Restricted Handicaps in club major trophies

[wjemather]

I still get amused as to why committees chose 28 as it has no real logic behind it these days.

When it was discussed for one comp at our club I tried to get the comps committee to go for 24 because the stroke index 7 is a relatively easy par 3.

In general, it's simply because committees are reluctant to follow increases in the maximum handicap allowed by the system.

28 became the maximum handicap with the introduction of the new SSS system (dubbed the "Australian" system) in 1983, and it remained that way for nearly 30 years so became ingrained; before then the maximum was 24 - at the time singles and fourball matchplay allowances were 75%, which created a maximum allowance of 18, i.e. one stroke per hole, and so 24 has remained the limit used by many committees despite allowances increasing. The maximum handicap was incrementally increased to 36 and then 54 a few years before WHS was introduced.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Its bad form. Probably coming from a poor understanding of handicaps.

It's not bad form at all, limits for certain competitions have existed forever, and those limits are coming from a experienced understanding of handicaps!

 

[Banchory Buddha]

If I was to point to one thread here which summed up the hateful negativity of the cobweb ridden look-back-bores that sadly still inhabit my game, it would be this one.
First thing I did when I was put in the M&H chair was abolish comp handicap limits. The authorities have set one, and it is 54. Thankfully we have always had divisions. The initial feedback was vitriolic, but I believe people at my club have come round to seeing sense.
Just finished our season. 26 board comps. 18 to div1 (14 PH or less) and 8 to div2.
I reckon that is not a bad split.

Why would anyone pay a full fee if they were excluded from events?
Have a word with yourselves.

The authorities also said that restricting handicaps for major club events should be considered. Did you misss that bit?

 

[wjemather]

It's not bad form at all, limits for certain competitions have existed forever, and those limits are coming from a experienced understanding of handicaps!

Not really. They are almost always a hangover from the historical limits of the handicap system at some point in time.

The authorities also said that restricting handicaps for major club events should be considered. Did you misss that bit?

The actual wording is a lot weaker than this; "may be considered" would be more accurate.

 

[sunshine]

Maybe if you need a 100 cap golf is not the sport that suits your skill set, as it would not be enjoyable.

Maybe if you need a 54 handicap golf is not the sport that suits your skillset!

 

[IanM]

Football is so stuffy.

I want to play at the World Cup but I am excluded because of a lack of capability.

Its not fair, I'm telling my mum!

Rather silly when you put it like that.

 

[wjemather]

Maybe if you need a 54 handicap golf is not the sport that suits your skillset!

Or maybe not being able to hit the ball very far isn't a good reason for not being able to possess a realistic handicap?

 

[D-S]

Or maybe not being able to hit the ball very far isn't a good reason for not being able to possess a realistic handicap?

Is that a triple negative?

 

[Jigger]

For me I wouldn’t restrict them but rather state you have to have had x amount of scores submitted over the last 6 months to play in comps.

I’ve got mates who whinge that their handicaps are too low or others are too high and yet won’t sort themselves out as it presently 9 and they don’t want to lose that single figure status. It can be frustrating for someone who is off 18 and having a good game but there is maybe the point for comps. It’s generally easier for a higher handicappers to have a much better day than a lower handicapper. Yet, by having registered good games people’s handicaps will fall.

It’s an argument that spins in circles but ultimately a handicap is the best option for fair play but is only as good as the amount of data it receives.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

For me I wouldn’t restrict them but rather state you have to have had x amount of scores submitted over the last 6 months to play in comps.

I’ve got mates who whinge that their handicaps are too low or others are too high and yet won’t sort themselves out as it presently 9 and they don’t want to lose that single figure status. It can be frustrating for someone who is off 18 and having a good game but there is maybe the point for comps. It’s generally easier for a higher handicappers to have a much better day than a lower handicapper. Yet, by having registered good games people’s handicaps will fall.

It’s an argument that spins in circles but ultimately a handicap is the best option for fair play but is only as good as the amount of data it receives.

My ego loved being off 8, and 9 just pre-WHS. So I was miffed when WHS stuck me up a couple to 11 within months of the change. But I have come to understand how WHS works, and how I must work to get back down to SFs if that’s what I want to do. I want to improve, and my HI will follow any improvement, my HI and a SF CH is not my objective. Improving is. And now knowing how it works I am not bothered were I to drift up as I know I can fairly easily get back down. And I have.

And in truth…in feeling superior with my pre-WHS 8 I actually knew I was a bit of a fraud as it was rare that I could actually play to 8 or 9. Now back to 8.2 (CH of 9) I am comfortable as I know I can fairly easily play to 9 and that if and when my CH gets to 8 that will be, for me, a real measure of my general ability.

 

[Backache]

Must admit I think any handicap limit is up to the discretion of the club.
When my playing ability was in the 30's handicap it would never have crossed my mind to enter a competition I knew I just wasn't good enough.

