Handicap System Changes for 2018

Wombatman

Can all players now get a handicap up to 54.0?

http://www.congu.co.uk/congu-changes-2018/

dan_ep82

I can't see this being well recieved by many players.

I dont play for prizes so it doesn't bother me but I'm sure those competitive players will be suspicous of it.

FixdePitchmark

dan_ep82 wrote: »

I can't see this being well recieved by many players.

I dont play for prizes so it doesn't bother me but I'm sure those competitive players will be suspicous of it.

54 - Holy ****.

slave1

In fairness I've played with auld bucks who could play back in the day but could not in any form play off 36

Wombatman

That's a birdie for 6 son :eek:

FixdePitchmark

Who on earth came up with that nonsense.

plumber77

Imagine marking their cards

The Rape of Lucretia

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Who on earth came up with that nonsense.

I think its a good move. It will keep more older people in the game. We have a lot of seniors (slash pretty elderly in many cases) playing their own competitions but a lot get stuck on 28 and can no longer even play to that. This will make the game more meaningful for them and likely keeping them playing and enjoying a bit of competition for longer.

CalamariFritti

Wombatman wrote: »

Can all players now get a handicap up to 54.0?

http://www.congu.co.uk/congu-changes-2018/

The way I read it you can become category 5 only upon review. Meaning it will apply only to older folks or otherwise medically or physically challenged. Open to correction however.

On the continent where they don't use CONGU they always had 54 as a beginners handicap. But until you reach category 4 its a downward only handicap. And typically they are not allowed to win anything in the major categories, they usually have a beginners category prize or so.

First Up

So much for dealing with slow play and picking up when you are out of the hole. Now we'll have to wait while someone is justified in lining up a put for a 9.

FixdePitchmark

CalamariFritti wrote: »

The way I read it you can become category 5 only upon review. Meaning it will apply only to older folks or otherwise medically or physically challenged. Open to correction however.

On the continent where they don't use CONGU they always had 54 as a beginners handicap. But until you reach category 4 its a downward only handicap. And typically they are not allowed to win anything in the major categories, they usually have a beginners category prize or so.

I think this is key - can they win major club competitions.

I play with men in their 80s and some play great golf and hold on to good handicaps and compete - there are club comps for senior players, there are open competitions for senor players only (not exactly equality there).

There are informal competitions for money
There is a great social side of golf.

I just think it is flawed to think at higher level there will be linearity in the impact on scoring - if you bring in these daft figures , you will get more scores in 50 point area. Courses are a defined length, when you give someone a sort of unlimited number of shots - a tiny improvement results in significant scores. Your going to bring scoring potential into events that make the winning score not possible for a significant amount of the field.

It is daft stuff and sort of part of the modern entitlement mentality - that everyone can win. Sorry you can't, if you are getting 9s on a hole , it brings the game to an embarrassing level. Also good point on slower play.

Most self respecting golfers and men I play golf with would have no time for that nonsense.

One of them said to me a golf club is about youth coming in and shaking thing up - one said to me " we had our time " .

They can bring it in - but they should only compete in that cat.

backspin.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

I think its a good move. It will keep more older people in the game. We have a lot of seniors (slash pretty elderly in many cases) playing their own competitions but a lot get stuck on 28 and can no longer even play to that. This will make the game more meaningful for them and likely keeping them playing and enjoying a bit of competition for longer.

36 maybe but if you can't play to a 36 then you probably shouldn't be entering competitions anymore. Imagine being out with someone who needs a 54 handicap.

mafc

backspin. wrote: »

36 maybe but if you can't play to a 36 then you probably shouldn't be entering competitions anymore. Imagine being out with someone who needs a 54 handicap.

Jaysus it doesn’t bear thinking about.
36pts for a 54 handicap is 126 shots on a par 72.
Seriously if you need a handicap that high you should give it up for a week or two and then give it up for good. Lol

Jawgap

Like everything else - it depends on how clubs apply it.

Personally, I think it's a good idea - on e chap I've played with suffers from Parkinsons but still loves his golf so why not give people who still want to play but maybe their bodies are not as co-operative, a bump.

Saying that, I'm sure some tw@ts will abuse it

Mantis Toboggan

Jawgap wrote: »

Saying that, I'm sure some tw@ts will abuse it

Absolutely it will be abused, if someone was to win a tournament at my club playing off 54 I think I'd pack it in.

Tom.D.BJJ

Here's how i would work it:

<10 h/cap eligible for A medals, major comps, 18 holes comps-- cuts based on class, increases of 0.1
10-18 h/cap eligible for minor comps, B medals,18 holes comps-- cuts based on class, increases of 0.1
>18 eligible for 9 hole C medals, 9 holes comps-- cuts of 0.5, increases of 0.2

Rewards improvement, keeps +18 h/cap players playing.

joxer1988

The issue for me is that in many clubs to play at prime time - Sat/Sun mornings - you have to be in the comp. Not exactly fair for the lads who are in the 105-110 range on a good day (with no real improvement on the horizon). These lads aren't slow players either.

