Official WHS Survey

[Swango1980]

From Golf Australia.

Conforming Social Scores?

'They can be used for handicapping, they need to be counter signed by a player with an active Golf Link Number but your Home Club sets its own rules as to whether they will accept them.

Only your Home Club can enter ad hoc conforming social scores.'

Maybe if UK and Ireland Golf accept this as well, then you can stop all Bandits etc.

Just a thought.

This made me chuckle. Do you not come in here on an almost weekly basis and moan about playing 4 over gross, and not featuring at the top of the leaderboard because higher handicappers get better nett scores. They not bandits then?

 

[wjemather]

From Golf Australia.

Conforming Social Scores?

'They can be used for handicapping, they need to be counter signed by a player with an active Golf Link Number but your Home Club sets its own rules as to whether they will accept them.

Only your Home Club can enter ad hoc conforming social scores.'

Maybe if UK and Ireland Golf accept this as well, then you can stop all Bandits etc.

Just a thought.

What makes you think "bandits" don't maintain handicaps through competition scores alone (as they have done throughout the history of handicapping, and still do)?

 

[AussieKB]

What makes you think "bandits" don't maintain handicaps through competition scores alone (as they have done throughout the history of handicapping, and still do)?

Agree with that....but you have to play in a competition, cost money and how many comps a week can you play ?

 

[AussieKB]

This made me chuckle. Do you not come in here on an almost weekly basis and moan about playing 4 over gross, and not featuring at the top of the leaderboard because higher handicappers get better nett scores. They not bandits then?

I'm glad I have given you a chuckle or two, I don't ever expect to be at the top of the leader board shooting 4 over par.....
FYI I'm playing tomorrow off a 2.....so I do not expect to be anywhere near the top of the leader board.

 

[Swango1980]

I'm glad I have given you a chuckle or two, I don't ever expect to be at the top of the leader board shooting 4 over par.....
FYI I'm playing tomorrow off a 2.....so I do not expect to be anywhere near the top of the leader board.

That's the spirit. Mind you, chap at my club finished 5 under gross the other day, 39 points and finished 4th. Mind you, I'd be delighted with that gross score, finishing 4th wouldn't bother me too much

 

[AussieKB]

I have shot 5 under before, a long time ago and it was a course record at the time, but as you get older and the drives start to get shorter you rely on your short game to get up and down, so not that many birdie putt opportunities.

 

[Dunesman]

Single examples dont show the weakness of WHS. Its only on the larger scale that the uncompetitiveness of lower handicappers is seen.
That EG has consciously and deliberately accepted they are collateral damage worth paying, for some ill defined goal they have for golf here, is a disgrace.

 

[AussieKB]

Mid week comp we had over 70 players,
the winners were 38, 28, 26 handicap

I am jealous.......

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Mid week comp we had over 70 players,
the winners were 38, 28, 26 handicap

I am jealous.......

I am pretty sure each of those would swap 1-3 place for your lower handicap. They are jealous of you, you are jealous of them.........just get together and be happy

 

[Dunesman]

Mid week comp we had over 70 players,
the winners were 38, 28, 26 handicap

I am jealous.......

And thats with your 0.93 factor. Clearly not low enough. Imagine if you were playing in 0.95landia.

 

[Dunesman]

A compromise of sorts for us next year, but a very reasonable one I think. While sticking with categories and the 0.95 for the great majority of competitions, three board comps will be run with factors of 0.9. Three others were in the discussion also, but instead, it was approved to reduce the max handicap to 24 for two of them, in line with the third which had been so longer than anyone can remember. The two had been opened up to 54 a few years ago from 28. So slight reduction even on that. The difference with the three changed to 0.9 was essentially due them only having a single prize (or in one of them, also a runner up plaque) for the winner in the form of a perpetual trophy. The logic was that no matter how often low men were 2nd, 3rd or top 10, it was effectively a loss. The three competitions reduced to 24 max, while also board comps, have a range of prizes. So a bit of everything, but different problems require different solutions, and the range seemed to have something to somewhat appease everyone.

