What scores are winning in your Club these days?

PARlance

Russman wrote: »

Agree with the vast majority of that, I have to say. Its probably not the thread for it, but somehow a tour pro can shoot 63 and follow it with a 77, yet when a 15 handicapper does similar he's a bandit or handicap builder.
Of course there are a few in every club but IMHO they're a tiny minority. Most players are just regular golfers fitting into what the handicap system says they "should" do.

Agree too, and the last thing a bandit is going to do is shoot 50 points in a regular comp.

Would the HC system be better if it had something to address an Exceptional Exceptional Score like that in isolation, possibly. But not as harsh as was suggested above.

I think Kiers post just reinforces my thoughts on the tiering. Of course someone can play once and week and take it or leave it. To get really low, it requires much more than that. Just seperate the different HC ranges when it comes to comps imo. I can totally see why low guys get frustrated by Overall prizes.

blue note

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

I'd love that system.

Also lads winning medals off handicaps above 18 is just totally illogical to me.
Lad in our club won one about 2 years ago - now off 16 and still in mix in competitions - a joke.

If I was being 100 % honest - not a fan of handicaps above 12. Particularly for well able men under 40 - who clearly play golf.

I know my opinions are not golf PC , like you can't speak your mind these days. Probably not a fan of people playing at an equal level at all.
Grand for fun - but when high handicap lads go on as if they have won the Open on a Saturday as a high teen - and they "beat you" - I just dont get it.

The only golf I like is gross golf.

I always considered GUI golf a bit more serious from outside - but couldn't believe the handicaps guys had, who play golf every week and can hit the ball very well and putt well and chip well. I played with a considerable number of players hitting low index holes in GIR and are very competent golfers and I ask them their handicap (17) - I'd laugh. lol. Scoring in the 40s is incredibly easier for these guys versus a lad off say 9. There is no mathematical logic to it for me. A bogey is so much easier than a par. A 3 pointer birdie is so much harder than a par on an index 16 - there is genuinely no logic to it (in my mind).

Just was shocked when I joined a club.

As for the Interclub stuff - totally perplexed by that. Lads not allowed to play to hold handicaps and that. Jaysus.

Anyway - I enjoy golf and that. But just not a fan of handicapped golf, the Inter club being embarrassing is one thing - but the classic scene - OMG - how on earth you can use a GUI handicap at them is genuinely beyond logic to me. And how GUI affiliated clubs are allowed to pedal them. The ACC is a disgrace to the game here (to name one).

I know I'm a 1% er there.

I don't dislike these lads (well I do the mad ones) - have great laugh with (most) of them. But just handicapped golf is not for me.
A lad getting 50 points. I don't get it, never will, and I can't accept it - or find it acceptable. It is a failed system. If you score over 45 , there is grounds for your handicap in round to be void. And an honest golfer wouldn't mind a dq as his handicap was incorrect.

Not for me. But sure the 99% are happy out.

So I'm the outlier.

I do think it would be a better game - if everyone was brought back to a tighter band and a significant action for over 40 points.
In that system - you could bring the lower performing players up too - but slower in my opinion.

I just couldn't disagree more with this. I read an article before which gave a percentage for likelihood of a win each category of golfer had in stableford, matchplay and strokeplay and the lower your category the more likely you were to win in all of them. Your advantage is smallest in stableford. I'll try to find the article to share it with you.

From talking to my father who is a category 3 handicap golfer, but obviously that bit older and he wouldn't have much distance, he and his friends usually don't bother playing in the competitions off the blues because they just they don't have a chance of competing in them. Now that's fair enough, I still think a golf club should hold a certain amount of competitions off the blues, I for one want them. But what you're suggesting would make far more golfers virtually incapable of competing in all competitions. The result of this would be that you'd lost a significant amount of golfers from competitions. And ironically, they're the ones who had least chance of winning anyway.

To go back to topic - I'd love to see actual figures of average winning points in clubs to compare them to people's perceptions of what you need to win are. I'm sure people are being honest, I'm just wondering how accurate we are.

