CONGU Club Handicaps

Old Skier said:
Today I did a test entering a member on our system Club Systems and as it was a completely new member a CDH No is automatically allocated no matter what handicap they are.
Click to expand...

Why would anyone put a member into their handicap system if they weren't going to give them a CONGU handicap of some sort?
All the ISVs are providing CONGU handicapping software so that players' handicaps can be managed according to the CONGU regulations. This involves their having a CDH ID.
Unless a 'Society' version of the software is being used it is geared specifically to CONGU requirements.

If the club doesn't want certain members to take part in CONGU, don't enter them in the CONGU system.

PS. Old Skier, this was not aimed at you but your post gave me a hook.
 
rulefan said:
Why would anyone put a member into their handicap system if they weren't going to give them a CONGU handicap of some sort?
All the ISVs are providing CONGU handicapping software so that players' handicaps can be managed according to the CONGU regulations. This involves their having a CDH ID.
Unless a 'Society' version of the software is being used it is geared specifically to CONGU requirements.

If the club doesn't want certain members to take part in CONGU, don't enter them in the CONGU system.

PS. Old Skier, this was not aimed at you but your post gave me a hook.
Click to expand...

Your systems are not just Congu systems - a person can be entered into the HC system without putting his CDH number in if you don't have it yet and going to add it at a later date but then it allows people to enter comps on the PSI or online until the CDH number is sorted.
 
Liverpoolphil said:
Your systems are not just Congu systems - a person can be entered into the HC system without putting his CDH number in if you don't have it yet and going to add it at a later date but then it allows people to enter comps on the PSI or online until the CDH number is sorted.
Click to expand...

That would suggest they are going to be managed by the CONGU system and regulations.
 
Last edited:
rulefan said:
Why would anyone put a member into their handicap system if they weren't going to give them a CONGU handicap of some sort?
All the ISVs are providing CONGU handicapping software so that players' handicaps can be managed according to the CONGU regulations. This involves their having a CDH ID.
Unless a 'Society' version of the software is being used it is geared specifically to CONGU requirements.

If the club doesn't want certain members to take part in CONGU, don't enter them in the CONGU system.

PS. Old Skier, this was not aimed at you but your post gave me a hook.
Click to expand...

Firstly we would need to put them on the system in Devon to enable them to apply for their county card and secondly we would give them a CONGU club handicap if the member so wished.

Our hc committee recommended to the main committee to go down the club handicap route who put it to the AGM and it was passed.
 
Old Skier said:
Not necessarily , I'm looking at the online system which I believe is modular and one of the modules just deals with membership.
Click to expand...

Yes, I was trying to distinguish between the membership module and the handicap module. A member can be on the membership system without being on the handicap system. My recollection of Club 2000 (for example) is that the two records can be linked. But that they are still separate records on the club's system but that the membership record has no handicap (incl CDH) data on it.
 
rulefan said:
Given the number of clubs that have historic competitions where the handicap limit is set at 18, I suspect that in the days when virtually all clubs had waiting lists, the mantra that 'no one should get more than 12 stroke a hole' was acceptable.
Click to expand...

Now there's an idea. I quite like the thought of getting 12 strokes on a hole. I might win something.
 
Software: There are many different offerings. Some are modular, some not. Ours handles golfers and non golfers in the same table (list) so you can enter players without issuing a handicap, and would need to do this for social members.

CDH: If you allocate a handicap then you should either input the CDH number if known (ie a transfer from another club or resurrection of a lapsed member etc) or get a new one allocated. I can't see why you would not do this for CONGU Club handicaps as it needs to be managed in the same way as a standard handicap. If they are a member of another club then they should have one handicap managed by the nominated home club in the same way. It makes little sense to do otherwise but I accept it may be technically possible.

