wjemather
Well-known member
There aren't many (if any) clubs that only run individual stroke play and/or 4BBB comps, so I'd say pretty much everyone.
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
Yes, but you've decided as always, to pick a fight in a different direction. If clubs vary the official individual allowance in a NON-QUALIFYING competiotn (which let's be honest are almost never held anywhere), then it doesn;t matter, the whole thread is about WHS and has become now very focused on the 95% allowance, as used in QUALIFYING EVENTS.
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
Give it up will you? We're talking about singles and how it affects your playing handicap.
Last edited by a moderator:
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
Jesus Christ no. Congu have blocked the use of 100% allowance in singles medal play, that's a good thing, 95% is bad enough, imagine getting 100% of course handicap?
They've also blocked "most likely score", matchplay scores, and (tho not WHS) the use of the local rule where you don't need to take stroke and distance for OB or a lost ball for competitive play
Congu are doing just fine, it's whs that's the issue
They've also blocked 90%, 87%, 85%, 80% and any other lower allowance
Which is kinda exactly what you want
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
Please show me where WHS recommends lower than 95%? (this is for individual stroke play before mjw comes in with allowances in Texas scrambles or tic tac toe)
Congu have blocked nothing.
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
You've been shown, you don't want to see it
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
No I'm well aware, but I'll show you
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
I posted it in reply to you a few pages ago
If you can't be bothered to read or understand it its not my problem
Dunesman
Active member
Shorthand for the poster mjweatherman I think.
D
Deleted member 30522
Guest
I've posted it above for you again. What don't you grasp?
Dunesman
Active member
Could be an issue. What is at issue are the board comps, so cups and historic perpetual trophies, and really just for the winner.
The categories they brought in this year is effectively a reallocation of prizes to an order not strictly according to the overall results of the full field. But its the board ones that has people more concerned now. I presume EG have no jurisdiction on who gets a cup, so competition might have to be run with the 0.95 if EG would come down heavy on them changing it, but the committee can do a simple check to see who gets the cup with their new factor, and so that name on the board rather than necessarily the 0.95 factor 'winner'. The result might be same anyway in some cases.
As long as all members are on board and understand thats what is being done. They certainly wont want any controversy. But the mood seems very much in favour of change. The categories experiment opened a lot of eyes to how meaningless all-field-no-categories results are now for trophies that have a lot of history and prestige in the club. I feel for some of the recent winners because some are being regarded as a little devalued.
Last edited:
clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
So if English clubs use 93% like Australia they could be in breach of the rules.
So much for a world system.
So much for a world system.
The Fader
Newbie
Understand what you are saying.
Perhaps need to add in that your starting point is your last 20 scores low HI?
Even if you don 't - the player you allude to can only do this once as his index would crash immediately and that low score
would stay in his record and not be diluted by 7 other scores.
There is no perfect system but my proposal sought to address what appears to be the recurring issues and I might add it was really
off the top of my head - not several years in the making like our existing methodology.
Getting away from historical non form handicaps be they vanity or sandbagged
Making things more equitable for consistent players
Making manipulation a more laborious process
Any system relies on integrity. And that is outwith anyone's control.
But I ask this question to those who claim manipulation is rife - when you've seen it with your own eyes-- have you called it out either directly with the player or reported your suspicions?
Slab
Occasional Tour Caddy
You're so blinkered in hatred for whs you can't even see it
wjemather
Well-known member
Applying custom allowances for the trophy only would still be contravening the mandated allowances for competitions, i.e. the competition for the trophy must used the mandatory allowances.
If the club doesn't want higher handicappers winning trophies they should place limits on who can win the trophy (EG have a guidance document).
Dunesman
Active member
Its not that they dont want higher handicappers as such. They do, just not the temporarily high due to a couple of not even that bad rounds in the previous couple of weeks. So there would be a reluctance to put a cap. There was no limit in tbe past, except for a couple of years when the 28 limit was maintained after handicaps went to 54, but that was remived quickly enough. There were only a handful over the 28 anyway.
I guess a variation on limiting entry would be something along the lines of no players whose index has risen by more than a shot in the previous two months or something like that, or in their previous 10 counting cards. A competition entry restriction, so EG would have no issue with it. But maybe more difficult for members to agree with.
Or rather than a max handicap for the field, imposing a max handicap for each individual which is equal to your lowest in the last 12 months. Again, no issue for EG, but its getting messier and messier. Going for a neat 90% or whatever seems both simpler and fairer. Its quite possible we could run with it for the year, and see how EG (or the R&A, or Congu, or WHS - I am confused now on who is really in charge) deals with the survey and what modifications come down the line.
Dunesman
Active member
This sticks out. Inportant not to discriminate against high handicappers. Are they saying OK to discriminate against low ones or, that the system is perfectly equitable ?
Attachments
wjemather
Well-known member
It's simply acknowledgement that handicap limits are almost always a maximum variety and almost never a minimum, and that higher handicappers are invariably the ones being targeted by restrictions.
wjemather
Well-known member
Any attempt to work around the guidance in this way would be contrary to the guidance, not to mention exceedingly time-consuming to enforce.
The only approved restrictions along these lines are likely to be those designed to highlight potential manipulation, e.g. comparing comp & GP scores (as per EG's elite event policy).
If there are problems with individual handicaps, the committee should be dealing with them.
WorldHandicapSystem
Member
Just when you think the Hitler analogy was top of the 
crazy stuff on this thread 
.
If public transport and players who shoot their handicap every time is all you’ve got to defend your views then you’ve no argument at all.
Even the best players in the world have a 12 to 15 shot spread in their scores. To suggest handicap golfers are in any way consistent is bonkers.
crazy stuff on this thread .If public transport and players who shoot their handicap every time is all you’ve got to defend your views then you’ve no argument at all.
Even the best players in the world have a 12 to 15 shot spread in their scores. To suggest handicap golfers are in any way consistent is bonkers.