Interclub team formats & handicap brackets

ShriekingSheet

It's a good change.

If you're fielding a couple of 4 handicaps in Senior Cup and Barton Shield, you have no chance.

That said, at the other extreme end, clubs with very, very good players always seem to be missing some of them at one stage or another during these events due to playing abroad etc. Or if they do play, I've heard a few cases of top guys just showing up on the day without a practice round, due to other schedule commitments. And you'd have to question how genuinely interested some of them are if their other events are major am championships.

You hear a lot of people saying if you don't have 5 plus handicaps forget about it, but I'm not so sure. 5 guys with a combined handicap of 5 who are motivated and focused on the event and put prep into the course can be very competitive I think. Which is a great thing for working men, as opposed to full time amateurs.

ShriekingSheet

mighty magpie wrote: »

Guys, how do the pairs for jimmy bruen usually get matched up?

Would most pairs have a low man and a high man e.g. 6 & 11, 7 & 10? and the minority have two guys at the same level 8&9, 9&9 etc?

Would pairs with a combined h/c of 20 and over be very rare?

There's no hard and fast rule, but clubs often try and get their best (6 handicap) players on the team sheet, and then match them with decent 11s that can keep the ball in play.

However, every club has a different set of players to work with, so if you had very few 6/7s and loads of 9s then you need to do what suits your club, rather than trying to fit a common formula for the sake of it.

Combined 20 is not outrageous, but they'd want to be very good for their handicap, juniors coming down or similar. And you wouldn't be competitive with more than one or two pairs off 19+. You'd get away with a 20 and a 19 pair, provided the other 3 were good 17s.

Russman

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

If you're fielding a couple of 4 handicaps in Senior Cup and Barton Shield, you have no chance.

You probably don't have a chance of winning it outright, that's fair enough. But with a little bit of luck, you can certainly get through a round or two. A good 4 or 5 playing well will usually give most scratch guys a decent game.
IMO if a club only has, say 3 or 4 handicappers as their lowest, I don't think they should be excluded. The club might well choose not to enter, but if they do, let the "good" teams go out and beat them and take their chances.

Ronney

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

There's no hard and fast rule, but clubs often try and get their best (6 handicap) players on the team sheet, and then match them with decent 11s that can keep the ball in play.

However, every club has a different set of players to work with, so if you had very few 6/7s and loads of 9s then you need to do what suits your club, rather than trying to fit a common formula for the sake of it.

Combined 20 is not outrageous, but they'd want to be very good for their handicap, juniors coming down or similar. And you wouldn't be competitive with more than one or two pairs off 19+. You'd get away with a 20 and a 19 pair, provided the other 3 were good 17s.

As mentioned above your likely to see a higher combined pair where one is having a good year and has shot down the handicaps. Common enough to see a junior go from say 12 to 5/6 after their Junior cert as they have free time in Transition year and are at the growth spurt age too.

jtown

Waiting patiently for ADM results of voting for handicap changes :D:D

mighty magpie

https://www.golfnet.ie/news/gui/2790/clubs-vote-for-big-changes

slingerz

mighty magpie wrote: »

Guys, how do the pairs for jimmy bruen usually get matched up?

Would most pairs have a low man and a high man e.g. 6 & 11, 7 & 10? and the minority have two guys at the same level 8&9, 9&9 etc?

Would pairs with a combined h/c of 20 and over be very rare?

Apparently its dropping to combined 15 so going forward combined h/c of 20 will be rare

will depend on the club, bigger clubs will have more choice,. Smaller clubs could be a combo of anything really

fred funk }{

mighty magpie wrote: »

https://www.golfnet.ie/news/gui/2790/clubs-vote-for-big-changes

Great stuff. All passed - Junior cup for me next year (if I get picked )

paulos53

Interesting that all 4 provinces were in favour of changing the Purcell handicap limits but it was 2 for and 2 against changing the Bruen Handicaps.
11 handicappers would have had a busy inter-club season if only 1 motion had passed.