Adoption of Club Handicaps: Much opposition from established players. I too agree to some extent that if you can't break 100 then golf may not be the game for you. However, if people enjoy it, comply with club rules etc who the hell am I to judge? This whole issue sounds exactly like the arguments 10 years ago over full handicap in Stableford/Matchplay and no doubt it will be the same "type" of established (mostly lower handicap) golfers who are so opposed to it. Just like then, CONGU will allow it for a while then mandate it so clubs will have to adopt in the end anyway......and no doubt still maintain "it's just wrong".
 
I can't say I'm surprised at some of the entrenched opinions on this subject. Maybe my club doesn't conform to the norm but we have identified 12 men and 7 ladies who would benefit from Club Handicaps. They are all in a particular age group and turn up regularly to pay the comp fee and enjoy playing. None of them ever get remotely near playing to handicap. They remain resolutely cheerful but it must be a bit depressing to see their names at the bottom of the pile again. Even with the improved allowance they will still struggle to make their mark. We should be offering support and encouragement in every way we can.
 
rosecott said:
I can't say I'm surprised at some of the entrenched opinions on this subject. Maybe my club doesn't conform to the norm but we have identified 12 men and 7 ladies who would benefit from Club Handicaps. They are all in a particular age group and turn up regularly to pay the comp fee and enjoy playing. None of them ever get remotely near playing to handicap. They remain resolutely cheerful but it must be a bit depressing to see their names at the bottom of the pile again. Even with the improved allowance they will still struggle to make their mark. We should be offering support and encouragement in every way we can.
Click to expand...
Support and encouragement to do what though? I've spent much of the last 2 years at the bottom of most leaderboards due to a handicap I can't play to. I can't remember not enjoying the game, nor complaining that my handicap should be raised artificially.

And no this is not the "rant" of a lower 'capper against higher 'cappers. I just don't see the actual benefit of it. If you need to be near the top of a leaderboard to enjoy the game then you're focusing on the wrong thing in my opinion.
 
bluewolf said:
Support and encouragement to do what though? I've spent much of the last 2 years at the bottom of most leaderboards due to a handicap I can't play to. I can't remember not enjoying the game, nor complaining that my handicap should be raised artificially.

And no this is not the "rant" of a lower 'capper against higher 'cappers. I just don't see the actual benefit of it. If you need to be near the top of a leaderboard to enjoy the game then you're focusing on the wrong thing in my opinion.
Click to expand...

My point is that they don't complain, they just turn up. To me the introduction of club handicaps is no different to the general introduction of handicaps in the dim and distant past. The handicap system generally intends to make the game enjoyable and competitive for all, and that means for the guy in single figures, the mid-handicapper and the 28/36 plus handicapper.

None of the players I mentioned are likely to top the leaderboard but it will give a little encouragement.
 
Last edited:
rosecott said:
My point is that they don't complain, they just turn up. To me the introduction of club handicaps is no different to the general introduction of handicaps in the dim and distant past. The handicap system generally intends to make the game enjoyable and competitive for all, and that means for the guy in single figures, the mid-handicapper and the 28/36 plus handicapper.

None of the players I mentioned are likely to top the leaderboard but it will give a little encouragement.
Click to expand...
I think we'll have to respectfully agree to disagree. For me, it's an open ended move that won't do what it's designed to do. I think that Golf has a lot more to do to encourage people to take up this game. I'm not even sure if my club has adopted the policy. I'll ask when I'm there for lunch on Thursday.
 
bluewolf said:
Support and encouragement to do what though? I've spent much of the last 2 years at the bottom of most leaderboards due to a handicap I can't play to. I can't remember not enjoying the game, nor complaining that my handicap should be raised artificially.

And no this is not the "rant" of a lower 'capper against higher 'cappers. I just don't see the actual benefit of it. If you need to be near the top of a leaderboard to enjoy the game then you're focusing on the wrong thing in my opinion.
Click to expand...