 

[jim8flog]

In general, it's simply because committees are reluctant to follow increases in the maximum handicap allowed by the system.

28 became the maximum handicap with the introduction of the new SSS system (dubbed the "Australian" system) in 1983, and it remained that way for nearly 30 years so became ingrained; before then the maximum was 24 - at the time singles and fourball matchplay allowances were 75%, which created a maximum allowance of 18, i.e. one stroke per hole, and so 24 has remained the limit used by many committees despite allowances increasing. The maximum handicap was incrementally increased to 36 and then 54 a few years before WHS was introduced.

Just so you know - I have been playing golf since 1977........

 

[clubchamp98]

Maybe if you need a 54 handicap golf is not the sport that suits your skillset!

I was being very careful not to upset anyone.
You never know

 

[Captain_Black.]

If some people were a bit more honest there wouldn't be a need for any h/c limit.
But unfortunately most clubs have a few people who think it's great to manufacturer an artificially high handicap for themselves to give them an edge in the major comps.

I've heard the comments from players about protecting a high h/c & I've witnessed players throwing the last 3 holes in a minor qualifier to avoid a cut.
Sad, but true.

That is why a realistic h/c limit for Board comps should remain, I have even asked for ours to be reduced to no avail atm.

 

[clubchamp98]

If some people were a bit more honest there wouldn't be a need for any h/c limit.
But unfortunately most clubs have a few people who think it's great to manufacturer an artificially high handicap for themselves to give them an edge in the major comps.

I've heard the comments from players about protecting a high h/c & I've witnessed players throwing the last 3 holes in a minor qualifier to avoid a cut.
Sad, but true.

That is why a realistic h/c limit for Board comps should remain, I have even asked for ours to be reduced to no avail atm.

Totally agree.
It’s why I think WHS is flawed.
Cheats can go out and put as many cards as they like to bump up their index just before a major comp.
It’s positively encouraged under WHS.
But no system can stop cheating but WHS just makes it easy if your that way inclined.

 

[Backsticks]

If some people were a bit more honest there wouldn't be a need for any h/c limit.
But unfortunately most clubs have a few people who think it's great to manufacturer an artificially high handicap for themselves to give them an edge in the major comps.

I've heard the comments from players about protecting a high h/c & I've witnessed players throwing the last 3 holes in a minor qualifier to avoid a cut.
Sad, but true.

That is why a realistic h/c limit for Board comps should remain, I have even asked for ours to be reduced to no avail atm.

What is the evidence that high handicappers are more dishonest than low hcs ?

 

[clubchamp98]

Football is so stuffy.

I want to play at the World Cup but I am excluded because of a lack of capability.

Its not fair, I'm telling my mum!

Rather silly when you put it like that.

England are going to need a few shots to win the World Cup.

 

[Backache]

What is the evidence that high handicappers are more dishonest than low hcs ?

wheras I don't think there is any reason to suspect that those who start with higher handicaps are likely to be less honest than those with low. Logic would suggest that if you are being dishonest to achieve an advantage you are going to end up with a higher handicap.

 

[Backsticks]

Totally agree.
It’s why I think WHS is flawed.
Cheats can go out and put as many cards as they like to bump up their index just before a major comp.
It’s positively encouraged under WHS.
But no system can stop cheating but WHS just makes it easy if your that way inclined.

Surely that can't be the case?

If the reports are correct, it takes more than 45 to feature up the leaderboard, 50+, to win. Week in, week out.

So that isnt few bad eggs, manipulating their handicaps for a few rounds for a few shots before board competitions.

Thats a significant portion of the membership, manipulating their handicaps, by 10 shots above what it should be, and maintaining that week in week out, despite soft caps, hard caps, differentials of 14 shots, shooting net 60, peer review, the attention of their handicap committee, and exceptional reductions.

Either that. Or the reports are tilted towards exaggeration. Hmmm. Not sure which is the more likely case.

 

[clubchamp98]

Surely that can't be the case?

If the reports are correct, it takes more than 45 to feature up the leaderboard, 50+, to win. Week in, week out.

So that isnt few bad eggs, manipulating their handicaps for a few rounds for a few shots before board competitions.

Thats a significant portion of the membership, manipulating their handicaps, by 10 shots above what it should be, and maintaining that week in week out, despite soft caps, hard caps, differentials of 14 shots, shooting net 60, peer review, the attention of their handicap committee, and exceptional reductions.

Either that. Or the reports are tilted towards exaggeration. Hmmm. Not sure which is the more likely case.

Or others just have their head in the sand.
They won’t admit cheating and hcap manipulation is going on. Hmmm.
Winning scores have gone up by 3/4 shots then factor in someone’s day in the sun and you have a recipe for disaster.