How many Divisions do you have

[nickjdavis]

3 divisions in Medals, none in Stablefords.

In Medals the divisions are "auto sized" so the same number of competitors are in each division. Prizes for 1st/2nd/3rd are the same in each division. The best gross score each month (in medals) qualifies for a Scratch comp over 18 holes the following year.

 

[jim8flog]

Why is there a need for divisions when WHS advocates "a fair and equal game" for all?

In stableford comps where I play the first division (up to 10) winning score will be around 36-38 points
The 3rd division (17 and over) winning score will be in the region of 40-45 points.

As a generalisation players in Division 3 will contain a lot more improving golfers than in Div 1 and Div 1 golfers will, mainly, have fairy stable handicaps.

 

[Bdill93]

Only the one division but we do pay lowest gross these days and the sub 10 guys weren’t often in with a sniff.

I’ve just had a look through 2022 results so far and in any stroke play event the lowest handicap winner was off 10 - that’s the lowest HC winner this year so far. Rewarding lowest gross only seems fair to me!

 

[GG26]

On a Saturday comp with approx 150 players we have four divisions. The boundaries are not set in stone, but recently they were up to 9, 10-15, 16-20, 21+. Prizes for top three in each division. Unfortunately, we have only three or four medal comps over the season, so the majority are stableford.

 

[Crow]

We have two divisions and a lowest gross when it's a medal, although it's only a paltry £10 or £20.

Today's Stableford comp was won with 39 points in a field of 63.

 

[Foxholer]

Why is there a need for divisions when WHS advocates "a fair and equal game" for all?

Because the likelihood of high/higher handicap players playing several shots below their handicap - which is what's required to win/get close to winning a comp - is much greater than that of low-cappers. That's for 2 reasons...1. Because there's a lot more high-cappers and 2. Most of high-cappers high score is because of errors; simply having a round with fewer errors - as opposed to the several great shots required by low-cappers - means their score is much better than normal.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Because the likelihood of high/higher handicap players playing several shots below their handicap - which is what's required to win/get close to winning a comp - is much greater than that of low-cappers. That's for 2 reasons...1. Because there's a lot more high-cappers and 2. Most of high-cappers high score is because of errors; simply having a round with fewer errors - as opposed to the several great shots required by low-cappers - means their score is much better than normal.

Do you have any evidence for those statements?

My lowest ever net score was 8 under par, playing off 8 at the age of 16. Won a board comp.
My second lowest ever nett score was 7 under par, playing off 4 at the age of 40. Won a weekday medal.
3 years ago, I equalled that net 7 under when my handicap had drifted up to 5.6, won the comp, second place was 4 shots behind.
I would say that those winning scores were due to some good luck and holing putts, the "several great shots" were not part of it.
In the years it took me to get from 36 handicap to 8, I never got anywhere near those net scores.
My experience of playing off high, mid and low handicaps does not match your statements.

 

[doublebogey7]

Do you have any evidence for those statements?

My lowest ever net score was 8 under par, playing off 8 at the age of 16. Won a board comp.
My second lowest ever nett score was 7 under par, playing off 4 at the age of 40. Won a weekday medal.
3 years ago, I equalled that net 7 under when my handicap had drifted up to 5.6, won the comp, second place was 4 shots behind.
I would say that those winning scores were due to some good luck and holing putts, the "several great shots" were not part of it.
In the years it took me to get from 36 handicap to 8, I never got anywhere near those net scores.
My experience of playing off high, mid and low handicaps does not match your statements.

Additionally, the research carried out by the golfing authorities doesn't match the generally held view amongst low handicapped players, that they are at some form of disadvantage. Makes a change for a low boy to recognise the truth of it.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

All medals and stablefords outside main honour board events are in divisions. The have three divisions and prizes for top three in each one

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Do you have any evidence for those statements?

My lowest ever net score was 8 under par, playing off 8 at the age of 16. Won a board comp.
My second lowest ever nett score was 7 under par, playing off 4 at the age of 40. Won a weekday medal.
3 years ago, I equalled that net 7 under when my handicap had drifted up to 5.6, won the comp, second place was 4 shots behind.
I would say that those winning scores were due to some good luck and holing putts, the "several great shots" were not part of it.
In the years it took me to get from 36 handicap to 8, I never got anywhere near those net scores.
My experience of playing off high, mid and low handicaps does not match your statements.

If I look at this years winners without HC divisions the following HC’s would have won

19 , 28 , 29 , 18 , 25 , 27 , 19 and 32

In two board comps one 17 HC and one 29 HC

Looking at last years comps lowest HC to win a board comp was 17

Without divisions the lowest to win a medal/Stableford was 15

The results we get from our comps matches the statement that WHS or indeed any handicap system doesn’t provide an equal field because of multiple factors and why divisions are recommended

Additionally, the research carried out by the golfing authorities doesn't match the generally held view amongst low handicapped players, that they are at some form of disadvantage. Makes a change for a low boy to recognise the truth of it.

