No Returns - WHS

[Swango1980]

Maximum Score is something I am considering for most of our medals - the aim being to increase participation and enjoyment (and pace of play), as I think many people will happily take a net double/triple-bogey and move on rather than having to trudge back to the tee or get DQed.

Maximum Score has its advantages. Although, when I play with one member every now and then, we reminisce about his 17 he had on 13th once in a medal.

One of the funniest occasions was a member describing in great detail, to everyone in the bar, his 26 on the 12th just after completing his 1st round in the Club Champs. He was a great story teller, he described every shot, and every one was comic genius.

Sometimes, those big scores hurt at the time, but become fond memories once the dust settles. Just another way of grounding us and helping us laugh at our inadequacy

 

[NearHull]

Just had a novel thought about a potential way in which the handicap system could deal with an NR, without potentially banning or disciplining players via Committee.

If a player is deemed to NR (I.e. quit playing, rather than simply picking up on a disaster hole) without a reasonable excuse, this could simply be marked as a Round NR. This then subtracts 1.0 off their Index, and this doesn't return to normal until they submit a complete round in future. There would be an Asterix next to this handicap, so that it is flagged if they try to enter a competition that requires a low handicap limit.

Although I don't agree with Liverpoolphil that we just happily ignore people who NR because they have had a huff (I didn't mind at all under CONGU), I do share the feeling that disciplinary procedures are never a nice thing for a Committee to have to do. The idea above would at least make golfers think twice about quitting on a round.

Obviously this thought doesn't resolve my original question about what Committee should do for now, if anything. So far, I don't think anyone has shared what will be happening at their clubs? So I presume either nothing has been decided yet, or perhaps clubs will do nothing and might risk dealing with individual cases as they arise subjectively?

I am the incoming Chairman of our Handicaps and Competitions Committee and I’ve little experience in this area ( the previous Chairman is staying on the committee to guide me). I have been following this thread closely , hoping to pick up on what other clubs are doing. It does appear to me that it’s going to be a bit of ‘suck it and see’.

 

[rosecott]

As a player I think that is a terrible idea and something that should never exist in medal competitions.

We have Stableford for "maximum score". Medal is medal and should be left alone, your score is the exact amount of strokes you take under the rules. Dealing with high scores is all part of the mental battle that often sees the weaker-willed players quit.

Thankfully, the decision on whether to use Maximum Score should be taken by the Club Committee after discussing the pros and cons and not by the kneejerk reaction of one individual. This option was introduced in an attempt to eliminate NRs and also to assist in speeding up play - both very laudable objectives.

 

[wjemather]

Maximum Score has its advantages. Although, when I play with one member every now and then, we reminisce about his 17 he had on 13th once in a medal.

One of the funniest occasions was a member describing in great detail, to everyone in the bar, his 26 on the 12th just after completing his 1st round in the Club Champs. He was a great story teller, he described every shot, and every one was comic genius.

Sometimes, those big scores hurt at the time, but become fond memories once the dust settles. Just another way of grounding us and helping us laugh at our inadequacy

Of course... we don't want to do away with those moments entirely!!

 

[wjemather]

Sorry but there is absolutely no place for it.

Medal is medal, the format for "maximum score" is Stableford.

Every individual has the right to put in an NR, and if you think it's a system that will make a marked difference to the speed of play you're barking up the wrong tree.

It's a really barmy idea.

All are stroke-play formats, with medal & maximum score counting strokes and Stableford counting points (and par/bogey counting holes). And it actually does make a difference to pace of play, for the reasons already outlined. And who really enjoys watching and waiting as their playing partners trudge back to the tee, when they can pick up and move on without getting a DQ?

With competition results split into divisions, the max score has little to no effect of the low-mid handicappers, but makes a massive difference to higher handicappers, most of whom do not currently enter medals due to the intimidation factor, which max score largely removes.

 

[rosecott]

Sorry but there is absolutely no place for it.

Medal is medal, the format for "maximum score" is Stableford.

Every individual has the right to put in an NR, and if you think it's a system that will make a marked difference to the speed of play you're barking up the wrong tree.

It's a really barmy idea.

