Board Comp Qualification Criteria

[HawkeyeMS]

What a depressing thread and it just sums up the futility of getting excited about "winning" a handicap competition.

Still find it strange you can get your name up on a board in the clubhouse for such a dubious achievement.

It's funny, my friend yesterday asked me about the summer knockout and the Club Championships. I told him I was playing in the summer knockout "too many bandits about for my liking" (the truth is I actually don't like matchplay but I couldn't help having a dig) and that the only thing worth winning at the club champs is the scratch prize which you won't be surprised to hear he didn't agree with.

 

[Foxholer]

Its a good while since I was chairman of Handicaps but the examples above used to be deemed as someone "managing their handicap," and they could have their handicap suspended for doing so.

I've had a discussion with two guys about similar comments they'd made. They had a history of winning big comps, and also playing opens and not returning their scores. I cut them both under the old General Play rule(19)... cue a solicitor's letter from one of them.

I offered both the opportunity to accept the cuts or have their handicaps suspended 'til they provided the scores from Opens they figured in the prizes. Sorted.

:clap:

H/Sec at an old (Resort) club was quite 'active', though didn't do 'slashing'.

He was terrified that the Club's name would be alongside corporate players who won big prizes with mid 40 Stableford points, so kept a keen eye on such candidates. He was irked by 1 guy who seemed to manage his but was 'untouchable' at around Cat 1. He and his wife, who was also a 'manager' imo, won lots of big prizes in mixed comps.

 

[davidg2010uk]

If someone doesn't want cut there's not a lot you can do about it. If you make them play 6 qualifiers they could just go up .6.

Its also hard to judge people. Some people can be low 70's golfers one day then mid 80's golfers the next. Consistency doesn't come easy for some.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

If someone doesn't want cut there's not a lot you can do about it. If you make them play 6 qualifiers they could just go up .6.

Its also hard to judge people. Some people can be low 70's golfers one day then mid 80's golfers the next. Consistency doesn't come easy for some.

First point, I agree entirely.

Second point, if they can shoot low 70s, they should have a handicap to reflect that.

 

[davidg2010uk]

Second point, if they can shoot low 70s, they should have a handicap to reflect that.

Agreed :thup:

 

[USER1999]

I would change supplement aries to reduction only too. None of this Chuck a rubbish card in and get point one back.

 

[woody69]

I would change supplement aries to reduction only too. None of this Chuck a rubbish card in and get point one back.

Indeed. Just stop the 0.1 increases. Could have a system that includes a rolling 18 months or something and only have an increase every 12 months based on that time and a review.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I would change supplement aries to reduction only too. None of this Chuck a rubbish card in and get point one back.

I understand the sentiment but that just sets it up for artificially low handicaps. I know I couldn't get the supplementaries in quick enough on days with good conditions and no chance of +0.1. And I play every comp going!

 

[HawkeyeMS]

I would change supplement aries to reduction only too. None of this Chuck a rubbish card in and get point one back.

Nice idea, but supplementaries are supposed to be played under comp conditions and if there is no risk of going up, then those using them for the right reasons won't have anything to worry about.

 

[rosecott]

Which board comps exactly because different clubs have different comps on the board ?

I really don't see a problem with it - if people do well in the knockouts then cut their handicap - quite simple

It is not permissible to reduce handicaps for "doing well in knockouts". Good performances in knockouts can be used as additional evidence when conducting the Annual Review.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

It is not permissible to reduce handicaps for "doing well in knockouts". Good performances in knockouts can be used as additional evidence when conducting the Annual Review.

That is when we cut them - look at their performances in the knockouts and apply handicap changes if required during the annual review.

 

[Old Skier]

Indeed it is, which is why I wanted to see what the forum thought, I know it is within the rules and I understand the rules are there to be inclusive, but they are open to abuse and too many people abuse them.

not it had time to read the whole thread but 3 cards for current (c) handicap and how many cards to enter a board comp are two different questions as one is set by CONGU and the other is set by the club. If you are not happy with your clubs comp rules with regard to board comps you should put a proposal in at your next AGM.

 

[Old Skier]

Currently off a mid teen handicap but more a 8-9. Cleaned up last year in three or four big events

and hopefully picked up by the handicap committee during the annual review and not willy nilliy like one poster seems to be implying happens at his club.

 

[rosecott]

That is when we cut them - look at their performances in the knockouts and apply handicap changes if required during the annual review.

Performances in matchplay should only be used as additional evidence when considering possible handicap adjustments which have been identified in the Annual Review computer generated listing.

Handicap Committees should "not use General Play Adjustments as a "punishment" or "reward" for success in match or strokeplay competitions".

 

[HawkeyeMS]

not it had time to read the whole thread but 3 cards for current (c) handicap and how many cards to enter a board comp are two different questions as one is set by CONGU and the other is set by the club. If you are not happy with your clubs comp rules with regard to board comps you should put a proposal in at your next AGM.

Or the OP obviously

 

[Old Skier]

Or the OP obviously

Managed to get that far but the OP didn't make it clear if it was a card a month to maintain a C next to your handicap or a card a month to enter board comps so my post stands.

As an insight, a couple of years ago in a meeting with many club secs from Devon, Cornwall and Somerset the issue of how many cards for an then active handicap was raised as I thought is was to few. However the majority there including the Rep from CONGU felt it was about right.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Managed to get that far but the OP didn't make it clear if it was a card a month to maintain a C next to your handicap or a card a month to enter board comps so my post stands.

As an insight, a couple of years ago in a meeting with many club secs from Devon, Cornwall and Somerset the issue of how many cards for an then active handicap was raised as I thought is was to few. However the majority there including the Rep from CONGU felt it was about right.

The rep was probably a bandit :rofl:

 

[USER1999]

Nice idea, but supplementaries are supposed to be played under comp conditions and if there is no risk of going up, then those using them for the right reasons won't have anything to worry about.

Sure, but after the last comp, I buffered, and am still off 9.4. I could bung in a supp, and get up to 10 before the next medal. This is wrong. I shouldn't be able to do this.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Sure, but after the last comp, I buffered, and am still off 9.4. I could bung in a supp, and get up to 10 before the next medal. This is wrong. I shouldn't be able to do this.

You could, but you won't. The problem with the handicap system is that it is flexible enough to allow people to maintain an accurate handicap, but that flexibility leaves it open to abuse.