Also Leinster were the only province in favour of changing the Purcell to Scotch Foursomes

Golfgraffix

paulos53 wrote: »

Interesting that all 4 provinces were in favour of changing the Purcell handicap limits but it was 2 for and 2 against changing the Bruen Handicaps.
11 handicappers would have had a busy inter-club season if only 1 motion had passed.

Also Leinster were the only province in favour of changing the Purcell to Scotch Foursomes

Fair bit of voting power in Leinster, completely swung the PP format vote alright. I was at the ADM last Monday and there was very little discussion around most of these. I am glad the change for returned cards of 3 to 10 was not carried

Full results here https://www.golfnet.ie/News%20Listing%20Assets/Results%20of%20Motions.pdf

Russman

Golfgraffix wrote: »

I am glad the change for returned cards of 3 to 10 was not carried

Have to say I was disappointed that didn't pass.

The Rape of Lucretia

Russman wrote: »

Have to say I was disappointed that didn't pass.

More than disappointed for me. Utterly disgusted.

With handicapped team golf rotten to the core with dodgy handicaps, this was a super proposal. No, it wasnt a cure all for the determined handicap fixer. But it would have been a serious step in the right direction. How can it possibly be defended that a player for GUI national competitions should not have to have a perfectly reasonably 10 cards in a year giving credibility to some reasonable maintenance of an accurate handicap ?
The delegates should hang their heads in shame. The unspoken subtext goes "ah, but we couldnt have 10 cards. We struggle enough to get Joe Bloggs to get 4 cards in, and we need him in the team, he is always reliable to get a win"
Utterly indefensible decision, and even having faced it and voted it down confirms the hypocrisy and crookedness.

My contempt for anyone playing team golf, the captains of them, and the clubs endorsing the nonsense, has been ratcheted up big time this week.

Any respect for your self as a personal of any morality whatsoever ? Dont touch GUI interclub golf with a bargepole then.

FixdePitchmark

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

More than disappointed for me. Utterly disgusted.

With handicapped team golf rotten to the core with dodgy handicaps, this was a super proposal. No, it wasnt a cure all for the determined handicap fixer. But it would have been a serious step in the right direction. How can it possibly be defended that a player for GUI national competitions should not have to have a perfectly reasonably 10 cards in a year giving credibility to some reasonable maintenance of an accurate handicap ?
The delegates should hang their heads in shame. The unspoken subtext goes "ah, but we couldnt have 10 cards. We struggle enough to get Joe Bloggs to get 4 cards in, and we need him in the team, he is always reliable to get a win"
Utterly indefensible decision, and even having faced it and voted it down confirms the hypocrisy and crookedness.

My contempt for anyone playing team golf, the captains of them, and the clubs endorsing the nonsense, has been ratcheted up big time this week.

Any respect for your self as a personal of any morality whatsoever ? Dont touch GUI interclub golf with a bargepole then.

Would you say every single event ?

Some are played to scratch anyway.

The Rape of Lucretia

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Would you say every single event ?

Some are played to scratch anyway.

Agree fully. No problem with the scratch ones.




(as stated in my first mention, but I was lazy to repeat the precision throughout my post :

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

With handicapped team golf

)

Russman

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

More than disappointed for me. Utterly disgusted.

How can it possibly be defended that a player for GUI national competitions should not have to have a perfectly reasonably 10 cards in a year giving credibility to some reasonable maintenance of an accurate handicap ?
The delegates should hang their heads in shame. The unspoken subtext goes "ah, but we couldnt have 10 cards. We struggle enough to get Joe Bloggs to get 4 cards in, and we need him in the team, he is always reliable to get a win"
Utterly indefensible decision, and even having faced it and voted it down confirms the hypocrisy and crookedness.

Couldn't agree more. It's not like 10 cards is particularly onerous.

ShriekingSheet

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

More than disappointed for me. Utterly disgusted.

