What scores are winning in your Club these days?

kiers47 · 03-05-2018 6:50am

GreeBo wrote: »

Unless you are a Cat 1 golfer, trying to birdie every hole in a qualifying comp is just madness and rejecting the reality of your ability, but hey, it takes all sorts!

It was clearly meant in jest.
If you missed your putts by how far this joke went over your head you probably need a few shots back. :pac:

Jesus f*ck does anyone actually enjoy golf here?

prawnsambo · 03-05-2018 7:52am

GreeBo wrote: »

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

Yes. But the substantive point is that they are moving towards a unified world handicap system rather than away from the current system.

Russman · 03-05-2018 9:04am

GreeBo wrote: »

If you think its grand to risk throwing away 2 points in search of just 1 extra, then your handicap is clearly too high. You need two nett birdies just to get back to level, if you are expecting that to happen then I'm sorry, but you have built them into your handicap as a crutch for poor decision making.

I think you're right Greebo, we'll have to agree to disagree

But, if its fair to say that you're advocating risk free golf, then why is there even such a thing as a risk reward hole ? Its sport, its not played in a dispassionate vacuum where emotions, feelings, ambition, luck, talent etc don't come into the equation.

In the scenario above, I'm not expecting to pick up two net birdies, but I know it can happen. It doesn't mean I'm carrying shots, anyone can birdie a hole, unless they play in such a way as to remove the possibility, it just means I might somewhere along the line pick up a shot or two against my handicap. If you're saying that this shouldn't be possible, then how does any non scratch player ever have a birdie ?
I also know picking up 4 might be a bit of a stretch. If its a driveable par 4 the reward could be an eagle if I can make the carry over the dogleg and I might decide its worth risking a scratch in stableford but not an 8 in strokes.

There's very little linear relationship between handicap and scoring - its very rare (I'd say it almost never happens) that, say a 10 handicapper bogeys indices 1-10 and pars 11-18, it just doesn't work like that. He'll typically have a mix of pars, bogeys, doubles and the odd birdie.

I'm conscious that we're waaaay off topic here, apologies Op & Mods.

I think 37pts won 3 of the 4 classes in my place at the weekend. I'd hazard a guess that if you asked the winners what their strategy was for the round they'd laugh. 99.9% (metaphorically) of club players just go out and play away, they play the same course, hit mostly the same clubs and some days hit them better than others and do a score.

GreeBo · 03-05-2018 11:36am

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yes. But the substantive point is that they are moving towards a unified world handicap system rather than away from the current system.

Well the two systems use totally different methods to calculate a handicap so you cant move towards one without moving away from the other!

GreeBo · 03-05-2018 11:46am

Russman wrote: »

I think you're right Greebo, we'll have to agree to disagree

Grand, but that wont stop me arguing

Russman wrote: »

But, if its fair to say that you're advocating risk free golf, then why is there even such a thing as a risk reward hole ? Its sport, its not played in a dispassionate vacuum where emotions, feelings, ambition, luck, talent etc don't come into the equation.

Not at all, but its calculated risk.
Risk where the downside doesn't overwhelm the potential upside.
Every week we see someone take on a risky shot where if it doesnst come off they have taken themselves out of a tournament. Afterwards its typically seen as a mistake.
I think part of the issue is that people approach handicap golf in the same way they approach tournament golf. The goals and hence approach for these two things are different, one is sustained low scores, the other is massive variance.

Russman wrote: »

In the scenario above, I'm not expecting to pick up two net birdies, but I know it can happen. It doesn't mean I'm carrying shots, anyone can birdie a hole, unless they play in such a way as to remove the possibility, it just means I might somewhere along the line pick up a shot or two against my handicap. If you're saying that this shouldn't be possible, then how does any non scratch player ever have a birdie ?

Would you not agree that its much easier to not throw away 2 points than it is to have two birdies? Going further, that if you didnt throw away the 2 points and still had a birdie later on you are in a *much* better position overall?

I'm not saying it shouldnt be possible, I'm saying your handicap would be lower (i.e. you would be a better golfer) if you didnt risk the 2 points and let the 3 points happen on the easier holes.

