Official WHS Survey

[clubchamp98]

My mistake......but it seems like it sometimes.

Come to Oz the high handicappers paradise!

 

[wjemather]

I didn't say that handicap limits cannot be applied. I stated that you cannot divide the handicaps and have an overall competition winner. There can only be one overall winner of the Blenkinsop memorial bowl no matter how many subdivisions you have.

If you truly are content with anyone winning, allow everyone to compete fairly without manipulating their handicaps. If not, put a limit on who can win the trophy. It's not difficult, and I'm not sure why you think this cannot be done.

There is nothing fundamentally dishonest about altering the multiplier of the handicap it could be altered in either direction to suit a a particular competition.

Getting the majority to enter a competition (necessary to maintain the prize fund) while pretending you haven't put them at a significant disadvantage is dishonest.

 

[Backache]

If you truly are content with anyone winning, allow everyone to compete fairly without manipulating their handicaps. If not, put a limit on who can win the trophy. It's not difficult, and I'm not sure why you think this cannot be done.


Getting the majority to enter a competition (necessary to maintain the prize fund) while pretending you haven't put them at a significant disadvantage is dishonest.

If you have a large competition playing for the Blenkinsopp bowl under Stableford you already have an unfair competition .
Its just that the unfairness is set by Colonel Blimp
Adjusting the multiplier puts Colonel Blimps nose out of joint but need not be dishonest to anyone the terms are open to all at entry to the competition.

 

[rulefan]

If you have a large competition playing for the Blenkinsopp bowl under Stableford you already have an unfair competition .
Its just that the unfairness is set by Colonel Blimp
Adjusting the multiplier puts Colonel Blimps nose out of joint but need not be dishonest to anyone the terms are open to all at entry to the competition.

So who determines the multiplier and on what basis?
How would they explain to members that they are adjusting the national authority's recommendation so that low handicappers would be more advantaged?
On the premise that the majority of entrants would normally not be low cappers, how would they explain to members the reduction in entry fees from competitions

 

[Backache]

So who determines the multiplier and on what basis?
How would they explain to members that they are adjusting the national authority's recommendation so that low handicappers would be more advantaged?
On the premise that the majority of entrants would normally not be low cappers, how would they explain to members the reduction in entry fees from competitions

The local committee would. They are at least on hand to explain. Who is currently explaining to anyone why under large handicap fields low handicappers are disadvantaged? Our local competitions have seen a dramatic fall off in entry feed from competitors, no one has come round and explained why the current rulings are in place . They have just given facile and meaningless mumbo jumbo about increase inclusitvity, when fewer people are entering so clearly are not feeling included.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I've played in two club-run AmAms when 100% was used instead of 85%.
I was told, "It is just a 'fun' day".
Was this "dishonest"?

Not "club-run" but members-run,
Saturday roll-up individual stableford 100%. Seniors weekday roll-up 100%. Put a score in any weekday - prizes at end of week 100%.
A serious aversion to applying 95% for individual scores persists at my club.
Are these "dishonest"?

Some people advantaged and some people disadvantaged.
There is no difference morally, whether it is club-run comps or non-handicap qualifying scores in sub-groups within a club.

For me, there are not two versions of The Rules Of Handicapping as adopted by England Golf.
All should play to the rules.
If the rules ain't right or could be better - then campaign to have them changed!

I really dislike the cherry-picking of the rules that goes on at my club already.
If they ran a comp with 90% for individual strokeplay, it would merely be another incidence of the cherry-picking that has gone on and continues to go on.
Can't see why any county official would be up in arms when they have ignored everything else so far.

 

[D-S]

I've played in two club-run AmAms when 100% was used instead of 85%.
I was told, "It is just a 'fun' day".
Was this "dishonest"?

Not "club-run" but members-run,
Saturday roll-up individual stableford 100%. Seniors weekday roll-up 100%. Put a score in any weekday - prizes at end of week 100%.
A serious aversion to applying 95% for individual scores persists at my club.
Are these "dishonest"?

