Is It Time To End The Failed Handicap System.

Myksyk

Paulusmaximus wrote: »

3. Handicap secretaries and the GUI need to up their games massively. Every open singles should have a CSS for home players and away players. This has been done in our club and usually the away CSS is 2-4 points lower than the CSS for home players. If this is regularly done, less visiting players will receive .1's. Only recently i played in an open singles as a visitor, 37 points won the visitors prize. i had 35 points and the CSS was 37 points. i got a .1. this i find very hard to believe.

AFAIK, the congu system does not allow you to do this unless you have over a set number of visitors (20+ I believe).

4. There should be more handicap reviews done during the year. I believe there is only an annual review allowed to be done now. i think there should be at least 3 between April and October.

Handicap committees can and do carry out regular general play reviews. We have had 3 so far this year (May, July, November) and are due our annual review (which is generally the same thing) in mid December.

5. Included in this should be all "significant scores" in fourballs, teams and scrambles. If in a set period 2/3 months you have 3/4/5 "significant scores" you should be liable to a cut.

This is how it already works (barring the scrambles I think). We have an ongoing record of all notable scores in non-counting singles and all team events including societies etc. Players can have their handicap suspended for non-reporting of notable scores, as per GUI directions.

for this to work you have to agree on a definition of a significant score and you also need every handicap secretary to report back to other clubs the significant scores of the visitors.

Not sure you need a definition. A significant score will be determined by reference to the Competition Scratch Score on the day of the competition in question. This reflects the relative difficulty of play on that day and allows comparison of quality of play across the participants. The score of any player in any conditions can be considered ‘notable’ if a player has played better than the rest of the field who shared those conditions of play.

I'm sure golfnet and CONGU could be set up for handicap secretaries to tick record a significant score and " an away score" and when there are 3 there is an initial cut of .5, and an increased cut for any significant scores within 3-4 weeks.

It tends to work this way, at least in our club, but also with quite a degree more subtlety. Cutting after three scores may not be equitable insofar as the 'weight' of those scores may differ. Three wins in non-counting singles deserves more of a cut than three winning team events where the individual's contribution to the score is not known. Prescriptive cuts is not the way to go imho. Handicap committees need to be able to make judgements on the relative need for, or fairness of, any particular cut

5. Also, as another thought, how about then after a GP cut based on significant scores, you are not liable to receive any .1's for 4 weeks proceeding the cut. Players then cannot just go out and play 3/4 competitions and return their handicap back to their previous playing handicap.

Good idea but "hell" and "freeze over" come to mind!!!