With handicapped team golf rotten to the core with dodgy handicaps, this was a super proposal. No, it wasnt a cure all for the determined handicap fixer. But it would have been a serious step in the right direction. How can it possibly be defended that a player for GUI national competitions should not have to have a perfectly reasonably 10 cards in a year giving credibility to some reasonable maintenance of an accurate handicap ?
The delegates should hang their heads in shame. The unspoken subtext goes "ah, but we couldnt have 10 cards. We struggle enough to get Joe Bloggs to get 4 cards in, and we need him in the team, he is always reliable to get a win"
Utterly indefensible decision, and even having faced it and voted it down confirms the hypocrisy and crookedness.

My contempt for anyone playing team golf, the captains of them, and the clubs endorsing the nonsense, has been ratcheted up big time this week.

Any respect for your self as a personal of any morality whatsoever ? Dont touch GUI interclub golf with a bargepole then.

Jesus. This is very OTT.

I agree with the 10 cards proposal from a competitive perspective. However, can you not see the logic that in a game struggling with participation rates, it its not smart to put further restrictions on participation?

Participation and handicap cheating are two absolutely separate issues. But taking action on one would definitely affect the other here, so it’s one discussion.

I play a lot, as you do I assume, so we have no issue. But if you take the majority of players with membership at a parkland course, with winter rules for 6 months of the year, 4 singles qualifying cards isn’t an absolute given for everyone.

Even someone who plays almost weekly, if some of those rounds are society golf, fourball/scramble stuff, match play - or, as we’re talking about here - team golf that involves some practice rounds etc, it is very possible to play plenty of golf, without playing much in the way of singles qualifiers.

Handicap cheating is an awful part of the game. But clearly falling participation is golfs biggest challenge at the moment. You can’t do anything to make that situation worse.

Plus, if you ask me, asking cheaters for 6 more cards will only get you 6 more dodgy cards from cheaters. The people that will actually affected are working/family men who play often but not a huge amount. Those guys just not being able to play team golf anymore could easily be the only impact of this rule.

I don’t have a perfect alternative solution. As a bar stool suggestion, something could be taken from horse racing handicap management (though it has its own cheating anyway). They have a couple of lads at the track who (apparently) know what to look for. If they spot, review and agree that someone is playing the system, they change his handicap / penalise the trainer. It’d be like sending you down to a Pierce Purcell venue and when you see the kind of guys we all see taking the piss, you have the authority to take action.

It could be argued that we already have this in place, with GUI staff on site at all times, but that’s a whole other story.

fred funk }{

3 qualifying rounds isn't enough to legitimise a handicap, 10 rounds would be a fair reflection.

I thought it was a good proposal and thought it would have passed.

FixdePitchmark

fred funk }{ wrote: »

3 qualifying rounds isn't enough to legitimise a handicap, 10 rounds would be a fair reflection.

I thought it was a good proposal and thought it would have passed.

how about (10 + 3)/2

It seems it was too large a jump.

6.5 - rounded down to 5.

Maybe 5 was a more sensible motion.

fred funk }{

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

how about (10 + 3)/2

It seems it was too large a jump.

6.5 - rounded down to 5.

Maybe 5 was a more sensible motion.

I dunno. I really don't think it's too much to ask that you play 10 qualifiers over the course of the year (6 odd months).

The Rape of Lucretia

Given that there probably isnt qualifying golf or likely to be cards endered during the winter period for someone only putting in 4 cards, the 4 cards means, that at the start of the interclub season, a player is likely only to have put in 4 cards in the previous year and a half.

And for me, the spirit of these competitions is that they should be for active/frequent golfers who have a credible record of performance endorsing their handicap's accuracy. And are not just bandits who can scoop and open or classic.

The signal being sent by the delegates, that they turned down a motion put to them for 10 cards, and are happy with four rounds, is nothing short of outrageous. An endorsement from the highest level, that handicap accuracy, in GUI handicapped interclub teams, is optional.

FixdePitchmark

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Given that there probably isnt qualifying golf or likely to be cards endered during the winter period for someone only putting in 4 cards, the 4 cards means, that at the start of the interclub season, a player is likely only to have put in 4 cards in the previous year and a half.

And for me, the spirit of these competitions is that they should be for active/frequent golfers who have a credible record of performance endorsing their handicap's accuracy. And are not just bandits who can scoop and open or classic.

