Opens and Prizes

[KenL]

Just to update this

Today was the 2026 version


The winners this year had








98 points

What was the format?

 

[doublebogey7]

Myself and the eldest daughter are playing a mixed scramble comp later in the year. We are effectively getting 2 comp fees for 1 normal green fee. We will have fun and enjoy it. That's all that matters to me (she will be trying to win, thats for sure BUT have fun as well )

I couldn't agree more, as annoying as such scores are, I've long learned to just live with it and enjoy the day out.

 

[Arthur Wedge]

What was the format?

Best two from 4

 

[wjemather]

That is pushing it a bit

100 points would have got you the WIN. And how many places are given prizes? Did all the prize winners get 98 points, with all scores decided on countback?

The winning score was clearly an outlier. Mid 80s to get in the prizes is certainly not unattainable.

In any case, winning isn't the primary reason for entering opens.
And dodgy pencil work is a far more effective method of cheating in these events than trying to get away with manipulating multiple player's handicaps.

February Open 2026

Royal Porthcawl Golf Club. This portal provides full information on competition results and player profiles, powered by intelligentgolf.

royalporthcawl.intelligentgolf.co.uk

 

[KenL]

Best two from 4

Asking for people to fabricate scores with that format. Hopefully a good earner for the club so crack on.

 

[Crazyface]

We've got so much on this year I've kept our mixed comp entries down to just the four, I am still thinking about another crack at Lindrick, love this place and if St Annes old links put their mixed up might we might end up with six to play. Then there's Abbeydale to squeeze in and the annual Pike Fold and Crompton And Royton games.

 

[IanM]

Loving WJE's use of the word, "outlier!"

Clearly all above board as they only won by 12.

 

[Swango1980]

The winning score was clearly an outlier. Mid 80s to get in the prizes is certainly not unattainable.

In any case, winning isn't the primary reason for entering opens.
And dodgy pencil work is a far more effective method of cheating in these events than trying to get away with manipulating multiple player's handicaps.

February Open 2026

Royal Porthcawl Golf Club. This portal provides full information on competition results and player profiles, powered by intelligentgolf.

royalporthcawl.intelligentgolf.co.uk

So having to get a minimum of 100 points to be in prizes was definitely one of the biggest exaggeration of 2026 so far.

As for the winners, their handicap levels are not exactly very high. Either they are near scratch golfers on bands handicaps, which I doubt. They cheated with the pencil, which I have zero evidence of. Or they just had a great day where they started very well, and momentum carried them to the end

 

[IanM]

And you get good scores on these easy peasy naff courses!

 

[D-S]

It is creeping up and up - wasn’t that long ago when winners were around low 80’s

But now you getting close to having to need minimum 100 to get in the prizes

So how come 86 points was in second place? By your logic they were 14 points off the pace.

98 around Porthcawl in February is extremely good, the fact that they were 12 points clear of second place casts the round in a very different light.

 

[Springveldt]

98 points in the middle of winter with 85% handicap allowance is some going. The 11 handicapper (in reality a 13) shot +6, great round. The 10 handicapper seems very erratic scoring par or better on 5 of his 10 shot holes.

Incidently, I wonder why there are so few single handicappers playing? The team in 5th is the highest team with a true single figure handicapper, that's 1 player out of 20.

 

[KenL]

To win by 12 shots when the following pack were pretty closely packed seems a tad suspicious.
Also, 3 twos between the four of them.

 

[Springveldt]

To win by 12 shots when the following pack were pretty closely packed seems a tad suspicious.
Also, 3 twos between the four of them.

7 birdies in total, quick scan through the other cards, the teams in 3rd, 13th and 21st had 4 and the others had 3 or less.

 

[Swango1980]

To win by 12 shots when the following pack were pretty closely packed seems a tad suspicious.
Also, 3 twos between the four of them.

Can always be suspicious, but without any more historical info, it could just have been an amazing day.

Two of the 2's came on the 7th. However, that is just over 100 yards and scanning a few of the other team scores below them, seemed to be many 2's on that hole. Not sure if it was playing easier than normal, or it is just an easy enough stroke index 18 hole?

Michael Johnson seemed to have a really steady day, with 11 pars and a birdie. 6 over altogether, great score but not necessarily unrealistic for a great day of golf. Throw in 3 birdies for Chris Faulkner in an otherwise up and down round. Again, this happens. Reminds me of myself sometimes. Can get 3 or 4 biirdies, and about 3 or 4 blobs. Famine or feast.

I appreciate it raises eye brows. However, I'm always uncomfortable when there are people raising suspicions about foul play in some shape or form. I'm sure most of us have had out of this world days individually, and maybe even in a team. And it isn't nice if people start throwing around accusations (especially on social media), when you know for a fact it was legit. Had they scored 110 points or something, I'd definitely wonder how that was possible. But 98 doesn't seem like lottery odds to me.

 

[Neilds]

Can always be suspicious, but without any more historical info, it could just have been an amazing day.

Two of the 2's came on the 7th. However, that is just over 100 yards and scanning a few of the other team scores below them, seemed to be many 2's on that hole. Not sure if it was playing easier than normal, or it is just an easy enough stroke index 18 hole?

Michael Johnson seemed to have a really steady day, with 11 pars and a birdie. 6 over altogether, great score but not necessarily unrealistic for a great day of golf. Throw in 3 birdies for Chris Faulkner in an otherwise up and down round. Again, this happens. Reminds me of myself sometimes. Can get 3 or 4 biirdies, and about 3 or 4 blobs. Famine or feast.

I appreciate it raises eye brows. However, I'm always uncomfortable when there are people raising suspicions about foul play in some shape or form. I'm sure most of us have had out of this world days individually, and maybe even in a team. And it isn't nice if people start throwing around accusations (especially on social media), when you know for a fact it was legit. Had they scored 110 points or something, I'd definitely wonder how that was possible. But 98 doesn't seem like lottery odds to me.

So true.

Typical of some people to try and cast doubt with no context or anything. The fact that some people have openly questioned them (called them cheats?) with little or no hard evidence is shocking.

 

[KenL]

So true.

Typical of some people to try and cast doubt with no context or anything. The fact that some people have openly questioned them (called them cheats?) with little or no hard evidence is shocking.

Who called them cheats?

 

[Swango1980]

Who called them cheats?

It's the implication, rather than using the words directly. I think we are all intelligent enough in here to appreciate that the reason this was brought up in the first place was not to praise the brilliant score of 98 points, and discuss what a wonderful day it was for the winners. Instead, comments that suggest the format lends itself easily to teams fabricating their scores, implies that this could have been a distinct possibility in this case.

 

[KenL]

It's the implication, rather than using the words directly. I think we are all intelligent enough in here to appreciate that the reason this was brought up in the first place was not to praise the brilliant score of 98 points, and discuss what a wonderful day it was for the winners. Instead, comments that suggest the format lends itself easily to teams fabricating their scores, implies that this could have been a distinct possibility in this case.

Do you think it was a possibility @Swango1980 ?

 

[Arthur Wedge]

So true.

Typical of some people to try and cast doubt with no context or anything. The fact that some people have openly questioned them (called them cheats?) with little or no hard evidence is shocking.

No one has called them cheats from what I can see

 

[Neilds]

Who called them cheats?

Not using those exact word but an awful lot of insinuation and clever use of language to hint that the poster doesn't believe the score is legit. You also said in post 125 that the format was "asking for people to fabricate scores" - what does that mean if you are not hinting the score might not be truthful?