Russman wrote: »

I also know picking up 4 might be a bit of a stretch. If its a driveable par 4 the reward could be an eagle if I can make the carry over the dogleg and I might decide its worth risking a scratch in stableford but not an 8 in strokes.

To me that would be poor course management, the chances of the eagle are minute compared with the chances of a scratch, unless you are a low handicap.
Throwing away a hole where you have a shot is criminal. You have a shot on that hole, take the easy 2 points and try birdie the easier hole....its easier!

Russman wrote: »

There's very little linear relationship between handicap and scoring - its very rare (I'd say it almost never happens) that, say a 10 handicapper bogeys indices 1-10 and pars 11-18, it just doesn't work like that. He'll typically have a mix of pars, bogeys, doubles and the odd birdie.

I'm conscious that we're waaaay off topic here, apologies Op & Mods.

Sure there will be variance, but on average they will bogey the harder holes and par the easier holes...thats why they have the indices they do! An index is assessed when the course is laid out and then modified based on returned scores.

Russman wrote: »

I think 37pts won 3 of the 4 classes in my place at the weekend. I'd hazard a guess that if you asked the winners what their strategy was for the round they'd laugh. 99.9% (metaphorically) of club players just go out and play away, they play the same course, hit mostly the same clubs and some days hit them better than others and do a score.

And they do it mostly off the same handicap.

GreeBo · 03-05-2018 11:47am

kiers47 wrote: »

Jesus f*ck does anyone actually enjoy golf here?

I know I certainly do.

prawnsambo · 03-05-2018 11:48am

GreeBo wrote: »

Well the two systems use totally different methods to calculate a handicap so you cant move towards one without moving away from the other!

You implied that they were moving away from it because it wasn't fit for purpose.

GreeBo wrote: »

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

That's an implication that's not borne out by what they've said is the stated aim of the move. Which is why they are different things. Which you clearly knew, having posted links to the document outlining the changes.

Dublin Spur · 03-05-2018 11:51am

I think the main fault of the current system is that there is a major discrepancy in the difficulty factor applicable to high and low handicappers.

For example, take a score of around 42 points, the kind of score that should win most singles competition.

So this is a score that is 6 shots better than your handicap. To hit this score a 16 handicapper needs to shoot 10 over par whilst a 5 handicapper needs to shoot 1 under par. The difficulty factor of shooting -1 for the 5 handicapper is significantly tougher than +10 for the 16 handicapper. I think most would agree with that.

And that why in general most 40+ pts scores are returned by mid to high handicappers and means that the system is tougher on the lower handicappers.

It doesn't bother me too much to be honest but it is an obvious flaw in the system.

GreeBo · 03-05-2018 11:55am

prawnsambo wrote: »

You implied that they were moving away from it because it wasn't fit for purpose.

We are going around in circles.
If the system worked so well then the WHS would be the Congu system.
Its not.

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's an implication that's not borne out by what they've said is the stated aim of the move. Which is why they are different things. Which you clearly knew, having posted links to the document outlining the changes.

The CONGU system works perfectly well, on paper.
Only time will tell if the WHS works any better in real life.

Again, the implication that its not working is that its being changed. I dont know what else you would take from the fact that it will no longer be used?

GreeBo · 03-05-2018 12:00pm

Dublin Spur wrote: »

I think the main fault of the current system is that there is a major discrepancy in the difficulty factor applicable to high and low handicappers.

For example, take a score of around 42 points, the kind of score that should win most singles competition.

So this is a score that is 6 shots better than your handicap. To hit this score a 16 handicapper needs to shoot 10 over par whilst a 5 handicapper needs to shoot 1 under par. The difficulty factor of shooting -1 for the 5 handicapper is significantly tougher than +10 for the 16 handicapper. I think most would agree with that.

Exactly.
Its also why the effort gap is much wider to have a birdie than a bogey.
While there is only +- 1 shot, the difference in effort required is much wider.

Its not a linear thing.
The lower limit on every golf hole is 1 but there is no upper limit.
The closer you get to the lower limit the harder it gets but there is no corresponding difficulty increase the other way.