The signal being sent by the delegates, that they turned down a motion put to them for 10 cards, and are happy with four rounds, is nothing short of outrageous. An endorsement from the highest level, that handicap accuracy, in GUI handicapped interclub teams, is optional.

TROL

I think you are being a bit harsh - and I would tend to agree with you on the interclulb stuff.

You don't know the moivation of the people who voted against it.

If I'd say only 1/2 the club play golf for 3/4 months a year.

10 is a good amount.

Your sort of are saying interclub is only for a very select group. That genuinely is isolating to guys who have kids - work at weekends - only play in summer.

I get the 10 thing - but thinking about it , it is high.

In summer , I'd play about 7/8 tops . And I play as much golf as anyone. Just work , kids stuff , holidays, social stuff , away for the weekend , weather.

fred funk }{

Fix, how many would you play from April to September which would probably cover the playing season for most?

The Rape of Lucretia

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

TROL

I think you are being a bit harsh - and I would tend to agree with you on the interclulb stuff.

Yes, possibly.
In fairness, in amateur associations like ours it is usually ignorance rather than anything malicious or devious, behind bad decision. And in additional mitigation, the handicap system is obscure to 99.5% of those with one. Their knowledge of statistics and the probability of 4 cards reflecting a playing level correctly, and, their understanding of what is a correct handicap, is probably negligible.
Likely, there were a handful of informed people behind putting forward the motion.
Galling that the farce is endorsed by the body tasked with running it nonetheless.

Golfgraffix

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

The signal being sent by the delegates, that they turned down a motion put to them for 10 cards, and are happy with four rounds, is nothing short of outrageous. An endorsement from the highest level, that handicap accuracy, in GUI handicapped interclub teams, is optional.

You do know that these delegates are your committee representatives at the ADM and not some cohort of myopic old cogers trying to allow the preservation of cheating.

I have played interclub for the 12 years, only ever missed one year. This year due to work commitments I won't get to 10 cards. I am an honest golfer should I not be allowed play for my club next year?

The 10 cards is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, if they had of went for 5 it might have passed.

J

Russman

I’m sorry, I just don’t buy that 10 counting rounds is in any way hard for someone, who is interested in playing inter club golf, to accumulate.
Surely someone who wants to represent their club should at least assumed to be playing golf regularly, no ?
I get that’s it the previous year that matters, and someone may have been abroad or something, but how many of those are there ?

Edit: That’s not meant at you Golfgraffix, we posted at the same time, it’s more a general point.

The Rape of Lucretia

Golfgraffix wrote: »

You do know that these delegates are your committee representatives at the ADM and not some cohort of myopic old cogers trying to allow the preservation of cheating.

Yes. But possibly they are one and the same ? As I concede, its probably ignorance rather than a conscious decision to approve of cheating.

Golfgraffix wrote: »

This year due to work commitments I won't get to 10 cards. I am an honest golfer should I not be allowed play for my club next year?

I dont think you should be, no. Being an honest golfer doesnt come into the equation - we cannot read the motivations of players. Only their scores. Given that team golf can involve multiple rounds, and likely practice ones on top of the actual competition ones, if someone cannot play 10 cards through a season, then they certainly have little time for team golf.

ShriekingSheet

Russman wrote: »

I’m sorry, I just don’t buy that 10 counting rounds is in any way hard for someone, who is interested in playing inter club golf, to accumulate.

I won't cast any aspersions on your stage in life, but I would have agreed with you up until recent years. Only in the last while I appreciate how guys with a very busy job, young family, a wedding or stag every bloody 6 weeks etc etc can actually go through a season with a remarkably low number of proper rounds. Keen golfers will always find 9 holes at dusk in the summer, a corporate/charity outing or whatever, but routine Saturday morning singles stableford or medals just isn't a reality for many people.

And then there's this, which you need to look at the other way around...

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

if someone cannot play 10 cards through a season, then they certainly have little time for team golf.

