Two interesting motions at the GUI AGM

ballyk · 18-02-2014 5:44pm #1

There were two interesting motions passed at the GUI AGM apparently. If these motions are approved by CONGU then:
1. to qualify to play in an open singles qualifying round you would be required to have played a minimum of three qualifying rounds at your home course the previous year.
2. the elimination of awarding of 0.1's for No Returns

Article from the Irish Independent can be found here: http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/confederation-set-up-to-help-aspiring-pros-get-started-30018125.html

It looks like a positive development to me. What does everybody else think?

mike12 · 18-02-2014 5:57pm

I like the 3 rounds at your home course.
The second one is good as well as most of the NR's are just poor round and people just don't hand in the card. Should help keep the CSS up as well.

Mr. Larson · 18-02-2014 6:00pm

Slievenamon is going to be busy so! Sorry that both obvious and uncalled for.

Anthing that is designed at creating a more level playing field for handicap golfers would get my support. Sandbaggers gonna sandbag no matter what, they will always find a way... but that doesn't mean we should throw in the towel or make it any easier for them. They [handicap builders/bandits] are more to be pitied and sneered at than raged at in my opinion.

The issue of protecting handicaps at the lower end needs to be looked at from what I gather, as people will now be able to maintain artificially low handicaps by N/R'ing and dodging a 0.1, thereby getting entry into championships ahead of perhaps more deserving and honest golfers... But if I had to choose between the current system and the proposed one I'd go with the proposed one.

Ronney · 18-02-2014 6:29pm

Mr. Larson wrote: »

Slievenamon is going to be busy so! Sorry that both obvious and uncalled for.

Anthing that is designed at creating a more level playing field for handicap golfers would get my support. Sandbaggers gonna sandbag no matter what, they will always find a way... but that doesn't mean we should throw in the towel or make it any easier for them. They [handicap builders/bandits] are more to be pitied and sneered at than raged at in my opinion.

The issue of protecting handicaps at the lower end needs to be looked at from what I gather, as people will now be able to maintain artificially low handicaps by N/R'ing and dodging a 0.1, thereby getting entry into championships ahead of perhaps more deserving and honest golfers... But if I had to choose between the current system and the proposed one I'd go with the proposed one.

What will be the knock on effect on CSS. As said above alot of people want to get their HC low for qualification to events. A large number of Cat 1's sending in NR for bad scores will deive down CSS and keep everyone else's HC up

BoardsMember · 18-02-2014 7:33pm

I like both of these.

Is there merit in extending the second one to include team events too? I'm not sure why you would restrict it to singles events only, but maybe there is a good reason.

SnowDrifts · 18-02-2014 7:46pm

Mr. Larson wrote: »

Slievenamon is going to be busy so! Sorry that both obvious and uncalled for.

Anthing that is designed at creating a more level playing field for handicap golfers would get my support. Sandbaggers gonna sandbag no matter what, they will always find a way... but that doesn't mean we should throw in the towel or make it any easier for them. They [handicap builders/bandits] are more to be pitied and sneered at than raged at in my opinion.

The issue of protecting handicaps at the lower end needs to be looked at from what I gather, as people will now be able to maintain artificially low handicaps by N/R'ing and dodging a 0.1, thereby getting entry into championships ahead of perhaps more deserving and honest golfers... But if I had to choose between the current system and the proposed one I'd go with the proposed one.

Slievenamon won't know whats hit them when they see all these strange faces coming down to play their 3 rounds.

Completely agree with the issue with low lads being able to protect their handicap by NR'ing but as you say, the benefits of preventing the higher end banditry is a major plus.

So basically, for someone like me, who is only interested in getting lower and has no desire for glassware, I won't be handing in any bad cards? Is that right? Surely that is going to have a huge impact on CSS if lots of players are doing the same?

PARlance · 18-02-2014 7:50pm

BoardsMember wrote: »

I like both of these.

Is there merit in extending the second one to include team events too? I'm not sure why you would restrict it to singles events only, but maybe there is a good reason.

