Official WHS Survey

[AussieKB]

It won't be long before it becomes a nett 2 to appease the high handicaps

 

[2blue]

That may well be, but the point I was making was that there are clubs out there where the 2's entry fee, whilst being notionally "optional", over time have become bundled in to the main comp entry fee, and everyone pays it...effectively it is no longer optional but by default has become "mandatory".

Yes this is where we are with a £5 Comp entry & £2 of it for 2's though not 'ring-fenced'. £10 is paid for a 2 & no roll-over happening.

 

[Slab]

If members were able to run the 'club' comps and control handicaps, as suggested...

With what authority would any disputes and breaches during a faux comp be handled?

Organiser decides? Loudest voice, most liked, longest/ oldest member, mob rule maybe

 

[C7usk]

I didn't realise that there was actually people who don't put a pound in for the magic 2s..... I must value my money less than others.. Got to be a principle type thing...
I only play 1 comp/sweep a week so it's no biggy...

 

[AussieKB]

If members were able to run the 'club' comps and control handicaps, as suggested...

With what authority would any disputes and breaches during a faux comp be handled?

Organiser decides? Loudest voice, most liked, longest/ oldest member, mob rule maybe

I vote for lowest handicap

 

[rulie]

Some interesting data just posted in this...

WHS & ISV Issues (Please post only if you are a handicap secretary or involved in admin at your club)

Trying to centralise issues that are arising for HC Secs and administrators.

forums.golfmonthly.com

 

[clubchamp98]

It won't be long before it becomes a nett 2 to appease the high handicaps

We have divisions for our twos.

0/12 and 13 and over.

So if a 15 cap gets a two he only gets a share of the Division two pot.

 

[clubchamp98]

Yes this is where we are with a £5 Comp entry & £2 of it for 2's though not 'ring-fenced'. £10 is paid for a 2 & no roll-over happening.

Like a service charge in a restaurant.
You should opt out !

 

[Swango1980]

We have divisions for our twos.

0/12 and 13 and over.

So if a 15 cap gets a two he only gets a share of the Division two pot.

Must be more lucrative to get a 2 in Division 2, assuming field sizes are similar?

 

[clubchamp98]

Must be more lucrative to get a 2 in Division 2, assuming field sizes are similar?

We found that the 12 + cappers just didn’t enter as most don’t get many twos.

When we changed it

Div 1 = £5/6.00 thirteen twos
Div 2 = £17.00 two twos.

People need to opt out if the club just puts it on the comp fee!
It’s a monetary gamble which cannot be made mandatory.

 

[Voyager EMH]

I am inclined to think that you are wrong and the County, if made aware, would initially discuss this with the club and advise them to use the mandatory handicap allowances for club run competitions. Eventually if the breach continued and the County were unable to change the club’s behaviour, they would advise England Golf and if, after further ‘education’, the policy remained in place there would be sanctions, although I would be extremely surprised if it ever got that far.

I very much doubt that it would go that way.
The club makes it clear what the terms of the comp are. Describe it as "A fun day".
Anyone can raise their concerns with H&C committee - no need to involve county level authority.
Entry to the comp is optional - don't enter if you don't want to take part on these terms.
That is more likely how it would go in reality.

If the club made the majority of their comps with 90% allowance, then I think this might be questionable.
But probably no need for county level intervention as the club would simply lose a lot of members, if they did not change their ways.

But 2 or 3 comps with alternative terms - I can't see a big hoohah happening over this.

Unfair.
Lots of things are unfair.
Club Championship - scratch comp.
Twos sweeps.
Longest drive prize.
There is no "equity" or "fairness" in winning those prizes, but it is fairly clear to all what the prizes are for and little or nothing to complain or be concerned about.

 

[wjemather]

I very much doubt that it would go that way.
The club makes it clear what the terms of the comp are. Describe it as "A fun day".
Anyone can raise their concerns with H&C committee - no need to involve county level authority.
Entry to the comp is optional - don't enter if you don't want to take part on these terms.
That is more likely how it would go in reality.

If the club made the majority of their comps with 90% allowance, then I think this might be questionable.
But probably no need for county level intervention as the club would simply lose a lot of members, if they did not change their ways.

But 2 or 3 comps with alternative terms - I can't see a big hoohah happening over this.

Unfair.
Lots of things are unfair.
Club Championship - scratch comp.
Twos sweeps.
Longest drive prize.
There is no "equity" or "fairness" in winning those prizes, but it is fairly clear to all what the prizes are for and little or nothing to complain or be concerned about.

To claim members will just accept it because entry is optional and it will go no further is naive. Even is entry is optional, it's almost certain that the course is reserved exclusively for the comp if it's a board/trophy comp - this alone is going to cause problems with those not wanting to enter an under-the-counter comp weighted in favour of low handicappers.
Our county have had many reports of clubs not adhering to the Rules of Handicapping & EG guidance in various ways - not always from within the club concerned.

Oh, and all recreational amateur golf is supposed to be "fun", so such a label is meaningless - calling something a "fun day" or a "fun competition" in this way is nothing more than a dishonest way of pretending it's ok to disregard rules, responsibilities and integrity.

Yes, lots of things are unfair, but none of the things in your list are.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

I very much doubt that it would go that way.
The club makes it clear what the terms of the comp are. Describe it as "A fun day".
Anyone can raise their concerns with H&C committee - no need to involve county level authority.
Entry to the comp is optional - don't enter if you don't want to take part on these terms.
That is more likely how it would go in reality.

If the club made the majority of their comps with 90% allowance, then I think this might be questionable.
But probably no need for county level intervention as the club would simply lose a lot of members, if they did not change their ways.

