The Irish Trial

twrmgoat said:
Thank goodness for that.

We have large entries for some competitions with lots of higher handicappers. Being able to vary the allowance appropriately will enable fairer competition.

Like CR-Par, this area always seemed like EG trying to keep things simple at the expense of the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

So what is it you will do that makes it fairer ?
 
Arthur Wedge said:
So what is it you will do that makes it fairer ?
Click to expand...
Reduce the allowance where there are large number of entrants. Will still be divisions, but hopefully lead to a more even distribution of overall winners between handicaps.
Will need some thought though - e.g. what we do for multi round competitions.
 
rulie said:
Just what we need, a bunch of "amateur" statisticians and data analysts writing about their results! Leave the data collection, sorting and analysis to the experts.
Click to expand...
Just what we need more “ experts”

It’s easy to find one on both sides.
But can you say you’re an expert if you won’t share your data and prove it.
But make clubs do what you say ?
 
My new allowances for 2026 in singles matchplay and better-ball matchplay,

Giving shots:
Singles - 100% of difference if you are older than me, 85% if you are younger.
Better-ball - 90% of difference if older, 80% if younger.

(I am a committee of one for social golf only. "Calling the shots")

🤪🤪🤪

Receiving shots: Take what I am given.
 
Voyager EMH said:
My new allowances for 2026 in singles matchplay and better-ball matchplay,

Giving shots:
Singles - 100% of difference if you are older than me, 85% if you are younger.
Better-ball - 90% of difference if older, 80% if younger.

(I am a committee of one for social golf only. "Calling the shots")

🤪🤪🤪😴

Receiving shots: Take what I am given.
Click to expand...
Does loft of clubs also need to be taken into consideration? 😏
 
D-S said:
Couldn’t agree more.

This is very much the view I have got from administrators at County and Club level. It was certainly the reaction in a room full those involved when it was said last week. It has also been the feedback given to those in Handicapping management at EG.

However it appears to be what is going to happen.
Click to expand...
Arthur Wedge said:
People will always moan - they did when it was Congu etc

Allowances were dictated back then (apart from scrambles )

If EG etc are confident in those allowances then stick to them- don’t give the clubs the ability to adjust
Click to expand...
I agree as well.

From conversations I have had it appears EG will react to the IG trial by allowing clubs flexibility. Not because it is justified but mainly because they want to be seen to being reactive to criticism. The thinking appears to be that clubs won't change the percentages (as happened in the IG trial) but the home unions will be seen to be flexible. Not a good reason for change IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: D-S
Backache said:
What we have is a self electing organisation to which we all contribute not actually giving us any indication of what the data is, whether or not it is accurate,or even a statement of what the intended outcome is. There are millions of examples of self serving organaisations not allowing any external scrutiny and making an absolute horlicks of their function. We have absolutely no idea whether the experts are competent or not they don't provide any data at all. This is not a usually a sign of a well functioning organisation.
Click to expand...
I think this is a bit of a stretch to be honest. Like most national sports governing bodies EG has elected members who are voted on for a period by the county organisations. Whilst the handicap system is a key part of our sport it is relatively minor technical aspect of the overall governance. Many people at all levels of the organisation are not paid to do this work so calling them "self serving" is unjustified I believe.

Like many I question why the R&A and USGA are not more open but having (rightly) signed up to be part of the WHS framework the country organisations are trying to make the best of it for their geographies. Do they always get it right? No - EG not implementing CR-Par from day I is an example - but I don't think they can be accused of making a "absolute horlicks" of their function which is to grow the sport and make it accessible to all.

We can all criticise different aspect of our sport. From the state of the bunkers at our club to the overall strategy to grow the game WW, but we need to keep a sense of perspective here.
 
What's the fuss about? The flexibility affects only the competitions of individual clubs. When I play a four ball at my club it doesn't matter a jot what the allowances are at the club down the road. If I play in a competition at the club down the road, I have to accept its T of Cs whatever they are and the handicap allowances will be the same for every competitor. The application of handicaps to a game has no bearing on the handicapping calculations made on the score outcome.
 
Colin L said:
What's the fuss about? The flexibility affects only the competitions of individual clubs. When I play a four ball at my club it doesn't matter a jot what the allowances are at the club down the road. If I play in a competition at the club down the road, I have to accept its T of Cs whatever they are and the handicap allowances will be the same for every competitor. The application of handicaps to a game has no bearing on the handicapping calculations made on the score outcome.
Click to expand...
Well it does make a bit of difference if my club's mens section decides to choose 75% for 4BB for example and someone with an HI of 20 gets 17 shots but in the Seniors 4BB they have chosen 90% and he now gets 21 shots - this will have a material effect on whether folk will decide to enter comps or not.
You are right that "the handicap allowances will be the same for every competitor." but it is likely to have a significant effect on who wins.
 
Colin L said:
What's the fuss about? The flexibility affects only the competitions of individual clubs. When I play a four ball at my club it doesn't matter a jot what the allowances are at the club down the road. If I play in a competition at the club down the road, I have to accept its T of Cs whatever they are and the handicap allowances will be the same for every competitor. The application of handicaps to a game has no bearing on the handicapping calculations made on the score outcome.
Click to expand...
The fuss is that a 4BBB Open that I played in this year with an 85% allowance may next year be 75%. Whilst I don't expect to win these opens I do hope for a fair chance. Keeping a consistent allowance makes sense to me, making it more random does not.
 
mikejohnchapman said:
I think this is a bit of a stretch to be honest. Like most national sports governing bodies EG has elected members who are voted on for a period by the county organisations. Whilst the handicap system is a key part of our sport it is relatively minor technical aspect of the overall governance. Many people at all levels of the organisation are not paid to do this work so calling them "self serving" is unjustified I believe.