Teams don't get 0.1's at present, are you thinking the opposite I.e a cut for all winning team members. That would be somthing I think would be good.

I think both are very good.

Only slight fear would be the element of vanity handicaps that point 2 might allow. Low guys staying low to qualify to the top
AM events is one side of it, but the bigger potential is hackers like me NR'ing card(s) that would add a shot at present.

By and large, when someone tells you their HC, you know that they are around that level and I like that as it stands.
Have a look at the US system, a lot of Vanicaps flying around and it ruins it I feel.
It's not going to cost anyone prizes however so that may be the more important thing.

Personally I would keep 2. as they propose BUT limit it to about 5 NR's a year. I.e The 6th NR gets a 0.1.
It'd cost the bandits an extra 5 rounds, whilst keeping the integrity of the system IMO.

snipey · 18-02-2014 7:58pm

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Slievenamon won't know whats hit them when they see all these strange faces coming down to play their 3 rounds.

They won't have to go down they will just send up the cards.

SnowDrifts · 18-02-2014 8:01pm

snipey wrote: »

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Slievenamon won't know whats hit them when they see all these strange faces coming down to play their 3 rounds.

They won't have to go down they will just send up the cards.

No, they must play 3 qualifying rounds .... i.e. comps.

mafc · 18-02-2014 8:07pm

About time !

Hope it gets approval

Russman · 18-02-2014 8:20pm

Number 1 is fair enough, but I don't see the point of number 2 to be honest. I suspect it would backfire and encourage more people to NR as they won't get 0.1. Although if it comes in maybe a lot the scratch & plus players will start actually entering comps and returning cards (albeit NRs) safe in the knowledge that they won't increase their handicaps.

From what I've seen during a spell doing the comps and results, by and large, the NRs from high/mid handicappers are mostly not part of a cunning plan to build a handicap, its more often a result of just picking he ball up, or coming in early or something like that - of course there are exceptions, but you'll never catch everyone. The NRs that IMO are motivated by handicap are usually the ones where the 0.1 acts as a deterrent and I can't see the sense in removing it.

Of course it might suit the GUI to say there are x amount of Cat 1 golfers in Ireland, who knows.

Barnaboy · 18-02-2014 8:24pm

ballyk wrote: »

[*]2. the elimination of awarding of 0.1's for No Returns

It looks like a positive development to me. What does everybody else think?

Looks like I'm in the minority from the comments so far. I think this is a terrible idea. It will wreck the CSS system, totally distorting it. It will send the score needed to get cut upwards (assuming stableford scoring!), making it harder for the genuine cut chasers, like me

Very few people actually want 0.1s back. You get them because you played badly. You get the handicap you actually deserve, not what you think you can play off. I got 8 x 0.1s back last year, hated every one of them, but it's part of the game.

What could happen is that the number of no returns could rocket. You could get a situation where almost nobody hands in a card if they score less than 34 points....you could score 37 points and get a 0.1 back.

Stupid idea :rolleyes:

Russman · 18-02-2014 8:32pm

Barnaboy wrote: »

It will send the score needed to get cut upwards (assuming stableford scoring

Will it though ? I can't remember off the top of my head if the calculation % is based on all cards or not. Does a card that's entered on the computer as an NR count as a returned card ?

SnowDrifts · 18-02-2014 8:38pm

Russman wrote: »

Will it though ? I can't remember off the top of my head if the calculation % is based on all cards or not. Does a card that's entered on the computer as an NR count as a returned card ?

But it's different for Stableford because NR's (unlike in strokes) aren't usually entered into the computer?

golfwallah · 18-02-2014 8:41pm

ballyk wrote: »

There were two interesting motions passed at the GUI AGM apparently. If these motions are approved by CONGU then:
1. to qualify to play in an open singles qualifying round you would be required to have played a minimum of three qualifying rounds at your home course the previous year.

2. the elimination of awarding of 0.1's for No Returns

Article from the Irish Independent can be found here: http://www.independent.ie/sport/golf/confederation-set-up-to-help-aspiring-pros-get-started-30018125.html

It looks like a positive development to me. What does everybody else think?