Russman

blue note wrote: »

To go back to topic - I'd love to see actual figures of average winning points in clubs to compare them to people's perceptions of what you need to win are. I'm sure people are being honest, I'm just wondering how accurate we are.

Not sure how this will post, but I've gone back to 10 more or less consecutive weekends last Aug-Oct and shown the winning scores for each class. Where there was an overall prize I've shown the winner's class in brackets.

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

Class or Category... it doesn't really matter in terms of the shift in emphasis that I'm suggesting. Just get away from the Overall Prize and tier prizes instead, in whatever way works best.

It matters from the point of view of your counter-argument since the counter actually doesnt exist if you use classes rather than categories.

We have over-all winner and class winners for pretty much every comp.
Perhaps we are different, but we have very, very few weekly comps that are not for either a medal or a cup.

Perhaps a couple before the season proper starts and while it winds down at the end, but from March - September, other than foursomes/fourball qualifiers, we have:
Overall winner
Class winners
Stableford winner

prawnsambo

Here's the top five in each of the last ten stableford competitions in my club. These include Open comps, so it's a pretty wide cross-section. We don't do separate class or category prizes, just the overall 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Handicaps are in brackets.

1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10
32 pts (19)|40 pts (29)|35 pts (12)|41 pts (24)|32 pts (14)|39 pts (02)|36 pts (14)|36 pts (01)|40 pts (21)|36 pts (08)
32 pts (00)|35 pts (15)|32 pts (06)|39 pts (13)|30 pts (19)|34 pts (15)|34 pts (13)|36 pts (02)|35 pts (21)|35 pts (03)
32 pts (06)|35 pts (13)|29 pts (20)|38 pts (12)|30 pts (06)|34 pts (14)|34 pts (20)|34 pts (07)|35 pts (08)|30 pts (15)
32 pts (11)|33 pts (15)|29 pts (12)|37 pts (07)|29 pts (10)|33 pts (15)|34 pts (08)|28 pts (14)|34 pts (13)|29 pts (10)
31 pts (26)|33 pts (15)|27 pts (22)|37 pts (08)|28 pts (05)|33 pts (11)|34 pts (27)|26 pts (10)|34 pts (14)|27 pts (18)

charlieIRL

I agree with you 100% kiers but you will notice, its the low handicap lads who are the ones giving out about the lad off xxx-teen that has had the round of their year and is immediately branded a bandit or is playing off the wrong handicap. This has been discussed here many many times now.

We're not going to let this get into a handicap bashing thread so lets get back on topic.

GreeBo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Here's the top five in each of the last ten stableford competitions in my club. These include Open comps, so it's a pretty wide cross-section. We don't do separate class or category prizes, just the overall 1st, 2nd and 3rd. Handicaps are in brackets.

1|2|3|4|5|6|7|8|9|10
32 pts (19)|40 pts (29)|35 pts (12)|41 pts (24)|32 pts (14)|39 pts (02)|36 pts (14)|36 pts (01)|40 pts (21)|36 pts (08)
32 pts (00)|35 pts (15)|32 pts (06)|39 pts (13)|30 pts (19)|34 pts (15)|34 pts (13)|36 pts (02)|35 pts (21)|35 pts (03)
32 pts (06)|35 pts (13)|29 pts (20)|38 pts (12)|30 pts (06)|34 pts (14)|34 pts (20)|34 pts (07)|35 pts (08)|30 pts (15)
32 pts (11)|33 pts (15)|29 pts (12)|37 pts (07)|29 pts (10)|33 pts (15)|34 pts (08)|28 pts (14)|34 pts (13)|29 pts (10)
31 pts (26)|33 pts (15)|27 pts (22)|37 pts (08)|28 pts (05)|33 pts (11)|34 pts (27)|26 pts (10)|34 pts (14)|27 pts (18)

Whats your CSS/SSS?

prawnsambo

GreeBo wrote: »

Whats your CSS/SSS?

Only about half of those were qualifying competitions. They varied between 72 and 74. I think one each at 73 and 74 and the others were 72. I think the earliest on that list was in September.

