• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

Official WHS Survey

  • Thread starter Thread starter Deleted member 30522
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I personally don't have an issue with the mandatory handicap allowances for almost all the formats of play as these have been worked out and are part of the mechanism of making handicap golf as fair and consistent as you can.

It would be weird if a club decided to have 80% in singles strokeplay in their Open as 'some bandit won it last year' or you joined a club and they decided all matchplay comps were 65% as the committee were all low handicappers.


I feel it is strange that there are mandatory allowances for Texas scrambles as the rules for these competitions are incredibly inconsistent - recommendations yes in this case, mandatory no. Also it would be good to codify local rules that apply to Scrambles that the allowances are based upon but I realise this is perhaps too big a task for the benefit that would be accrued.
 
D-S said:
I personally don't have an issue with the mandatory handicap allowances for almost all the formats of play as these have been worked out and are part of the mechanism of making handicap golf as fair and consistent as you can.

It would be weird if a club decided to have 80% in singles strokeplay in their Open as 'some bandit won it last year' or you joined a club and they decided all matchplay comps were 65% as the committee were all low handicappers.


I feel it is strange that there are mandatory allowances for Texas scrambles as the rules for these competitions are incredibly inconsistent - recommendations yes in this case, mandatory no. Also it would be good to codify local rules that apply to Scrambles that the allowances are based upon but I realise this is perhaps too big a task for the benefit that would be accrued.
Click to expand...

Governing bodies should have nothing whatsoever to do with scrambles.

(And neither should golfers ;))
 
wjemather said:
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.
Click to expand...
There is no real problem there and there is no discussion whatsoever of disaffiliating. I dont think county are as dogmatic as you suggest, and presume they recognise different circumstances can need specific solutions. Its no great extension from what we have been doing anyway for years with midweek nine hole competitions. Your handicap for those is reduced by a shot if you have won one within the previous two months. Fully recorded handicap competitions and so adjustments to indexes are applied normally, but if A and B both have 20 points on the computer, but A won a competition a month ago, his score is corrected to 19 points, and B is the winner. All members are happy and used to it. A neighbouring club does something similar and dont think its that unusual. The three board comps will just be a similar off the grid correction to determine the winner from a 0.9 factor, who may or may not be the one on the top of the computer print. Nobody will care about modifying the rest of the field that arent up with a chance of having the modified winning placing, as finishing 47th or 53rd isnt even of interest to the person with that score.
 
Dunesman said:
There is no real problem there and there is no discussion whatsoever of disaffiliating. I dont think county are as dogmatic as you suggest, and presume they recognise different circumstances can need specific solutions. Its no great extension from what we have been doing anyway for years with midweek nine hole competitions. Your handicap for those is reduced by a shot if you have won one within the previous two months. Fully recorded handicap competitions and so adjustments to indexes are applied normally, but if A and B both have 20 points on the computer, but A won a competition a month ago, his score is corrected to 19 points, and B is the winner. All members are happy and used to it. A neighbouring club does something similar and dont think its that unusual. The three board comps will just be a similar off the grid correction to determine the winner from a 0.9 factor, who may or may not be the one on the top of the computer print. Nobody will care about modifying the rest of the field that arent up with a chance of having the modified winning placing, as finishing 47th or 53rd isnt even of interest to the person with that score.
Click to expand...
The County, if there is a complaint, don’t have a choice whether or not to be ‘dogmatic’, they are tasked with making sure the rules are applied correctly.
 
rulefan said:
I assume you mean 'fiddled'
But isn't this in effect changing the Playing Handicap not the Handicap Index or Competition Handicap? Or does this affect the player's resultant Index?
Click to expand...
Yes, just the playing handicap, like the 0.9 will. No effect or illigitimising of Handicap Indexes. In both cases, the adaptations are only for the allocation of prizes.
 
Dunesman said:
There is no real problem there and there is no discussion whatsoever of disaffiliating. I dont think county are as dogmatic as you suggest, and presume they recognise different circumstances can need specific solutions. Its no great extension from what we have been doing anyway for years with midweek nine hole competitions. Your handicap for those is reduced by a shot if you have won one within the previous two months. Fully recorded handicap competitions and so adjustments to indexes are applied normally, but if A and B both have 20 points on the computer, but A won a competition a month ago, his score is corrected to 19 points, and B is the winner. All members are happy and used to it. A neighbouring club does something similar and dont think its that unusual. The three board comps will just be a similar off the grid correction to determine the winner from a 0.9 factor, who may or may not be the one on the top of the computer print. Nobody will care about modifying the rest of the field that arent up with a chance of having the modified winning placing, as finishing 47 or 53 isnt even of interest to the person with that score.
Click to expand...
Your club is manipulating the system to favour low handicappers and cheat others out of their rightful wins and prizes. Nothing more.

No real problem? If that was truly the case, your club wouldn't be doing it "off the grid" to try and hide it. These things always have a way of getting out, so your club should expect an uncomfortable call from county/EG when it does. It isn't going to be long before you get a disgruntled "winner" asking why they aren't holding the trophy.