It's positive but approval by CONGU could take another couple of years. As far as I remember, handicapping system changes are done on a 3 yearly cycle and also require support from the other golfing unions (England, Scotland & Wales) affiliated to CONGU - although I stand to be corrected on this.

Of more immediate relevance to most clubs right now, IMO, given membership losses over the last 10 years, is the report in the indo article that

GUI is hopeful that the CGI will help develop the game and assist clubs in maintaining member numbers and attracting new people to the game.

John Roche, director of golf and business development of the CGI, said: "Our aim is to have a complete suite of offerings to the clubs that will plug into programmes to get more people to play the sport."

It will be interesting to see how this pans out in reality, as club membership offerings at the moment are not meeting changing market requirements in terms of affordability, time availability to play, etc.

GreeBo · 18-02-2014 9:06pm

don't think 1 goes far enough and I think NRs should be done away with. No real need for them really., just calculate a stableford score and keep playing out the rest of the holes. Medical issue excluded of course. They are only used for low guys having embarrassing scores on my experience

Russman · 18-02-2014 9:08pm

SnowDrifts wrote: »

But it's different for Stableford because NR's (unlike in strokes) aren't usually entered into the computer?

Ya, I guess there's almost no such thing as a NR in stableford, you'd just enter the holes you scored on and no score for the others. So a NR in strokes might be equivalent to, say, 20pts in stableford.
But I would have though that all cards have to be entered regardless of the format ?

SnowDrifts · 18-02-2014 9:17pm

Russman wrote: »

Ya, I guess there's almost no such thing as a NR in stableford, you'd just enter the holes you scored on and no score for the others. So a NR in strokes might be equivalent to, say, 20pts in stableford.
But I would have though that all cards have to be entered regardless of the format ?

Yeah I think NRs in stableford equates to a torn up card. My understanding is that you should enter whatever scores you do have regardless of the format because it will still effect CSS. My club sent an email out some time back asking players to enter results even if you NR, only play 9 holes etc.

Sandwlch · 18-02-2014 9:22pm

Terrific news on point number 2. Hopefully Congu doesnt spoil it and reject it.

Really looking forward to the season now with no risk of point ones. Should be comfortably able to get my handicap down without the few good scores being undone by the bad ones.

Itching to get out now. Roll on spring !

Russman · 18-02-2014 9:26pm

Sandwlch wrote: »

Terrific news on point number 2. Hopefully Congu doesnt spoil it and reject it.

Really looking forward to the season now with no risk of point ones. Should be comfortably able to get my handicap down without the few good scores being undone by the bad ones.

Itching to get out now. Roll on spring !

But, with respect, what's the point in getting your handicap down based only on your good scores ? Surely that's only kidding yourself ?

spacecoyote · 18-02-2014 9:30pm

Russman wrote: »

But, with respect, what's the point in getting your handicap down based only on your good scores ? Surely that's only kidding yourself ?

I was reading his post with a subtle hint of sarcasm

My own course have a rule in place giving a short term ban from weekly comps for NR cards. Not sure how strictly it's enforced in practice though

Sandwlch · 18-02-2014 9:42pm

Russman wrote: »

But, with respect, what's the point in getting your handicap down based only on your good scores ? Surely that's only kidding yourself ?

Why is that kidding yourself ?
OK, its the change in the rules that facilitates it and there's nothing illegal in it, and I feel it will give me more confidence going out knowing there isnt a point one at risk. My target is to get my handicap down so use the rules to the full advantage I say.

Russman · 18-02-2014 9:46pm

Sandwlch wrote: »

Why is that kidding yourself ?
OK, its the change in the rules that facilitates it and there's nothing illegal in it, and I feel it will give me more confidence going out knowing there isnt a point one at risk. My target is to get my handicap down so use the rules to the full advantage I say.

Well ok, if you're being serious, there's nothing illegal in it, but its akin to just counting your good shots in a round and not your bad ones IMO.

