Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Two interesting motions at the GUI AGM

Options
24567…14

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Dossy
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭Dossy


    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...??


  • Options
    #33
    Sandwlch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭Sandwlch


    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.


  • Options
    #34
    josie19
    Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭josie19


    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


  • Options
    #35
    Dossy
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭Dossy


    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


  • Options
    #36
    josie19
    Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭josie19


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Dossy
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭Dossy


    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 :)


  • Options
    #38
    PARlance
    Registered Users Posts: 21,096 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    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.


  • Options
    #39
    PARlance
    Registered Users Posts: 21,096 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    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.


  • Options
    #40
    Dossy
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭Dossy


    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....


  • Options
    #41
    PARlance
    Registered Users Posts: 21,096 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Dossy
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭Dossy


    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


  • Options
    #43
    PARlance
    Registered Users Posts: 21,096 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    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 :)


  • Options
    #44
    PARlance
    Registered Users Posts: 21,096 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    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.


  • Options
    #45
    Dossy
    Registered Users Posts: 310 ✭✭Dossy


    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....!!


  • Options
    #46
    Senecio
    Closed Accounts Posts: 971 ✭✭✭Senecio


    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.


  • Options
    #47
    Golfgraffix
    Registered Users Posts: 1,814 ✭✭✭Golfgraffix


    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


  • Options
    #48
    PARlance
    Registered Users Posts: 21,096 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    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.


  • Options
    #49
    Rippeditup
    Registered Users Posts: 444 ✭✭Rippeditup


    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).


  • Options
    #50
    josie19
    Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭josie19


    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.


  • Options
    #51
    mike12
    Registered Users Posts: 2,331 ✭✭✭mike12


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    J6P
    Registered Users Posts: 278 ✭✭J6P


    Isn't the country membership thing almost a thing of the past with all the cheap memberships available in dublin??

    I think the GUI have missed the boat on that one by about 5 years. The only reason there was people buying country memberships was because of clubs in Dublin charging stupid money.

    As for the .1's.. the new proposal is a joke. I would be embarassed to go with that proposal to the CONGU and seeing what they think of it.


  • Options
    #53
    Russman
    Registered Users Posts: 5,854 ✭✭✭Russman


    josie19 wrote: »
    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.

    One of the issues we have (or used to have before the main culprits left), was that many of them wouldn't sign in at the beginning of their round and would leave it until they had played to decide whether to log in or not.

    Much like bandits keeping a high handicap, the iffy low men will find a way to stay low.

    In practice though is this really only going to effect strokes comps as you can't really NR in stableford or v-par ? You might finish 18 down but its still a score ?
    Do we mean by NR that the card itself isn't returned or that halfway through the round the player essentially picked up his ball/didn't go back when he lost a ball etc ?


  • Options
    #54
    josie19
    Registered Users Posts: 156 ✭✭josie19


    Russman wrote: »
    One of the issues we have (or used to have before the main culprits left), was that many of them wouldn't sign in at the beginning of their round and would leave it until they had played to decide whether to log in or not.

    Much like bandits keeping a high handicap, the iffy low men will find a way to stay low.

    In practice though is this really only going to effect strokes comps as you can't really NR in stableford or v-par ? You might finish 18 down but its still a score ?
    Do we mean by NR that the card itself isn't returned or that halfway through the round the player essentially picked up his ball/didn't go back when he lost a ball etc ?

    In strokes you can NR a single or multiple scores and still complete the round. The NR scores go back to Nett double bogey - know as a stableford adjustment for bad scores. You can't win the comp if you NR a score but you can still be cut (and I have been !!).

    e.g. A par 5 where you have a shot and you score a 10 will go back 8 (for handicap purposes). The lowest stableford score where you get zero points.


  • Options
    #55
    PARlance
    Registered Users Posts: 21,096 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    josie19 wrote: »
    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.

    Great, thanks for clearing that up so.
    My CSS concern is gone, cheers again.

    Still not in favour of the second proposal all the same.