 

[Swango1980]

A compromise of sorts for us next year, but a very reasonable one I think. While sticking with categories and the 0.95 for the great majority of competitions, three board comps will be run with factors of 0.9. Three others were in the discussion also, but instead, it was approved to reduce the max handicap to 24 for two of them, in line with the third which had been so longer than anyone can remember. The two had been opened up to 54 a few years ago from 28. So slight reduction even on that. The difference with the three changed to 0.9 was essentially due them only having a single prize (or in one of them, also a runner up plaque) for the winner in the form of a perpetual trophy. The logic was that no matter how often low men were 2nd, 3rd or top 10, it was effectively a loss. The three competitions reduced to 24 max, while also board comps, have a range of prizes. So a bit of everything, but different problems require different solutions, and the range seemed to have something to somewhat appease everyone.

The 0.9 approach is an interesting one. From a personal opinion, 0.9 feels better to me than 0.95. That being said, if I were a competition or handicap secretary at a club, I would be very uncomfortable adopting this one as it it seems to go against what is required by the handicap authority. In the past, when I saw the Seniors section at our club "Play God" by taking matters into their own hands (e.g. automatically giving extra cuts to comp winners, no matter the score), it put me off ever wanting to the same if I was in their position, as that position requires someone who adopts the official position rather than someone who thinks they know better. And, in the unlikely event a higher handicapper complained to the local union, I don't think I'd have much defence on setting 0.9.

On another note, I wasn't aware the 0.95 could be changed on the ISV? I wonder if, a more defensible reason to change it, could be for non acceptable rounds on much shorter non measured courses (winter tees and greens). In reality, they Ratings and Slope would be lower, but as thet don't change, a crude adjustment to allowance could be considered?

As for reducing Max Hcp, most of our board comps are limited to 24.

 

[wjemather]

If you want single figure winners for your trophy comp, be honest about it and just set the handicap limit to 10; and then do the decent thing and create a secondary comp for everyone else.

To repeat - clubs that go rogue with regards to the rules of handicapping and GB&I guidance risk their right to maintain official handicaps, and perhaps even put their affiliation in jeopardy.

ISVs are not supposed to allow changing of mandatory allowances in comps that are acceptable for handicapping.

 

[Backache]

If you want single figure winners for your trophy comp, be honest about it and just set the handicap limit to 10; and then do the decent thing and create a secondary comp for everyone else.

To repeat - clubs that go rogue with regards to the rules of handicapping and GB&I guidance risk their right to maintain official handicaps, and perhaps even put their affiliation in jeopardy.

ISVs are not supposed to allow changing of mandatory allowances in comps that are acceptable for handicapping.

Ie You're all very naughty boys and we who have invented an idiot system know better than you how your club competitions should work.
Stalin would be proud.

 

[wjemather]

Ie You're all very naughty boys and we who have invented an idiot system know better than you how your club competitions should work.
Stalin would be proud.

Affiliation, and the right to run official handicaps, comes with conditions. There are consequences for not abiding by those conditions, as there should be.

Clubs wanting to do their own thing are free to disaffiliate.

 

[Backache]

Affiliation, and the right to run official handicaps, comes with conditions. There are consequences for not abiding by those conditions, as there should be.

Clubs wanting to do their own thing are free to disaffiliate.

In other areas its called monopolistic and unreasonable behaviour.

 

[Voyager EMH]

If any comps were run with 90% allowance rather than 95% at my club there would be great uproar of complaining.

If any comps were run with 100% allowance rather than 95% at my club there would be a small number of complainants who the majority would tell to, "don't play then" or "go join another club".

 

[IanM]

If I just took up Squash, I wouldn't expect to have handicapping to enable me to win the club championship.

Golf's administrators confuse "participation" with "competition."

Easily fixed.

Have gross and net comps for the biggies.

I won the Net Club Champs once. I know I wasn't the actual club champion.

 

[Swango1980]

If I just took up Squash, I wouldn't expect to have handicapping to enable me to win the club championship.

Golf's administrators confuse "participation" with "competition."

Easily fixed.

Have gross and net comps for the biggies.

I won the Net Club Champs once. I know I wasn't the actual club champion.

Isn't that how most club championships in golf are run at the minute?

 

[Steve Wilkes]

Affiliation, and the right to run official handicaps, comes with conditions. There are consequences for not abiding by those conditions, as there should be.

Clubs wanting to do their own thing are free to disaffiliate.

I don't think Clubs should have to disaffiliate, as long as they and every club worldwide is using the same formula to work out an Individual's Handicap Index, then they should be free to use various requirements for their own run competitions.