Two interesting motions at the GUI AGM

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't think they think everyone is a bandit, however I would say that the vast majority have higher handicaps than they should.

I don't care that it allows lower guys be artificially low, that's their own problem. For the events they enter they should have a requirement have shot x in last 6 months something.

Everyone else needs to be protected from themselves, for me your handicap shouldn't rocket just because are In a bad patch. That just means you don't and imo shouldn't win anything, by definition you are playing worse than normal, a handicap isn't there to boost you up then.

Then how come so few players shoot 36 (or even 34) points in your average weekly singles ? Are they all sandbagging ?

IMO your handicap should of course fluctuate with your form/ability. Ok its not an exact science, and you shouldn't get shots back just because you had a bad round, but your handicap isn't meant to be just an indication of how you could once play, its supposed to be reasonably current. Its not a fixed value of how good or bad someone may have been. People improve and disimprove and the handicap system is in theory there to level out the playing field so everyone can be competitive.
There will always be a timing lag, you play bad for a while, you'll get the 0.1s and when/if your form turns, you'll get cut.

Depending on a player's priorities artificially low golfers can be a bigger problem than artificially high ones. Both are equally wrong IMO.

HB2002

--Quote
We have a team event every bank holiday and up to last year when they left the club, I could have written down 3 of the 4 names of a prize winning team in advance of the comp most times.
--End Quote

Thats the problem.... i think it's probbaly the same in a huge majority of clubs that when you have your team events you're never surprised to see who's won it!

--Quote
Best way to combat team events is smaller prizes. Any event that has a holiday or 500" TV as a prize is asking for trouble. That's probably a poorer reflection of us as a society than a statement on golfers !
-- End Quote
I suppose the problem there is that you offer good prizes in the home of filling your timeseheets over the weekend and make as much money as possible for the club.... and that of course attracts the bandits

--Quote
I had it myself last year, cruising along 2 under par after 16, silly missed par putt on 17th but no drama, pulled drive into trees on 18th, got in to play it, the ball moved, penalty shot, hack out, long iron just short, average chip and missed putt giving me a triple - I was trying my best to do a decent score as I hadn't broken par in about 3 years, yet it looks terrible on the card. I even had to listen to some slagging about pulling to make sure I didn't get cut too much !! Nothing could have been further from the truth.
-- End Quote

All I can say about this is that I hope one day to be in that postion!!!
I'm pretty sure the slagging was just that.... because typical Irish reaction if they really thought you pulled up they would have said nothing to you!


--Quote
The 1% I might disagree with is, we'll say its the last comp of the year, a meaningless singles off the forward tees, you've had a good season and got cut to 8.5, so as it stands you still qualify for the Metro next year. You really want to play Metro, but its a nice sunny day and you want to have a game rather than drive back home. Now, without intentionally playing bad, I'm not so sure someone who doesn't try as hard as they maybe could is cheating. Or even if they are, how could it possibly be proven, if they turn in 33pts and are in the buffer ?
Its just such a grey area that I think we'd all be wasting our time worrying about it and trying to police it.

The current line of thinking with the GUI seems to be that almost everyone is a bandit, maybe I'm out of touch and everyone is, in fact, a bandit
-- End quote

I suppose if I was in that scenario I just wouldn't enter the comp and just play the course.... but because of where I am with my handicap I'd be itching to get out and get that last cut to bring me down another shot!
I'm off 12 and have dreams of single figures and thats what really drives me on....

We've probably beaten this to death... and no doubt will again but the GUI don't seem to bother with team events and are happy to allow people cheat away with their handicaps and hoover up prozes all over the country.

I think the handicap system works.... when you're playing bad you get you're .1's back and when you're playing well you get cut... wokrs perfectly as long as people are just and fair in how they play... you simply can't control that..... so what can you do.

1. Make people have to play qualifying competitions ( 3 in your home club is a start but not enough ) I'd say something like 8 qualifying competitons a year minimum of 3 in your home club.
2. Some form of standard scratch to be applied to team events and cutting to be applied to each member of the team.
3. All competitions to be entered on the computer system so that the handicaps are worked out for the handicap secretary

I think the biggest amount of cheating is done through team events and there's the least amount of policing of these events.
They're not GUI events so they just don't care.......

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

I don't think they think everyone is a bandit, however I would say that the vast majority have higher handicaps than they should.

I don't care that it allows lower guys be artificially low, that's their own problem. For the events they enter they should have a requirement have shot x in last 6 months something.

Everyone else needs to be protected from themselves, for me your handicap shouldn't rocket just because are In a bad patch. That just means you don't and imo shouldn't win anything, by definition you are playing worse than normal, a handicap isn't there to boost you up then.