Look at it another way. if the goal was to have the highest score possible on a hole there would be no increased difficulty as you hit more shots. Your next shot is no harder or easier based on the previous shot.

RoadRunner · 03-05-2018 12:16pm

I congratulate the 15 hc'r who went 14 holes in 3 under. Great shooting! But one thing's for sure, they had the same ability just before they teed off on the first hole that day. One quick suggestion might be that if a course affiliated with the GUI has club golfers regularly scoring ridiculously high scores, like 50 points on their home course, a policy for fining that club could be implemented? Scores like this are failures of the system that affect the credibility of the system as a whole.

kiers47 · 03-05-2018 12:27pm

RoadRunner wrote: »

I congratulate the 15 hc'r who went 14 holes in 3 under. Great shooting! But one thing's for sure, they had the same ability just before they teed off on the first hole that day. One quick suggestion might be that if a course affiliated with the GUI has club golfers regularly scoring ridiculously high scores, like 50 points on their home course, a policy for fining that club could be implemented? Scores like this are failures of the system that affect the credibility of the system as a whole.

Clubs hands are pretty tied on this. A guy won one of the majors in my home club a few years ago. Notorious lad for being a bandit.
I can't remember his score but it was a good one

He got cut 2 shots off 16 and then the handicap secretary cut him an additional 3 shots on general play clause 19. He was up in arms about it.
Sent a letter to the Munster GUI branch and he got his 3 shots back.

So the blame can't really lie solely on the club if the GUI won't stand over the clubs decision on a player.

prawnsambo · 03-05-2018 12:48pm

GreeBo wrote: »

We are going around in circles.
If the system worked so well then the WHS would be the Congu system.
Its not.

Would it? I know we think a lot of ourselves, but there are far more golfers playing to the systems that CONGU are aligning with than there are here in our little corner of the world. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. :rolleyes:

GreeBo wrote: »

Again, the implication that its not working is that its being changed. I dont know what else you would take from the fact that it will no longer be used?

Common sense? If you're creating a system that's acceptable across the globe, then the majority will always win out. Easier to change the system for a relatively small number than to do so for the vast majority.

And talk about going around in circles. You clearly can't accept that when CONGU say they are moving towards a WHS, that that's exactly what they are doing. The reasons are obvious. In a shrinking world, it makes no sense for so many systems to be in place.

GreeBo · 03-05-2018 12:55pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

You clearly can't accept that when CONGU say they are moving towards a WHS, that that's exactly what they are doing. The reasons are obvious. In a shrinking world, it makes no sense for so many systems to be in place.

I do accept it, its a fact.
You can't accept that moving towards a WHS means moving away from how the CONGU system works today.

prawnsambo · 03-05-2018 1:03pm

GreeBo wrote: »

I do accept it, its a fact.
You can't accept that moving towards a WHS means moving away from how the CONGU system works today.

Oh I can see the logic in that statement alright. But do I need to quote your post again? Because you made an assumption that wasn't borne out by the facts. Or the stated aims.

When you can point me to a statement from CONGU where they say the current system is "not fit for purpose", then you'll find no argument from me.

GreeBo · 03-05-2018 1:18pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

Oh I can see the logic in that statement alright. But do I need to quote your post again? Because you made an assumption that wasn't borne out by the facts. Or the stated aims.

There are no facts that disprove my "assumption".

If the current CONGU system of "moving average" worked the best then the WHS would be based on that.

It is clearly much closer if not effectively the Slope system.

The *only* reason CONGU doesnt use the slope system is because, back in 1927 when R&A gave them control of handicapping, the English Union refused to change systems. The European Association then formed their own handicapping body and based it on the Slope system.

The current CONGU system is based on the original Australian system, their union has also moved to the Slope system.

Prior to WW2 the Irish Union introduced a "slope like" adjustment for handicaps on top of the CONGU system, clearly demonstrating a need to fix something with the CONGU system.

So if the originators of the current CONGU system have moved away from it, the European Union switched to Slope, we ourselves added some special sauce to modify it and now the WHS will be slope based, its clear, to me at least, the facts show that the reason we are moving to a WHS based on slope is because the current CONGU system is not suitable, i.e. not fit for purpose.

