Comp rounds to enter “majors”

[Arthur Wedge]

For me at least its not a case of dismissing concerns (I actually believe there are valid concerns that needs attention involving WHS)

But it is more difficult to listen to them or take them seriously when they present in such an OTT manner. They don't do themselves any favours

Can’t disagree with that

Always worth remembering though the headlines are there to grab the attention and get people reading it

 

[Slab]

Can’t disagree with that

Always worth remembering though the headlines are there to grab the attention and get people reading it

Yeah agree, and there's an obvious skill to writing a good headline too
I just feel if it was me trying to raise my concern/grievance etc I'd be going about it in a different way using undisputable examples in my narrative instead of regurgitating stuff that reads more rant like. Which becomes a wee bit off putting leading to all or part of the message being diluted and even lost for the reader

Not really the best way to garner support for change

 

[Slab]

I read it again this morning to see if I could give the author his dues & think about the content rather than the article itself

I reckon I see what Fergus is going on about now (although I’m not sure he’d agree) here goes;

He’s a member at an historic 120 year old club
They’ve never previously applied qualifying criteria to their board/prestige club comps
Amateur club golf worldwide had its latest iteration of changes to handicap systems
In adopting this new handicap system it made it bleedin obvious its right and proper for some clubs to apply a qualifying criteria to certain comps that previously didn’t use it (maybe also divisions etc)
Perhaps this qualifying criteria change was actually required many years ago but was glossed over/ignored as most prestige comp winners fitted an acceptable handicap profile

Some Banchory members see this simple adaptation to qualifying as an invasive/hostile action & an imposition on their clubs proud history and in being 'forced' into this they interpret it as evidence the handicap change is broken/to blame. Rather than accepting that times change and individual clubs might just need to occasionally tweak conditions of entry to historic comps and that any such tweak is perfectly ok and isn’t a stain on the comps prestige or history

 

[D-S]

I read it again this morning to see if I could give the author his dues & think about the content rather than the article itself

I reckon I see what Fergus is going on about now (although I’m not sure he’d agree) here goes;

He’s a member at an historic 120 year old club
They’ve never previously applied qualifying criteria to their board/prestige club comps
Amateur club golf worldwide had its latest iteration of changes to handicap systems
In adopting this new handicap system it made it bleedin obvious its right and proper for some clubs to apply a qualifying criteria to certain comps that previously didn’t use it (maybe also divisions etc)
Perhaps this qualifying criteria change was actually required many years ago but was glossed over/ignored as most prestige comp winners fitted an acceptable handicap profile

Some Banchory members see this simple adaptation to qualifying as an invasive/hostile action & an imposition on their clubs proud history and in being 'forced' into this they interpret it as evidence the handicap change is broken/to blame. Rather than accepting that times change and individual clubs might just need to occasionally tweak conditions of entry to historic comps and that any such tweak is perfectly ok and isn’t a stain on the comps prestige or history

I don’t know anything specific about the club but I would be very surprised if, under UHS, they did not have a stipulation that only players with ‘active’ handicaps could win competitions. This was pretty much the case at most clubs.
In order to have an ‘active’ handicap you needed to put 3 cards in the the past calendar year. This is very similar to the ‘drastic action’ that the evil WHS is ‘forcing them’ to take now.

 

[rulie]

The Committee Procedures (Section 1B) say the Committee in charge of the competition have the responsibility to set the Terms of the Competition, which are covered in Section 5A, and include "Eligibility", ie, who is eligible to play in the Competition, and this includes "Handicap Limits" and "Residence and Membership Status".
"Eligibility" states, "The Committee may make Terms of the Competition that restrict who is eligible to play."

I don't see what the big issue is with the requirement for eligibility to play in the competition.
It's a specific club and its Committee issue, not a WHS issue.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1999143177228627972

The other side of the coin

 

[SteveJay]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1999143177228627972

The other side of the coin

Strange philosophy to me, entering a competition but not trying to win . If your aim is just to play your best against the course, then you might as well just play a social round and save the entry fee.

 

[clubchamp98]

That’s just his opinion!

Some like WHS
Some don’t like WHS
Nothings changed as opinions are formed by what you experience at your club.

 

[Lucifer MorningStar]

Strange philosophy to me, entering a competition but not trying to win . If your aim is just to play your best against the course, then you might as well just play a social round and save the entry fee.

Seems like an extremely sensible philosophy if you ask me. You try to play your best and beat the course in competition in hope that is then good enough to win overall.

 

[IanM]

Guy I play with puts it quite well... "My handicap is legit and I don't cheat. I've got no chance!"

 

[LincolnShep]

Strange philosophy to me, entering a competition but not trying to win . If your aim is just to play your best against the course, then you might as well just play a social round and save the entry fee.

You might think it's strange but this is 100% my philosophy as well. We don't all play golf for the same reasons.

 

[Backache]

Strange philosophy to me, entering a competition but not trying to win . If your aim is just to play your best against the course, then you might as well just play a social round and save the entry fee.

If I enter an Open my purpose is to play the course, I want to play as well as I can but where I place is of no real interest.
If I'm playing at home in a medal I'm trying to be the best I can be . I'd far rather shoot a personal best and not win than be the best of a lot of mediocre rounds.

The times I'm really playing to win is in match play though its sometimes more satisfying to lose in a closely contested match than to win when one's opponent has had an off day.

 

[doublebogey7]

Strange philosophy to me, entering a competition but not trying to win . If your aim is just to play your best against the course, then you might as well just play a social round and save the entry fee.

I am struggling to underatand how you see some big difference between the two. Playing your best and playing to win are one and the same as far as I can see, just different words.