Ah come on, a maximum of 2 shots (20 0.1s) in a given year is hardly "rocketing".
If someone is getting 20 0.1's in a year and no cuts then I think they obviously "need" the 2.0 shots.

I love how this always comes back to course management... What has course management got to do with the handicap system moreso than anything else.

It's a fundamental of the game, but it needs to be worked on just like anything else, there are other fundamentals but yet this seems to crop up all by itself, as if it is some magic cure for the High HC'er, as if they haven't got other flaws with their game and as if it is an easy and quick fix.
Yet somehow Course Management gets brought into it as this easy fix.
Why not start looking at peoples grips, time spent practicing, putting stroke etc etc etc.
I personally think course management is a harder skill to master than any of the other skills needed.
Lowering someones handicap does not lead to the magical situation where they discover and implement good CM.
It's the opposite, like all the other skills, as you improve on this area, the Handicap reductions follow.

Yes, most peoples Handicaps are higher than they should... I don't think many of us have discovered the secret to golf so in that sense, there is always room for improvement and we will always play to a handicap higher than we could/should.

I also love how these discussions automatically home in on high HC'ers...why?

Could I not say that you are should be playing to a lower handicap and deserve a cut.
You obviously have CM mastered sensei
But I am sure there are other areas that you can improve.
Would it be fair to cut you 2-3 shots and say, "get out to the range and start working on your driving, long irons, etc, etc" and you will be able to play off your lower HC.

SnowDrifts

GreeBo wrote: »

Everyone else needs to be protected from themselves, for me your handicap shouldn't rocket just because are In a bad patch. That just means you don't and imo shouldn't win anything, by definition you are playing worse than normal, a handicap isn't there to boost you up then.

Exactly. Why should a player be given the opportunity to be close to the prizes for going through a stage of playing bad golf? You are playing poorly and this should be motivation enough to get yourself back into the buffer and play to a handicap that you normally can.

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

Ah come on, a maximum of 2 shots (20 0.1s) in a given year is hardly "rocketing".
If someone is getting 20 0.1's in a year and no cuts then I think they obviously "need" the 2.0 shots.

I love how this always comes back to course management... What has course management got to do with the handicap system moreso than anything else.

It's a fundamental of the game, but it needs to be worked on just like anything else, there are other fundamentals but yet this seems to crop up all by itself, as if it is some magic cure for the High HC'er, as if they haven't got other flaws with their game and as if it is an easy and quick fix.
Yet somehow Course Management gets brought into it as this easy fix.
Why not start looking at peoples grips, time spent practicing, putting stroke etc etc etc.
I personally think course management is a harder skill to master than any of the other skills needed.
Lowering someones handicap does not lead to the magical situation where they discover and implement good CM.
It's the opposite, like all the other skills, as you improve on this area, the Handicap reductions follow.

Yes, most peoples Handicaps are higher than they should... I don't think many of us have discovered the secret to golf so in that sense, there is always room for improvement and we will always play to a handicap higher than we could/should.

I also love how these discussions automatically home in on high HC'ers...why?

Could I not say that you are should be playing to a lower handicap and deserve a cut.
You obviously have CM mastered sensei
But I am sure there are other areas that you can improve.
Would it be fair to cut you 2-3 shots and say, "get out to the range and start working on your driving, long irons, etc, etc" and you will be able to play off your lower HC.

I dont think I mentioned course management...?
I think you've jumped on a dead fish there tbh!

There is a massive difference between playing how you should and playing how you could. We could all play better by practicing more, etc. But I should be playing better than I currently am, as I have, consistently played better than I am right now.

My average day on the course would have me playing to 7/8, currently Im off 10 (9.5) due to a run of less than average golf. I think this is wrong. I'm still the same guy I was when I got to 8.1, I'm just playing badly at the moment. I dont expect to still be competitive when Im playing below par (har har1) for myself.

Russman wrote: »

Then how come so few players shoot 36 (or even 34) points in your average weekly singles ? Are they all sandbagging ?

IMO your handicap should of course fluctuate with your form/ability. Ok its not an exact science, and you shouldn't get shots back just because you had a bad round, but your handicap isn't meant to be just an indication of how you could once play, its supposed to be reasonably current. Its not a fixed value of how good or bad someone may have been. People improve and disimprove and the handicap system is in theory there to level out the playing field so everyone can be competitive.
There will always be a timing lag, you play bad for a while, you'll get the 0.1s and when/if your form turns, you'll get cut.

