Submitting 2 cards from one round

[doublebogey7]

Shouldn’t BB pairs score a lot better than singles? Is 50 pts for pairs BB obscene or close to normal?

As always this would depend on the CR of the course being played and the conditions on the day. At my course, a CR of 1 over par 50 points would be excessive and if the competition had been qualifying then at least one of the pair would be looking at a big cut. Around 40 points would be the score to aim for as nominal par with anything below 45 being possible without a cut for either player if they have "dovetailed".

If 4-balls play were acceptable for handicapping then there would be no need for this debate or for moaning about bandits in opens as they would be getting the cuts their good play warranted.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

This not a 100% serious suggestion…however.

The handicap system accommodates handicap index cuts that will be applied in accordance with ££s of winnings in (such as) 4BBB competitions. In my Saturday rollup individual Stableford if I finish in the frame (usually 3 players)…I get a rollup cut of 0.1 for every £ won. Some months ago I came 2nd and won £8…I was given a cut of 0.8 to my WHS HI. Cuts are cumulative against my current HI. Aim is to mitigate against regular winners.

Applying to larger field it could be say a 0.1 cut for every £10 won, or £15. Maybe it would be a condition of the competition set by comp organisers according to their likely prize/winnings fund.

Just a thought.

 

[Colin L]

This not a 100% serious suggestion…however.

The handicap system accommodates handicap index cuts that will be applied in accordance with ££s of winnings in (such as) 4BBB competitions. In my Saturday rollup individual Stableford if I finish in the frame (usually 3 players)…I get a rollup cut of 0.1 for every £ won. Some months ago I came 2nd and won £8…I was given a cut of 0.8 to my WHS HI. Cuts are cumulative against my current HI. Aim is to mitigate against regular winners.

Applying to larger field it could be say a 0.1 cut for every £10 won, or £15. Maybe it would be a condition of the competition set by comp organisers according to their likely prize/winnings fund.

Just a thought.

Brilliant. If it came down to winnings, I'd be playing off 54.0. But on that handicap I'd be a winner. There is something circular about your idea.

 

[Swango1980]

This not a 100% serious suggestion…however.

The handicap system accommodates handicap index cuts that will be applied in accordance with ££s of winnings in (such as) 4BBB competitions. In my Saturday rollup individual Stableford if I finish in the frame (usually 3 players)…I get a rollup cut of 0.1 for every £ won. Some months ago I came 2nd and won £8…I was given a cut of 0.8 to my WHS HI. Cuts are cumulative against my current HI. Aim is to mitigate against regular winners.

Applying to larger field it could be say a 0.1 cut for every £10 won, or £15. Maybe it would be a condition of the competition set by comp organisers according to their likely prize/winnings fund.

Just a thought.

And here was me thinking amateur golf was not to be played for £££

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Brilliant. If it came down to winnings, I'd be playing off 54.0. But on that handicap I'd be a winner. There is something circular about your idea.

Not if you kept on being cut whenever you won…?

 

[IanM]

Ever played a 4ball better ball where one player has a bad day, but comes in on a few holes with big points?

If they win, who gets cut?

Of course, the berks want everyone to hole out every hole.

But we have that already, it's called medal play.

Handing out a cut for players winning or placing in four ball comps might be an option.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

And here was me thinking amateur golf was not to be played for £££

Well, at my place the ‘winnings‘ in our rollups are notional…more a little ‘well done’ than anything else…after all even when you come 1st the winnings usually don’t cover the cost of buying the drinks for your four player group.

Clearly I’m not thinking of all 4BBB comps. More the club opens and such like where winnings can be significant. But as noted, I’m only musing on it and using our little rollup as a model for what ‘might be’ as a way of combatting handicap manipulators sweeping up across multiple 4BBB competitions.

 

[Swango1980]

Well, at my place the ‘winnings‘ in our rollups are notional…more a little ‘well done’ than anything else…after all even when you come 1st the winnings usually don’t cover the cost of buying the drinks for your four player group.

Clearly I’m not thinking of all 4BBB comps. More the club opens and such like where winnings can be significant. But as noted, I’m only musing on it and using our little rollup as a model for what ‘might be’ as a way of combatting handicap manipulators sweeping up across multiple 4BBB competitions.

So, if there are no cash winnings, a player could score 45 points and get their handicap adjusted as per normal. But, if there are big winnings, they could win with 36 points and get a bigger cut?

Not sure that would work. Also, practically, not sure how that would be dealt with in the WHS system, where Index is average of best 8 scores. Pre-WHS you could do what you like (even if it was deemed silly), but you'd have to make adjustments to all scores (like ESR) to get the extra cut you would desire (ok, so that would be a way of dealing with it, but it seems very very wrong)

 

[wjemather]

Ever played a 4ball better ball where one player has a bad day, but comes in on a few holes with big points?
If they win, who gets cut?

Of course, the berks want everyone to hole out every hole.
But we have that already, it's called medal play.

Handing out a cut for players winning or placing in four ball comps might be an option.