I'm all for making golf more inclusive for all levels of ability.

prawnsambo

joxer1988 wrote: »

The issue for me is that in many clubs to play at prime time - Sat/Sun mornings - you have to be in the comp. Not exactly fair for the lads who are in the 105-110 range on a good day (with no real improvement on the horizon). These lads aren't slow players either.

I'm all for making golf more inclusive for all levels of ability.

+1

Some of the stuff being said here is downright embarrassing. Seriously, who said elitism was gone from golf?

First Up

prawnsambo wrote:

Some of the stuff being said here is downright embarrassing. Seriously, who said elitism was gone from golf?

What's elitist about it? Anyone can play anytime they want but competition is supposed to reflect and reward performance. The handicap system is a good leveller but 54 is a joke. High handicappers win plenty of prizes as it is.

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

What's elitist about it? Anyone can play anytime they want but competition is supposed to reflect and reward performance. The handicap system is a good leveller but 54 is a joke. High handicappers win plenty of prizes as it is.

Low handicappers having a go at high handicappers. Don't think that's elitist? You might want to look up that word.

Let's list some of the things said here (including what you said above):

• Hgh handicapper = bandit
• Slow play
• The horror of having to write a 9 on a card
• Uncompetitive
• Don't want to improve (allegedly)

And it's all based on complete hysteria that 54 handicappers are just going to sprout up like mushrooms overnight. :rolleyes:

The Rape of Lucretia

mafc wrote: »

Jaysus it doesn’t bear thinking about.
36pts for a 54 handicap is 126 shots on a par 72.
Seriously if you need a handicap that high you should give it up for a week or two and then give it up for good. Lol

I think if you need a minus handicap at all, you probably shouldnt be playing the game. I mean, if you have to systematically subtract shots from the number you really took, then it is pretty much proof that you shouldnt be within miles of a golf course. The clue is in the title - 'handicapped' golfer. Get off the course and leave it to the scratch and plus men who are actually able to play the game for real.

FixdePitchmark

prawnsambo wrote: »

Low handicappers having a go at high handicappers. Don't think that's elitist? You might want to look up that word.

Let's list some of the things said here (including what you said above):

• Hgh handicapper = bandit
• Slow play
• The horror of having to write a 9 on a card
• Uncompetitive
• Don't want to improve (allegedly)

And it's all based on complete hysteria that 54 handicappers are just going to sprout up like mushrooms overnight. :rolleyes:

How are the prawn sambos

No one said that low handicapers should lead the system.

Yes it will cause slow play . Fact , now how do you deal with that ?
Yes someone scoring with a 9 is daft (IMO) and in most reasonable peoples eyes it is silly.
Yes - the competition would be noncompetitive - because a traditionally handicapped player could not compete with anyone making any sort of effort or slight improvement off 54. They genuinely would have an easy 50 + points , it is just maths and statistics.
Don't get the last one - but there are definitely golfers who like being off higher handicaps, they openly say it to me about hating losing a 2nd shot on say index 2 when they have had a win. Some would love to get that 3rd shot.

To take this approach to a logical endpoint - why should we stop at 54 - if a guy doesn't play golf at all - he should be entitled to win if he enters a club and gets around in 150 shots say !

We all know what the elitist thing in golf is - and you have got it all wrong using it in this context.

I will openly admit that I'm not a fan of handicapped golf. I know this is unusual in golfing circles.

I just think like every other sport - there are levels, say cycling, triathlon, soccer , GAA.

Like a Sunday League soccer player , does not expect to run out in Old Trafford.

Anyway - besides that - there has to be practical limits. It is nothing to do with, out of context elitism, it is pragmatism .

FixdePitchmark

Tom.D.BJJ wrote: »

Here's how i would work it:

<10 h/cap eligible for A medals, major comps, 18 holes comps-- cuts based on class, increases of 0.1
10-18 h/cap eligible for minor comps, B medals,18 holes comps-- cuts based on class, increases of 0.1
>18 eligible for 9 hole C medals, 9 holes comps-- cuts of 0.5, increases of 0.2

Rewards improvement, keeps +18 h/cap players playing.

I like something like this.

You could say we do - with category prizes.

But I would prefer if there was no overall prize ever.

You can only win in Cat.

First Up

FixdePitchmark wrote:

I will openly admit that I'm not a fan of handicapped golf. I know this is unusual in golfing circles.

I have no problem with a handicap system that allows people at different levels compete. That's different from pretending that people with no ability whatever should be in a competition.