Depending on a player's priorities artificially low golfers can be a bigger problem than artificially high ones. Both are equally wrong IMO.

Most people dont shoot 36 points because your handicap is designed so that you dont. You have to play well to shoot 36 points, its all there laid out by CONGU. 36 points means playing above average, not average. Its supposed to happen something like 2 out of every 7 times. Thats why the handicap system is weighted to cut you when you do better than it. If 36 points was supposed to be your average score you would get cut and increased by the same amount and there would be no buffer zone to keep you low.

PARlance

SnowDrifts wrote: »

Exactly. Why should a player be given the opportunity to be close to the prizes for going through a stage of playing bad golf? You are playing poorly and this should be motivation enough to get yourself back into the buffer and play to a handicap that you normally can.

Define a "stage of bad golf"?

For me it would be 1-3 months max were someone is struggling, anything longer than that and it's not a "stage of bad golf", it's a "case of a bad golfer".

The system is quite rigid in terms of HC increases, a bad stage of golf would result in 1 extra shot... 2 if the guy was playing loads of golf.
If he can honestly go from a bad stage to playing a blinder, then fair dues, I don't think this guy makes up any significant % of golfers.

Should the system be one for which someones lowest ever round is their HC for good.
Because that's very similar to what you are suggesting.
If you can shoot it once, you can shoot it again, no excuses please, go off and improve.

HB2002

PARlance wrote: »

Ah come on, a maximum of 2 shots (20 0.1s) in a given year is hardly "rocketing".
If someone is getting 20 0.1's in a year and no cuts then I think they obviously "need" the 2.0 shots.

I love how this always comes back to course management... What has course management got to do with the handicap system moreso than anything else.

It's a fundamental of the game, but it needs to be worked on just like anything else, there are other fundamentals but yet this seems to crop up all by itself, as if it is some magic cure for the High HC'er, as if they haven't got other flaws with their game and as if it is an easy and quick fix.
Yet somehow Course Management gets brought into it as this easy fix.
Why not start looking at peoples grips, time spent practicing, putting stroke etc etc etc.
I personally think course management is a harder skill to master than any of the other skills needed.
Lowering someones handicap does not lead to the magical situation where they discover and implement good CM.
It's the opposite, like all the other skills, as you improve on this area, the Handicap reductions follow.

Yes, most peoples Handicaps are higher than they should... I don't think many of us have discovered the secret to golf so in that sense, there is always room for improvement and we will always play to a handicap higher than we could/should.

I also love how these discussions automatically home in on high HC'ers...why?

Could I not say that you are should be playing to a lower handicap and deserve a cut.
You obviously have CM mastered sensei
But I am sure there are other areas that you can improve.
Would it be fair to cut you 2-3 shots and say, "get out to the range and start working on your driving, long irons, etc, etc" and you will be able to play off your lower HC.

I think you're completely off the mark....

I'm not sure what your point is about course management???

Why do these conversations come back to high handicappers???
Because people who artifically increase their handicaps and go play in teams events or any event are cheating.... that doesn't mean everyone with an 18 handicap is cheating... it's only people who are artifically increasing their handicaps....

The idea of your handicap is to adjust your score according to your ability so that you can score 36 points in a stableford competition.
If you consistently score 40 points then your handicap gets adjusted to bring you back to the 36 points mark.... if you consistently score 30 points then you get your .1's back...

There are a few brackets for golfer and their handicaps
There are the people playing off lower handicaps than they should be playing off.... vanity golfers
there are people playing off roughly what they should be off... your Joe soap golfer
and there are people playing off inflated handicaps.... your cheating golfer

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont think I mentioned course management...?
I think you've jumped on a dead fish there tbh!

There is a massive difference between playing how you should and playing how you could. We could all play better by practicing more, etc. But I should be playing better than I currently am, as I have, consistently played better than I am right now.

My average day on the course would have me playing to 7/8, currently Im off 10 (9.5) due to a run of less than average golf. I think this is wrong. I'm still the same guy I was when I got to 8.1, I'm just playing badly at the moment. I dont expect to still be competitive when Im playing below par (har har1) for myself.

You didn't (for a change ) .. My bad.

Ok, so in your example, what change to the system can be introduced to get rid of this "wrong".
How does it work? Do you stay at your low point (HC) for X period no matter what?

I'm sure it's not the case, and I hope not, but what if this bad run isn't just a bad run... what if you've past your peak? Should the HC system not reflect your current (past 12 months or so?) game rather than over a year ago?

I think you are taking an imperfect system and making it an even less imperfect system if you go down that road.