Research ?‍ Which research ?

 

[Foxholer]

Do you have any evidence for those statements?
...

Not anymore.
But I did check it out many years ago (HDID had only just been released) when I was the Comp Sec at an old club.

I agree, that it wasn't as much as low cappers were claiming, and it wasn't always the case. The Handicap Sec was also quite 'active' - with an obsession that the (Resort) Club, with quite a few players who played in external comps, so didn't want the club to be seen as one with 'bandits'.

I too had a similar experience to you - shooting 8 under my 'cap' (44 points off 9) and not winning the handicap section in my highest S'ford score - and my last comp round at Craigielaw many years ago. 'Won' a nice leather logo-ed bag that I still have though.

But as a general trend, it was the case - by around 2 shots - with, in that case, the most likely to have 'extraordinary' scores being those in the high teens low 20s.

 

[Slab]

Typically there’s no divisions except for club champs when there’s separate Mens/Womens prizes (I assume these are still ‘divisions’) Otherwise the only other thing separating Players in a comp field is separate Mens/Womers longest drive (NTP is fully inclusive)
Club Champs has a lowest Gross with same prize as the Net winner but Net is the Club Champion/Trophy holder
Some Opens runs divisions but I suppose this is quite common

I’d guess (hope) that each club will just do whatever’s appropriate to/required for, its membership
If it needs divisions to keep interest/inclusive entry into comps from the whole membership then the members/committee will doubtless have divisions

 

[IanM]

Why is there a need for divisions when WHS advocates "a fair and equal game" for all?

"Advocates" isn't the same as "delivers."

We have 2 divisions for everything. Big stuff is off scratch and/ or there's gross and net prizes.

Club championship is a scratch medal, where top 15 plus previous champion qualify for matchplay. There's other scratch and Handicap knockouts too.

We have comps every Saturday April to Oct. and stuff in the week.

I won the net club championship at a former club, playing off 11. The gross winner shot 71 to my 81. Give him the big pot, I know the difference!

 

[Orikoru]

I think there are two divisions at ours, 1-14, and 15-up. It might depend on number of entrants though as I've just checked back to a slightly earlier comp and there are no divisions listed. I don't think there's a gross prize except for the yearly club championships - but then I wouldn't know since it's not a concern for me.

 

[sunshine]

No question that WHS has led to some higher scores, the methodology represents form whereas the old method was a closer representation of potential.

My club has decided to increase the number of rounds required to maintain a competition handicap from 3 to 8 per year, to improve the accuracy of handicaps so they reflect more recent scoring. We won’t be able to judge if this is working until the end of 2023.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

One division if <60 competing. Two divisions if >60. Last two medals (both about 120 playing) were won with nett 62 and nett 64 (respectively 23 and 15 h/cappers). Division 1 won by 67 and 68 netts.

 

[SteveW86]

In our two divisions, division 2 has always got a better stableford score, or lower nett score at the top of the pile that division 1.

 

[sweaty sock]

180 entries, 1 division, no scratch prize.

 

[doublebogey7]

If I look at this years winners without HC divisions the following HC’s would have won

19 , 28 , 29 , 18 , 25 , 27 , 19 and 32

In two board comps one 17 HC and one 29 HC

Looking at last years comps lowest HC to win a board comp was 17

Without divisions the lowest to win a medal/Stableford was 15

The results we get from our comps matches the statement that WHS or indeed any handicap system doesn’t provide an equal field because of multiple factors and why divisions are recommended



Research ?‍ Which research ?

https://silo.tips/queue/congu-handi...eue_id=-1&v=1652091677&u=MjEzLjEwNy40OC4yNA==

I have also conducted my own research from results at my home club over a number of years all be it using a smaller sample size. Never the less this showed that Old Cat 1 players won more in vouchers than they contributed in entry fees. The sample size was too small to conclude anything from winners only although even there they won more often (twice) than we had entries from them.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

https://silo.tips/queue/congu-handi...eue_id=-1&v=1652091677&u=MjEzLjEwNy40OC4yNA==

I have also conducted my own research from results at my home club over a number of years all be it using a smaller sample size. Never the less this showed that Old Cat 1 players won more in vouchers than they contributed in entry fees. The sample size was too small to conclude anything from winners only although even there they won more often (twice) than we had entries from them.

Can’t open that link

and “cat 1 won more in vouchers than contributed in entry fees” - what does that show ? It’s not much in isolation - what are the vouchers for , how many events ? So many variables

And struggling to understand that last statement ? Won more often than entries ?