GreeBo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Only about half of those were qualifying competitions. They varied between 72 and 74. I think one each at 73 and 74 and the others were 72. I think the earliest on that list was in September.

and whats SSS?

prawnsambo

GreeBo wrote: »

and whats SSS?

Sorry. 72.

FixdePitchmark

charlieIRL wrote: »

I agree with you 100% kiers but you will notice, its the low handicap lads who are the ones giving out about the lad off xxx-teen that has had the round of their year and is immediately branded a bandit or is playing off the wrong handicap. This has been discussed here many many times now.

We're not going to let this get into a handicap bashing thread so lets get back on topic.

Don't know how you can topic without talking about topic.

Where was the handicap bashing ?

blue note

They seem like very low scores prawnsambo. Or maybe I'm just used to higher ones. What sort of size would the field be? And what course is it out of curiousity?

prawnsambo

blue note wrote: »

They seem like very low scores prawnsambo. Or maybe I'm just used to higher ones. What sort of size would the field be? And what course is it out of curiousity?

I'd prefer not to say what course it is, but it's a top 100 course and pretty tough. Fields would vary, but the average would be about thirty to forty entries. Open days would be higher and quite a lot of club members don't enter comps, so club comps would be at the lower end.

charlieIRL

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Don't know how you can topic without talking about topic.

Where was the handicap bashing ?

The same thing comes up every single time we talk about competitions / scores / handicaps.

The word bandit has been mentioned a lot of times here the last few pages.

PARlance

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Don't know how you can topic without talking about topic.

Where was the handicap bashing ?

Really Fix...

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Also lads winning medals off handicaps above 18 is just totally illogical to me.
Lad in our club won one about 2 years ago - now off 16 and still in mix in competitions - a joke.

If I was being 100 % honest - not a fan of handicaps above 12. Particularly for well able men under 40 - who clearly play golf.

I played with a considerable number of players hitting low index holes in GIR and are very competent golfers and I ask them their handicap (17) - I'd laugh. lol.

If you score over 45 , there is grounds for your handicap in round to be void. And an honest golfer wouldn't mind a dq as his handicap was incorrect..

GreeBo

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'd prefer not to say what course it is, but it's a top 100 course and pretty tough. Fields would vary, but the average would be about thirty to forty entries. Open days would be higher and quite a lot of club members don't enter comps, so club comps would be at the lower end.

Thats a pretty small field (or at least I would consider it to be !)
I presume par is 72?

We happened to have a Stableford comp this week, 130 entries off the Pro tees 1-10
40 pts (15)
40 pts (16)
39 pts (11)
38 pts (16)
38 pts (01)
37 pts (16)
37 pts (19)
37 pts (19)
36 pts (13)
36 pts (06)

SSS is 35, but comp was non qualifying due to dropping in rough.

thewobbler

Banditry, huh?

Golfers generally can be divided into two groups.

You’ll have the mr consistent sort. He’s the type who puts in the practice both physically and mentally, and listens to his pro. He believes in strategy. He wouldn’t take too many risky shots off the tee so won’t lose many balls, and although you’ll rarely find him fluffing a chip, he probably isn’t going for the hole either with those chips: he’s leaving himself the best putt.

As a result of his conservative approach, mr consistent is extremely unlikely to register a mammoth score. The conservatism limits his potential.

Then you have his nemesis: mr inconsistent. If he takes lessons, his focus is on hitting if further, not better. He wouldn’t wipe his backside with the instructional pages of a golf magazine. He is known to spray it off the tee, and when his short game is off, it’s a horror show of double chips and three putts. In half of the competitions he plays in, he is out of the running by the third hole. Yet when he’s 210 yards from the well guarded pin, he doesn’t even acknowledge that sand or the water is there: he only sees the pin. When he chips he has one goal in mind, and that’s to pick the ball out of the hole.

His approach to golf means he’s usually 10 points the wrong side of CSS. But every once in a blue moon, he gets a short game day and a half, and knocks in mid forties.