Any decent Bruen, Purcell, Barton type team will be putting in plenty of foursomes practice at their own course, and also outings to the host course to prepare, and then obviously the matches themselves. The 9, 6 or 12 handicap players could easily be part of two squads, when you factor in Junior, Metro Cup etc. If even just one of the teams goes through a few rounds, it's a significant time commitment for the players.

Explain to me how a regular working/family guy who's a keen golfer with 1.5 rounds per week of time to play with should be able to take part in that, while also playing a load of singles rounds?

Your suggestion is that those who don't have the time to do so should be excluded from team golf. As if the governing body and voting clubs should elect to reduce down the number of players getting involved.

Team golf is one of the very few good reasons you can give to someone who asks 'why should I join a club, when it'd be cheaper and more interesting to just pay green fees at various courses throughout the year?'.

Golf has plenty of 50+ and retired guys, and does ok recruiting teenagers. There's a gaping chasm in participation among twenty-somethings up to fourty-somethings. Money is a factor, but time is at least as big a problem. We need this demographic. You can't (essentially) say to them, if you're not playing 10 qualifying singles your handicap is dodgy.

Russman

ShriekingSheet wrote: »

I won't cast any aspersions on your stage in life, but I would have agreed with you up until recent years. Only in the last while I appreciate how guys with a very busy job, young family, a wedding or stag every bloody 6 weeks etc etc can actually go through a season with a remarkably low number of proper rounds. Keen golfers will always find 9 holes at dusk in the summer, a corporate/charity outing or whatever, but routine Saturday morning singles stableford or medals just isn't a reality for many people.

And then there's this, which you need to look at the other way around...



Any decent Bruen, Purcell, Barton type team will be putting in plenty of foursomes practice at their own course, and also outings to the host course to prepare, and then obviously the matches themselves. The 9, 6 or 12 handicap players could easily be part of two squads, when you factor in Junior, Metro Cup etc. If even just one of the teams goes through a few rounds, it's a significant time commitment for the players.

Explain to me how a regular working/family guy who's a keen golfer with 1.5 rounds per week of time to play with should be able to take part in that, while also playing a load of singles rounds?

Your suggestion is that those who don't have the time to do so should be excluded from team golf. As if the governing body and voting clubs should elect to reduce down the number of players getting involved.

Team golf is one of the very few good reasons you can give to someone who asks 'why should I join a club, when it'd be cheaper and more interesting to just pay green fees at various courses throughout the year?'.

Golf has plenty of 50+ and retired guys, and does ok recruiting teenagers. There's a gaping chasm in participation among twenty-somethings up to fourty-somethings. Money is a factor, but time is at least as big a problem. We need this demographic. You can't (essentially) say to them, if you're not playing 10 qualifying singles your handicap is dodgy.

I can see your point, and I don't completely disagree, life & the bigger picture obviously get in the way, after all, its only golf, but I think if someone decides in March that they want to play interclub golf next year, he/she really should be able to find 10 singles competitions to enter over the course of the season to ensure eligibility.

I'd possibly argue that interclub matches played the previous year should count as a counting rounds in terms of eligibility, obviously not towards handicapping of course.

I wouldn't class someone's handicap as "dodgy" if they have less than 10 played, but IMO there should be some minimum level set, and I think 4 is a little low. As someone mentioned earlier maybe it might have passed if they'd gone for less than 10, even 8 sounds better !

eoghan104

Isn't the amount of scores needed 4 and not 3 as mentioned above? I definitely agree with Russman that this should be increased but think 10 is too many. 6/7 something like that is better IMO.

I love all the other changes, PP moving to Scotch especially. They should have done the same with Jimmy Bruen. The qualifying is just so slow because of big scores being racked up. Most of those caused by errant tee shots.

slingerz

eoghan104 wrote: »

Isn't the amount of scores needed 4 and not 3 as mentioned above? I definitely agree with Russman that this should be increased but think 10 is too many. 6/7 something like that is better IMO.

I love all the other changes, PP moving to Scotch especially. They should have done the same with Jimmy Bruen. The qualifying is just so slow because of big scores being racked up. Most of those caused by errant tee shots.

yea i have to agree, cant see why Bruen would be treated different to Purcell tbh