FixdePitchmark

First Up wrote: »

I have no problem with a handicap system that allows people at different levels compete. That's different from pretending that people with no ability whatever should be in a competition.

Yes - that is irrelevant to topic - just a personal thing.

prawnsambo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

How are the prawn sambos

No one said that low handicapers should lead the system.

Yes it will cause slow play . Fact , now how do you deal with that ?

Oh Ok so. As TRoL says, by definition anyone with a handicap is guilty as charged. Or is this a matter of degree? Are some golfers more worthy of taking a few extra shots than others? And where is that line? When do you stop being a golfer and start becoming a nuisance to all the 'real' golfers?

I've snipped the rest of your post because you're largely repeating the kind of elitism that I highlighted.

Basically, although you don't compete at any kind of elite level (and that means representing your country at a minimum), you feel that the sport that you play is only for people who can play to a pre-determined standard that you seem to feel you can decide.

If that's not elitism, then what is?

And again. Where are all these 54 handicappers going to come from? Is there a crowd waiting to flood the golf courses of the country when the gates are opened? You do realise that with a 1 stroke limit and a maximum of 1 stroke per year (without special adjustment) it would take a 28 handicapper 26 years to get to 54.

FixdePitchmark

prawnsambo wrote: »

Oh Ok so. As TRoL says, by definition anyone with a handicap is guilty as charged. Or is this a matter of degree? Are some golfers more worthy of taking a few extra shots than others? And where is that line? When do you stop being a golfer and start becoming a nuisance to all the 'real' golfers?

Well it is in fact a matter of degree and that line was 28. Yes there is a line. Moving that line by 92 % , is dramatic at best.
I don't agree with it - you do , it is in the system. So there is no real argument.
I personally don't recognize it as golf.

I've snipped the rest of your post because you're largely repeating the kind of elitism that I highlighted.

Nonsense.

You may consider it elitist - but it isn't , the idea is just idiotic. Using the defense of elitism is not a compelling argument.

Basically, although you don't compete at any kind of elite level (and that means representing your country at a minimum), you feel that the sport that you play is only for people who can play to a pre-determined standard that you seem to feel you can decide.

Equally you feel there should be no minimum standard - I think that is not practical. All sports are broken up into standards - Elite is not part of the equation. We have categories , they work - but a 54 handicap player winning an event brings the system into disrepute.

If that's not elitism, then what is?

No I'm happy with 28 - I've an issue with the change.

And again. Where are all these 54 handicappers going to come from? Is there a crowd waiting to flood the golf courses of the country when the gates are opened? You do realise that with a 1 stroke limit and a maximum of 1 stroke per year (without special adjustment) it would take a 28 handicapper 26 years to get to 54.

Well it is sort of the principle., but again I'm more a fan of gross golf. Even if that gross is 80- 90 -100 - but at 100 + , it is getting to a level that is not competitive golf in my view. You have your view

Best of luck to you and TROL with your 54 handicaps.

Wichita Lineman

Tom.D.BJJ wrote: »

Here's how i would work it:

<10 h/cap eligible for A medals, major comps, 18 holes comps-- cuts based on class, increases of 0.1
10-18 h/cap eligible for minor comps, B medals,18 holes comps-- cuts based on class, increases of 0.1
>18 eligible for 9 hole C medals, 9 holes comps-- cuts of 0.5, increases of 0.2

Rewards improvement, keeps +18 h/cap players playing.

The majority of golfers in this country are not <10 so you would find a huge number of golfers not bothering to compete at all if this was the norm. The handicap system is there so a 15, 18 or 22 etc etc can compete with low handicappers. Otherwise why bother with a handicap system at all and just tell everyone they are playing off scratch.

prawnsambo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Well it is in fact a matter of degree and that line was 28. Yes there is a line. Moving that line by 92 % , is dramatic at best.
I don't agree with it - you do , it is in the system. So there is no real argument.
I personally don't recognize it as golf.

Well clearly there is an argument since you don't agree with it. And if that last sentence isn't elitist, I'd be interested to hear what you consider to be elitist.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Nonsense.

You may consider it elitist - but it isn't , the idea is just idiotic. Using the defense of elitism is not a compelling argument.

I'm using the defense of elitism? Good one. . I haven't even started to defend the change. I just read this thread and compiled a list of comments against it and suggested they were elitist.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Equally you feel there should be no minimum standard - I think that is not practical. All sports are broken up into standards - Elite is not part of the equation. We have categories , they work - but a 54 handicap player winning an event brings the system into disrepute.

And they are adding two more categories. If the categories work, how come it's suddenly broken by adding more?

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

No I'm happy with 28 - I've an issue with the change.

