clubchamp98
Journeyman Pro
Well if they have to adjust it then to me that proves three is not enough.Remember the Index allocated for 3 cards is the best - 2.0.
Well if they have to adjust it then to me that proves three is not enough.Remember the Index allocated for 3 cards is the best - 2.0.
Many clubs require players to have returned a minimum number of scores to be eligible to win prizes but allow them to make a handicap qualifying score.Well if they have to adjust it then to me that proves three is not enough.
and/or limit the course/playing handicap that can be used in that competition. The Committee has the means and authority to deal with it - handicap Rule 7.2.Many clubs require players to have returned a minimum number of scores to be eligible to win prizes but allow them to make a handicap qualifying score.
Particularly noting:and/or limit the course/playing handicap that can be used in that competition. The Committee has the means and authority to deal with it - handicap Rule 7.2.
Players new to the game surely get know higher a handicap under WHS than they did under CONGU. Also their handicap will reduce quicker than it did folllowing a goodcscore.New players have and always will be a problem when it comes to handicapping. The issue seems to me to be that clubs have had so many new members during the transition that it has served to a hightight a problem that was always there but the relatively small numbers didn't concern the long standing members.The damage is already done if they win a comp by with nearly 50 points. And, it would be unwise for a handicap committee to give the player an additional cut based on one score, or act on the opinion of others. Only unless they start putting in great scores in match play, am/ams, etc, the Committee are normally wise to trust the handicap system will eventually catch up. And, when it finally does, no doubt another high handicapper or 2 will come along, new to the game.
One way would be for the handicap Committee to ignore the handicap the player gets after submitting their 3 cards, and make it lower. Of course, that is definitely not recommended by the authorities
Indeed, but as there will always be new golfers to the game, there will always be these big scores (not every comp, but will always be seen). This was true pre and post WHS, although higher handicappers will generally indeed have higher handicaps now than they would have done pre WHS, so the effect is inflated. As an experienced golfer with a lower handicap (I don't necessarily mean single figures, just a solid handicap based on many scores) I am not particularly bothered by an individual player with a high handicap, just the fact there will be some newer golfers in the field often, that could potentially make a crazy good score.Players new to the game surely get know higher a handicap under WHS than they did under CONGU. Also their handicap will reduce quicker than it did folllowing a goodcscore.New players have and always will be a problem when it comes to handicapping. The issue seems to me to be that clubs have had so many new members during the transition that it has served to a hightight a problem that was always there but the relatively small numbers didn't concern the long standing members.
This is pretty much how it was under CONGU, and I agree would have been a better approach but it certainly would not have solved the problem, as it was also an issue under CONGU. Splitting competitions into divisions will have no effect on this problem as long-standing members will still be competing with new members, except of course for placating the low boys, which seems unfair to me.Indeed, but as there will always be new golfers to the game, there will always be these big scores (not every comp, but will always be seen). This was true pre and post WHS, although higher handicappers will generally indeed have higher handicaps now than they would have done pre WHS, so the effect is inflated. As an experienced golfer with a lower handicap (I don't necessarily mean single figures, just a solid handicap based on many scores) I am not particularly bothered by an individual player with a high handicap, just the fact there will be some newer golfers in the field often, that could potentially make a crazy good score.
We've seen rulefan and rulie state that clubs can put a limit on number of scores a player has before they can play in a comp, or put a maximum limit on handicaps that can enter (as out club does). Or comps can be split into divisions. Yes, of course they can do this, but clearly they are doing it because they feel it is unfair on experienced golfers if they do not. Fundamentally, by doing this the club are essentially saying the handicap system is unfair. If a club say a player must have, say 10 scores, in their scoring record before being eligible, they are saying that if WHS gives a player an Index of, say 30 after 3 scores, then that Index cannot be trusted at this stage. But, on the flip side, putting such conditions on comps is unfair to genuinely high handicappers who may never be good enough to compete. Or, new golfers may have to wait an age before they have enough scores to be eligible. If WHS had applied bigger penalties to higher Indices when there were limited scores on a Player's history, this could have gone a long long way to solve the problem. New golfers get an Index after 3 scores, but if that Index is high then they get a very large additional reduction, and that starts to ease off gradually as they submit more and more scores. Had that been done, I reckon you could have completely eliminated the issue about new golfers to the game shooting crazy low scores in their early comps.
It didn't apply under CONGU (my suggestion). I don't know the figures, but having checked a few at the time we swapped over from WHS, the initial handicaps awarded under pre or post WHS were not a million miles apart. As such, pre and post WHS, new golfers will always get an additional advantage. Yes, we probably all benefitted from that when we started, but that does not make it right. I had a lot of success in my first year, but the snidy comments from long term golfers were difficult. And, they were right, I knew I was better than the 20 handicap I started with, and I won 9 trophies that year and ended the year on around 15ish I think. I played every comp as well, I think my first comp was a nett 60 and won by about 6 or 7 shots, after I had a lesson during the week before.This is pretty much how it was under CONGU, and I agree would have been a better approach but it certainly would not have solved the problem, as it was also an issue under CONGU. Splitting competitions into divisions will have no effect on this problem as long-standing members will still be competing with new members, except of course for placating the low boys, which seems unfair to me.
What we all should remember is that we were all new golfers once and therefore have benefitted from this increased chance of winning. We also need to accept that there is and can never be a perfect system for handicapping and remember golf is pretty much the only sport where it works to any degree.