Some people advantaged and some people disadvantaged.
There is no difference morally, whether it is club-run comps or non-handicap qualifying scores in sub-groups within a club.

For me, there are not two versions of The Rules Of Handicapping as adopted by England Golf.
All should play to the rules.
If the rules ain't right or could be better - then campaign to have them changed!

I really dislike the cherry-picking of the rules that goes on at my club already.
If they ran a comp with 90% for individual strokeplay, it would merely be another incidence of the cherry-picking that has gone on and continues to go on.
Can't see why any county official would be up in arms when they have ignored everything else so far.

Can I ask what they have ignored to date?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Can I ask what they have ignored to date?

Yes, you can ask.

But not me. I won't be able to give you a full and accurate answer.

Ask the LRGU.

 

[D-S]

Yes, you can ask.

But not me. I won't be able to give you a full and accurate answer.

Ask the LRGU.

Sorry I’m confused, you said they have ignored something, i.e they knew about it and chose not to address whatever it was but you don’t know what it is that you claim they have ignored?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Sorry I’m confused, you said they have ignored something, i.e they knew about it and chose not to address whatever it was but you don’t know what it is that you claim they have ignored?

I agree. You are confused.
I can't help you.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I've played in two club-run AmAms when 100% was used instead of 85%.
I was told, "It is just a 'fun' day".
Was this "dishonest"?

Not "club-run" but members-run,
Saturday roll-up individual stableford 100%. Seniors weekday roll-up 100%. Put a score in any weekday - prizes at end of week 100%.
A serious aversion to applying 95% for individual scores persists at my club.
Are these "dishonest"?

Some people advantaged and some people disadvantaged.
There is no difference morally, whether it is club-run comps or non-handicap qualifying scores in sub-groups within a club.

For me, there are not two versions of The Rules Of Handicapping as adopted by England Golf.
All should play to the rules.
If the rules ain't right or could be better - then campaign to have them changed!

I really dislike the cherry-picking of the rules that goes on at my club already.
If they ran a comp with 90% for individual strokeplay, it would merely be another incidence of the cherry-picking that has gone on and continues to go on.
Can't see why any county official would be up in arms when they have ignored everything else so far.

What has the county official ignored

The “members” swindles are irrelevant - many do things differently

 

[D-S]

I agree. You are confused.
I can't help you.

What do you believe or claim that the LRGU have ignored?

 

[doublebogey7]

I agree. You are confused.
I can't help you.

It is a serious accusation you are making, I suggest you substantiate it or withdraw.

 

[Dunesman]

I've played in two club-run AmAms when 100% was used instead of 85%.
I was told, "It is just a 'fun' day".
Was this "dishonest"?

Not "club-run" but members-run,
Saturday roll-up individual stableford 100%. Seniors weekday roll-up 100%. Put a score in any weekday - prizes at end of week 100%.
A serious aversion to applying 95% for individual scores persists at my club.
Are these "dishonest"?

Some people advantaged and some people disadvantaged.
There is no difference morally, whether it is club-run comps or non-handicap qualifying scores in sub-groups within a club.

For me, there are not two versions of The Rules Of Handicapping as adopted by England Golf.
All should play to the rules.
If the rules ain't right or could be better - then campaign to have them changed!

I really dislike the cherry-picking of the rules that goes on at my club already.
If they ran a comp with 90% for individual strokeplay, it would merely be another incidence of the cherry-picking that has gone on and continues to go on.
Can't see why any county official would be up in arms when they have ignored everything else so far.

Has nobody reported the club ? Has EG not arrived and stretched crime scene type tape and signs around your perimeter stating "Warning : DISAFFILIATED"

 

[Backache]

It is a serious accusation you are making, I suggest you substantiate it or withdraw.

Er he said that he played in two club run am ams that weren't run according to the rules. He should surely know
Are you accusing him of lying? I suggest that is a rather more serious accusation to a fellow member of the forum.

