Must be a record- Unbelievable 16 shots

[3offTheTee]

First Medal last week and guy playing off 3 had a Gross 65 Nett 62 Par 71. Great result expect to win.

However new member had 82-24- 58 nett to romp home.
This week he had 78-11-67 to ONLY gain 3rd place in his category!

With an ESR he is now 8.2.

Lost 16 shots in a week- Something must have been wrong when he submitted his cards

 

[Deleted member 3432]

First Medal last week and guy playing off 3 had a Gross 65 Nett 62 Par 71. Great result expect to win.

However new member had 82-24- 58 nett to romp home.
This week he had 78-11-67 to ONLY gain 3rd place in his category!

With an ESR he is now 8.2.

Lost 16 shots in a week- Something must have been wrong when he submitted his cards

That's an understatement!

Won't have made friends, that's for sure.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

You have to hope cards were put in with integrity and not in an attempt to "pot hunt" but definitely seems strange that someone can come down so quickly in the space of two weeks. That said fair play to him and that is a heck of an improvement. That new handicap is impressive and it'll be interesting to see if he's bottomed out or can squeeze any more cuts

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Ulverston is not a particularly easy track, drier than normal I suspect so playing shorter than is normal in the usually soggy lake district.

Some lovely views to be had playing here I may add, if slightly on the hilly side.

Comp css, was the same as sss so it looks like a decent golfer has had a great round and the member has a slightly 'dodgy' handicap.

Good to see he has been chopped according.

 

[Billysboots]

Hmmm. I’m already deeply suspicious of some of the scores being returned since members have been responsible for marking their own cards.

Monthly Stableford on Saturday, an astonishing 70% of our field buffered or better. Sorry, that shouldn’t be happening. Yesterday, in a 9-hole competition, two thirds of the field shot 17 points or more.

We’ve never seen this sort of scoring before. Never.

 

[Billysboots]

Definite lack of common sense there.
We are marking and submitting our playing partner's card by photo and uploading our own scores.

We have been asked to ensure a playing partner agrees our score, but with no requirement to mark a partner’s card.

“Do you agree I knocked it round 2-over gross off my 18 handicap?” Erm, all a tad open to abuse if you ask me.

 

[rosecott]

First Medal last week and guy playing off 3 had a Gross 65 Nett 62 Par 71. Great result expect to win.

However new member had 82-24- 58 nett to romp home.
This week he had 78-11-67 to ONLY gain 3rd place in his category!

With an ESR he is now 8.2.

Lost 16 shots in a week- Something must have been wrong when he submitted his cards

There has to be something missing in this story. Nett 58 against SSS of 71 gives -13. Taking an exact handicap of 24 means a reduction of 10 x 0.4 plus 3 x 0.3 giving a total of 4.9 and a new handicap of 19.1. How did we then get down to handicap 11? There must be something else. Did he fail to declare his previous history and was found out?

 

[SocketRocket]

There has to be something missing in this story. Nett 58 against SSS of 71 gives -13. Taking an exact handicap of 24 means a reduction of 10 x 0.4 plus 3 x 0.3 giving a total of 4.9 and a new handicap of 19.1. How did we then get down to handicap 11? There must be something else. Did he fail to declare his previous history and was found out?

Didnt he have an ESR that reduced his handicap?

 

[rosecott]

Didnt he have an ESR that reduced his handicap?

The ESR took him from 11 to 8, that would be for the -13 and the -4 (net 67 against SSS 71)

 

[Rlburnside]

Something doesn't add up here, a good few years ago I had a net 58 playing off 24 so it can be done but after getting cut it took me long time to play to the new handicap, after getting cut, for this player to score a net 67 is highly suspicious

 

[Sports_Fanatic]

Can we just accept that it was a wrong handicap and the player has done well to shoot two low scores without him "pot hunting" (your weekly stableford must pay better), faking scores or being suspicious.

Perhaps he was new to golf and put in three cards in Jan/Feb when course conditions were tough and he wasn't used to scoring. Had a golf net put in his garden during lockdown or played a lot on opening so that when comps finally opened up he was a better player than before even if his original three cards had been an accurate reflection.

 

[Sports_Fanatic]

Sorry that just can't be true.

Not in the history of golf has someone been a genuine, or close to genuine, 24 handicap and then quickly shot 82, 78 (apart from maybe kids in the summer holidays).

It's the follow up 78 that's the issue, 7 over par. How many regular golfers on here, for example, who play off a genuine 15 handicap, have shot 78?

I agree, the first handicap was clearly not an accurate reflection. I just disagree with the immediate assumption that the player must have acted inappropriately. It's not unknown for players to have good spells and bad spells. Perhaps he's a shorter hitter so soggy winter courses caused him issues or he hit more fat shots. Perhaps better in summer with his short game honed in and more roll. I don't know, I just think that we shouldn't just assume negatively.