I'm sure I've said this before, but you are advocating systemic discrimination against people who "might" improve to the point where they are completely uncompetitive. Surely that cannot be right or fair, and could even result in losing people from the sport.It didn't apply under CONGU (my suggestion). I don't know the figures, but having checked a few at the time we swapped over from WHS, the initial handicaps awarded under pre or post WHS were not a million miles apart. As such, pre and post WHS, new golfers will always get an additional advantage. Yes, we probably all benefitted from that when we started, but that does not make it right. I had a lot of success in my first year, but the snidy comments from long term golfers were difficult. And, they were right, I knew I was better than the 20 handicap I started with, and I won 9 trophies that year and ended the year on around 15ish I think. I played every comp as well, I think my first comp was a nett 60 and won by about 6 or 7 shots, after I had a lesson during the week before.
Also, after that initial success, it is hard for some to accept that they are no longer "competitive" because their time of being that rapidly improving golfer has gone. I've seen countless golfers join our club over the years, love the game, shoot crazy scores, win lots, etc. Their handicap finally gets to a reasonable level after a while, and so many of them just seem to fade away, and lose interest in the game. Perhaps that success comes way to soon, they peak too early based on the handicap they are given, and then their expectations become unrealistic for the long term?
However, the system could easily be changed. After 3 scores, let us say that a players best score differential is 0.0. Add no extra penalty and give them an Index of 0.0 (under WHS it would be -2.0 now). If their best score differential was 15.0, take 5.0 off and give them an Index of 10.0 (under WHS it would be 13.0 now). If their best score differential was 30.0, take 10.0 off and give them an Index of 20.0 (under WHS it would be 28.0 now). These are just indicative, but effectively increase the penalty as the raw index progressively gets higher. After 10 scores, once calculating the raw index, take away only half of the penalties above, after 15 take away a quarter and after 20 scores remove penalty completely.
So, instead of giving a player an initial index of 28, give them an index of 20. If they are a player who is rapidly improving, it will hugely help stop them scoring a ridiculously good score (maybe it will reduce their score of 46 points to 38 points). If their first 3 scores did actually represent their actual ability, and there is no sign they will improve, that will be reflected more within their handicap as they submit more scores (and actually encourage them to put in scores).
I suspect the above would have been harder to implement pre WHS, because there was no concept of scoring history. You simply had a handicap, and that number was adjusted once another score was put in. However, WHS does have concept of scoring history, and thus could be easily implemented to solve the age old problem of the rapidly improving new golfer.
Seriously, so you would not support such a temporary system (i.e. once more scores are submitted, this cut disappears), but you are happy that clubs care allowed to simply ban anyone over a handicap of 24 from playing?I'm sure I've said this before, but you are advocating systemic discrimination against people who "might" improve to the point where they are completely uncompetitive. Surely that cannot be right or fair, and could even result in losing people from the sport.
Competition committees have several mechanisms at their disposal to "protect" the field if they so wish. They should use them.
What about the newcomer to golf who has had some coaching and has practiced but will not be getting better. What are his chances of getting into the frame in his first competitionNo one can tell me that providing someone with a high handicap after submitting 3 scores is acceptable or fair. It is discrimination against golfers who have a full scoring record and a much fairer handicap having to compete against golfers who could have a new handicap that is a dozen shots too high for them.
Why does a golfer have a right to be in the frame in their first competition?What about the newcomer to golf who has had some coaching and has practiced but will not be getting better. What are his chances of getting into the frame in his first competition
New golfers should have the same right to be able to compete equitably as someone entering their 100th or 1000th competition. Your idea absolutely undermines that principal.Why does a golfer have a right to be in the frame in their first competition?
Even the way the system is now, if a new golfer loses out in his first competition by a point, is WHS unfair because it subtracted 2.0 off his index?
Furthermore, how can you make such a comment, when you only just previously said:
"Many clubs require players to have returned a minimum number of scores to be eligible to win prizes but allow them to make a handicap qualifying score"
Using my methodology, at least the new golfer can play in his first competition and potentially win a prize, after first getting their handicap. If clubs implement what you suggest they can do, that player won't even be eligible for some time after getting a handicap. If my suggested methodology was implemented, then clubs would not need to apply such restrictions in the first place.
Using my methodology, at least the new golfer can play in his first competition and potentially win a prize, after first getting their handicap.
My idea was a basic example, not a refined and detailed way in which it should work.New golfers should have the same right to be able to compete equitably as someone entering their 100th or 1000th competition. Your idea absolutely undermines that principal.
Your penalty reductions are entirely arbitrary with the express intention of preventing higher handicapper from competing equitably due to an irrational fear of them posting a good score (which actually happens very rarely). That is discriminatory and completely different to having limits and/or restrictions in the terms of competition, in which case the player has the choice of whether to accept such restrictions.
Incidentally, I've seen far more instances of players having an initial (or early) handicap too low for their ability than too high - this ultimately results in them hitting the hard cap immediately on entering their 20th score. Your penalties would probably extend this issue to most new handicaps.
Yes, compared to zero chance at all if you just ban them from winning. Pretty simple really.You would allocate a handicap index of 20 to a player whose demonstrated ability from 3 scores indicates an index of 30 and believe that by so doing you give him/her the chance of winning a prize in their first competition? Really?
I didn't say that. They should have an equal right to have the opportunity with all other players.Why does a golfer have a right to be in the frame in their first competition?
Please read it carefully. It wasn't a suggestion or proposal, simply a factual observation of what many clubs do.Furthermore, how can you make such a comment, when you only just previously said:
"Many clubs require players to have returned a minimum number of scores to be eligible to win prizes but allow them to make a handicap qualifying score"
I didn't say that. They should have an equal right to have the opportunity with all other players.
Please read it carefully. It wasn't a suggestion or proposal, simply a factual observation of what many clubs do.