BoardsMember

There are all sorts of different types of golfers within the "not cheating/not bandits" group, that might look like they are holding back.

I feel like a bandit a little, though I play in as many competitions as I can and return cards, and always try my hardest. I play off 9, 9 is my lowest ever handicap. In each of my last 3 years, I have only managed to put in two "good", cards of gross 72/74/75/76, which have pulled me .8 or more, otherwise I am rarely in the buffer. I always try my hardest, but I just seem to be an all or nothing golfer. When I play in open competitions I am the same. For example, I played in a 14 hole open competition last summer which we ended up featuring in, I didn't feature on the card (team of 4, two to count on each hole) for the first 8 holes, I was awful. I was 2 under gross for the final 6 holes, so featured on all.

My point is that there are such a wide range of golfer types, before you even introduce the concept of people managing their scores, that it is difficult to change it from how it works now, so that it is fair for all who are honest. Should it be changed so that I only ever get cut, or would be lower than 9 now? Maybe so. It would be great for me, I want to go as low as possible. But not all would be too impressed.

HB2002

BoardsMember wrote: »

There are all sorts of different types of golfers within the "not cheating/not bandits" group, that might look like they are holding back.

I feel like a bandit a little, though I play in as many competitions as I can and return cards, and always try my hardest. I play off 9, 9 is my lowest ever handicap. In each of my last 3 years, I have only managed to put in two "good", cards of gross 72/74/75/76, which have pulled me .8 or more, otherwise I am rarely in the buffer. I always try my hardest, but I just seem to be an all or nothing golfer. When I play in open competitions I am the same. For example, I played in a 14 hole open competition last summer which we ended up featuring in, I didn't feature on the card (team of 4, two to count on each hole) for the first 8 holes, I was awful. I was 2 under gross for the final 6 holes, so featured on all.

My point is that there are such a wide range of golfer types, before you even introduce the concept of people managing their scores, that it is difficult to change it from how it works now, so that it is fair for all who are honest. Should it be changed so that I only ever get cut, or would be lower than 9 now? Maybe so. It would be great for me, I want to go as low as possible. But not all would be too impressed.

To be fair you sound like an honest golfer.... far from a bandit!
Just because you throw in some really good scores doesn't take from your honesty.... you play in a lot of competitions... you're handicap goes up and down... thats exactly how it should work... we all get the good days the average days and the bad days.... the handicap system is designed for people like yourself who try....

alxmorgan

BoardsMember wrote: »

There are all sorts of different types of golfers within the "not cheating/not bandits" group, that might look like they are holding back.

Agree with this. For example I played at the weekend and was +2 for the front 9. I played the back on +11 to play to my exact handicap of 13.

Now was I pulling ? Well it's winter so no cuts...but even more importantly is that it was a casual game so I could have shot 50 points and no one would even have known so no I wasn't pulling.

So what happened ? Well there was really only one bad decision in there but plenty of poor swings. A 9 shot swing seems mad especially as the 9s aren't too different in difficultly. I am inconsistent. That is why I am playing off 13 rather than lower. I hope to get lower this year and will do if I do more of the front and less of the back kind of play.

Take from that what you will.

josie19

GreeBo wrote: »

My average day on the course would have me playing to 7/8, currently Im off 10 (9.5) due to a run of less than average golf. I think this is wrong. I'm still the same guy I was when I got to 8.1, I'm just playing badly at the moment. I dont expect to still be competitive when Im playing below par (har har1) for myself.

What exactly is wrong. You're not playing to 8 at the moment so the system continues to give you .1s until you return to play to your handicap. If your form returns, then a few quick cuts will get you back to 8 or better.

You seem to be suggesting that we should be handicapped to our best ever ability. I think the majority of players would have one time played to a lower level than they currently are unless they are relatively new to the game.

Also, by your own admission your average day on the course should not have had you playing to 7/8 when your handicap was 8.1. Yo should have played to 8 around 2 in 7 times.

PARlance

HB2002 wrote: »

I think you're completely off the mark....

I'm not sure what your point is about course management???

Why do these conversations come back to high handicappers???
Because people who artifically increase their handicaps and go play in teams events or any event are cheating.... that doesn't mean everyone with an 18 handicap is cheating... it's only people who are artifically increasing their handicaps....

The idea of your handicap is to adjust your score according to your ability so that you can score 36 points in a stableford competition.
If you consistently score 40 points then your handicap gets adjusted to bring you back to the 36 points mark.... if you consistently score 30 points then you get your .1's back...

