualifiers with their new vanity handicaps and cannot even buffer, they will affect the calculation of the CSS in an upward direction. That could lead to players with properly achieved handicaps not being chopped due to the increased CSS.

 

[bobmac]

CSS, now there's another chestnut.........

 

[backwoodsman]

That's not quite true. Let's say he gives in to demands and chops several 21/22 handicappers by 2 shots each. As soon as they play in qualifiers with their new vanity handicaps and cannot even buffer, they will affect the calculation of the CSS in an upward direction. That could lead to players with properly achieved handicaps not being chopped due to the increased CSS.

Doesn't an increase in CSS mean that more players would get a cut? (Or at least more avoid a 0.1?)

 

[rosecott]

Doesn't an increase in CSS mean that more players would get a cut? (Or at least more avoid a 0.1?)

I think you're right - senior moment.

 

[duncan mackie]

Doesn't an increase in CSS mean that more players would get a cut? (Or at least more avoid a 0.1?)

yes - Rosie's blonde moment!

but the principle's right; such changes do have the power to impact everyone

 

[backwoodsman]

yes - Rosie's blonde moment!

but the principle's right; such changes do have the power to impact everyone

Fine - principle accepted certainly

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I know of two players at my club that are playing (way outside the buffer zones) three qualifiers this year to maintain a handicap and get 0.3 (which in one case will give them a shot back) to target our major boards only. They are at least 4-5 shots better than there mark and have kept their handicaps higher for the last two seasons deliberately AND made no bones about doing so in the club house. They see the "majors" as the ones to go for with the trophies on offer rather than a monthly stableford. Everyone knows one guy, being mentored by an ex Sunshine Tour pro is way better than his mark and is the guy Hawkeye refers to on page 1 who the roll up won't allow to join as they know off his current mark he'd just take the cash every week (they only play off club handicaps and don't operate their own handicapping marks).

Quite frankly it stinks and yet they are doing nothing wrong technically. I know there is a lot of negative feelings towards their attitude and I have to be honest and say when one guy failed spectacularly in a recent big event, there were some rather caustic comments.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I know of two players at my club that are playing (way outside the buffer zones) three qualifiers this year to maintain a handicap and get 0.3 (which in one case will give them a shot back) to target our major boards only. They are at least 4-5 shots better than there mark and have kept their handicaps higher for the last two seasons deliberately AND made no bones about doing so in the club house. They see the "majors" as the ones to go for with the trophies on offer rather than a monthly stableford. Everyone knows one guy, being mentored by an ex Sunshine Tour pro is way better than his mark and is the guy Hawkeye refers to on page 1 who the roll up won't allow to join as they know off his current mark he'd just take the cash every week (they only play off club handicaps and don't operate their own handicapping marks).

Quite frankly it stinks and yet they are doing nothing wrong technically. I know there is a lot of negative feelings towards their attitude and I have to be honest and say when one guy failed spectacularly in a recent big event, there were some rather caustic comments.

Has anyone spoken to the handicap committee about them ?

Have they actually managed to win any major board comps

 

[HomerJSimpson]

No and Yes. They aren't doing anything wrong. Three qualifiers in a rolling period so have an active handicap. It's perhaps their bare faced admission of what they are doing that leaves the sour taste and the feeing they aren't trying too hard with their qualifiers and so get 0.3 back. Depending on their current actual another one or two 0.1's and bingo another shot to play with.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

No and Yes. They aren't doing anything wrong. Three qualifiers in a rolling period so have an active handicap. It's perhaps their bare faced admission of what they are doing that leaves the sour taste and the feeing they aren't trying too hard with their qualifiers and so get 0.3 back. Depending on their current actual another one or two 0.1's and bingo another shot to play with.

Are the board comps K/O matchplays etc ?

If they matchplays you have to ask your handicap committee why they are not getting cut

 

[duncan mackie]

.... have kept their handicaps higher for the last two seasons deliberately ...

... they are doing nothing wrong technically.

rubbish

if what you have stated is accurate then technically handicap committee are required to suspend their handicaps for manipulating their handicaps.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

rubbish

if what you have stated is accurate then technically handicap committee are required to suspend their handicaps for manipulating their handicaps.

But how do you prove they are doing so? Anyone at our level can go out and play badly on any given day and so unless you can see them deliberately missing short putts or doing anything wrong how can you say show they are dong anything wrong when they put the qualifiers in.

In answer to the other point, they are mostly individual events and so qualifiers and the odd pairs event (3/4 handicap and N/Q)

 

[Deleted member 15344]

But how do you prove they are doing so? Anyone at our level can go out and play badly on any given day and so unless you can see them deliberately missing short putts or doing anything wrong how can you say show they are dong anything wrong when they put the qualifiers in.

In answer to the other point, they are mostly individual events and so qualifiers and the odd pairs event (3/4 handicap and N/Q)

So again its up to your handicap committee to see the results in these individual events and act on those results

If they are winning board events that are qualifiers then they will get cut

 

[Imurg]

yes - Rosie's blonde moment!

but the principle's right; such changes do have the power to impact everyone

On the CSS point - why are Cat 4 players scores not included in the calculation..?

 

[rosecott]

On the CSS point - why are Cat 4 players scores not included in the calculation..?

I seem to remember something about players with handicaps of 20 or lower being reckoned to be more stable and less volatile in terms of performance - they obviously failed to examine my handicap record.

 

[duncan mackie]

On the CSS point - why are Cat 4 players scores not included in the calculation..?

bit of Rosecott's response but there is a technical reason as well.

it is accepted/encouraged to get people into a handicap, and the process will enable people who cannot actually play to 28 to be given a 28 - these people's results shouldn't be included in any statistical basis

once you have 28 it doesn't go up - these people's results should be included

arguably (because of the stableford adjustment on allocation) new handicaps shouldn't be included but the vast majority are cat 4, and the biggest impact of the SA is in cat 4 allocations - so let's leave them out.

you have to draw a line somewhere => software and the system recognise categories => omit cat 4; job done.

 

[chellie]

No and Yes. They aren't doing anything wrong. Three qualifiers in a rolling period so have an active handicap. It's perhaps their bare faced admission of what they are doing that leaves the sour taste and the feeing they aren't trying too hard with their qualifiers and so get 0.3 back. Depending on their current actual another one or two 0.1's and bingo another shot to play with.

If they're doing this though why won't the HC do anything

 

[Imurg]

bit of Rosecott's response but there is a technical reason as well.

it is accepted/encouraged to get people into a handicap, and the process will enable people who cannot actually play to 28 to be given a 28 - these people's results shouldn't be included in any statistical basis

once you have 28 it doesn't go up - these people's results should be included

arguably (because of the stableford adjustment on allocation) new handicaps shouldn't be included but the vast majority are cat 4, and the biggest impact of the SA is in cat 4 allocations - so let's leave them out.

you have to draw a line somewhere => software and the system recognise categories => omit cat 4; job done.

Appreciate that Duncan - never really understood why...
Having said that, and I can see why they do omit a whole category, if your comps contain a disproportionate number of 22-27 handicaps they have no bearing on the calculation...seems to potentially discard an awful lot of scores..