Divisions for comps?

[Lord Tyrion]

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...)

I think you could make a case for that and most would accept it. I would alter the statement to best scratch prize full stop. the division should be irrelevant if it is a scratch prize.

The tricky bit is what % you award them out of the winnings. Enough to doff a cap to them, not enough to annoy the 95% who will never have a chance of winning it. I'm sure there will be a formula in use out there that has been used succesfully to do this, you just need to find what it is.

 

[sweaty sock]

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

Move down through divisions....

Is there any other sport where you can ALWAYS expect to win, no matter what effort you make or talent you have? I suppose thats a good thing... just seems like a poor reward scheme...

 

[IanMcC]

In a similar vein, this winter we are running an Order Of Merit, covering all Sunday Winter Comps. I made the mistake of making it Divisional. The top 6 players are all Division 2. Next year I will make it Overall nett, not Divisional.

 

[jim8flog]

Move down through divisions....

Is there any other sport where you can ALWAYS expect to win, no matter what effort you make or talent you have? I suppose thats a good thing... just seems like a poor reward scheme...

But at an 11 handicap I am still in DIV 1

 

[Swango1980]

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.

I'm a firm believer in handicaps (rather than everyone just playing scratch). The range of talents amongst club golfers is vast, and by handicapping it means you get to play with, and compete against many many different people. If you just had one or 2 extremely talented golfers at a club, who picked up all the wins, then it actually removes the competitive nature of golf in many respects, as it narrows your potential rivals for the win.

However, more controversially to some, I think handicaps should be slightly skewed in favour of lower players. Not massively (like 50% reduction), but a little more than the 95% (which is simply there to account for the fact a higher handicap golfer has a higher range of top 8 scores, and thus their best score would be a greater amount under their Course Handicap). If lower handicappers had a slightly higher chance of winning

Move down through divisions....

Is there any other sport where you can ALWAYS expect to win, no matter what effort you make or talent you have? I suppose thats a good thing... just seems like a poor reward scheme...

I suppose if the playing allowance was, say 75%-90%, it would always be to the advantage of the lower handicapper. It doesn't mean high handicappers cannot compete or win, but it doesn't give them an "equal" chance compared to a lower handicapper. I'm not necessarily saying 75% is the "correct" percentage, maybe it is far too low. But something lower than the 95%, which is only there to account for the higher range high handicappers shoot around their index, thus on their best day shooting a higher amount under their index than a low handicapper.

Of course, that would be controversial and shock many, who would immediately shut any conversation down as discrimination against poorer players. However, for those that can get past the shock, is a potential benefit that if better players get slightly inflated odds of being successful, then it provides a much bigger incentive for worse players to get better. Could that be good for the game, and keep more players interested for the long term? Encourage players to invest in lessons and equipment?

It is something I think about, because if we just say everyone has an equal chance of winning if fairly handicapped, then the only incentive to get a handicap cut is for those that simply want to say their handicap is lower. However, for those that are motivated by being competitive in competitions and being successful, and less bothered by how high their handicap is, then there is less incentive to get better. Why invest time and money into the game to go from a handicap of 25 to 10, when at the end of your journey you are theoretically no more likely to be successful compared to when you played off 25, and in a worse off position as your ability starts to decline?

 

[rulefan]

Given that the average handicap is about 18 or thereabouts, this would suggest that 50% have a higher handicap. How many are in the range 25 - 35?
A reduction in the 95% allowance would effectively disenfranchise a large proportion of club players who would not bother entering competitions and would possibly be tempted to leave clubs for pay & play etc. Not playing in comps (not withstanding general play) their handicaps would no longer reflect their ability, opening the door to bandits.
Despite the recent boom, can clubs afford to lose 15% (say) of their membership?

 

[Swango1980]

Given that the average handicap is about 18 or thereabouts, this would suggest that 50% have a higher handicap. How many are in the range 25 - 35?
A reduction in the 95% allowance would effectively disenfranchise a large proportion of club players who would not bother entering competitions and would possibly be tempted to leave clubs for pay & play etc. Not playing in comps (not withstanding general play) their handicaps would no longer reflect their ability, opening the door to bandits.
Despite the recent boom, can clubs afford to lose 15% (say) of their membership?

Is this based on fact, or just your opinion?

For example, what about 94%? I understand Oz use 93% in their formula (including for singles match play, as it is automatically embedded within the course handicap calc. I assume they have strong membership? 92%, 91%, 90%?

I appreciate there will come a point that the allowance is just too low to allow higher handicap players to be competitive. For example, 50% definitely would be, 60%, probably 70%. I don't know where the tipping point would be personally. But, there is probably a point at which there becomes a slight bias towards lower handicap players, without making higher handicap players disillusioned.

At any rate, the remedy of divisions still exists. At the moment, the whole reason competitions are split into divisions is because primarily lower handicap players do not feel they can fairly compete against higher players. Would this be a fair assessment? If so, and you think a slight bias towards low handicappers will mean higher players become disillusioned, then you can still have divisions, but the primary reason would be because high handicappers do not feel they can compete against low players. Of course, if high handicappers just give up club golf, then you've either gone way too far in the low allowance, or we have a golfing society who have no interest in investing any time in trying to get better

 

[Region3]

Our divisions are (I think)

Up to 12
13-18
19-28
29+
There is a best gross for medals but not stablefords.

I don’t think higher handicappers should have a carrot dangled in front of them to give them an incentive to improve. It doesn’t matter to me whether Fred off 22 has an ambition to get to single figures or is happy playing his own brand of golf forever. The only thing that matters to me is that his handicap is genuine.
Some people are content to be where they’re at with no desire to improve - just to enjoy being out - and that is great. Not everybody has a desire or even the time/money to try to improve, let’s just get as many people enjoying their golf and hopefully competitions as we can.

 

[rulefan]

Is this based on fact, or just your opinion?

The 18 is pretty accurate within a couple of shots but that doesn't change the rest, which is my opinion in principle.

 

[doublebogey7]

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....

There are plenty of scratch events they can play. Without handicaps there would be no prize money to play for club competitions, in fact club golf would be shadow of it's current self. I know you said in an earlier post that divisions work in other sports, but where else are competitors playing for money on a weekly basis. It's usually purely about the kudos.