There are a few brackets for golfer and their handicaps
There are the people playing off lower handicaps than they should be playing off.... vanity golfers
there are people playing off roughly what they should be off... your Joe soap golfer
and there are people playing off inflated handicaps.... your cheating golfer

My point was in response to Greebo and his "I would say that the vast majority have higher handicaps than they should" comment along with "Everyone else needs to be protected from themselves, for me your handicap shouldn't rocket just because are In a bad patch" comment.

He is talking about Joe Soap here, I agree with you and disagree with his comments.

Handicaps don't rocket upwards at present, and if Joe is going through a bad patch then I have no problem with him getting 0.1's back...Joe is an honest golfer here.

GreeBo

josie19 wrote: »

What exactly is wrong. You're not playing to 8 at the moment so the system continues to give you .1s until you return to play to your handicap. If your form returns, then a few quick cuts will get you back to 8 or better.

You seem to be suggesting that we should be handicapped to our best ever ability. I think the majority of players would have one time played to a lower level than they currently are unless they are relatively new to the game.

Also, by your own admission your average day on the course should not have had you playing to 7/8 when your handicap was 8.1. Yo should have played to 8 around 2 in 7 times.

2 shots in 20 rounds could be 10 weeks for some, less for others, thats some quick movement imo.
No, not your best ever ability, I didnt suggest that at all.
Your handicap, according to CONGU, is supposed to reflect your better than average day. I know right now Im playing far worse than even my average. I frankly dont want my handicap to go up because of this because it means I have a good chance of coming in 6 shots under par some day.

I dont follow your last point. I never said that I expected to play to 7/8 on average. But using the buffer zone, some cuts and some increases I should hover around 7/8. Some days I will play to 11, most days i will play to 9 but once or twice I will play to 6. Thats what the system is designed to reflect.

BoardsMember wrote: »

There are all sorts of different types of golfers within the "not cheating/not bandits" group, that might look like they are holding back.

I feel like a bandit a little, though I play in as many competitions as I can and return cards, and always try my hardest. I play off 9, 9 is my lowest ever handicap. In each of my last 3 years, I have only managed to put in two "good", cards of gross 72/74/75/76, which have pulled me .8 or more, otherwise I am rarely in the buffer. I always try my hardest, but I just seem to be an all or nothing golfer. When I play in open competitions I am the same. For example, I played in a 14 hole open competition last summer which we ended up featuring in, I didn't feature on the card (team of 4, two to count on each hole) for the first 8 holes, I was awful. I was 2 under gross for the final 6 holes, so featured on all.

My point is that there are such a wide range of golfer types, before you even introduce the concept of people managing their scores, that it is difficult to change it from how it works now, so that it is fair for all who are honest. Should it be changed so that I only ever get cut, or would be lower than 9 now? Maybe so. It would be great for me, I want to go as low as possible. But not all would be too impressed.

I think a golfer who is either well under or well over par needs to look at their course management tbh. One needs to tailor their approach to how they are playing on the day. But I think this is off topic...sorta

PARlance wrote: »

My point was in response to Greebo and his "I would say that the vast majority have higher handicaps than they should" comment along with "Everyone else needs to be protected from themselves, for me your handicap shouldn't rocket just because are In a bad patch" comment.

He is talking about Joe Soap here, I agree with you and disagree with his comments.

Handicaps don't rocket upwards at present, and if Joe is going through a bad patch then I have no problem with him getting 0.1's back...Joe is an honest golfer here.

I think it should be harder to get 0.1s back, maybe the buffers need to be looked at and widened. If you have actually lost ability, rather than a slump, then that should be addressed with the handicap sec and not left to mathematical formula. Maths cant cater for day to day changes and also be expected to catch significant ability changes too.

Russman

PARlance wrote: »

Should the system be one for which someones lowest ever round is their HC for good.
Because that's very similar to what you are suggesting.
If you can shoot it once, you can shoot it again, no excuses please, go off and improve.

That's exactly the problem, the system isn't meant to be like that.
I think some are suggesting that you cannot disimprove as a golfer or if you do, its just tough, your handicap stays as it was.

GreeBo

PARlance wrote: »

My point was in response to Greebo and his "I would say that the vast majority have higher handicaps than they should" comment along with "Everyone else needs to be protected from themselves, for me your handicap shouldn't rocket just because are In a bad patch" comment.

He is talking about Joe Soap here, I agree with you and disagree with his comments.

Handicaps don't rocket upwards at present, and if Joe is going through a bad patch then I have no problem with him getting 0.1's back...Joe is an honest golfer here.

To be clear, I think most Joe Soaps handicaps are too high.
My own included. The system, unfortunately, cant discern between lack of talent causing bad scores and, frankly, stupidity. I dont think that stupidity in this sense is an ability thing. Maybe thats wrong or biased, but its what I believe.

