Maximum Handicap For Men - Again...

[HomerJSimpson]

Sorry but there is so much handicap snobbery on here it isn't true. I am middle of the road and will take on single figure guys off my mark and hope to give them a fight. I can play mid twenty handicappers and have often had to be right on top of my game to win. We divisionalise our medals and stableford but honour board events are open to all. We rarely get a real high handicapper winning any of these and low guys often come out on top. At the end of the day I'm proud of the handicapping system which enables anyone to have a competitive game on a level playing field. What happens otherwise. All the low guys stick together and the rest are left to fend for themselves. Aside from the elitist clubs, most are welcoming to all and that's how it should be. Sunningdale etc have the limit for a historical and practical reason (speed of play) and you have to accept their decision but lets kick snobbery out

 

[stevie_r]

I still don't get it. Golf isn't my first sport. In other sports if I turned up to play with people that are better than me I get beat and if I'm better than them I win. It doesn't hurt my feelings when I get beat by people that, for whatever reason, are better than me.

The whole thing is flawed anyway. I can't remember the last time I actually shot my handicap on the number.

Age classification etc is fine but ability classification should be win or lose (like the pros!).

no problem, next medal you compete in then put yourself down as scratch. I'm betting you dont.

 

[Evesdad]

I really can't believe some of the comments on here to be honest. Have some of you really forgot what it was like in the higher hcps? How many times have low guys been completely beaten by high hcpers? Not many I would say but you seem to remember them more than the times you white washed them. I play week in week out and try my hardest each week and play two comps a week. Some are limited hcps and 3/4's but I still have a good go knowing I've got no chance of placing. Would the club like to lose my financial input throughout the year and those like me? I doubt it. I strive to get lower and play my best and enjoy the highs and lows as it comes. Golf without hcps just seems so wrong and what makes the game great that players of differing levels get to compete with each other and enjoy the game.

 

[Hobbit]

Sunningdale; their club, their rules, no problem with it.

Handicaps; don't care if you get 2 shots a hole providing the club plays its comps in divisions. The reason; I want as many people playing and enjoying the game as is possible but equally someone off 36 might shoot 8-10 under and then your scratch player hasn't got a snowball's...

 

[TheClaw]

no problem, next medal you compete in then put yourself down as scratch. I'm betting you dont.

What are you jibbering? Of course I won't. I'd get beat by bad players as well as good players...all using their handicaps.

 

[stevie_r]

What are you jibbering? Of course I won't. I'd get beat by bad players as well as good players...all using their handicaps.

There is no such word as jibbering.
Have a wee side bet with every low handicapper you play, scratch match. You clearly stated earlier you have no problem losing to a better player.

#allgob

 

[TheClaw]

There is no such word as jibbering.
Have a wee side bet with every low handicapper you play, scratch match. You clearly stated earlier you have no problem losing to a better player.

#allgob

More nonsense? That's two daft ideas now. Bet I won't do that one either.

 

[user2009]

If I was invited to play for free at such a course I wouldn't bother. I don't wreck the course or hold anyone up but am nowhere near bettering a 28 handicap, I'll stick with cheap, cheerful and friendly courses that make you feel you're as welcome as anyone

 

[Foxholer]

Sunningdale; their club, their rules, no problem with it.

Handicaps; don't care if you get 2 shots a hole providing the club plays its comps in divisions. The reason; I want as many people playing and enjoying the game as is possible but equally someone off 36 might shoot 8-10 under net and then your scratch player hasn't got a snowball's...

:clap:
Seems absolutely fine to me!

 

[stevie_r]

You clearly stated in post 13 that all competitions should be off scratch, now that isn't going to happen because 90% of the golfing world understands the benefit of the handicapping system. You also said you have no problem losing to a better player. So why do you now have a reticence to play decent players on a scratch basis?

 

[TheClaw]

You clearly stated in post 13 that all competitions should be off scratch, now that isn't going to happen because 90% of the golfing world understands the benefit of the handicapping system. You also said you have no problem losing to a better player. So why do you now have a reticence to play decent players on a scratch basis?

I do play decent players on a scratch basis. This is however not what I was saying in post 13.

There's a difference between what I would prefer as a competition format and me seeking out better players to give money to.

Why is it that on the forum poll Gross v Net 95% of voters think it's all about scratch (obviously not you) but in this thread it's all about the handicap?

 

[stevie_r]

I do play decent players on a scratch basis. This is however not what I was saying in post 13.

There's a difference between what I would prefer as a competition format and me seeking out better players to give money to.

Why is it that on the forum poll Gross v Net 95% of voters think it's all about scratch (obviously not you) but in this thread it's all about the handicap?

I don't believe the two posts have any great connection tbh mate; the gross/ nett post seems to be about how you judge the standard of your play (in isolation - rather than in competition against FCs)

 

[Snelly]

Snelly could you give some clarity please. Are you saying the maximum hcap should be 18, the max for comps should be 18 or that you shouldnt be allowed on certain courses unless your handicap is below 18? I don't agree with any of these but have empathy with the middle one

What am I saying? I suppose initially I was saying that I think Sunningdale have it right by stating a maximum handicap for visitors.

However, having read some of these responses, I think that this is a wider debate now with a fair bit heat in it.

In terms of the broader discussion on handicap and with a bit of additional reflection, I am happy to share my view which is that in my opinion, 28 is too high a handicap for a normal bloke.

When I was a lad, I think that the maximum allowable handicap was 18 or 20 and there was quite a stir when it got raised to 24 in the 80's. I might be wrong on this as it is a distant memory! Either way, my view is that the maximum should be lower - 20 sounds about right. Maybe 24 for seniors and juniors. And I mean a single handicap with no limits on competitions or visitors etc.