Like many I question why the R&A and USGA are not more open but having (rightly) signed up to be part of the WHS framework the country organisations are trying to make the best of it for their geographies. Do they always get it right? No - EG not implementing CR-Par from day I is an example - but I don't think they can be accused of making a "absolute horlicks" of their function which is to grow the sport and make it accessible to all.

We can all criticise different aspect of our sport. From the state of the bunkers at our club to the overall strategy to grow the game WW, but we need to keep a sense of perspective here.
Click to expand...
To be clear I was not stating that EG were self serving or making an absolute horlicks of the Handicapping system.
I was stating that organisations that don't produce data on their performance and are not held up to external scrutiny tend do develop these characteristics.

The handicapping system may be a minor part of their remit but it plays an important role in the amateur club golfers sport.

They have as far as I can see implemented a new system and produced no data on its effectiveness or otherwise , comissioned a survey with absolutely no detail of its findings . This is precisely the type of secretive behaviour that leads to self serving group think and allows no scrutiny of its effectiveness or any external suggestions as to how things can be improved.
 
Backache said:
To be clear I was not stating that EG were self serving or making an absolute horlicks of the Handicapping system.
I was stating that organisations that don't produce data on their performance and are not held up to external scrutiny tend do develop these characteristics.

The handicapping system may be a minor part of their remit but it plays an important role in the amateur club golfers sport.

They have as far as I can see implemented a new system and produced no data on its effectiveness or otherwise , comissioned a survey with absolutely no detail of its findings . This is precisely the type of secretive behaviour that leads to self serving group think and allows no scrutiny of its effectiveness or any external suggestions as to how things can be improved.
Click to expand...
I understand your frustration and I suspect many others feel the same.

The survey on WHS was conducted by the R&A and I understand they didn't release the detail to EG which was a great pity. They only allowed them to comment on the headline areas at the recent roadshow without going into the detail. I know EG were frustrated about this.

There is a huge amount of data the EG have about rounds played under WHS and you would hope decisions would be made based on fact not just who shouts loudest.

It doesn't help when aspects of the system are kept hidden from the public by the R&A / USGA (such as PCC, calculation of course handicap etc) but there is little EG can do about this other than advocate on our behalf.

WHS will continue to evolve - like you I hope this will be fact based and flexible where appropriate to cover the majority of golfing needs.
 
mikejohnchapman said:
I understand your frustration and I suspect many others feel the same.

The survey on WHS was conducted by the R&A and I understand they didn't release the detail to EG which was a great pity. They only allowed them to comment on the headline areas at the recent roadshow without going into the detail. I know EG were frustrated about this.

There is a huge amount of data the EG have about rounds played under WHS and you would hope decisions would be made based on fact not just who shouts loudest.

It doesn't help when aspects of the system are kept hidden from the public by the R&A / USGA (such as PCC, calculation of course handicap etc) but there is little EG can do about this other than advocate on our behalf.

WHS will continue to evolve - like you I hope this will be fact based and flexible where appropriate to cover the majority of golfing needs.
Click to expand...
One must remember that EG are only one of many golf associations within the R&A, and their opinion doesn't count any more than any one of the others.
 
rulie said:
One must remember that EG are only one of many golf associations within the R&A, and their opinion doesn't count any more than any one of the others.
Click to expand...
Part of this issue with EG proceeding with something that, I believe, is not what they consider a priority and is a bit of a pain, is that they don’t want to break ranks with Golf Ireland. The old CONGU is now Golf GB&I, this, as a combined front, probably has more sway than the single countries lobbying individually.
 
A problem arose in people's minds from the outset of WHS in the UK, because people equated their new Course Handicap to their old handicap.
This concept was a mistake.
The old handicap was used in medals and stablefords - that handicap was replaced with Playing Handicap for individual strokeplay.

Rather than introducing "flexibility" of allowances to appease moaners, it would be better, in my mind, to abandon Course Handicap.

Then you would have your Handicap Index.
The handicap you use on the course is the correct one for the format of play.

This would eradicate misconceptions of "losing a shot" etc.

Double bogey limit for handicapping scores would be according to Playing Handicap for individual strokeplay - much simpler.

At my club, for a very long time, we have had a trophy board comp for 10 - 18 handicappers only. And another one for 19 and over handicappers.
More of these types of comps has always been an option for clubs.
Specific ones for lower handicappers at club level is rare apart from scratch only events. This could change, but it is up to clubs to respond to, and cater for, legitimate demand.
 
Last edited:
I’ve just read the latest NCG golfers comments on GP cards on Facebook and it had links to their articles on this trial.
I noticed there is only reference to changes are for Singles strokeplay and 4BB (with no mention of field size or handicap distribution that I could see).
Surely if clubs consider these to be wrong and they duly change them, are they able to change other allowances e.g. 2 out 3 or 4, Texas Scramble, 4BB matchplay etc.? It would seem to be odd Ifthey couldn’t.
 
I have just been informed that EG have changed their stance again and the mandatory allowances will not change and this position will be reviewed in 2028. It appears that they have taken on feed back given following the reaction to their announcement back in October.
 
D-S said:
I have just been informed that EG have changed their stance again and the mandatory allowances will not change and this position will be reviewed in 2028. It appears that they have taken on feed back given following the reaction to their announcement back in October.
Click to expand...
Did they actually make an announcement? I thought it was just hearsay.

Dreadful decision not to implement this if you are correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top