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

That's exactly the problem, the system isn't meant to be like that.
I think some are suggesting that you cannot disimprove as a golfer or if you do, its just tough, your handicap stays as it was.

You can disimprove, but a static system cant tell the difference between form and ability. thus it has to be tailored to one and let the handicap sec keep an eye on the other.

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

2 shots in 20 rounds could be 10 weeks for some, less for others, thats some quick movement imo.
No, not your best ever ability, I didnt suggest that at all.
Your handicap, according to CONGU, is supposed to reflect your better than average day. I know right now Im playing far worse than even my average. I frankly dont want my handicap to go up because of this because it means I have a good chance of coming in 6 shots under par some day.

I dont follow your last point. I never said that I expected to play to 7/8 on average. But using the buffer zone, some cuts and some increases I should hover around 7/8. Some days I will play to 11, most days i will play to 9 but once or twice I will play to 6. Thats what the system is designed to reflect.


I think a golfer who is either well under or well over par needs to look at their course management tbh. One needs to tailor their approach to how they are playing on the day. But I think this is off topic...sorta



I think it should be harder to get 0.1s back, maybe the buffers need to be looked at and widened. If you have actually lost ability, rather than a slump, then that should be addressed with the handicap sec and not left to mathematical formula. Maths cant cater for day to day changes and also be expected to catch significant ability changes too.

But someone's average ability can change year on year. Increasing in increments of 0.1 means that they're not rocketing upwards, you might get 5 or 6 0.1s and then do a score and lose them.

WRT to you potentially coming in 6 under par someday, so what ? That's what sport is for, that one good day when everything goes right. You'll get cut accordingly if you do. It seems that you want to rule out someone ever shooting a "great" score (I might have picked it up wrong, but that's what it comes across as).

Amateur golfers are mostly so inconsistent that slumps in form (or whatever we call them) are incredibly common. You can't expect a handicap sec to be monitoring every player and deciding if he's ok from a handicap perspective, there need to be some system in place surely. Losing your game shouldn't be some sort of penance, obviously the system can't reward instantly for a slump, but over time, with the 0.1s your handicap will get closer to your current ability.

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

You can disimprove, but a static system cant tell the difference between form and ability.

Does it matter though ? What's the difference ? maybe their previous good play was lucky. Sometimes you just have a season (or 3) where you play bad.
If someone is playing badly, their handicap should reflect that, and it will happen gradually over a period of time. If they turn the corner, they will do scores and get cut back down. IMO that's the way its meant to be.

Xenophile

SnowDrifts wrote: »

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

snipey wrote: »

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

Gee, an ideal opportunity for enterprising business people in Clonmel to sponsor a competition in Slievenamon!

BoardsMember

GreeBo wrote: »

To be clear, I think most Joe Soaps handicaps are too high.
My own included. The system, unfortunately, cant discern between lack of talent causing bad scores and, frankly, stupidity. I dont think that stupidity in this sense is an ability thing. Maybe thats wrong or biased, but its what I believe.

I think I remember you posting about this before. Course management has an input into handicap, and rightfully so, as does talent, natural ability, swing plane, practice etc.

Two people with the same talent, natural ability, distance, short game etc will necessarily have different handicaps if one plays stupid shots all the time and the other doesn't, and that is right and correct. You don't seem to agree with this, but it is a contributor to your scores in a significant way, as it should be

josie19

GreeBo wrote: »

2 shots in 20 rounds could be 10 weeks for some, less for others, thats some quick movement imo.

The contrary is losing 2 shots in one round. Whether it takes weeks or months depending on how often you play is not that important. It still takes 20 rounds to get 2 full shots that could have been lost in a single round.

GreeBo wrote: »

2 shots in 20 rounds could be 10 weeks for some, less for others, thats some quick movement imo.

I dont follow your last point. I never said that I expected to play to 7/8 on average. But using the buffer zone, some cuts and some increases I should hover around 7/8.

I think you did

GreeBo wrote: »

My average day on the course would have me playing to 7/8, currently Im off 10 (9.5) due to a run of less than average golf.

PARlance

GreeBo wrote: »

You can disimprove, but a static system cant tell the difference between form and ability. thus it has to be tailored to one and let the handicap sec keep an eye on the other.

Staying in the real world here for a second, do you honestly think this would ever happen?
I don't think many clubs would be in the position to pay for a full time Handicap Sec, because that's what the role would turn into.

Our HC Sec would have to have me in for psychometric testing before/after every round.
Does he get out the polygraph test to see if people have been practicing or not?

