Official WHS Survey

[Slab]

Having read through all this, and seen other posts about it, the thing that amuses me the most is everyone argues about who benefits the most from certain handicapping systems, but no one really considers that handicapping in general is a bit farcical.

If there were no prizes on offer, we could all just go out play our best, and the person that shot the lowest score is the winner. Instead we put money on the line and then have to have an artificial system to allegedly make things equal. How equal, and who is the most equal through these systems is clearly a contentious topic. There are few other sports where just playing a bit better than you usually do (or have recently done) but not having played better than your opponent(s) means you are considered the winner. Yes it means there is less randomisation in results, but that's just how it is, same as certain rugby, football, or whatever else clubs constantly top the league or prop it up.

If there was nothing to win, it isn't a competition and we'd have no winner (suits me fine either way, comps are not the be all and end all of playing golf anyway)

 

[Orikoru]

Having read through all this, and seen other posts about it, the thing that amuses me the most is everyone argues about who benefits the most from certain handicapping systems, but no one really considers that handicapping in general is a bit farcical.

If there were no prizes on offer, we could all just go out play our best, and the person that shot the lowest score is the winner. Instead we put money on the line and then have to have an artificial system to allegedly make things equal. How equal, and who is the most equal through these systems is clearly a contentious topic. There are few other sports where just playing a bit better than you usually do (or have recently done) but not having played better than your opponent(s) means you are considered the winner. Yes it means there is less randomisation in results, but that's just how it is, same as certain rugby, football, or whatever else clubs constantly top the league or prop it up.

But that's the beauty and the essence of club golf. "If there were no prizes on offer" - there would be no competitions. If there were, without handicaps, only 5% of members would actually enter them as the rest would know they had no chance, so there would be no point. Eventually competitions would cease anyway, since nobody enters them.

 

[clubchamp98]

But that's the beauty and the essence of club golf. "If there were no prizes on offer" - there would be no competitions. If there were, without handicaps, only 5% of members would actually enter them as the rest would know they had no chance, so there would be no point. Eventually competitions would cease anyway, since nobody enters them.

That’s started happening at ours.
People don’t play in the comps because the winning scores are still a bit silly.
But they are not missing the competition side of things by some of the comments I have heard.
If that carries on it could affect comp golf in the long term.

 

[Orikoru]

That’s started happening at ours.
People don’t play in the comps because the winning scores are still a bit silly.
But they are not missing the competition side of things by some of the comments I have heard.
If that carries on it could affect comp golf in the long term.

If I was off a low number I probably wouldn't bother entering Stablefords. I'd still enter the major medal comps though as that favours higher handicappers a bit less I feel.

But a few low cappers not entering is small fry compared to a world with no handicaps where I reckon 90% of people wouldn't bother entering as only the very best have a chance of winning.

 

[clubchamp98]

If I was off a low number I probably wouldn't bother entering Stablefords. I'd still enter the major medal comps though as that favours higher handicappers a bit less I feel.

But a few low cappers not entering is small fry compared to a world with no handicaps where I reckon 90% of people wouldn't bother entering as only the very best have a chance of winning.

Yes but this system was touted as being more a level playing field for all.
They just didn’t factor in the manipulation that goes on.

Golfers cheat ( some anyway) They really should have seen that coming

 

[Springveldt]

Add more shots to the PCC in difficult conditions. In our club championship the other week only 7 people payed to their handicap. The PCC was plus 1.

Same last week at mine. 35mph winds, ball being moved on the green due to wind and 6 players out of 104 managing to get 36 points or better. 3x36, 2x37 and the winner with 45 somehow. PCC was +1.

First words out of people when asked how they went was “it’s brutal out there”.

 

[Orikoru]

Same last week at mine. 35mph winds, ball being moved on the green due to wind and 6 players out of 104 managing to get 36 points or better. 3x36, 2x37 and the winner with 45 somehow. PCC was +1.

First words out of people when asked how they went was “it’s brutal out there”.

I have a counting round on my record where PCC went to 2. It was April 14th, and I'm sure I recall the weather being great that weekend. There was a Stableford comp on, and granted, nobody played great, but two managed 37 points and two managed 36 - out of only 46 entrants. So that's 8.7% who played to their handicap? Bit more than your example which would be 5.8%. The only thing I recall about the conditions at that time was that the rough was longer than usual, because of the warm/wet conditions we kept having where they couldn't cut it. Mystery.

 

[Springveldt]

I have a counting round on my record where PCC went to 2. It was April 14th, and I'm sure I recall the weather being great that weekend. There was a Stableford comp on, and granted, nobody played great, but two managed 37 points and two managed 36 - out of only 46 entrants. So that's 8.7% who played to their handicap? Bit more than your example which would be 5.8%. The only thing I recall about the conditions at that time was that the rough was longer than usual, because of the warm/wet conditions we kept having where they couldn't cut it. Mystery.