/I'm out.

prawnsambo · 03-05-2018 1:48pm

GreeBo wrote: »

There are no facts that disprove my "assumption".

If the current CONGU system of "moving average" worked the best then the WHS would be based on that.

It is clearly much closer if not effectively the Slope system.

The *only* reason CONGU doesnt use the slope system is because, back in 1927 when R&A gave them control of handicapping, the English Union refused to change systems. The European Association then formed their own handicapping body and based it on the Slope system.

The current CONGU system is based on the original Australian system, their union has also moved to the Slope system.

Prior to WW2 the Irish Union introduced a "slope like" adjustment for handicaps on top of the CONGU system, clearly demonstrating a need to fix something with the CONGU system.

So if the originators of the current CONGU system have moved away from it, the European Union switched to Slope, we ourselves added some special sauce to modify it and now the WHS will be slope based, its clear, to me at least, the facts show that the reason we are moving to a WHS based on slope is because the current CONGU system is not suitable, i.e. not fit for purpose.

/I'm out.

Not fit for purpose means not good enough to do the job it was designed for. Clearly that's not the case since it's been in use; as you so helpfully point out, for over a hundred years.

The slope system is a component which brings in the severity of the course or tees being played. It brings the course into the equation of how well a player is likely to play. The main point here is that the slope system (again as you point out) can be added to the CONGU system without any difficulty. How does that imply that the CONGU system doesn't work? CONGU have chosen not to use it until such time as the WHS comes into use worldwide.

And if your response to somebody challenging something you've said is a reason to flounce, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully.

GreeBo · 03-05-2018 2:52pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

Not fit for purpose means not good enough to do the job it was designed for. Clearly that's not the case since it's been in use; as you so helpfully point out, for over a hundred years.

The slope system is a component which brings in the severity of the course or tees being played. It brings the course into the equation of how well a player is likely to play. The main point here is that the slope system (again as you point out) can be added to the CONGU system without any difficulty. How does that imply that the CONGU system doesn't work? CONGU have chosen not to use it until such time as the WHS comes into use worldwide.

And if your response to somebody challenging something you've said is a reason to flounce, perhaps you should choose your words more carefully.

They are not just "adding slope to the CONGU system", they are effectively scrapping CONGU and moving to a completely different system. Your comments are wilfully disingenuous or simply ignorant at best.

I'm not flouncing, I'm bowing out of a demonstrably pointless debate where one side is ignoring the indisputable facts (namely that *every* handicap union has already or is about to move away from the CONGU system and no one has gone the other way) without supplying any supporting facts of their own other than "CONGU hasnt said their system doesnt work and I believe them".:rolleyes:

prawnsambo · 03-05-2018 3:13pm

GreeBo wrote: »

They are not just "adding slope to the CONGU system", they are effectively scrapping CONGU and moving to a completely different system. Your comments are wilfully disingenuous or simply ignorant at best.

I was replying to your post where you specifically referred to slope. These aren't my goalposts, they're yours.

The substantive point has again been ignored. A system that's been in place for over a hundred years cannot be described as 'not fit for purpose'. That is simply not true and is at best a gross exaggeration. The use of that phrase has been the sole focus of my discussion here.

GreeBo wrote: »

I'm not flouncing, I'm bowing out of a demonstrably pointless debate where one side is ignoring the indisputable facts (namely that *every* handicap union has already or is about to move away from the CONGU system and no one has gone the other way) without supplying any supporting facts of their own other than "CONGU hasnt said their system doesnt work and I believe them".:rolleyes:

Did you mean 'does'? And that is a gross distortion of what I actually said. And of course it's the only supporting fact I've provided, if you ignore the other ones. And by the way, I've never said that CONGU is the best system or better than any of the others or that it should be the choice for a WHS. I've just pointed out that it's unlikely to be chosen since it's used by a tiny fraction of the golfing population. The other systems may well be better, but even you aren't sure about that.

GreeBo wrote: »

Only time will tell if the WHS works any better in real life.