It effectively means that someone's handicap doesn't have to go up.

Of course, if you're taking the pi$$, well played.

Slicemeister · 18-02-2014 10:10pm

Russman wrote: »

Well ok, if you're being serious, there's nothing illegal in it, but its akin to just counting your good shots in a round and not your bad ones IMO.

It effectively means that someone's handicap doesn't have to go up.

Of course, if you're taking the pi$$, well played.

I'm pretty sure he was, but sad reality is there will be a a fair few lads thinking along these lines.

m r c · 18-02-2014 10:13pm

As someone with a high h/c looking to lose shots this year I'd love to be able to n/r all my bad cards and avoid the .1

I've always felt that there would be no harm in a cat 4 golfer avoiding a .1 if that was their wish and it would also do more to highlight the h/c builders too if you think about it.
It's a very different story at the other end of the handicap scale where arguably .1's are more important.
The other thing is I can't see how it would hurt the field if the cat 4 mans h/c was "artificially" too low.

I detest point ones, I'd be lower now if I never got one back and I'm bitter for every one I've ever got.

gorfield · 18-02-2014 10:26pm

It's going to be a mess, if I nr'd all my bad rounds last year my hcap would be +5.1 instead of +2.5
Sound fair?
Category 1 amd cship entries will be a complete farce.
Hopefully they exclude cat1

Norfolk Enchants_ · 18-02-2014 10:43pm

gorfield wrote: »

It's going to be a mess, if I nr'd all my bad rounds last year my hcap would be +5.1 instead of +2.5
Sound fair?
Category 1 amd cship entries will be a complete farce.
Hopefully they exclude cat1

Thinly veiled brag?
Did anyone actually read the motions, cat. 1 golfers are proposed to be exempt.

yaboya1 · 18-02-2014 10:44pm

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

Did anyone actually read the motions, cat. 1 golfers are proposed to be exempt.

If this is the case it seems like a very good idea.

gorfield · 18-02-2014 10:49pm

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

Thinly veiled brag?
Did anyone actually read the motions, cat. 1 golfers are proposed to be exempt.

I was making a point at how silly the national cships hcaps would be, certainly not bragging. I've nothing to brag about, I'm a has been.

SnowDrifts · 18-02-2014 10:53pm

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

Thinly veiled brag?
Did anyone actually read the motions, cat. 1 golfers are proposed to be exempt.

Where did you read that?

The proposal is here https://www.gui.ie/home/general-documents/press-motions.aspx

The date for the proposal changes is Jan 2016. Also, they want to make the maximum amount of .1s in a calender year to be twenty.

FixdePitchmark · 18-02-2014 11:05pm

Norfolk Enchants_ wrote: »

Thinly veiled brag?
Did anyone actually read the motions, cat. 1 golfers are proposed to be exempt.

There is no thinly veiled brag of a + handicap - you should have a tattoo on your head

Dossy · 18-02-2014 11:45pm

I've always felt that there would be no harm in a cat 4 golfer avoiding a .1 if that was their wish and it would also do more to highlight the h/c builders too if you think about it.

Firstly i always hand in my cards no matter what the score,

But i would love not to hand in bad cards so i wouldnt get the .1 back,
Im trying to get down as low as i can,

Would this mess things up if other people in the same boat did it...??

Sandwlch · 19-02-2014 12:03am

Dossy wrote: »

Would this mess things up if other people in the same boat did it...??

I dont think so.
Its just giving golfers back a bit of control to within the rules manage their own handicaps, but with the bias towards being lower rather than higher. If you are on X.4, then it gives you the choice to go up a shot after a bad round or to hang on to your X.4 and work on getting it down whichever you want. Or just to gamble a bit more during the round in the hope of bringing in a good score rather than trying to 'nurse' things along to avoid risking falling out of the buffer zone.
The rules are the same for everyone, so I dont think its a case of messing anything up.

josie19 · 19-02-2014 12:16am

It's incredible the number of people who don't know how CSS is calculated. The only scores that matter in the calculation are SSS +2 and better. Those people who sign in and don't return a card are deemed to be worse than SSS +2. The number of players who are SSS +2 or better as a percentage of the field determines CSS. Cat 4 cards are not included in the calculation. The percentage of Cat 1, 2 and 3 players of the entire field is also used in the final adjustment table.