I'm off 14 (admittedly hoping to be cut) but have shot 78 so not impossible. Sunday I was 11 over (-1 on SSS), paring 8 of the final 10 holes so it is possible to go low if unlikely. Likewise I've been significantly over. If pros can have 10 plus shot swings between rounds then a random golfer can as well.

Think it just goes back to a dislike of if someone wins (not me, never been on a board) people quite often jokingly call them bandit or you see comments on handicaps etc rather than just saying well played. I guess a positive of handicap system is it allows us all to compete but you get that negative which you don't really get with other sports.

 

[Grant85]

I agree, the first handicap was clearly not an accurate reflection. I just disagree with the immediate assumption that the player must have acted inappropriately. It's not unknown for players to have good spells and bad spells. Perhaps he's a shorter hitter so soggy winter courses caused him issues or he hit more fat shots. Perhaps better in summer with his short game honed in and more roll. I don't know, I just think that we shouldn't just assume negatively.

I agree. People are all too quick to just jump to conclusions whenever they see a low score.

You could put 3 cards in, not played the course much, not played much golf for a few years, early in the season conditions, maybe Driver isn't behaving etc. Easily shoot in the 90s.

A few months, a bit more golf, favourable ground and weather and get the Driver sorted and it's not crazy that someone could be making considerably better scores.

also worth noting how many people who might be mid handicappers... 10 to 18 will often shoot well into the 90s in a medal or pick up after losing a few balls. Obviously you would still have been trying, but some days, golf is hard.

 

[larmen]

Perhaps he was new to golf and put in three cards in Jan/Feb when course conditions were tough and he wasn't used to scoring.

I am in just that perdition myself. I put in 3 cards in November to December, got a very high handicap and then just about won the next swindle of the yellows. Since then I played 3 more comps and shot -2 for no handicap adjustment, +2 for buffer, and a horrible round giving me +0.1 on the handicap. Swindles were similar. So on winter conditions with bad lies in the rough it was a fair reflection.
Since lockdown is over I shot a 93, a 100 and some few 10 over rounds on the 9 hole course being well under handicap every single time no issues. Once we can play qualifiers again I expect my handicap to drop down rapidly. I think I play like a 24~26 now, but I get a lot more shots than that.
I will look like a bandit the next comp is on.

 

[Crazyface]

Er but his second score is the one to look at. On one off 24 drops to 11 and then plays to it.

 

[Crazyface]

Hmmm. I’m already deeply suspicious of some of the scores being returned since members have been responsible for marking their own cards.

Monthly Stableford on Saturday, an astonishing 70% of our field buffered or better. Sorry, that shouldn’t be happening. Yesterday, in a 9-hole competition, two thirds of the field shot 17 points or more.

We’ve never seen this sort of scoring before. Never.

Courses are playing easy at the mo. Hard fairways loads of roll. Greens softer due to rain so more receptive. Although 70% buffering is very good.

 

[patricks148]

i suppose its possible, could have been working on the game then it clicked. i got down from 24 to 12 in 3 months myself when i took up the game, but that was only one comp a week and no ESR, but i struggled for a couple of years before getting lower. there was a guy who at the same time was getting lessons who went down to 5 in about a year or so, but couldn't get lower than that and gave up

 

[virtuocity]

Because a Cat 2 player has never shot 24+ three times in a row. Ever.

 

[3offTheTee]

There has to be something missing in this story. Nett 58 against SSS of 71 gives -13. Taking an exact handicap of 24 means a reduction of 10 x 0.4 plus 3 x 0.3 giving a total of 4.9 and a new handicap of 19.1. How did we then get down to handicap 11? There must be something else. Did he fail to declare his previous history and was found out?

You always seem sensible with your comments Rosecott so a little more information which I have found out since yesterday when the results were posted and this is only what I have been told:

The lad was a new member and was disappointed/ unhappy he had been allocated an initial handicap of 24, probably the Club’s fault. After the results last Saturday The Club deducted more shots possibly realising they had got it wrong initially to bring him to 11. He then had a 78-11=67 to bring him to 10 and The Club applied an ESR of 2 so he now has an exact of 8.2.

incidentally last week he had a 7 on the last so with a bogey he would have had a net 56- Perhaps he was feeling embarrassed!

 

[Slab]

Is there that much of a difference between a 24 h/cap player shooting 82 and a 3 h/cap shooting 65 ? Both appear to have played better than handicap by a similar ratio.

The new guy’s second score is a surprise but seeing as others in the same Cat were also ripping it up, the course conditions & set-up must have been a dam sight ‘friendlier’ than the round I played last weekend

 

[3offTheTee]

Doesn't seem to be a very difficult course, so an improving 24 could feasibly shoot 82, but they can't shoot 82, 78. Obviously just playing off the wrong handicap.

Well the slope rating off the whites is 133 so draw your own conclusion