GreeBo · 03-05-2018 4:28pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

I was replying to your post where you specifically referred to slope. These aren't my goalposts, they're yours.

The substantive point has again been ignored. A system that's been in place for over a hundred years cannot be described as 'not fit for purpose'. That is simply not true and is at best a gross exaggeration. The use of that phrase has been the sole focus of my discussion here.

Did you mean 'does'? And that is a gross distortion of what I actually said. And of course it's the only supporting fact I've provided, if you ignore the other ones. And by the way, I've never said that CONGU is the best system or better than any of the others or that it should be the choice for a WHS. I've just pointed out that it's unlikely to be chosen since it's used by a tiny fraction of the golfing population. The other systems may well be better, but even you aren't sure about that.

The reason is used by a tiny fraction is because everyone, including the inventors of it, have moved or are moving away from using it.

Why would they have been doing this of the system worked?

No I meant doesn't, as they haven't said this. A double negative if you like.

Being old doesn't make something fit for purpose, if it was then no one would have moved away from it. Especially the inventors!

blue note · 03-05-2018 5:09pm

kiers47 wrote: »

Clubs hands are pretty tied on this. A guy won one of the majors in my home club a few years ago. Notorious lad for being a bandit.
I can't remember his score but it was a good one

He got cut 2 shots off 16 and then the handicap secretary cut him an additional 3 shots on general play clause 19. He was up in arms about it.
Sent a letter to the Munster GUI branch and he got his 3 shots back.

So the blame can't really lie solely on the club if the GUI won't stand over the clubs decision on a player.

You have rules as to how you can cut him. You can't just apply an extra cut at your discretion based on one exceptionally high score. I think has to be a couple of scores and it's set how to apply an exceptional scoring reduction. If he got the shots back I'd guess that the handicap secretary applied the rules incorrectly, probably because he was regarded as a bandit and he felt he deserved the cut.

blue note · 03-05-2018 5:21pm

Dublin Spur wrote: »

I think the main fault of the current system is that there is a major discrepancy in the difficulty factor applicable to high and low handicappers.

For example, take a score of around 42 points, the kind of score that should win most singles competition.

So this is a score that is 6 shots better than your handicap. To hit this score a 16 handicapper needs to shoot 10 over par whilst a 5 handicapper needs to shoot 1 under par. The difficulty factor of shooting -1 for the 5 handicapper is significantly tougher than +10 for the 16 handicapper. I think most would agree with that.

And that why in general most 40+ pts scores are returned by mid to high handicappers and means that the system is tougher on the lower handicappers.

It doesn't bother me too much to be honest but it is an obvious flaw in the system.

You also need to factor in the number of competitions won with more modest scores of 38 or 39 points. A 5 handicapper is much more likely to hit this score than a 16 handicapper. So while the 16 handicapper hitting a score of 42 is possibly higher than a 5 handicapper doing it, their likelihood of winning on the first tee slightly favours the 5 handicapper.

I'd also wonder whether 42 points is more likely for a 16 handicapper than for a 5. I was off that sort of handicap for years playing a dozen or so competitions a year but never hit that score. I always felt it was in me, but there would always be a monster slice to make me scratch a hole or a few three putts or something. I might have been able to reach the par 5s in two but it was no good if I'm not going to capitalise on it when Iget there, or if I'm going to find an out of bounds that no-one knew was there because no-one ever slices a drive that badly!

prawnsambo · 03-05-2018 6:25pm

GreeBo wrote: »

The reason is used by a tiny fraction is because everyone, including the inventors of it, have moved or are moving away from using it.

Why would they have been doing this of the system worked?

It's not a binary choice. A system that works can be improved. A system that doesn't work will stop being used immediately. This is why I've taken you up on the 'not fit for purpose' description. This implies that it doesn't work as it stands. Right now. That is demonstrably false.

GreeBo wrote: »

Being old doesn't make something fit for purpose, if it was then no one would have moved away from it. Especially the inventors!

I sold my old car and bought a new one. Does that make my old car not fit for purpose?