GreeBo wrote: »

To be clear, I think most Joe Soaps handicaps are too high.
My own included. The system, unfortunately, cant discern between lack of talent causing bad scores and, frankly, stupidity. I dont think that stupidity in this sense is an ability thing. Maybe thats wrong or biased, but its what I believe.

The System allows you to correct this fairly quickly, you are an honest golfer, a win while you are higher than "you think" you should be is ok.
The system leaves the ball in your court, over to you now!
I don't see any need to change it on the basis that most golfers are honest.

I gave up thinking I was a good footballer long ago, I once was, but due to my own decisions I went from a single figures guy to a 20+ guy playing in some park against a lad who just crawled out of bed (probably 10mins before I did in fairness)
I deserved to be playing at a lower level, I could have changed that if I wanted. But I had no place thinking I didn't belong in a pub them... I took me a while to figure that out.
Your fall is a tiny one, get on the horse and get yourself a cut or two when the new season starts. The talk of the system being wrong is talk of someone that I in a bit of denial imo.

I've was in denial with football for quite a few years, it's easy to do, but it's only a barrier to your own improvement.

I am sure you are entering this year a lot more determined than you would have been with a static HC, a safety zone of a static HC would not be doing you any favours imo.

GreeBo

Russman wrote: »

But someone's average ability can change year on year. Increasing in increments of 0.1 means that they're not rocketing upwards, you might get 5 or 6 0.1s and then do a score and lose them.

WRT to you potentially coming in 6 under par someday, so what ? That's what sport is for, that one good day when everything goes right. You'll get cut accordingly if you do. It seems that you want to rule out someone ever shooting a "great" score (I might have picked it up wrong, but that's what it comes across as).

Amateur golfers are mostly so inconsistent that slumps in form (or whatever we call them) are incredibly common. You can't expect a handicap sec to be monitoring every player and deciding if he's ok from a handicap perspective, there need to be some system in place surely. Losing your game shouldn't be some sort of penance, obviously the system can't reward instantly for a slump, but over time, with the 0.1s your handicap will get closer to your current ability.

If I had a day where everything went my way I'd come in 10 under at the moment, I think thats way too far off my current handicap (which is too far away from my ability)

Russman wrote: »

Does it matter though ? What's the difference ? maybe their previous good play was lucky. Sometimes you just have a season (or 3) where you play bad.
If someone is playing badly, their handicap should reflect that, and it will happen gradually over a period of time. If they turn the corner, they will do scores and get cut back down. IMO that's the way its meant to be.

Nothing is wrong with that, I just dont think you should be competitive when, by your own admission, you are in a slump and playing below your own ability.

josie19 wrote: »

The contrary is losing 2 shots in one round. Whether it takes weeks or months depending on how often you play is not that important. It still takes 20 rounds to get 2 full shots that could have been lost in a single round.



I think you did

You cant compare gaining shots to losing shots as the logic behind each is totally different, nevermind that its much harder to play well than it is to play badly.

I mean that my average ability would keep me at a handicap of 7/8, not that I would shoot 7/8 over each time. As you know thats not required to maintain a handicap.

PARlance wrote: »

Staying in the real world here for a second, do you honestly think this would ever happen?
I don't think many clubs would be in the position to pay for a full time Handicap Sec, because that's what the role would turn into.

Our HC Sec would have to have me in for psychometric testing before/after every round.
Does he get out the polygraph test to see if people have been practicing or not?





The System allows you to correct this fairly quickly, you are an honest golfer, a win while you are higher than "you think" you should be is ok.
The system leaves the ball in your court, over to you now!
I don't see any need to change it on the basis that most golfers are honest.

I gave up thinking I was a good footballer long ago, I once was, but due to my own decisions I went from a single figures guy to a 20+ guy playing in some park against a lad who just crawled out of bed (probably 10mins before I did in fairness)
I deserved to be playing at a lower level, I could have changed that if I wanted. But I had no place thinking I didn't belong in a pub them... I took me a while to figure that out.
Your fall is a tiny one, get on the horse and get yourself a cut or two when the new season starts. The talk of the system being wrong is talk of someone that I in a bit of denial imo.

I've was in denial with football for quite a few years, it's easy to do, but it's only a barrier to your own improvement.

I am sure you are entering this year a lot more determined than you would have been with a static HC, a safety zone of a static HC would not be doing you any favours imo.

I live in the real world, so no worries there.

