Golf Random Irritations

[moogie]

Yes it was Lottie and Rachel Gourley (member Arcot Hall up Newcastle). Maybe there could be another category, but what would it be.

Yes young Rachel (local lass) is only a measly
Plus 5.6 handicapper
So she can play a bit

Like you've said earlier
This format has been around for a long long time
Can't understand the issue
2 elite female golfers won
Good on them?

 

[Imurg]

Has anyone seen the actual s ores?
I wonder what the outcome would have been if they'd played Scratch....

 

[HomerJSimpson]

The format and handicapping has to support any combination of lady / gent / amateur / pro with amateurs of whatever (low) handicap. There have been plenty of female stars playing in past years but maybe not two quite so prodigious and dedicated amateur girls/ladies. And why would you then penalise such a pairing for being a good as they are, gelling superbly well as a foursomes pairing under the pressure of playing against a pair of gent professionals. But maybe you would as that’s what handicapping is all about.

Same as ever. Wanting to change something to suit. The handicaps are clearly published for the event and it has worked well enough for many years. Why suddenly change it just because they were beaten other than it doesn't fit your agenda

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Has anyone seen the actual s ores?
I wonder what the outcome would have been if they'd played Scratch....

I think Lottie‘s coach worked out that after 13 holes (when they finished), and assuming the pros holed all the putts they picked up as they’d lost the hole, then they’d be about level, or not more than 1 hole between them (Not sure which way)

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Same as ever. Wanting to change something to suit. The handicaps are clearly published for the event and it has worked well enough for many years. Why suddenly change it just because they were beaten other than it doesn't fit your agenda

I am afraid that you seem to have completely misunderstood my position on this…in fact you seem to think it’s the very opposite of my view. It was others who were complaining about the shot allowance not me. I have said that clearly the way that handicaps are allocated works as it has been used for very many years. If it was biased towards female amateurs then more than 6 all female pairings would have won it in the 88yrs it’s been played.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

But they still had to win 7 matches to get to the final, and then play foursomes in grim weather against two very good gent pros.

Why do you keep mentioning this? You do realise it's the same for the other pair as well?

 

[Foxholer]

Same as ever. Wanting to change something to suit. The handicaps are clearly published for the event and it has worked well enough for many years. Why suddenly change it just because they were beaten other than it doesn't fit your agenda

Because the handicaps assigned are no longer anywhere near appropriate to the quality of the participants - not that they ever really were.
The key to any change, if contemplated, would be finding the right balance. Recent results certainly indicate that there's a distinct skew towards more Ladies being, at least part of, the winning team. But the event is about much more than just the competition too, so should never be simply turned into a Club Medal!

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I am afraid that you seem to have completely misunderstood my position on this…in fact you seem to think it’s the very opposite of my view. It was others who were complaining about the shot allowance not me. I have said that clearly the way that handicaps are allocated works as it has been used for very many years. If it was biased towards female amateurs then more than 6 all female pairings would have won it in the 88yrs it’s been played.

No. You moaned about a lack of exposure and then brought in the subject of handicaps. I was just disagreeing and pointing out everyone is aware of the handicapping before they start. What year did women start competing? Why should it be biased towards women. They enter knowing the rules and handicapping. It has worked perfectly well and is a unique event so why tamper with it

 

[Leftitshort]

I doubt the tees they played are rated for women but, if they were, you'd probably find the adjustment would be at least 5 shots. Playing the back tees at my course it'd be 6 shots.

Which would put them both off approx scratch. I’m not for a second saying they didn’t deserve their win. Just that both off significant + handicaps to have them play off 4 seems a bit arbitrary.

 

[IanM]

Keegan Bradley, is he wins. He's annoying

 

[Leftitshort]

I am afraid that you seem to have completely misunderstood my position on this…in fact you seem to think it’s the very opposite of my view. It was others who were complaining about the shot allowance not me. I have said that clearly the way that handicaps are allocated works as it has been used for very many years. If it was biased towards female amateurs then more than 6 all female pairings would have won it in the 88yrs it’s been played.

I can’t work out if Homer is arguing against you or with you !! How odd.
Don’t think it’s healthy to use pejorative terms like ‘complaining’. I’m not sure the rules of the comp were ready for these 2 golfers, clearly very talented, clearly don’t need 4 shots. You can’t be revisionist but it might need looking at going forward

 

[Leftitshort]

Keegan Bradley, is he wins. He's annoying

Can’t watch him. I hoped he’d gone away

 

[Leftitshort]

Well since the pros don't have handicaps are you just making them scratch as well?

Just seems, generally - not singling you out, people are ok with mixed comps until a woman threatens to win.

the argument would be the same if the amateurs were men. Amateur/professional isn’t an indicator of shots required. If anything seems a bit patronising. I always thought it was off scratch but the women played off different tees.
Good publicity for the comp I guess, as we’ve not discussed before on here to my knowledge.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

people are ok with mixed comps until a woman threatens to win.

I don't think that's true. Most people want the best players to win regardless of sex unless they are trans which is a whole different argument.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Not sure why you want to derail an interesting discussion with that rubbish

I'm not derailing anything. I stated that most people don't care who wins, men or women. They only care when there is a distinctly unfair advantage like the recent trans swimmer.

 

[IanM]

Politely disagree. Where men and women are competing, the women winning is news!

Well played ladies!

 

[sunshine]

I think I'd prefer mixed comps from different tees but the course setup is very tricky to get right. From what's been stated here in this case they're playing the same tees. In which case some sort of adjustment is needed to make it fair - even if the women are as good as those two.

Sunningdale is only about six and a half thousand yards off the back tees, short for elite golfers, so makes sense that everyone plays off the same tees (with a stroke adjustment for women).

It's great that two women won the event. Maybe if women amateurs started dominating the event it would be worth looking at in a few years, but changing the whole format because of one pair and one victory is a bit knee jerk.

 

[sunshine]

To summarise: someone played a blinder and scored way better than their handicap, and other people are calling them bandits. Doesn't the same conversation happen after every competition in every clubhouse every week?

 

[IanM]

To summarise: someone played a blinder and scored way better than their handicap, and other people are calling them bandits. Doesn't the same conversation happen after every competition in every clubhouse every week?

Especially when it knocks you out of the prizes! No that IS irritating!

 

[Orikoru]

My friend and recent matchplay doubles partner is having shoulder surgery at some point in the coming months (he has dislocated it a number of times). There is a betterball knockout starting in April, so out of courtesy I just double-checked that he wouldn't be able to enter before asking our other friend. But bafflingly, he thinks he'll only take two weeks to recover from it. Even though he's having 6 months signed off from work. And he works in a hospital. So he thinks we should sign up, and I don't really know whether to do it or not. Wish I hadn't asked.