Dogmatic? The rules and guidance in this regard are indisputable. Whether you like/agree with them or not, they are facts, not opinions.

Off-piste manipulated handicaps are fine for comps run by a society or informal group, but not for an affiliated organisation. Again, something that has been stated absolutely unequivocally by EG. Scores are not being corrected - they are being doctored.
 
wjemather said:
Your club is manipulating the system to favour low handicappers and cheat others out of their rightful wins and prizes. Nothing more.

No real problem? If that was truly the case, your club wouldn't be doing it "off the grid" to try and hide it. These things always have a way of getting out, so your club should expect an uncomfortable call from county/EG when it does. It isn't going to be long before you get a disgruntled "winner" asking why they aren't holding the trophy.

Dogmatic? The rules and guidance in this regard are indisputable. Whether you like/agree with them or not, they are facts, not opinions.

Off-piste manipulated handicaps are fine for comps run by a society or informal group, but not for an affiliated organisation. Again, something that has been stated absolutely unequivocally by EG. Scores are not being corrected - they are being doctored.
Click to expand...
What cads, what bounders! fancy a club having the sheer temerity to organize a slight variation of the handicap that suits their own members I'll have to get onto Colonel Blitherington-idiot and sort out these frightful bounders It'll ruin my gin and tonic and I might not get my invite to the Masters.
 
Have EG (or any other CONGU Union) recently made Handicap Allowances mandatory? My original copy of the Manual (Appendix C) says they are Recommended.
Dunesman said:
Yes, just the playing handicap, like the 0.9 will. No effect or illigitimising of Handicap Indexes. In both cases, the adaptations are only for the allocation of prizes.
Click to expand...
But the National Associations within GB&I have now determined that allowances set out in the table in Appendix C are mandatory. I can't see why the County wouldn't get involved if they become aware.
 
Backache said:
What cads, what bounders! fancy a club having the sheer temerity to organize a slight variation of the handicap that suits their own members I'll have to get onto Colonel Blitherington-idiot and sort out these frightful bounders It'll ruin my gin and tonic and I might not get my invite to the Masters.
Click to expand...
Well, it certainly suits the lower handicap members. Not so much the higher ones.
 
AussieKB said:
On Friday the winning score in the 4BBB was 51 points, a 47 and 26 handicaps.
Click to expand...
I would be frustrated in your position.

However my frustration would be with the Club and whoever sets up the terms of competition, not with the system. This is a clear case for the need to introduce divisions or separate competitions for different handicap bands, something that is commonplace I’ve here.
No system is going to allow a 47 handicapper to compete in a Stableford with a single figure golfer.
 
D-S said:
I would be frustrated in your position.

However my frustration would be with the Club and whoever sets up the terms of competition, not with the system. This is a clear case for the need to introduce divisions or separate competitions for different handicap bands, something that is commonplace I’ve here.
No system is going to allow a 47 handicapper to compete in a Stableford with a single figure golfer.
Click to expand...
Given that the competition was on a Friday, I'm assuming it was more of a casual, keep your swing going type of comp, rather than a prestigious board competition? Personally, I wouldn't have felt Divisions are as necessary for such events, but I guess it is how sulky the low handicappers at the club get in the less serious comps? Assuming it was acceptable for handicap, I'd be pleased that the 47 handicapper would be getting a very good score on their record along with an exceptional score reduction.

Obviously, if it was an important competition (e.g an Open comp with high entrance fee), then I'd agree. As soon as a very high handicapper wins such an even with a crazy high score, you put a lot of people off from entering in the future.
 
Swango1980 said:
Given that the competition was on a Friday, I'm assuming it was more of a casual, keep your swing going type of comp, rather than a prestigious board competition? Personally, I wouldn't have felt Divisions are as necessary for such events, but I guess it is how sulky the low handicappers at the club get in the less serious comps? Assuming it was acceptable for handicap, I'd be pleased that the 47 handicapper would be getting a very good score on their record along with an exceptional score reduction.

Obviously, if it was an important competition (e.g an Open comp with high entrance fee), then I'd agree. As soon as a very high handicapper wins such an even with a crazy high score, you put a lot of people off from entering in the future.
Click to expand...
Not a small event, 81 teams 162 players, prizes are always very good, remember last year the winning score was 48 or 49 points.
 
AussieKB said:
Not a small event, 81 teams 162 players, prizes are always very good, remember last year the winning score was 48 or 49 points.
Click to expand...
And I'm assuming that (as you've said in the past) daily handicaps were used, rather than applying the recommended allowance of 85% for 4BBB?
 
wjemather said:
And I'm assuming that (as you've said in the past) daily handicaps were used, rather than applying the recommended allowance of 85% for 4BBB?
Click to expand...
Correct 100% as recommended by OZ Golf, I think a lot of high handicappers target these events as well, most of our club Open's start with a 4BBB on the Friday.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
Latest R and A/USGA advice on WHS
Replies
0
Views
1K
Aussie Swinger
A
Top