The guy with 20 or 30 points who throws his card in the bin has no impact on CSS. The only exception is the sneaky guy with 38 points who NR's thinking it's not good enough for a prize but doesn't want to risk a cut (cheat).

The 2nd motion will create a race for single digits for those hovering around 10, 11 and 12. Just return good cards for cuts and NR the rest. Bad idea

Dossy · 19-02-2014 12:29am

josie19 wrote: »

It's incredible the number of people who don't know how CSS is calculated. The only scores that matter in the calculation are SSS +2 and better. Those people who sign in and don't return a card are deemed to be worse than SSS +2. The number of players who are SSS +2 or better as a percentage of the field determines CSS. Cat 4 cards are not included in the calculation. The percentage of Cat 1, 2 and 3 players of the entire field is also used in the final adjustment table.

The guy with 20 or 30 points who throws his card in the bin has no impact on CSS. The only exception is the sneaky guy with 38 points who NR's thinking it's not good enough for a prize but doesn't want to risk a cut (cheat).

The 2nd motion will create a race for single digits for those hovering around 10, 11 and 12. Just return good cards for cuts and NR the rest. Bad idea

Only new to Comps and stuff so just picking rules etc a day at a time

josie19 · 19-02-2014 12:35am

Dossy wrote: »

Only new to Comps and stuff so just picking rules etc a day at a time

It wasn't directed at you Dossy - just at the guys who keep saying that Motion 2 will play havoc with CSS.

Dossy · 19-02-2014 12:40am

josie19 wrote: »

It wasn't directed at you Dossy - just at the guys who keep saying that Motion 2 will play havoc with CSS.

Sound dude, i can understand other people's frustration at the same time when newbies like mise ask questions which seem stupid or obvious

P.S i do use the search button

PARlance · 19-02-2014 12:46am

The more I think about it, the more the NR proposal is ridiculous.

A lot of us want to "go low" and a lot of us would NR instead of letting the HC system work. It will cease to be a true reflection of ability, it will be a reflection of our vanity.

I want to "go low", but I want to go low thanks to my ability improving, not a freak round followed by a another freak on getting me an ESR and then fooling myself by NR'ing for a year.

I also don't want to have a good round of 39 points only to find out that the CSS is 40points as half the field weren't on fire.

The proposal seems to be intended to be an attempt to stop bandits. It achieves nothing, in fact, it could assist a bandit at blending in. All they would have to do is return their card to get a 0.1 back. They'll be good enough bandits to work the system. If CSS starts to rise to 39 points, they'll take pleasure handing in a 35.

Or does anyone who returns a bad score become a bandit in future?

I would like to think I wouldn't avail of the NR if allowed, but I would. I think most would, especially at a .4 stage. Ara I'll give myself another chance and NR.

Bandits will still be bandits. Honest golfers who don't want to fool themself will also be tarred with the same brush.

The GUI has pins and needles and are proposing to chop of their leg IMO.

PARlance · 19-02-2014 12:53am

josie19 wrote: »

It's incredible the number of people who don't know how CSS is calculated. The only scores that matter in the calculation are SSS +2 and better. Those people who sign in and don't return a card are deemed to be worse than SSS +2. The number of players who are SSS +2 or better as a percentage of the field determines CSS. Cat 4 cards are not included in the calculation. The percentage of Cat 1, 2 and 3 players of the entire field is also used in the final adjustment table.

The guy with 20 or 30 points who throws his card in the bin has no impact on CSS. The only exception is the sneaky guy with 38 points who NR's thinking it's not good enough for a prize but doesn't want to risk a cut (cheat).

