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
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Bad news for bandits

2»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    Why not use the system to its full capabilites of tracking individual scores and compiling results:)

    I guess the natural extension to that though would be why bother with 4-balls and team events at all, if we decide we want every score tracked ?
    Why would you want to track individual scores, if they're not in singles comps ? Scores in "team" type events compared to scores made in singles is an apples v oranges comparison IMO. You've got pressure or lack of, you're partner can show you the line, give you a club etc. etc. Most people will "freewheel" in a 4 ball and play their most aggressive taking on shots they'd never ever attempt in a singles.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,138 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    Possibly !!! So, are you saying the two players who didn't score should be input as 0 for that hole? I would have thought if, from a team of four, you had two 3 pointers and two 2's, these should all be input. Why put in zero when you actually got a bogey:confused: If you have taken your 6 shots and are out of the hole, then by all means pick up the ball and move on to speed up play and enter 0 on the system.
    Why not use the system to its full capabilites of tracking individual scores and compiling results:)

    We're talking about bandits and possibly a team of bandits here Nom.
    If they had 4 3's they'd still only put in the 2 3's with blanks in that instance.

    This new format won't make them honest all of a sudden.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    PARlance wrote: »
    We're talking about bandits and possibly a team of bandits here Nom.
    If they had 4 3's they'd still only put in the 2 3's with blanks in that instance.

    This new format won't make them honest all of a sudden.

    But there is nothing in the OP to suggest its for handicap purposes.
    It certainly isnt in my club.
    You mark your card the exact same way you do today and then enter those scores in the computer. No new requirements to finish out every hole or anything like that.
    It does all the crap figuring out winners, countback etc, etc.
    The Comp Committee just needs to manually check the cards of the winners, rather than wade through hundreds of cards.

    I really think people are reading far too much into it!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,138 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    GreeBo wrote: »
    But there is nothing in the OP to suggest its for handicap purposes.
    It certainly isnt in my club.
    You mark your card the exact same way you do today and then enter those scores in the computer. No new requirements to finish out every hole or anything like that.
    It does all the crap figuring out winners, countback etc, etc.
    The Comp Committee just needs to manually check the cards of the winners, rather than wade through hundreds of cards.

    I really think people are reading far too much into it!

    Reading too much into the title "Bad news for bandits" ???

    I agree that this new initiative has / will have next to no effect on Bandits. It'll save on admin work but I don't think a bandit in the country will be worrying about it.

    The topic is a combo of the OP and the thread title, no?

    And yes, I agree obv, the OP'er is reading far too much into it IMO.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    GreeBo wrote: »
    But there is nothing in the OP to suggest its for handicap purposes.

    No, but to be fair, his second sentence, along with the thread title would imply he thinks it is or should be.

    And, the more you think about it, all it realistically can be used for is to record scores for results purposes, any other use that its put to is so unrealiable as to be guess work with regard to what a player might or might not have had on a given hole that was "scratched".


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    PARlance wrote: »
    Reading too much into the title "Bad news for bandits" ???

    I agree that this new initiative has / will have next to no effect on Bandits. It'll save on admin work but I don't think a bandit in the country will be worrying about it.

    The topic is a combo of the OP and the thread title, no?

    And yes, I agree obv, the OP'er is reading far too much into it IMO.
    Russman wrote: »
    No, but to be fair, his second sentence, along with the thread title would imply he thinks it is or should be.

    And, the more you think about it, all it realistically can be used for is to record scores for results purposes, any other use that its put to is so unrealiable as to be guess work with regard to what a player might or might not have had on a given hole that was "scratched".

    Thats the OP's interpretation of the clubs message though.
    The message from the club has no mention of trying to address handicaps, other than to specifically state that nothing will change!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,733 ✭✭✭SnowDrifts


    Is the bigger problem not the lack of cuts the handicap secretary applies for team events/fourballs? I've had a few good results at home and away the year before last and documented the away scores hoping to get a cut and I got nothing! Think for one of the fourballs we won, I had 40pts. The provision is already there for cuts to be applied in that case.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,138 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Thats the OP's interpretation of the clubs message though.
    The message from the club has no mention of trying to address handicaps, other than to specifically state that nothing will change!

    Well, we are (all) disagreeing with the OP's interpretation......

    As a side note. There was a few motions put forward by the GUI recently that were clearly addressing bandits... There was no mention of bandits or "addressing handicaps" (which assumes something is wrong). I don't think a club or body would ever explicitly mention that in a communication.
    So I can see why the OP has read between the lines in this case. I just think he has read it wrong.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,138 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    SnowDrifts wrote: »
    Is the bigger problem not the lack of cuts the handicap secretary applies for team events/fourballs? I've had a few good results at home and away the year before last and documented the away scores hoping to get a cut and I got nothing! Think for one of the fourballs we won, I had 40pts. The provision is already there for cuts to be applied in that case.

    I guess they'll say they don't have the time. Maybe it's a two person role. One to look after the review side of things. Not too easy to get volunteers I guess.

    Personally I think a quick and easy fix is to cut all winning (top 3 maybe) teams by 0.5 per individual.
    It may not be the fairest if someone has had a stinker. But I think a win should equal a cut no matter what.
    Let the prize be the consolation for the lad that got cut and was carried by teammates.