If you were on the committee when it was being discussed, I'm sure your reasoned argument would be taken into account.

 

[Traminator]

All are stroke-play formats, with medal & maximum score counting strokes and Stableford counting points (and par/bogey counting holes). And it actually does make a difference to pace of play, for the reasons already outlined. And who really enjoys watching and waiting as their playing partners trudge back to the tee, when they can pick up and move on without getting a DQ?

With competition results split into divisions, the max score has little to no effect of the low-mid handicappers, but makes a massive difference to higher handicappers, most of whom do not currently enter medals due to the intimidation factor, which max score largely removes.

I think you're just making statements with little factual backing.

High handicaps don't play in medals because of the "intimidation factor"....???
Seriously??? Where are you? Wet Lettuce golf club? ?Come on, that's nonsense.

Speed of play?? How many times do people ever actually have to "go back"? How often does a golfer actually ever not find a ball and have to walk back? And in reality there are a zillion other reasons for slow play, this is just a very uncommon situation that might add on 5 or 10 minutes to a few people maybe once or twice a year.

I don't think anyone should have the authority to dumb down medals like this.

 

[wjemather]

I think you're just making statements with little factual backing.

High handicaps don't play in medals because of the "intimidation factor"....???
Seriously??? Where are you? Wet Lettuce golf club? ?Come on, that's nonsense.

Speed of play?? How many times do people ever actually have to "go back"? How often does a golfer actually ever not find a ball and have to walk back? And in reality there are a zillion other reasons for slow play, this is just a very uncommon situation that might add on 5 or 10 minutes to a few people maybe once or twice a year.

I don't think anyone should have the authority to dumb down medals like this.

It's a statement that is backed up by talking to higher handicappers and also by the variance in the handicap distribution of entrants in medals and Stablefords - we get about half the number of 20+ hcp players in medals as we do in Stablefords, but about the same number of <20 hcp players; and a far greater percentage of NRs. The point is, players either go back or get DQd; many will choose the latter, so ultimately don't enter.

You do know it was The R&A and USGA who wrote maximum score into the rules, don't you? And again, they aren't medals; maximum score is a stroke-play format with similarities to both medal and Stableford.

But I expect you would have said the same about Stableford.

 

[wjemather]

Ignoring the rest, what's the point of finishing off with such a stupid statement?

I've been playing since the early 80s, so clearly I've played a lot of every format. Matchplay and Stableford allow players to pick up, medal is the only test where every single shot counts, yet you're trying to justify dumbing this element of the game down with hearsay.

Personally I'm a big matchplay fan, on a social day out give me Stableford. But what I don't agree with is people in temporary roles trying to destroy over a hundred years of tradition just allegedly because of a handful of players who aren't very good.

Your responsibility is to the integrity of the sport, not dumbing it down for the tiny minority.

Again, it's The R&A and USGA who have formally adopted the format for the reasons outlined: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/h...anges/maximum-score--form-of-stroke-play.html

And your arguments are the same as those used against Stableford. Hence my earlier comment.

 

[Traminator]

Again, it's The R&A and USGA who have formally adopted the format for the reasons outlined: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/h...anges/maximum-score--form-of-stroke-play.html

And your arguments are the same as those used against Stableford. Hence my earlier comment.

Nobody has "formally adopted the format", it is a suggestion.



It is obvious to all of us that "picking up when you're out the hole" should be the default in friendly/matchplay/ Stableford golf when there's a need to keep things moving, and especially to help educate new players.

Established Club medal competitions are definitely not the place to be introducing this though. That's throwing the whole integrity and point of the game out the window.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

Maybe bifurication of handicapping is the answer.

'Real golf' handicap and 'Mulligans and put me down for a 6' handicap

 

[2blue]

WHS copes just fine with NRs and walkoffs as long as the score is returned, and by means of penalty scores if necessary.

The only issue I have is that the process on the platform requires manual calculations when it should be a simple drop-down list, i.e. delete intent or post penalty score: high/low/to-handicap. I submitted an enhancement request for this last year.