I really don't understand why you are trying to defend this. The system is still in use. It will still be in use for at least another two years and probably longer. Every golfer in this country is being handicapped under it and have been for decades.

GreeBo · 03-05-2018 7:33pm

blue note wrote: »

You have rules as to how you can cut him. You can't just apply an extra cut at your discretion based on one exceptionally high score. I think has to be a couple of scores and it's set how to apply an exceptional scoring reduction. If he got the shots back I'd guess that the handicap secretary applied the rules incorrectly, probably because he was regarded as a bandit and he felt he deserved the cut.

It doesn't have to just based on an ESR, if you have evidence that the player is better than their handicap you can cut them.
This evidence can be frequent wins in Fourball or team comps, winter league, etc etc.

There is a fear regarding legal action which leads to GUI and clubs backing down if someone is brazen enough to fight it.

GreeBo · 03-05-2018 7:35pm

prawnsambo wrote: »

Would it? I know we think a lot of ourselves, but there are far more golfers playing to the systems that CONGU are aligning with than there are here in our little corner of the world. Talk about the tail wagging the dog. :rolleyes:

Common sense? If you're creating a system that's acceptable across the globe, then the majority will always win out. Easier to change the system for a relatively small number than to do so for the vast majority.

And talk about going around in circles. You clearly can't accept that when CONGU say they are moving towards a WHS, that that's exactly what they are doing. The reasons are obvious. In a shrinking world, it makes no sense for so many systems to be in place.

And you can't accept that the reason the majority don't use they CONGU system is that they used to and have since abandoned it!

Do you deny this fact?

CONGU as a governing body are moving to WHS, they are abandoning their current system for handicapping.

FixdePitchmark · 03-05-2018 9:05pm

Break80 wrote: »

After reading this thread I can see that snobbery is alive and well in golf still. I mean low handicap snobbery.
Lads surely ye started out playing the game with high handicaps. With abilty, ,practice, lessons, comitment ye have gone low but ye must accept not everyone else can do the same thing.
Some of us might just enjoy the game for what we get out of it.
Good company a few laughs and maybe the rare good round.
I admire the work low handicap golfers put in to get where they are but you have to accept not everyone has the same talent.

This is so wide of the mark.

I just don't like handicapped golf. Not high handicapped golfers.

I know all the merits of handicapped golf and they far out weigh my own personal view. It is not something that will ever change. So you need to find the format of golf that suits your own personality.

People do that all the time - be it matchplay - opens - stableford - mixed - interclub - society - scratch.

I know guys who just play scratch golf (when they can)
I know guys that just play informal golf and informal club competitions.

People are well entitled to play the type of golf they like. In our club there is an event for handicaps over 21 only - is that reverse snobbery ?

I play with lads in society golf (max handicap 36) - have brought guys from a level of not playing golf at all to getting around in about 90 strokes.

Love the sense of satisfaction an improving golfer gets.

I play with high handicapped golfers all the time. In fact the most awkward situations I've seen on time sheets, is high guys who don't want to play with low guys. Is this lowhandicapracisim

Had that situation last weekend - and after, we were like best mates and a few pints etc.
The guy shot well over 110 and I was in the 70s. That is the joy of golf - it was a stroke event. We all play the game together. We both gave each other great encouragement.

Yes there are people who only play golf with certain people. In fact there are some guys who almost fall apart if one of their regular 4 ball doesn't play - I find that sort of stuff a bit pathetic.
I'll play with anyone - any handicap - any background - probably only players I would not play with again is a slow player (but I would)

This is a golf forum - so typically on here guys are more into golf than a lad in golf just for fun - turn up float around on the one handicap.

I've played golf with maybe 50 people + on here. And almost all were at pains to improve at the game - wanted to "break80" - get down to low figures - the ambitions (dreams) thread shows that so clearly.

I'm finding some of the posts here a bit wide of the mark. It is a golf forum - not a, I play the odd game of golf forum.

Most golfers here do want to improve
Most golfers here do want to get a round as near to par as possible
Most golfers on here admire better golf
Even if a bit sad - most golfers here do get more out of golf than just a game.