  • Options
    #56
    PARlance
    Registered Users Posts: 21,096 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    josie19 wrote: »
    In strokes you can NR a single or multiple scores and still complete the round. The NR scores go back to Nett double bogey - know as a stableford adjustment for bad scores. You can't win the comp if you NR a score but you can still be cut (and I have been !!).

    e.g. A par 5 where you have a shot and you score a 10 will go back 8 (for handicap purposes). The lowest stableford score where you get zero points.

    Wasn't aware of this until late last summer myself, think it is called Clause 19(?) and you will see that on your HC record from time to time....


  • Options
    #57
    Dr_Colossus
    Registered Users Posts: 3,122 ✭✭✭Dr_Colossus


    J6P wrote: »
    Isn't the country membership thing almost a thing of the past with all the cheap memberships available in dublin??

    I think the GUI have missed the boat on that one by about 5 years. The only reason there was people buying country memberships was because of clubs in Dublin charging stupid money.

    Is that meant as a joke? Where are all the cheap memberships available in Dublin? Cheapest you'll get for full membership is about €800, most of the member owned clubs which typically are in better condition charge upwards of €1,500 which is still stupid money when compared to country rates.


  • Options
    #58
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    Dr_Colossus wrote: »
    Is that meant as a joke? Where are all the cheap memberships available in Dublin? Cheapest you'll get for full membership is about €800, most of the member owned clubs which typically are in better condition charge upwards of €1,500 which is still stupid money when compared to country rates.

    Yeah I don't think you are going to find anywhere in Dublin that will offer membership with a GUI handicap for €150. It's definitely not to late to clamp down on this and they should do even more. Make it 10 qualifying rounds.


  • Options
    #59
    alxmorgan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,809 ✭✭✭alxmorgan


    SnowDrifts wrote: »
    Yeah I don't think you are going to find anywhere in Dublin that will offer membership with a GUI handicap for €150. It's definitely not to late to clamp down on this and they should do even more. Make it 10 qualifying rounds.

    Which would completely kill distance membership pretty much. Which may be the intent which is fine

    Out of interest what is the issue with lack of playing in your distance club ? Is it just being against the idea of buying a handicap or is there something more sinister going on that people are trying to stop ?


  • Options
    #60
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    alxmorgan wrote: »
    Which would completely kill distance membership pretty much. Which may be the intent which is fine

    Out of interest what is the issue with lack of playing in your distance club ? Is it just being against the idea of buying a handicap or is there something more sinister going on that people are trying to stop ?

    Here is their motive quoted from the link I provided earlier...
    Motive:
    The CONGU UHS requires each player to return three cards at their Home Club to be allocated a handicap. In addition to this initial requirement a further fundamental basis of the UHS is that every player will return a sufficient number of Qualifying Scores to provide reasonable evidence of current ability. Thus, by returning a minimum of three Qualifying Scores at his Home Club, annually, the player's Handicap Committee and peer information will better contribute to keeping the player's handicap under review leading to a more
    equitable handicapping system.

    I consider killing the distance membership to be good. I just don't think it's right that players quit their local clubs and join a club they will never play for €150 so that they can get their handicap.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    Paulusmaximus
    Registered Users Posts: 391 ✭✭Paulusmaximus


    not sure i agree entirely with either amendment, but back what they are trying to do.

    First one, why not change it to have to have played 5 qualifying rounds in the previous year. why do they have to be at your home club? if someone plays a minimum of 5 rounds, anywhere, then in majority of cases that is sufficient backup to justify a handicap.

    second one, what is the biggest issue in golf, people entering singles competitions to get shots back or people who are holding their handicap to try get lower. this rule favours one and opposes the other. there needs to be a middle ground. How about if you complete 9 holes or more and then NR you are liable to a 0.1. if you play less than 9 holes you are exempt from the 0.1. ok, this can still be abused, but at least those guys who are trying to get cut and if its not going their way and want to save their handicap will have had to abondon ship before the 9th.

    Also, then bring in penalties for anyone who has three NR's within a calendar year. Lastly, Category 1 is exempt from this.


Advertisement