I dont want a static handicap, I just want it to not go up so quickly because of a dip in form. I dont want or expect to be competitive when playing badly. The lads on the pitch wouldnt stop tackling you just because you cant shoot to save your life at the moment, you'd likely be pissed if they did.
Perhaps you should only get 0.1 (or more) if you are X over par more than y times in a row (similar to the ESR)?
So make the bugger zone bigger, then if within 6 months you are never within 2 shots of your handicap, give you a full extra shot to play with, forget about the 0.1 increments that really dont help anybody be more competitive if they have lost ability.

Im not sure what you think I am in denial about? You think I am worse than I think I am? My argume

So if the system is flawed we should just ignore it because handicap secs cant be expected to do what the system asks of them? Why change anything so? Why even have the conversation? Unless and until someone comes up with a system that can, without any human intervention, keep track of a persons ability and distinguish between a slump and a genuine loss of ability and also a hot streak compared to a genuine advance in ability we will either always need human intervention (observation) OR just shut up and deal with the results and gaps in the system.

josie19

GreeBo wrote: »

Unless and until someone comes up with a system that can, without any human intervention, keep track of a persons ability and distinguish between a slump and a genuine loss of ability and also a hot streak compared to a genuine advance in ability we will either always need human intervention (observation) OR just shut up and deal with the results and gaps in the system.

It's not possible for anyone to determine a slump or genuine loss of ability, or a hot streak compared to genuine advance in ability.

I think a slump is a loss of ability during the period of the slump. If the form (ability) recovers then it was temporary otherwise it's a permanent loss of ability which comes to us all eventually.

During a hot streak the player has clearly advanced his ability during this period. Just because they fail to maintain that ability off a lower handicap doesn't mean there wasn't an advance in ability albeit for a short time. We all have periods where we play out of our skin which is probably our true potential. Alas, most of us never reach our true potential.

It could be argued that David Duval is going through a slump but I would argue that he has lost the ability.

Could have mentioned PH but could cause a riot.

BoardsMember

GreeBo wrote: »

Unless and until someone comes up with a system that can, without any human intervention, keep track of a persons ability and distinguish between a slump and a genuine loss of ability and also a hot streak compared to a genuine advance in ability we will either always need human intervention (observation) OR just shut up and deal with the results and gaps in the system.

I think this is the kernel of the thing you are talking about. The system can only be reasonably be expected to react to slumps in the same way as a loss of ability. The system works fine in that regard, where its a slump you get shots back, as you should, when you play badly. And you drop handicap as soon as the slump is over. To suggest that what we're looking for is a system designed to ignore slumps until they become long term, or defined as a loss of ability, is a little much to ask for. I would argue its not even what is needed.

shaneon77

How do you make the" bugger zone bigger"? Only joking, one easy way to avoid your handicap going up too quick during a slump is to not play competitive golf until the slump passes. Its like dropping yourself to the bench.

GreeBo

shaneon77 wrote: »

How do you make the" bugger zone bigger"? Only joking, one easy way to avoid your handicap going up too quick during a slump is to not play competitive golf until the slump passes. Its like dropping yourself to the bench.

Practice!

benching yourself is a lot like only playing fourballs and then swooping in for the captains prize though...

You shouldnt be "penalized" for continuing to play comps while in a slump imo.

Why not be "stuck" on a handicap for a year and then review the scores at the end (via computer) and let the computer decide if that entire year was a slump or not. Similar to only getting the 0.1 back at the end of the month, but stretch it out over a season. If you are crap for an entire season then I'd call that more than a slump and perhaps you do need that extra shot.

Could still be taken advantage of by sandbaggers, but I think it makes it harder, as any good scores would wipe out the significance of the bad ones and they would still be cut.

GreeBo

BoardsMember wrote: »

I think this is the kernel of the thing you are talking about. The system can only be reasonably be expected to react to slumps in the same way as a loss of ability. The system works fine in that regard, where its a slump you get shots back, as you should, when you play badly. And you drop handicap as soon as the slump is over. To suggest that what we're looking for is a system designed to ignore slumps until they become long term, or defined as a loss of ability, is a little much to ask for. I would argue its not even what is needed.

Its fine if you think you should remain competitive during a slump, I dont believe you should, do you?

Why is it too much to ask for? All it would need to reviewing scores after X rounds or X months and then applying the cut/increase based on a larger sample set. trying to ascertain a slump versus a loss of ability by only looking at each individual round in isolation seems farcical. They brought in the ESR to help identify an advance in ability, why not do the same for true loss of ability?

shaneon77

GreeBo wrote: »

You shouldnt be "penalized" for continuing to play comps while in a slump imo.

which brings us perfectly back on track for this thread. Once the new rules kick in, you will have that choice.