The biggest problem with the handicapping system isn’t the system. It is perception, and especially so as mr consistent despises, truly despises, his nemesis. It’s even a somewhat rational hatred I suppose. But the truth, golf would not be a sustainable sport in terms of playing numbers, if it was a requisite to be a mr consistent in order to play.

——

I’ll tenet this that there are springers - people evolving from mr inconsistent to mr consistent, who will soon reach their limit, and of course there are crooks. But these are much smaller cohorts than projected on here.

Dublin Spur

can everyone just go out and try to play their best ?
Apparently not and I just don't get that but I accept that it happens - its weird

I love the game but the whole handicap business doesn't sit well in a sporting context.
Take Tennis for example, massive global individual sport yet no handicaps
Why should golf be any different?

GreeBo

Dublin Spur wrote: »

can everyone just go out and try to play their best ?
Apparently not and I just don't get that but I accept that it happens - its weird

I love the game but the whole handicap business doesn't sit well in a sporting context.
Take Tennis for example, massive global individual sport yet no handicaps
Why should golf be any different?

Try to play your best or try to score your best?
In golf they are not always the same thing.

I think in addition to clause 19, your handicap should be adjusted based on your best 12 holes rather than all 18.

If you can shoot your handicap for 12 holes then you dont need shots back just because you also happen to have a couple of blow-ups.

In my mind this would mean that only players who are honestly on too low a handicap would get shots back, you could also increase people by more than 0.1 since we would know they are "true" increases.

It might also help higher handicap golfers come down faster based on their potential.


Golf is different because you have tens of people competing with each other at the same time in the same competition.
Why doesnt the fastest horse win? Why are the given additional weights?

Also, tennis and most other sports are segregated by skill levels, you dont get to play Nadal just because you want to.

kiers47

Also I'd love to see a chart of handicap winners per capita(per say).
As in if there is only one cat 1 golfer for every 10 cat 2 and 20 cat 3 golfers does that guy win once every 30 times he plays? I would say probably more.
You can't just say when it is mostly cat 3 players winning comps that the system is broken when clearly this is the biggest pool of players so of course more winners will come from this group. You would absolutely hope that this would be the case so everyone has a fair chance.

blue note

GreeBo wrote: »

Try to play your best or try to score your best?
In golf they are not always the same thing.

I think in addition to clause 19, your handicap should be adjusted based on your best 12 holes rather than all 18.

If you can shoot your handicap for 12 holes then you dont need shots back just because you also happen to have a couple of blow-ups.

In my mind this would mean that only players who are honestly on too low a handicap would get shots back, you could also increase people by more than 0.1 since we would know they are "true" increases.

It might also help higher handicap golfers come down faster based on their potential.


Golf is different because you have tens of people competing with each other at the same time in the same competition.
Why doesnt the fastest horse win? Why are the given additional weights?

Also, tennis and most other sports are segregated by skill levels, you dont get to play Nadal just because you want to.

You seem to want to change what the handicap system is for really. My understanding is that it is there so that everyone can compete and a (relatively) level playing field. It slightly favours lower handicaps and with what you're suggesting is that it would more strongly favour them. To me that means it goes against the whole point of them. You could move to the likes of tennis or hurling where you just compete against people of your ability, but you'd lose one of the great strengths of golf then that a whole club can compete in the same competitions.

https://www.scottishgolf.org/wp-content/uploads/Myths-and-Misconceptions1.pdf

Above is a link to an article which examined what category golfers were more likely to win.

prawnsambo

blue note wrote: »

You seem to want to change what the handicap system is for really. My understanding is that it is there so that everyone can compete and a (relatively) level playing field. It slightly favours lower handicaps and with what you're suggesting is that it would more strongly favour them. To me that means it goes against the whole point of them. You could move to the likes of tennis or hurling where you just compete against people of your ability, but you'd lose one of the great strengths of golf then that a whole club can compete in the same competitions.

https://www.scottishgolf.org/wp-content/uploads/Myths-and-Misconceptions1.pdf

Above is a link to an article which examined what category golfers were more likely to win.

