Afternoon all,
We're opening up the next issue's debate to two forumers and are going for the slightly vexed subject of handicap difference in singles matchplay.
CONGU's stance is that it should be full difference rather than the old 3/4, but not all golfers are convinced, especially low handicappers, despite CONGU quoting stats that they say prove it is the fairest option.
I'm looking for one person to argue the case for full difference and one for three-quarters.
The end result will be a 250-word argument per side to be published in our October issue.
If you fancy having a go, please send me the outline of any arguments/reasoning you would use (bullet points would be fine at this stage) to jezz_ellwood@ipcmedia.com
I will then select two people and get back in touch with them next week. If you haven't heard from me by the middle of next week, please presume that on this occasion you have been unsuccessful (as the old job reject letters I used to regularly receive politely phrased it!)
Two other things
1) I will be looking for people who haven't already been featured on the debate page previously
2) If selected, we would need a face-on head shot to run alongside the copy
We're opening up the next issue's debate to two forumers and are going for the slightly vexed subject of handicap difference in singles matchplay.
CONGU's stance is that it should be full difference rather than the old 3/4, but not all golfers are convinced, especially low handicappers, despite CONGU quoting stats that they say prove it is the fairest option.
I'm looking for one person to argue the case for full difference and one for three-quarters.
The end result will be a 250-word argument per side to be published in our October issue.
If you fancy having a go, please send me the outline of any arguments/reasoning you would use (bullet points would be fine at this stage) to jezz_ellwood@ipcmedia.com
I will then select two people and get back in touch with them next week. If you haven't heard from me by the middle of next week, please presume that on this occasion you have been unsuccessful (as the old job reject letters I used to regularly receive politely phrased it!)
Two other things
1) I will be looking for people who haven't already been featured on the debate page previously
2) If selected, we would need a face-on head shot to run alongside the copy