Divisions for comps?

[Kennysarmy]

I think ours are 0-10 / 11-15 / 16+

Seems to give a good even spread of players in each div.

 

[LincolnShep]

In the old days, my old club had 2 divisions. 0-18 and 19+. However, it could quite often become a bit of a joke, where Div 1 had 30 players, Div 2 had 4 or 5 players.

So, when the new Comp Sec came in, he only decided the Division split the day before the competition, and he selected the split point to ensure a balanced number of entrants in both divisions.

I once "won" a monthly medal that only had three entrants in my division - I also came second when there were only two entrants! Medals were not popular with higher handicappers.

 

[Swango1980]

I once "won" a monthly medal that only had three entrants in my division - I also came second when there were only two entrants! Medals were not popular with higher handicappers.

I remember we went to the last competition of the year, and I was only 0.5 points behind the guy that was winning (both of us well over 100 points in total). So, the competition secretary decided to put us in the same group for a bit of a show down. It was a good battle, but I beat him easily in the end. I think I had something like a nett 71, whereas he had a nett 76. I was delighted to win the order of merit.....

Except I didn't. Because, I was in Division 1 and came about 4th or 5th in the field of about 30. He was in Division 2, that only had about 5 players, of which he came 3rd. So, as the order of merit was set up to award points separately for each division (which was changed for following seasons), he got more points and won the OOM. Furthermore, this would have also assisted him all year, as he'd have been in a much smaller field in every monthly medal (which were the only comps in Divisions).

I've also seen wins in Division 2 with a nett 80 and about 3 or 4 players in the field. Maybe that was your victory?

 

[LincolnShep]

I've also seen wins in Division 2 with a nett 80 and about 3 or 4 players in the field. Maybe that was your victory?

How dare you! I was a solid nett 78.

 

[Swango1980]

How dare you! I was a solid nett 78.

View attachment 41042

Haha, I wasn't far off. You really went through a purple patch in 2015, I hope those glory days return one day.

On countback as well. Spectacular

 

[2blue]

Our 2 Div's are set as below, though periodically reviewed to get an even split.
6 entries are enough for a Comp.
Two Divs need 25+ entries with at least 10 in each Div or otherwise they're combined to just 1.
SENIORS - up to 20, 21 & above
MID-WEEK - up to 18, 19 & above
WEEKENDS - up to 15, 16 & above

 

[Springveldt]

Just heard sense has prevailed and the divisions have been amended to 0-9, 10-17 and 18+. Seems a lot fairer across the board.

Just seen that this morning as well. I asked in the Pro shop last week about it and he said that he think it's playing handicap, not handicap index.

Was interested to see that the best gross for each division is in board comps and medal only. As you know we play so many stableford comps at our place, I just checked and the 13 Saturday board comps I played last year were split 9-4 in favour of stableford. I wonder if we will be amending these to be medal comps in the future.

With the first proposed split I had a shot at best gross in that division since it was split 6-12 (my playing handicap is 7) but with this new split there is zero chance I ever win best gross.

I actually like the idea of having divisions, I think it could encourage more players to play in the comps.

 

[sweaty sock]

No scratch, no divisions.

My view, ditch nett scores, group people into divisions based on handicap, determined from entry so divisions are the same size.

Award for gross only.

Keep handicaps for matchplay...

 

[Springveldt]

No scratch, no divisions.

My view, ditch nett scores, group people into divisions based on handicap, determined from entry so divisions are the same size.

Award for gross only.

Keep handicaps for matchplay...

Divisions would need to be tight or not many are going to enter. What's the point of me entering a best gross only comp if my division is 0-9? I'm off 7, the lad I play a lot with is +2 and his worse days are better than my best ever day. All I would be doing is donating money to other people each week with zero chances of winning.

 

[sweaty sock]

Are you doing nothing to improve to be competitive with +2 golfer?

Edit (as it was far more argumentative than intended): I can guarantee a +2 handicapper is practicing waaaay more than they admit, and have been for a significant length of time. Why shouldnt the system reward them? Its better than giving out prizes at near random which the current system does. To a point even rewarding regression as much as improvement. The division system works in every other sport?

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Are you doing nothing to improve to be competitive with +2 golfer?

Edit (as it was far more argumentative than intended): I can guarantee a +2 handicapper is practicing waaaay more than they admit, and have been for a significant length of time. Why shouldnt the system reward them? Its better than giving out prizes at near random which the current system does. To a point even rewarding regression as much as improvement. The division system works in every other sport?

What if a golfer has hit the ceiling with the ability that they have? It goes back to the point Springveldt made, All I would be doing is donating money to other people each week with zero chances of winning.

At that point you may as well just play a round, mark a card yourself and hand it in, not enter the comp. If that happens it's no fun for the + 2 golfer if his winnings are just £4.

I get your point, good play should be rewarded, but then you get into the scratch only debate. I guess the solution is to have divisions plus a best gross section but perhaps that is getting too complicated?