The majority of golfers here are not going to say - " look at that sad act trying to improve, get a life" .

Nobody should ever feel any shame for getting to a low handicap - It is bloody hard work.

I have far more admiration for a guy getting from 23 to 18 - than a lad floating around at 16 for 5 years with an easy 4/5 strokes in him. That is just my personality.

These lads off 16 with all the gear - clubs - laser and don't even practice.

They are well able to play - and pace themselves for the summer and big events. They are not golfers in my eyes. Well they are golfers - but we know on here what we are talking about.

Guys hanging around at certain handicaps to play on a certain club teams - I'd lose the will to live.

I'd be more of a fan of category only prize - no overall.

It a dilution of my belief. But better than the likes of Captains prize etc.

Anyway - doesn't change much for anyone. You can't have respect for something that you in your own heart think is a nonsense. A lad shooting near a 100, winning versus a lad maybe at 65 years of age shooting a 83.

If you want to get a little better at something it isn't hard.

Dislcaimer - all figures picked above are finger in air

Russman · 03-05-2018 9:30pm

GreeBo wrote: »

It doesn't have to just based on an ESR, if you have evidence that the player is better than their handicap you can cut them.
This evidence can be frequent wins in Fourball or team comps, winter league, etc etc.

There is a fear regarding legal action which leads to GUI and clubs backing down if someone is brazen enough to fight it.

True, but by and large clubs have shied away from using Cl19 in recent years unless there’s good evidence. And rightly so IMO. It was far too easy for it to be used vindictively and for personal grudges and “bar talk” to come into its application - “jeez I played with him the other night and he had 3 birdies.....”
Even the wording of it was ar$eways in saying that it was about the handicap sec’s “opinion” of another golfer’s ability - sure who says your average committee member has the first clue about anyone’s ability ??!!
I’ve seen It happen, I was semi involved in a case that went all the way from local branch to home union to R&A to the legal eagles and it was pure vindictiveness on the part of the h/c sec going after a couple of guys he didn’t like. To this day they don’t know why.

Irishdaywalker · 04-05-2018 9:17am

I played yesterday in our Thursday Open Series, winning score was 38 points off 3, I had 33 points, front 9 of 14 riddled with stupid mistakes around the greens, back 9 of 19 - happy with that after the front 9. I set myself a target of 20 for the back 9 - just came up a little short.
Only had the 5 pars for the round, but happy enough with the fact I didnt play great, but still had a respectable score compared to the winner.

GreeBo · 04-05-2018 9:45am

Russman wrote: »

True, but by and large clubs have shied away from using Cl19 in recent years unless there’s good evidence. And rightly so IMO. It was far too easy for it to be used vindictively and for personal grudges and “bar talk” to come into its application - “jeez I played with him the other night and he had 3 birdies.....”
Even the wording of it was ar$eways in saying that it was about the handicap sec’s “opinion” of another golfer’s ability - sure who says your average committee member has the first clue about anyone’s ability ??!!
I’ve seen It happen, I was semi involved in a case that went all the way from local branch to home union to R&A to the legal eagles and it was pure vindictiveness on the part of the h/c sec going after a couple of guys he didn’t like. To this day they don’t know why.

Typically you'd do it based on observing scores that were non qualifying rather than hearsay or speculation based on individual scores or shots.

Observation doesn't mean you play with the guy and then cut him if you think he looks good, it means you observe his sores and if you believe they are better than his handicap would expect, you cut him.

Whiplash85 · 04-05-2018 3:20pm

I play very little competitive golf and so play off 16 . On a very good day I could probably be a 12 but short game would let me down and high propensity to 3 putt a few times during the round.
I played in a links event recently which was a team event with the winners getting all expenses foreign golf holiday. Me and my playing partner did reasonably OK 20th out of maybe 75 teams. Averaged 37 or 38 points each day. The winners however averaged 47 points a full 16 points ahead of 2nd place with a tight grouping of scores in behind again. I think it is blatantly obvious what is going on here and there needs to be a fairer system. What is the point of playing against a 15 handicapper when he should be off 5.

What scores are winning in your Club these days?

Comments