The 2nd motion will create a race for single digits for those hovering around 10, 11 and 12. Just return good cards for cuts and NR the rest. Bad idea

The % of people with SSS +2 or better will rocket though?
It could be as high as 80-90% I would imagine. With only good scores being returned.
Ironically bandits may make up a big portion of the SSS +3's and worse.

Surely this changes things?

Edit: are you sure it is as a % of the field? I thought it was as a % of returned cards.

Dossy · 19-02-2014 12:54am

PARlance wrote: »

The more I think about it, the more the NR proposal is ridiculous.

A lot of us want to "go low" and a lot of us would NR instead of letting the HC system work. It will cease to be a true reflection of ability, it will be a reflection of our vanity.

I want to "go low", but I want to go low thanks to my ability improving, not a freak round followed by a another freak on getting me an ESR and then fooling myself by NR'ing for a year.

I also don't want to have a good round of 39 points only to find out that the CSS is 40points as half the field weren't on fire.

The proposal seems to be intended to be an attempt to stop bandits. It achieves nothing, in fact, it could assist a bandit at blending in. All they would have to do is return their card to get a 0.1 back. They'll be good enough bandits to work the system. If CSS starts to rise to 39 points, they'll take pleasure handing in a 35.

Or does anyone who returns a bad score become a bandit in future?

I would like to think I wouldn't avail of the NR if allowed, but I would. I think most would, especially at a .4 stage. Ara I'll give myself another chance and NR.

Bandits will still be bandits. Honest golfers who don't want to fool themself will also be tarred with the same brush.

The GUI has pins and needles and are proposing to chop of their leg IMO.

Ya PARlance i agree with you there,

Bandits will be Bandits, they will always find a way,
The NR thing has Pro's and Con's
At 17.4 at the mo i would be very tempted to a NR to stay at 17,
I can see people saying well i never play that bad normally so not handing that one in etc....

PARlance · 19-02-2014 1:00am

Dossy wrote: »

Ya PARlance i agree with you there,

Bandits will be Bandits, they will always find a way,
The NR thing has Pro's and Con's
At 17.4 at the mo i would be very tempted to a NR to stay at 17,
I can see people saying well i never play that bad normally so not handing that one in etc....

I think I would be the same.
But I don't want that option.
And I think it will ultimately lead people to improve less. Why work on your game when you can work the system instead.
I know I worked twice as hard when I went up a shot than I would have if I could have "opted" not to and fool myself instead.
It stops becoming a HC after a while and it will soon become a measure of our lowest score recorded.

Dossy · 19-02-2014 1:05am

PARlance wrote: »

I think I would be the same.
But I don't want that option.
And I think it will ultimately lead people to improve less. Why work on your game when you can work the system instead.
I know I worked twice as hard when I went up a shot than I would have if I could have "opted" not to and fool myself instead.
It stops becoming a HC after a while and it will soon become a measure of our lowest score recorded.

I dunno will it get that bad but im spending alot time at short game lately cos if i have a bad 1st round im bak to 18 (17.5) , really hope i do well to have a buffer for a bad round

PARlance · 19-02-2014 1:12am

Dossy wrote: »

I dunno will it get that bad but im spending alot time at short game lately cos if i have a bad 1st round im bak to 18 (17.5) , really hope i do well to have a buffer for a bad round

You would be labelled a bandit if you returned the card if you had a bad one though

PARlance · 19-02-2014 1:20am

josie19 wrote: »

It's incredible the number of people who don't know how CSS is calculated. The only scores that matter in the calculation are SSS +2 and better. Those people who sign in and don't return a card are deemed to be worse than SSS +2. The number of players who are SSS +2 or better as a percentage of the field determines CSS. Cat 4 cards are not included in the calculation. The percentage of Cat 1, 2 and 3 players of the entire field is also used in the final adjustment table.

The guy with 20 or 30 points who throws his card in the bin has no impact on CSS. The only exception is the sneaky guy with 38 points who NR's thinking it's not good enough for a prize but doesn't want to risk a cut (cheat).