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


    Possibly !!! So, are you saying the two players who didn't score should be input as 0 for that hole? I would have thought if, from a team of four, you had two 3 pointers and two 2's, these should all be input. Why put in zero when you actually got a bogey:confused: If you have taken your 6 shots and are out of the hole, then by all means pick up the ball and move on to speed up play and enter 0 on the system.
    Why not use the system to its full capabilites of tracking individual scores and compiling results:)

    Because thats the way you fill out a team even on a score card first 2 in the hole go on the card if you can't score any better then you pick up you don't finish out.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 631 ✭✭✭gman127


    Would it not be just as handy to give a small cut to everyone on the prize winning teams regardless.

    Say:
    1st - all cut 0.3
    2nd - all cut 0.2
    3rd - all cut 0.1

    I know you'll end up cutting players who shouldn't be, but it's not that big a cut and on average the deserved cuts to players who should get them would out balance those who don't.

    And there really isn't that many fourball / foursome / team events on a given clubs calender anyway.

    Even if I didn't play particularly well on a given day, if I'm walking up to collect a prize, I'll take the cut!


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Prizes and handicap have no correlation, linking then is a mistake imo.
    Css is for handicap, position is for prizes.
    Is it fair to not get cut because you lost on a countback for example?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 631 ✭✭✭gman127


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Prizes and handicap have no correlation, linking then is a mistake imo.
    Css is for handicap, position is for prizes.
    Is it fair to not get cut because you lost on a countback for example?

    On what I'd exampled it'd only be the difference of a 0.1.

    The type of system you'd really need would be either too complicated to implement or too difficult to administer.

    The variables are too many in group competitions, who scored on which holes and how many holes, would you go by the size of a win in match play???
    -and so on.

    Overall, I'd like either small cuts or leave as it is.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,138 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Prizes and handicap have no correlation, linking then is a mistake imo.
    Css is for handicap, position is for prizes.
    Is it fair to not get cut because you lost on a countback for example?

    I think a difference can / should be made for team events. There are no cuts for a team event at present and well, it would be impossible to get a true reflection of an individual score from such an event.

    So in the absence of a CSS or Cut, I think prizes (or finishing positions) could be used for team events.
    These comps seem to attract more bandits, just an observation. I guess it would make sense as it's all in favour for them at present.
    They've a chance of winning with no* chance of a penalty.

    *with the exception of the very rare observational cut

    I would guess that most honest golfers would welcome a cut based on prizes if it meant that it would be a thorn in the side of bandits.

    There are very few ways to target bandits, I personally think this is a very simple one, and whilst not perfect, would go a great way to addressing the problem.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 20,664 ✭✭✭✭Rikand


    I endorse any system that endeavours to have people appropriately handicapped.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    PARlance wrote: »
    I think a difference can / should be made for team events. There are no cuts for a team event at present and well, it would be impossible to get a true reflection of an individual score from such an event.

    So in the absence of a CSS or Cut, I think prizes (or finishing positions) could be used for team events.
    These comps seem to attract more bandits, just an observation. I guess it would make sense as it's all in favour for them at present.
    They've a chance of winning with no* chance of a penalty.

    *with the exception of the very rare observational cut

    I would guess that most honest golfers would welcome a cut based on prizes if it meant that it would be a thorn in the side of bandits.

    There are very few ways to target bandits, I personally think this is a very simple one, and whilst not perfect, would go a great way to addressing the problem.


    Very rare indeed, almost unheard of I'd say. Observational cuts have largely gone by the wayside in recent years. Rightly so IMO as they're too subjective and open to abuse & personality issues.

    But, is part of the problem with team events not the perception that's associated with them ? Say, every bandit was cut 2 shots tomorrow, someone will still be first, second & third in the next team event, and they're automatically assumed to be a bandit because they win - its just the way some golfers are. Irish begrudgery maybe, I dunno. I really think there's an inordinate effort being spent on a problem that granted is real, but I don't think its as big an issue as is being made out and I'm not sure there's actually a way to combat it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,138 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    Russman wrote: »
    Very rare indeed, almost unheard of I'd say. Observational cuts have largely gone by the wayside in recent years. Rightly so IMO as they're too subjective and open to abuse & personality issues.

    But, is part of the problem with team events not the perception that's associated with them ? Say, every bandit was cut 2 shots tomorrow, someone will still be first, second & third in the next team event, and they're automatically assumed to be a bandit because they win - its just the way some golfers are. Irish begrudgery maybe, I dunno. I really think there's an inordinate effort being spent on a problem that granted is real, but I don't think its as big an issue as is being made out and I'm not sure there's actually a way to combat it.

    I only put that in as someone on here (sorry can't remember who it was) mentioned that a certain team of widely known touring pros had received an observational cut lately.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    PARlance wrote: »
    I only put that in as someone on here (sorry can't remember who it was) mentioned that a certain team of widely known touring pros had received an observational cut lately.

    Ohh I wasn't being smart with you at all. Its the well known "teams" doing the circuit that give a bad name to the 4 lads who happen to dovetail well or have a good day.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,138 ✭✭✭✭PARlance


    Russman wrote: »
    Ohh I wasn't being smart with you at all. Its the well known "teams" doing the circuit that give a bad name to the 4 lads who happen to dovetail well or have a good day.

    Didn't take it as being smart at all Russman. Was just saying that to prove the point that you made that it's incredibly rare. It was the first time I had heard of any action being taken.


Advertisement