You need to take your facts and get out of here. No place for that kind of thing.

kiers47

blue note wrote: »

You seem to want to change what the handicap system is for really. My understanding is that it is there so that everyone can compete and a (relatively) level playing field. It slightly favours lower handicaps and with what you're suggesting is that it would more strongly favour them. To me that means it goes against the whole point of them. You could move to the likes of tennis or hurling where you just compete against people of your ability, but you'd lose one of the great strengths of golf then that a whole club can compete in the same competitions.

https://www.scottishgolf.org/wp-content/uploads/Myths-and-Misconceptions1.pdf

Above is a link to an article which examined what category golfers were more likely to win.

Good post and article. More or less what i was getting at in the post above you.

GreeBo

blue note wrote: »

You seem to want to change what the handicap system is for really. My understanding is that it is there so that everyone can compete and a (relatively) level playing field. It slightly favours lower handicaps and with what you're suggesting is that it would more strongly favour them. To me that means it goes against the whole point of them. You could move to the likes of tennis or hurling where you just compete against people of your ability, but you'd lose one of the great strengths of golf then that a whole club can compete in the same competitions.

https://www.scottishgolf.org/wp-content/uploads/Myths-and-Misconceptions1.pdf

Above is a link to an article which examined what category golfers were more likely to win.

I dont see how I'm changing what its for by trying to make it a better representation of a players "better than average" score.

In my opinion, today, there are a large percentage of people who are bringing in 36 points without playing "better than average", at best its average.
Avoiding a disaster hole shouldnt be 'all you need to player better than average.


I dont see how making it a more accurate representation would mean it favours lower handicaps more?
A cat 1 golfer's best 12 holes would likely be much more penal than an 18 handicappers. In fact rather than have different buffer zones, the number of holes that are used for calculating it should change. The higher your handicap the fewer holes should be used.

Making it a fairer representation would mean more equitable competition across differing abilities, which I think we all agree is the point.

FWIW I dont believe in the proven myth that higher handicappers win all the time. My issue is more when their better than average day leads to 44 points and because CSS is so high, they dont get the savage cut the should get.

Put it this way, if its so fit for purpose, why are they moving away from it?

valoren

I'm not a competing member but I'm sure the majority of competitions are held over the course of one day? If that's the case then you will have winners who will happen to have one of those days where everything goes right. Playing in one day competitions one must accept that will happen, it might even be your day. One day competitions are still great for instant gratification but I think the major club competitions should be over 36 holes, say a Saturday and Sunday or over the space of 2 weekends. Not sure if that's the case as is.

Like pro tournaments and senior cups, the winner isn't determined over one day. You need consistent daily good play to win e.g. Branden Grace shot a record 62 at the Open and he beat Spieth, the ultimate winner, by 3 shots that day. His 62 in the bigger scheme of it was irrelevant.

So someone getting 40+ points on one day might have a mare on the next and vice versa. I guess competitions are a test of endurance in a way. Not physically but in terms of skill i.e. you can do that (getting 40+ points) again, you win, and have proved your skill at the game has improved and get a cut. Those players who seek to improve can then schedule their playing plans and focus on the competitions that focus on skill endurance while still enjoying the odd one dayers that serve as practice for the big ones with the knowledge that in all probability they won't win.

blue note

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont see how I'm changing what its for by trying to make it a better representation of a players "better than average" score.

Because from the evidence of that article it shows that individuals with lower handicaps are more likely to win than those with higher handicaps. Those with higher handicaps tend to be more erratic, so their handicaps factor in the blow ups they might have in a round. If you take out the blow ups from calculating their handicaps they'll go down. And if they're already less likely than a low handicapper to win with the way things are, they're going to be even less likely now.

GreeBo wrote: »

In my opinion, today, there are a large percentage of people who are bringing in 36 points without playing "better than average", at best its average.
Avoiding a disaster hole shouldnt be 'all you need to player better than average.

A high handicap player being consistent enough over 18 holes to score on every one is absolutely better than average consistency for their level and that should be reflected in their score. I played off 11 when I was last a member and would rarely have a round where I scored on 18 holes. If a fella playing off 22 managed to score on 18 holes it seems perfectly reasonable to me that he'd have an above average score.