Handicapping is based on scores not results (your opening statement touches on why), so no, that isn't an option.

And, as you should know by now, holing out every hole isn't necessary in order for four-ball scores to be accepted.

 

[IanM]

Handicapping is based on scores not results (your opening statement touches on why), so no, that isn't an option.

And, as you should know by now, holing out every hole isn't necessary in order for four-ball scores to be accepted.

Your first point us a good one, the second being factually correct doesn't stop it being daft. But that's not your fault.

We're trying to weed out the bandits, so an automatic cut for winning opens would go along way!

 

[wjemather]

Your first point us a good one, the second being factually correct doesn't stop it being daft. But that's not your fault.

We're trying to weed out the bandits, so an automatic cut for winning opens would go along way!

And yet you reject out of hand the WHS option that would go some way to fairly addressing concerns about "exceptional" scores occasionally winning opens.

 

[Colin L]

Not if you kept on being cut whenever you won…?

Wake up at the back! I did say the idea was circular. That's the return side of the circle.

 

[IanM]

And yet you reject out of hand the WHS option that would go some way to fairly addressing concerns about "exceptional" scores occasionally winning opens.

Are you referring to me laughing at the notion of making scores up in order to satisfy the WHS on every game zealots?

You yourself said "handicapping " is based on scores. Apparently that includes one you "most likely" may have possibly, hypothetically got!

Yep, you might be right.

 

[doublebogey7]

Your first point us a good one, the second being factually correct doesn't stop it being daft. But that's not your fault.

We're trying to weed out the bandits, so an automatic cut for winning opens would go along way!

You reject the very notion of the most likely score but are promoting cutting someone for having played with a partner(s) who happened to shoot their lights out, interesting.

 

[IanM]

You reject the very notion of the most likely score but are promoting cutting someone for having played with a partner(s) who happened to shoot their lights out, interesting.

One is purely made up and has no place in golf .... the other shows you didn't understand my point

 

[wjemather]

One is purely made up and has no place in golf ....

Like Stableford scoring, nett-double-bogey adjustments, etc. Sure.

 

[doublebogey7]

One is purely made up and has no place in golf .... the other shows you didn't understand my point

If you believe the handicap system is an exact science you could have a point but it is not and is not intended to be. MLS is not made up, but an approximation, no different to handicaps. All scores counting approximate or otherwise is a better basis for an accurate handicap than scores taken from just 20% of all competition rounds (my EGU record this year) in my view.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

So, if there are no cash winnings, a player could score 45 points and get their handicap adjusted as per normal. But, if there are big winnings, they could win with 36 points and get a bigger cut?

Not sure that would work. Also, practically, not sure how that would be dealt with in the WHS system, where Index is average of best 8 scores. Pre-WHS you could do what you like (even if it was deemed silly), but you'd have to make adjustments to all scores (like ESR) to get the extra cut you would desire (ok, so that would be a way of dealing with it, but it seems very very wrong)

Depends what folks are worried about. Are folks worried about the same perhaps dodgy pair sweepig up winnings across multiple comps without their handicaps getting adjusted? Or are they more concerned about such pairs winning full stop. If it is the case that any 4BBB competition of any status or significance will have a reasonable monetary winning then having a condition of entry being a HI adjustment - that could be linked to winnings and winning score - could be an option. I’m not saying I think this sort of thing should be considered, or indeed that like the idea, and I am not bothered as I don’t play in enough 4BBB comps for it to matter to me. Just musing on the subject matter.

btw…it works for my clubs Saturday rollup on an individual basis as winners with big scores don’t tend to repeat win with similar high scores.

 

[Swango1980]

Depends what folks are worried about. Are folks worried about the same perhaps dodgy pair sweepig up winnings across multiple comps without their handicaps getting adjusted? Or are they more concerned about such pairs winning full stop. If it is the case that any 4BBB competition of any status or significance will have a reasonable monetary winning then having a condition of entry being a HI adjustment - that could be linked to winnings and winning score - could be an option. I’m not saying I think this sort of thing should be considered, or indeed that like the idea, and I am not bothered as I don’t play in enough 4BBB comps for it to matter to me. Just musing on the subject matter.

btw…it works for my clubs Saturday rollup on an individual basis as winners with big scores don’t tend to repeat win with similar high scores.

That is all very well and good amongst an individual group of people, as they are all playing under the same conditions, and playing for the same prizes.

Not so good if you then have golfers competing together from different groups. Imagine a golfer playing at a club, or in opens, who gets various adjustments due to playing for high prize money. Then put them up against another golfer who doesn't ever play for any prize money, and thus not the same adjustments. Are their handicaps comparable, given that one has had "prize money" adjustments made to it?

 

[IanM]

Like Stableford scoring, nett-double-bogey adjustments, etc. Sure.

Do you actually play golf or just troll on here to argue about rules?

Stableford score is factually based on how many shots I take. Even my dog understands that.

Ignore list now invoked. Byeee