The 2nd motion will create a race for single digits for those hovering around 10, 11 and 12. Just return good cards for cuts and NR the rest. Bad idea

You may want to check that again Josie, I've looked into it and it's all pointing to CSS being based on "known/returned" cards only.

Dossy · 19-02-2014 1:46am

PARlance wrote: »

You would be labelled a bandit if you returned the card if you had a bad one though

I can see it now,

Driver's at Dawn....!!

Senecio · 19-02-2014 7:47am

I really think the 0.1's is a bad idea.

I liked the system we had in Australia.

All NR's received 0.1 back. If you legitimately withdrew you wrote the reason for withdrawing on your card and had your marker sign it and submit it. In such cases you would not receive 0.1 back. Submit more than 3 NR's in a season and you'd get an invite to the next committee meeting to explain your actions.

I only ever heard of two people having to front the committee. One was just ignorant of the rules and the other left the club before the meeting.

Golfgraffix · 19-02-2014 9:38am

I have to agree with Gorfield, at the top level it's gonna make qualifying for national amateur events very hard.

I remember the days when a scratch golfer or even the +1's and 2's had a chance of qualifying, now with artificially low guys it is as hard as he'll to get a spot.

Maybe I am cynical but I don't think that golf quality has improved that much that we have a huge jump in + golfers. I have played with a number of the up and coming juniors and avoiding the .1 is like an art to many of them.

Not sure of the exact ins and outs of the USGA system but they have some formula that seems to keep handicaps artificially low, I have never played with an American golfer who played anywhere near what you would expect from their handicap.

J

PARlance · 19-02-2014 9:48am

US system is very different.
In brief,
Casual rounds count towards HC and the majority I've seen are almost based purely on casual rounds.
Their HC is based on the best 10 of their last 20 rounds (a rolling HC so it can change a lot more either way, especially UP compared to ours).

Many people believe there to be 5 shots in the difference at the higher end and 3 as you get lower.

It's pretty complicated but that's my high level view.

I've read threads in forums over there were 11 or 12 HC'ers start to play "Tournaments" club comps or Opens for the first time. Scores of 95-100 keep popping up. From guys that are nearly single figures over there.

Rippeditup · 19-02-2014 10:04am

Golfgraffix wrote: »

I have to agree with Gorfield, at the top level it's gonna make qualifying for national amateur events very hard.

I remember the days when a scratch golfer or even the +1's and 2's had a chance of qualifying, now with artificially low guys it is as hard as he'll to get a spot.

Maybe I am cynical but I don't think that golf quality has improved that much that we have a huge jump in + golfers. I have played with a number of the up and coming juniors and avoiding the .1 is like an art to many of them.

Not sure of the exact ins and outs of the USGA system but they have some formula that seems to keep handicaps artificially low, I have never played with an American golfer who played anywhere near what you would expect from their handicap.

J

Agreed, I remember the cut for the Close in the Island was something like 2.3 and that was 98/99.. Suddenly you have to be +1 to get in while scores are not that much better as a % to the field I would imagine.

Allot of great home course scoring is not transferring to the championships from how I see it.

Though in all honesty I haven't been playing in a number of years so not close to it anymore but after being at a few of the championships in the last few years the standard has not jumped that much (it has improved).

josie19 · 19-02-2014 10:04am

PARlance wrote: »

You may want to check that again Josie, I've looked into it and it's all pointing to CSS being based on "known/returned" cards only.

Percentage of the field is referenced to the number that signed in (deemed to have played). Check howdidido under course analysis under times played. NRs are always counted as competitors so if they throw away the card it still counts as a qualifying score worse than SSS +2.

mike12 · 19-02-2014 11:32am

Most clubs have a rule if you NR 3 times you are banned from comps or have to give a reason. Maybe the rule change will be for rounds that are not compleated due to weather or ilness. I can't see it getting passed if you could just decide not to hand in a card after each round you got a .1 for.
If that is the case i would be playing off 7 instead of 12.

Two interesting motions at the GUI AGM

Comments