 

[Voyager EMH]

What do you believe or claim that the LRGU have ignored?

This debate had several posts regarding the possibility of county officials reprimanding clubs if they run individual comps with 90% allowance and also a possible loss of affiliation for that club.
The other point was "dishonesty" of not using the correct allowances.

My point is that "dishonesty" exists whether it is a club-run comp or simply sub-groups within clubs.
I have seen no evidence of county involvement in any of this regular "dishonesty" and yet it is happening all the time.
So I see no reason that they would want to be intervening if a club runs an individual comp with 90% allowance.
Players may choose to not enter if they don't like the terms of the comp.
Just as players can choose not to take part in roll-ups that ignore 95% allowance and AmAms that ignore 85% allowance.
I stated very clearly that I dislike this cherry-picking of the Rules Of Handicapping.

I see all these problems arose, because of the creation of "Course Handicap".
That could so easily have been avoided and everyone would have accepted that you do not have a handicap until the correct allowance for the format of play has been applied.
That should happen now, but so often it does not happen.
This is generally being ignored by authorities.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Er he said that he played in two club run am ams that weren't run according to the rules. He should surely know
Are you accusing him of lying? I suggest that is a rather more serious accusation to a fellow member of the forum.

I’m thinking it’s more the fact that he stated county officials are ignoring things hence why a few have asked for clarification

 

[Arthur Wedge]

This debate had several posts regarding the possibility of county officials reprimanding clubs if they run individual comps with 90% allowance and also a possible loss of affiliation for that club.
The other point was "dishonesty" of not using the correct allowances.

My point is that "dishonesty" exists whether it is a club-run comp or simply sub-groups within clubs.
I have seen no evidence of county involvement in any of this regular "dishonesty" and yet it is happening all the time.
So I see no reason that they would want to be intervening if a club runs an individual comp with 90% allowance.
Players may choose to not enter if they don't like the terms of the comp.
Just as players can choose not to take part in roll-ups that ignore 95% allowance and AmAms that ignore 85% allowance.
I stated very clearly that I dislike this cherry-picking of the Rules Of Handicapping.

I see all these problems arose, because of the creation of "Course Handicap".
That could so easily have been avoided and everyone would have accepted that you do not have a handicap until the correct allowance for the format of play has been applied.
That should happen now, but so often it does not happen.
This is generally being ignored by authorities.

Why on earth would authorities get involved in how a member runs their swindle handicaps and why is that “dishonest” ?!

 

[D-S]

This debate had several posts regarding the possibility of county officials reprimanding clubs if they run individual comps with 90% allowance and also a possible loss of affiliation for that club.
The other point was "dishonesty" of not using the correct allowances.

My point is that "dishonesty" exists whether it is a club-run comp or simply sub-groups within clubs.
I have seen no evidence of county involvement in any of this regular "dishonesty" and yet it is happening all the time.
So I see no reason that they would want to be intervening if a club runs an individual comp with 90% allowance.
Players may choose to not enter if they don't like the terms of the comp.
Just as players can choose not to take part in roll-ups that ignore 95% allowance and AmAms that ignore 85% allowance.
I stated very clearly that I dislike this cherry-picking of the Rules Of Handicapping.

I see all these problems arose, because of the creation of "Course Handicap".
That could so easily have been avoided and everyone would have accepted that you do not have a handicap until the correct allowance for the format of play has been applied.
That should happen now, but so often it does not happen.
This is generally being ignored by authorities.

Again, what specific case of an affiliated club breaking the Rules of Handicapping has been ignored by the LRGU?

 

[doublebogey7]

Er he said that he played in two club run am ams that weren't run according to the rules. He should surely know
Are you accusing him of lying? I suggest that is a rather more serious accusation to a fellow member of the forum.

No, I am him to substantiate the claim that the county are aware of such breaches and have ignored them. I have no doubt these things go on, but authorities can only take action if they are made aware of them.