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
  • 18-02-2014 5:44pm
    #1
    ballyk
    Registered Users Posts: 843 ✭✭✭


    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?


«134567…14

Comments

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


    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.


  • Options
    #3
    Mr. Larson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,429 ✭✭✭Mr. Larson


    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.


  • Options
    #4
    Ronney
    Registered Users Posts: 839 ✭✭✭Ronney


    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


  • Options
    #5
    BoardsMember
    Registered Users Posts: 4,436 ✭✭✭BoardsMember


    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.


  • Options
    #6
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    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. :D

    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?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    PARlance
    Registered Users Posts: 21,093 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    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.


  • Options
    #8
    snipey
    Registered Users Posts: 373 ✭✭snipey


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

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


  • Options
    #9
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    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. :D

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

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


  • Options
    #10
    mafc
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭mafc


    About time !

    Hope it gets approval


  • Options
    #11
    Russman
    Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Russman


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Barnaboy
    Registered Users Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭Barnaboy


    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:


  • Options
    #13
    Russman
    Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Russman


    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 ?


  • Options
    #14
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    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?


  • Options
    #15
    golfwallah
    Registered Users Posts: 1,511 ✭✭✭golfwallah


    ballyk wrote: »
    There were two interesting motions passed at the GUI AGM apparently. If these motions are approved by CONGU then:
    1. 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. 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.


  • Options
    #16
    GreeBo
    Registered Users Posts: 27,033 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    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


  • Options
    #17
    Russman
    Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Russman


    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 ?


  • Options
    #18
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    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.


  • Options
    #19
    Sandwlch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭Sandwlch


    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 !


  • Options
    #20
    Russman
    Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Russman


    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 ?


  • Options
    #21
    spacecoyote
    Registered Users Posts: 8,437 ✭✭✭spacecoyote


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Sandwlch
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,066 ✭✭✭Sandwlch


    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.


  • Options
    #23
    Russman
    Registered Users Posts: 5,849 ✭✭✭Russman


    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.


  • Options
    #24
    Slicemeister
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,526 ✭✭✭Slicemeister


    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.


  • Options
    #25
    m r c
    Closed Accounts Posts: 802 ✭✭✭m r c


    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.


  • Options
    #26
    gorfield
    Closed Accounts Posts: 592 ✭✭✭gorfield


    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


  • Options
    #27
    Norfolk Enchants_
    Registered Users Posts: 661 ✭✭✭Norfolk Enchants_


    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.


  • Options
    #28
    yaboya1
    Registered Users Posts: 4,610 ✭✭✭yaboya1


    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.


  • Options
    #29
    gorfield
    Closed Accounts Posts: 592 ✭✭✭gorfield


    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.


  • Options
    #30
    SnowDrifts
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    FixdePitchmark
    Registered Users Posts: 20,758 ✭✭✭✭FixdePitchmark


    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 :p


Advertisement