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont see how making it a more accurate representation would mean it favours lower handicaps more?
A cat 1 golfer's best 12 holes would likely be much more penal than an 18 handicappers. In fact rather than have different buffer zones, the number of holes that are used for calculating it should change. The higher your handicap the fewer holes should be used.

Making it a fairer representation would mean more equitable competition across differing abilities, which I think we all agree is the point.

A low handicap players best 12 holes would likely be a few threes and the rest 2 points. A high handicap players would likely be loads of threes and a few twos to balance off all the 1s and the odd scratch. Possibly even a 4 or even a 5 pointer in there.

Even to take me as an example - I played off 11 last time I played. In a good round taking my best 12 holes I'd hope to have a birdie, maybe 9 pars and a couple of bogeys (+1). A low handicapper would only be a couple of shots better than that. But when you factor in the bogeys and worse I have they're far more than a couple of shots better.

GreeBo wrote: »

FWIW I dont believe in the proven myth that higher handicappers win all the time. My issue is more when their better than average day leads to 44 points and because CSS is so high, they dont get the savage cut the should get.

I suppose it's more likely for a high handicapper to get those huge scores, but they're extremely rare. You'll win more with the consistent scores of a lower handicapper.

GreeBo wrote: »

Put it this way, if its so fit for purpose, why are they moving away from it?

Sorry, but I haven't actually read anything about the new system or why it's coming in so genuinely can't answer that.

blue note

valoren wrote: »

I'm not a competing member but I'm sure the majority of competitions are held over the course of one day? If that's the case then you will have winners who will happen to have one of those days where everything goes right. Playing in one day competitions one must accept that will happen, it might even be your day. One day competitions are still great for instant gratification but I think the major club competitions should be over 36 holes, say a Saturday and Sunday or over the space of 2 weekends. Not sure if that's the case as is.

Like pro tournaments and senior cups, the winner isn't determined over one day. You need consistent daily good play to win e.g. Branden Grace shot a record 62 at the Open and he beat Spieth, the ultimate winner, by 3 shots that day. His 62 in the bigger scheme of it was irrelevant.

So someone getting 40+ points on one day might have a mare on the next and vice versa. I guess competitions are a test of endurance in a way. Not physically but in terms of skill i.e. you can do that (getting 40+ points) again, you win, and have proved your skill at the game has improved and get a cut. Those players who seek to improve can then schedule their playing plans and focus on the competitions that focus on skill endurance while still enjoying the odd one dayers that serve as practice for the big ones.

I like the idea of it, but in practice the length of time it takes to play a round is one of the main reasons the sport is losing so many members. In today's society 4 hour rounds are already a problem. Making the odd event a two day one is a good idea, but I think it would have to be one or two a year. The idea of leagues where you count scores over a few weekends could work though Like the golfer of the year that some clubs have.

londonred

Scoring can also depend on the prizes being offered usually need 42pts+ to win a TV.:)

prawnsambo

blue note wrote: »

Sorry, but I haven't actually read anything about the new system or why it's coming in so genuinely can't answer that.

They're moving towards a World Handicapping System. So that means merging the CONGU system with the systems in place in Europe and the USA etc. It's not (as seems to have been suggested) a move away from the current system but a move towards a unified system across the world. We don't know at this stage what that will entail, but we will likely have a slope ratiing system for golf courses at a minumum. The new Cat. 5 and Cat. 6 handicap categories are also part of that.

GreeBo

prawnsambo wrote: »

They're moving towards a World Handicapping System. So that means merging the CONGU system with the systems in place in Europe and the USA etc. It's not (as seems to have been suggested) a move away from the current system but a move towards a unified system across the world. We don't know at this stage what that will entail, but we will likely have a slope ratiing system for golf courses at a minumum. The new Cat. 5 and Cat. 6 handicap categories are also part of that.

Its much more than just slope ratings for courses.

For example, handicaps will be your best 8 out of your last 20 scores and casual scores are also counting.

https://www.randa.org/News/2018/02/World-Handicap-System-features-announced