Dealing with persistent offenders will be for committees to decide. We intend to take a gentle educational approach initially, but members have been advised regarding potential sanctions. These include suspension from regular or trophy competitions, exclusion from knockouts, suspension/freezing of index, requiring general play scores for reinstatement, etc. These measures are new for us, but I know many clubs had such processes in place previously under UHS.

Other than the bold this is pretty much what we are doing. Merely mentioning the possibility of potential sanctions rather than listing them as, like yourselves, we're going for the softly, softly approach with the H/cap Sec (we are a team of 3) handling all the 'No score returned' & walk-offs, so that we have clear consistency of approach & would also apply the 'General Score' rounds (old Supplementaries)
Your underlined is a good idea & would save time for him.

 

[wjemather]

Imagine the day someone wins a 36 hole club "major", could have possibly scored a 10 on a hole in the morning but is allowed to pick up and write 8, then wins by 1.

And the committee can't look people in the eye, and justify it to 100 regular golfers with "well we had a couple of new 26 handicappers who were a bit nervous about entering the monthly medals..."

It's ludicrous.

And there we have it, reductio ad absurdum. We are only talking about regular weekend/weekday comps, nothing more.

 

[SammmeBee]

If you want to dumb down a stroke play event then just make it a Stableford....no need for dicking about with made up rules!

 

[Swango1980]

Interesting how a question in an "Expert" forum has turned into a completely separate debate straight out of the primary school playground.

I get it, some people don't like Maximum Score. I too would not like it used for something like the Club Champs, for example. If you feel strongly enough, write to the R&A, as they have had the audacity to feature it in the Rules of Golf.

It isn't the same as Stableford though, as Stableford has a lower Max Score (nett double). If anyone is appalled by Maximum Score, then why not equally or more appalled by Stableford? And, I am pretty sure the traditional Medal Event where every stroke counts will not disappear. If it does, then write to your Committee, or join it.

PS some interesting comments previously about policies for NRs, cheers. The soft approach is definitely the way forward initially

 

[Old Skier]

Imagine the day someone wins a 36 hole club "major", could have possibly scored a 10 on a hole in the morning but is allowed to pick up and write 8, then wins by 1.

And the committee can't look people in the eye, and justify it to 100 regular golfers with "well we had a couple of new 26 handicappers who were a bit nervous about entering the monthly medals..."

It's ludicrous.

This confuses me, not hard. If you score a 10 you put in a 10 it is not for players to be putting in scores that they preferred rather than scored.

Its for the organisers to complete the necessary holes in the card, the player will have NRd so won't have won anything.

If that's wrong then I and the county committee have this completely wrong, or I misunderstood the explanation.

 

[jim8flog]

With competition results split into divisions, the max score has little to no effect of the low-mid handicappers, but makes a massive difference to higher handicappers, most of whom do not currently enter medals due to the intimidation factor, which max score largely removes.

High handicappers not playing comps where are you getting that from?

Edited;- I have seen you later reply

I really do not think it makes much difference where I play simply because if you want a game on a medal Saturday (March to October) and want to book when the booking sheet opens you have to book in to the medal else all the slots have gone.

 

[2blue]

High handicappers not playing comps where are you getting that from?

Edited;- I have seen you later reply

I really do not think it makes much difference where I play simply because if you want a game on a medal Saturday (March to October) and want to book when the booking sheet opens you have to book in to the medal else all the slots have gone.

But don't folk book in but then not join the Comp? Not compulsory to play in the Comp is it?

 

[Old Skier]

It's not the "NR" discussion, it's the "Maximum score" discussion.

What the guys above are trying to promote is a system in MEDAL whereby you can pick up after a certain amount of shots on a hole but still record a lower score than you would have made.

Although they defend this Mickey Mouse system, when presented with an example of what will happen they call that "absurd".

The max score is an option that can be used in every day qualifier comps and must be selected unless this has been changed on the ISV. It was never intended for use in major comps and the only time I have ever used the option is in "over 28 HC" comps.

I doubt if many clubs have or will use it. Under any other circumstance a pick will result in an NR.

 

[wjemather]

But don't folk book in but then not join the Comp? Not compulsory to play in the Comp is it?

On occasion, tee booking policy mandates competition entry. This is often done to ensure everyone who wants to play in the competition is able to do so, with general booking only permitted later.