 

[Swango1980]

Divisions would need to be tight or not many are going to enter. What's the point of me entering a best gross only comp if my division is 0-9? I'm off 7, the lad I play a lot with is +2 and his worse days are better than my best ever day. All I would be doing is donating money to other people each week with zero chances of winning.

I wouldn't worry about the lad you play with who plays off +2. The division your entering is 0-9, so his handicap is too low to qualify.

 

[Springveldt]

Are you doing nothing to improve to be competitive with +2 golfer?

Edit (as it was far more argumentative than intended): I can guarantee a +2 handicapper is practicing waaaay more than they admit, and have been for a significant length of time. Why shouldnt the system reward them? Its better than giving out prizes at near random which the current system does. To a point even rewarding regression as much as improvement. The division system works in every other sport?

You do realise not everyone has the talent to be a +2 golfer no matter how much time the invest? I don't have thousands of hours free time to even attempt that quest and at my age now I'd be delighted to get my playing handicap to 5 which would be an old Cat 1 player. That's a more realistic quest and lower than I ever thought I could get.

To be competitive with +2 golfer you would need to be in the top 1% of all amateur golfers, it's not a realistic expectation for the vast majority of golfers.

The +2 has played since he was a kid obviously and is probably in his prime now in his mid/late 20's. He actually practices less than you would think. Me on the other hand in my mid 40's with job, wife, kids etc is lucky to get out once a week. A lot of members are in my position.

I can guarantee comp entries would absolutely plummet if it was best gross only. There are handicaps for a reason. I actually agreed with the divisions but you still need to have handicap within them if you want a lot of members to play.

 

[Springveldt]

What if a golfer has hit the ceiling with the ability that they have? It goes back to the point Springveldt made, All I would be doing is donating money to other people each week with zero chances of winning.

At that point you may as well just play a round, mark a card yourself and hand it in, not enter the comp. If that happens it's no fun for the + 2 golfer if his winnings are just £4.

I get your point, good play should be rewarded, but then you get into the scratch only debate. I guess the solution is to have divisions plus a best gross section but perhaps that is getting too complicated?

That's what we are doing, there is a best gross and a best nett within each division for board comps. I think it's a great idea.

I wouldn't worry about the lad you play with who plays off +2. The division your entering is 0-9, so his handicap is too low to qualify.

Didn't feel like writing -4.0 to 9.4 (-4 is the lowest guy at our course)

 

[sweaty sock]

I just dont think its very fair on the +2 whos dedicated his life to golf, that he goes round in 70 for nothing, for all the money to go to someone who took 78, and only plays at the weekend....

Admittedly thats significantly better than our place that has no divisions where a 3 handicapper who scored a gross 70 was beaten by a 46 handicapper who failed to break 100....

 

[rudebhoy]

Just seen that this morning as well. I asked in the Pro shop last week about it and he said that he think it's playing handicap, not handicap index.

Was interested to see that the best gross for each division is in board comps and medal only. As you know we play so many stableford comps at our place, I just checked and the 13 Saturday board comps I played last year were split 9-4 in favour of stableford. I wonder if we will be amending these to be medal comps in the future.

With the first proposed split I had a shot at best gross in that division since it was split 6-12 (my playing handicap is 7) but with this new split there is zero chance I ever win best gross.

I actually like the idea of having divisions, I think it could encourage more players to play in the comps.

The original plan was to have divisions for all club comps, not sure why they have changed it to board comps and monthly medal only? Like you, I am all for the introduction of divisions as long as the numbers were balanced.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

I just dont think its very fair on the +2 whos dedicated his life to golf, that he goes round in 70 for nothing, for all the money to go to someone who took 78, and only plays at the weekend....

Ultimately it isn't but that is the nature of the handicap system in golf. You either accept that is what fills the competitions at a weekend or you look for scratch only comps.

 

[BiMGuy]

I just dont think its very fair on the +2 whos dedicated his life to golf, that he goes round in 70 for nothing, for all the money to go to someone who took 78, and only plays at the weekend....

Admittedly thats significantly better than our place that has no divisions where a 3 handicapper who scored a gross 70 was beaten by a 46 handicapper who failed to break 100....

When I first started playing golf, it was explained to me the purpose of the handicap is to allow golfers of different abilities to compete.

After a while I realised that the is absolute nonsense. Handicaps are there simply to give the illusion and a warm fuzzy feeling to poor golfers, or those that don’t want to put the effort in to improve that they are competing with good golfers.

Handicapping should favour more skilled players.

 

[sweaty sock]

Ultimately it isn't but that is the nature of the handicap system in golf. You either accept that is what fills the competitions at a weekend or you look for scratch only comps.

So should support the best division having an addditional scrtach prize not offered to the other divisions then? Or would that be too much like "donating money"....

(My old view was that really good golfers eg the +2 mentioned, would have won more than their fair share on the journey to +2, which would have taken years of sustained improvement,with accompanying wins. But under WHS, thats not necessarily the case any more...)

 

[jim8flog]

Are you doing nothing to improve to be competitive with +2 golfer?

What do you do about the declining golfer? I was once 5 and am now 11 PH.