If you have a handicap that you can’t play to, 5 for example, it will rise as you compete to the appropriate level for your playing ability. If you have a handicap of 28 that you can’t play to, the Club Handicap will give you the same option as the struggling 5 handicapper to have your handicap raised to its appropriate level. There is no difference between the two situations. If it is “artificial” for one handicap to go up from 28 to 32, it is equally “artificial” for the other to go up from 5 to 8.
,
With the Club Handicap available, the 28/36 handicapper who can’t play to it has this option
(a) stay on an unrealistic competition handicap of 28 and play in competitions both at home and away until such time as they may improve to 28 and below;
or
(b) move to a Club Handicap and play in such competitions as the club arranges for this category and in none away from the home club.

Since the player who chooses (b) will have no impact whatsoever on those who choose (a) or anyone else with a competition handicap, I just don’t understand the opposition to a scheme which opens up new opportunities for a group of golfers. Something is gained for them; nothing is taken away from anyone else. I haven’t seen anything in this thread to justify denying that group its opportunity.
 
Last edited:
Colin L said:
If you have a handicap that you can’t play to, 5 for example, it will rise as you compete to the appropriate level for your playing ability. If you have a handicap of 28 that you can’t play to, the Club Handicap will give you the same option as the struggling 5 handicapper to have your handicap raised to its appropriate level. There is no difference between the two situations. If it is “artificial” for one handicap to go up from 28 to 32, it is equally “artificial” for the other to go up from 5 to 8.
,
With the Club Handicap available, the 28/36 handicapper who can’t play to it has this option
(a) stay on an unrealistic competition handicap of 28 and play in competitions both at home and away until such time as they may improve to 28 and below;
or
(b) move to a Club Handicap and play in such competitions as the club arranges for this category and in none away from the home club.

Since the player who chooses (b) will have no impact whatsoever on those who choose (a) or anyone else with a competition handicap, I just don’t understand the opposition to a scheme which opens up new opportunities for a group of golfers. Something is gained for them; nothing is taken away from anyone else.
Click to expand...
Ok, so in simple terms. What does this scheme hope to achieve?
 
bluewolf said:
Ok, so in simple terms. What does this scheme hope to achieve?
Click to expand...

I think it opens up golf to a wider public. It allows players who can't yet play to a "handicap" standard to measure progress and perhaps join a club and properly participate where they otherwise wouldn't have done. I see very little on the down side but many positives at the seniors/beginners ends of the spectrum. By far the massive majority of those in between will (IMO) not be affected at all. To me, effectively another division, that doesn't affect me at all with perhaps their own comp or a small prize in an overall comp isn't an issue.
 
bluewolf said:
Ok, so in simple terms. What does this scheme hope to achieve?
Click to expand...

Read though the thread again. it’s been said. But in a sentence, how about this:

To give clubs the opportunity to develop competitive opportunities for a group of members, young and old, improving in their game or declining for which the current handicapping system does not cater and to provide players in that group with a validated handicap which can improve their enjoyment of social golf.
 
Last edited:
Colin L said:
That’s a diversionary question. Did the explanation of what the scheme is intended to achieve - as I understand it - clarify it for you?
Click to expand...

No, it's not diversionary at all. You can't justify the scheme by the intent. Only by whether it's fit for purpose.

If the purpose is to encourage players who can't play to 28, then why implement a limit. What about those who can't play to the new limit? They're still marginalised. It may be a smaller group now, but how many people need to be affected for it to be a problem.

My issue with the scheme is that it's half baked. It doesn't fully fix the issue at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

H
Competitive vs Recreational handicaps
2 3
Replies
56
Views
2K
Voyager EMH
Voyager EMH
J
Suspicious Handicap
Replies
11
Views
592
rosecott
rosecott
H
Are junior handicaps different?
Replies
15
Views
2K
jim8flog
jim8flog
Yeomanterry
Fairness between Genders in a golf competition.
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Mel Smooth
Mel Smooth
IanM
iG golfer joining a Club
Replies
3
Views
603
IanM
IanM
Top