But 2 or 3 comps with alternative terms - I can't see a big hoohah happening over this.

Unfair.
Lots of things are unfair.
Club Championship - scratch comp.
Twos sweeps.
Longest drive prize.
There is no "equity" or "fairness" in winning those prizes, but it is fairly clear to all what the prizes are for and little or nothing to complain or be concerned about.

What’s “unfair” about the best golfer being rewarded

 

[Backache]

There is nothing intrinsically unfair about altering the handicap multiplier . It may be against some commitees rules it is not against the law.

 

[Voyager EMH]

What’s “unfair” about the best golfer being rewarded

Exactly.
Not everyone has an equal chance of winning, but players take part, because it is sporting to do so.

Nothing unfair about a 90% allowance for an individual comp - it can be looked upon in the same way as above. Whoever does best under those terms will be rewarded.

Hosting a scratch comp at a club will limit entries. Having a 90% allowance might limit entries, but to a much lesser degree. I really see little problem with this.
But as I have said before, I don't like it.
I would prefer 95% mandatory allowance at all times for individual strokeplay.

Playing Handicap for individual strokeplay when it is individual strokeplay. Seems to make sense to me.

 

[Swango1980]

There is nothing intrinsically unfair about altering the handicap multiplier . It may be against some commitees rules it is not against the law.

Bit dramatic there, and no point did anyone claim anyone was going to get a criminal record for not adhering to the Rules of Handicapping

The whole point of Handicapping is to level the playing field as beat as possible, and the Authority on this tell us 95% is the appropriate multiplier. Not 90%, not 120%, not 50%, etc.

So, if a club decides to use 90%, then the maths is clear, they are tipping the balance towards the lower handicappers. If a higher handicapper, who pays the same entry fee claims that to be unfair, difficult to argue

 

[Backache]

Bit dramatic there, and no point did anyone claim anyone was going to get a criminal record for not adhering to the Rules of Handicapping

The whole point of Handicapping is to level the playing field as beat as possible, and the Authority on this tell us 95% is the appropriate multiplier. Not 90%, not 120%, not 50%, etc.

So, if a club decides to use 90%, then the maths is clear, they are tipping the balance towards the lower handicappers. If a higher handicapper, who pays the same entry fee claims that to be unfair, difficult to argue

Well not really ,the authorities have basically said it's probably unfair whichever way you do it which is why they say you should split it into divisions. But there is not an intrinsic reason why you cannot have a different multiplier that may marginally favour a different group and certainly nothing intrinsically unfair in sport in having a competition in which the better person at the sport has a greater chance of winning its just committee says no.

 

[Voyager EMH]

To claim members will just accept it because entry is optional and it will go no further is naive. Even is entry is optional, it's almost certain that the course is reserved exclusively for the comp if it's a board/trophy comp - this alone is going to cause problems with those not wanting to enter an under-the-counter comp weighted in favour of low handicappers.
Our county have had many reports of clubs not adhering to the Rules of Handicapping & EG guidance in various ways - not always from within the club concerned.

Oh, and all recreational amateur golf is supposed to be "fun", so such a label is meaningless - calling something a "fun day" or a "fun competition" in this way is nothing more than a dishonest way of pretending it's ok to disregard rules, responsibilities and integrity.

Yes, lots of things are unfair, but none of the things in your list are.

I don't believe what I wrote is naive. That is what I have seen as the reality of what occurs at club level.
There is nothing "under-the-counter" if it has been made very clear what the terms of the comp involve.
Members are very aware, and have a lot of experience, of events with the "wrong" allowance being used - 100% instead of 95% or 85% favouring higher handicappers.
So an event with 90% rather than 95% will, and should, cause no extra concern among members.

I have used "fun day" as an expression, because it is exactly what I have experienced as being used when events favour higher handicappers. I think the expression is ridiculous.
And yes, it is a dishonest way of implying all is well when using 100% instead of 95% or 85%. And yet this is what has actually occurred at my club.
I would prefer to see correct allowances being used at all times.

I am not wrong in what I have described as the reality I have witnessed.

But you live in a world according to your own opinions of how you think things should be. That is naive by definition.

 

[Swango1980]

Well not really ,the authorities have basically said it's probably unfair whichever way you do it which is why they say you should split it into divisions. But there is not an intrinsic reason why you cannot have a different multiplier that may marginally favour a different group and certainly nothing intrinsically unfair in sport in having a competition in which the better person at the sport has a greater chance of winning its just committee says no

I think the issue you are having here is you have the blinkers on, and you are blind to the obvious and fail to acknowledge the obvious?

There is an intrinsic reason, which had been repeated several times. The multiplier is mandatory. Written in black and white. Whereas, there is nothing to say Clubs cannot run different divisions if they wish, or restrict entry to a specified handicap limit.

It really is that simple.

If you want the better golfer to win, just be open about it and run many scratch competitions (albeit you still have a responsibility to still run handicap competitions )

 

[Arthur Wedge]

Exactly.
Not everyone has an equal chance of winning, but players take part, because it is sporting to do so.

Nothing unfair about a 90% allowance for an individual comp - it can be looked upon in the same way as above. Whoever does best under those terms will be rewarded.

Hosting a scratch comp at a club will limit entries. Having a 90% allowance might limit entries, but to a much lesser degree. I really see little problem with this.
But as I have said before, I don't like it.
I would prefer 95% mandatory allowance at all times for individual strokeplay.

Playing Handicap for individual strokeplay when it is individual strokeplay. Seems to make sense to me.

Don’t think you really understand what’s fair or not