I particularly like the idea of any visitor having to play off a maximum number, again 20 would work for me. I see a few very dodgy winning AM-AM scores on my travels and this would go some way to negate this.

And yes, I do remember being off 22 as a 12 year old, albeit vaguely!

What about this for a red hot potato to fuel the discussion? If your handicap is over 20, then you cannot play the game sufficiently well enough to be a winner of a major club competition. Your standard of play is not consistent or good enough to qualify you for the opportunity to win a major honour.

 

[Fish]

What about this for a red hot potato to fuel the discussion? If your handicap is over 20, then you cannot play the game sufficiently well enough to be a winner of a major club competition. Your standard of play is not consistent or good enough to qualify you for the opportunity to win a major honour.

So a 2nd division football team who is in the 2nd division (of old) who obviously doesn't have the consistency to be in the the top flight shouldn't be able to enter and win the FA Cup? A 106 seeded tennis player shouldn't be allowed to beat Federer then? I could go on....

 

[TheClaw]

So a 2nd division football team who is in the 2nd division (of old) who obviously doesn't have the consistency to be in the the top flight shouldn't be able to enter and win the FA Cup? A 106 seeded tennis player shouldn't be allowed to beat Federer then? I could go on....

Starting 0-0 this is fine. Or do you think the lower div team should shoot into bigger goals?

 

[chris661]

Starting 0-0 this is fine. Or do you think the lower div team should shoot into bigger goals?

I any matchplay situation do you say to your opponent "I want to play off scratch and see how I get on"? If not, why not? The excuse/reason of them not doing isn't really good enough for me, if you felt strongly enough about it you would do it.

On another note if handicaps are that meaningless why do you display yours in your signature?

 

[TheClaw]

I any matchplay situation do you say to your opponent "I want to play off scratch and see how I get on"? If not, why not? The excuse/reason of them not doing isn't really good enough for me, if you felt strongly enough about it you would do it.

On another note if handicaps are that meaningless why do you display yours in your signature?

Who said meaningless? I've said earlier handicaps are good for showing improvements. That's why it's in the sig.

So if people think they should get relief from divots on the fairway, and feel strongly about it, they should change the rules and take a free drop?

It's seems strange that I can't just have an opinion without people thinking that I've made it up and secretly love handicaps. Do you think I'm that bored?

 

[Fish]

I've been looking at the results to date for the EAGT and the individual winners and top of the order of merit tables are, predominately, Cat1 & 2 players. The odd Cat3 shows his face here and there, but not much, no evidence at all of Cat4 players causing any upsets but, they are attending the competitions and the financial input they bring I would think is well received and welcomed, not to mention the experience it will bring to their personal game in being able to enter such a competition and being able to play at some of the best courses not just in the UK but the world!

What you (Snelly) and some others are saying is, that you no longer want golf to be an inclusive sport, shame on you :angry:

Do you want an area of the bar to sit as well away from the unwashed and an area of the actual bar to get served quicker

 

[Snelly]

What you (Snelly) and some others are saying is, that you no longer want golf to be an inclusive sport, shame on you :angry:

No. What I am saying is that 24 as a handicap is okay for children, the elderly and girls.

Additionally, I am not saying any man should be excluded from golf at all. Just saying that for men, a shot a hole plus two spare ones is enough to get you started and enthused in the competitive side of the game. In other words, you can't be expected to win things if you are in essence, rubbish.

 

[Slab]

What am I saying? I suppose initially I was saying that I think Sunningdale have it right by stating a maximum handicap for visitors.

However, having read some of these responses, I think that this is a wider debate now with a fair bit heat in it.

In terms of the broader discussion on handicap and with a bit of additional reflection, I am happy to share my view which is that in my opinion, 28 is too high a handicap for a normal bloke.

When I was a lad, I think that the maximum allowable handicap was 18 or 20 and there was quite a stir when it got raised to 24 in the 80's. I might be wrong on this as it is a distant memory! Either way, my view is that the maximum should be lower - 20 sounds about right. Maybe 24 for seniors and juniors. And I mean a single handicap with no limits on competitions or visitors etc.

I particularly like the idea of any visitor having to play off a maximum number, again 20 would work for me. I see a few very dodgy winning AM-AM scores on my travels and this would go some way to negate this.

And yes, I do remember being off 22 as a 12 year old, albeit vaguely!

What about this for a red hot potato to fuel the discussion? If your handicap is over 20, then you cannot play the game sufficiently well enough to be a winner of a major club competition. Your standard of play is not consistent or good enough to qualify you for the opportunity to win a major honour.

Still not sure I get your opposition to my 24 handicap (it should go without saying its not a badge I want but prob needs said in the context of this thread)

Is it for the protection and interests of the club, the course, the pace of play, the field of players, your chances of winning, the ethics & standards of golf as a game or to simply apply your interpretation of what is a normal bloke

I'm just not sure that the when I were a lad reasoning is justification enough for a handicap revamp

We are after all talking about a game that applies two shot penalties for many single infractions or stroke and distance (equivalent to a two shot penalty)

Exactly the same penalty applies to me as it does to the worlds best players and the feeling seems to be that unless I can play to a single shot margin of error to that of any Pro or scratch golfer on a given hole (& basically keep that average up for 18 holes) then I'm not worthy of the game itself

Sure categorize comps (its better that way anyway) and I'll support that all day long, and private clubs can do what they like for eligibility of its players (even invite women to join) but if your main gripe is that you'll rarely shoot over 40 points again in your life because you've achieved a low handicap (a fantastic achievement btw) then I'd suggest you take that as the huge positive that it is rather than an opportunity to call time on who you want to play alongside in a comp in case of coming up against an improving player or bandit