Someone mentioned a few posts back that people are expected to play to +3 above handicap so maybe it was the number of players that had 33 points and up? There are 19 out of 106 that managed to get 33 points or better.

 

[Orikoru]

Someone mentioned a few posts back that people are expected to play to +3 above handicap so maybe it was the number of players that had 33 points and up? There are 19 out of 106 that managed to get 33 points or better.

In my example it was 11 players on 33 or better. So we still had the higher percentage.

 

[rulefan]

Yes but this system was touted as being more a level playing field for all.
They just didn’t factor in the manipulation that goes on.

Golfers cheat ( some anyway) They really should have seen that coming

Perhaps they didn't factor in the incompetence or disinterest of some handicap committees

 

[D-S]

Perhaps they didn't factor in the incompetence or disinterest of some handicap committees

But it can’t be all left down to the competence, diligence, knowledge and enthusiasm of committees because, as we all know, this is extremely variable and the more the onus is put on this variable the more uneven the results will be.
As I asked before how do EG run the handicaps of a ‘club’ of more than 46,000 iGolfers? They have a committee (I have been in touch with it a few times) but are we expecting the same oversight as a competent well run club committee? If so how on earth do they do it effectively? Or do they believe that the job of the committee is fundamentally straightforward and not important, if so there is no real problem with a disinterested committee.

 

[nickjdavis]

I think Rulefan is right in many ways as I now play with some people who put in supplementary cards as it's easily done on the phone.

Think the app was the game changer!

Now that it's so easy to put a card in through the app I would be surprised if there aren't VASTLY more general play rounds going in than there were supplementary cards in the old days. It's just so much easier.

I do not disagree at all.....the new electronic systems make it so much easier than old manual processes. But at my club (and I've been involved on the committee since 2006) supplementary cards were popular....we'd easily have 20-30 a week back when they were first introduced....now its more like 20-30 a day.

 

[Golf is fun]

If there was nothing to win, it isn't a competition and we'd have no winner (suits me fine either way, comps are not the be all and end all of playing golf anyway)

But that's the beauty and the essence of club golf. "If there were no prizes on offer" - there would be no competitions. If there were, without handicaps, only 5% of members would actually enter them as the rest would know they had no chance, so there would be no point. Eventually competitions would cease anyway, since nobody enters them.

What I meant by nothing to win was the prize being worth something more than the cost of playing in the competition. Even for a relatively small club comp people can be paying a couple of quid and taking home £25-100 in pro shop vouchers, that's not life changing but it's not nothing. In my previous sport to golf there was no prize money, you got a medal probably worth no more than £10 and you'd paid £25 to enter the comp so if you just wanted medals you could buy them.

If you set a British record the governing body sent you a cheque for £25, but no one did it for the £25 (it cost at least that to enter a comp to set a record!) they did it because they wanted to be the record holder, not the record holder when some mathematical formula was applied to their result, they wanted their unfiltered (or gross shall we say) result to be the best. Everyone worked to be the best they could, not to be bad for a few weeks and then a bit better on another.

If you wanted to compete in regionals, nationals, Europeans or worlds you had to get a good enough result at the lower level, not just do a training session and claim you were of a certain standard to be able to enter.

 

[2blue]

If they were out of it NRing made no difference, CSS was entirely based on whether a score was within or outwith the buffer zone, a card one over the buffer was counted the same as an NR

Missed the point. CSS going past 3 led to RO so no 0.1 back....... that & only needing 3 Q Comps a year to stay Active was joke...... but Hey-ho folk want it back.. hahaha.

 

[Backache]

Missed the point. CSS going past 3 led to RO so no 0.1 back....... that & only needing 3 Q Comps a year to stay Active was joke...... but Hey-ho folk want it back.. hahaha.

You don't need anything at all to stay active currently.

 

[NearHull]

You don't need anything at all to stay active currently.

That was my main criticism of the system.

 

[clubchamp98]

Perhaps they didn't factor in the incompetence or disinterest of some handicap committees

If that’s the case it’s very incompetent of them!

 

[2blue]

You don't need anything at all to stay active currently.

I was referring to how it was. Yes never inactive now which is why T's & C's are wanting so many Q Comps etc

 

[Crow]

Someone mentioned a few posts back that people are expected to play to +3 above handicap so maybe it was the number of players that had 33 points and up? There are 19 out of 106 that managed to get 33 points or better.

If those scores are at 95% though there will be a lot of players whose score for handicap will be one point higher, bringing them into your target group.

 

[Deleted member 30522]

Missed the point. CSS going past 3 led to RO so no 0.1 back....... that & only needing 3 Q Comps a year to stay Active was joke...... but Hey-ho folk want it back.. hahaha.

No I didn;t miss the point, you did, NRing made no difference to CSS, it counted exactly the same as missing buffer by one, you were either in the buffer or not, and that's what calculation of CSS was done from

Yes 3 comps a year, compared to, erm, zero now, your handicap now never lapses, and some people think this is better? hahahaha