And we're back to the question of which arbitrary line is acceptable. There are two 28 handicappers in my club. They clearly can't play to that and as a result don't enter many competitions. That's not good for them or for the club. If they were adjusted to (say) 32, they might have a chance of at least competing on a level playing field with the other members. As it is, they're just effectively excluded.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Well it is sort of the principle., but again I'm more a fan of gross golf. Even if that gross is 80- 90 -100 - but at 100 + , it is getting to a level that is not competitive golf in my view. You have your view

It's easy to be a fan of gross scores when your handicap is in low single figures. :rolleyes:

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Best of luck to you and TROL with your 54 handicaps.

And you close with an assumption and a condescension. You really are doing your best to fly the flag for elitism in golf. I imagine you're also bemoaning the decline of golf without understanding the inherent irony.

I can't speak for TRoL, but I'm not a 28 handicapper, let alone a potential 54. But that doesn't (and shouldn't) stop me from supporting a change that may bring more people into the game.

CalamariFritti

CalamariFritti wrote: »

The way I read it you can become category 5 only upon review. Meaning it will apply only to older folks or otherwise medically or physically challenged. Open to correction however.

On the continent where they don't use CONGU they always had 54 as a beginners handicap. But until you reach category 4 its a downward only handicap. And typically they are not allowed to win anything in the major categories, they usually have a beginners category prize or so.

I re-read it and it seems it's not just upon review, but will be automatically adjusted into those categories. I know this will raise some fears.

But I don't think it will be a factor. Looking at the lads at 28, they are not competitive and never will be. They are usually really really old and too weak for regular courses or really really bad or both. They will never feature in proper comps and they shouldn't. There is nothing competitive in shooting a 110. They should compete within their own categories only and I hope thats how it will be done.

As for abuse and 'bandits'; I think even bandits will be too embarrassed winning comps off 28+. The 'bandits' I know seem to be more like 8 handicappers playing off 14.

First Up

prawnsambo wrote:

And we're back to the question of which arbitrary line is acceptable. There are two 28 handicappers in my club. They clearly can't play to that and as a result don't enter many competitions. That's not good for them or for the club. If they were adjusted to (say) 32, they might have a chance of at least competing on a level playing field with the other members. As it is, they're just effectively excluded.

We have different views of what constitutes a level playing field.

All sports operate a grade system to allow people of roughly comparable ability compete with each other. That's why there are leagues.

Golf clubs already operate Class systems for their competitions (0-10, 11-18 and 18+). If they want to add two or even three more classes so that everyone can win something that's fine but someone with 41 points for shooting 120 should not be overall competition winner.

The Rape of Lucretia

First Up wrote: »

Golf clubs already operate Class systems for their competitions (0-10, 11-18 and 18+). If they want to add two or even three more classes so that everyone can win something that's fine but someone with 41 points for shooting 120 should not be overall competition winner.

Indeed they shouldnt. They are 2nd class citizens compared with the elite level golfers off handicaps of 23 and the likes. Such high level golfers should not be insulted with the possibility of a 30 handicapper pipping him for a prize. It would be an outrage. And an insult to the skill and hard work the 23 man has put into honing his game.
Again, I think golf needs to have a serious debate with itself, and the measure should surely be that anyone who cannot break par at least once a year should not be playing the game ?

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

We have different views of what constitutes a level playing field.

All sports operate a grade system to allow people of roughly comparable ability compete with each other. That's why there are leagues.

Golf clubs already operate Class systems for their competitions (0-10, 11-18 and 18+). If they want to add two or even three more classes so that everyone can win something that's fine but someone with 41 points for shooting 120 should not be overall competition winner.

Thanks. It's refreshing to actually debate the issues rather than read "It's not golf" comments.

Golf is an individual sport. It's one of the few that uses a handicap system to regulate the amateur game. Once you accept that handicaps are part of the system, it's really only a matter of deciding where to draw the line where handicaps stop.

We're used to the 28 limit. I suspect we'll get used to 54. I personally don't believe I will ever see a 54 handicapper in the wild, but it's theoretically possible. I absolutely believe there will be a good few in the thirties though. And I think that's reasonable.

My experience of high handicappers is that they seldom compete. I think that's a shame. For me, the point of competing is to improve. If I just go out for casual rounds, I enjoy the game, but there's something missing that only competition provides.

What you say about the guy winning on 41 points with 120 shots is (imo) a groundless fear. If that guy is a 54 handicapper (I honestly don't think we'll ever see one of those) then they're going to get cut three shots immediately. It would take them three years to get back to where they were. They are far more likely to lose shots in that time than gain them.

Something else struck me. I don't thiink anyone can get an immediate 54 shots under the current rules. Initial handicap allotment works off a maximum of double-bogey on any hole. So the max initial handicap would be 36 unless they change that double-bogey rule. Is that envisaged?

FixdePitchmark

prawnsambo wrote: »

Thanks. It's refreshing to actually debate the issues rather than read "It's not golf" comments.

Golf is an individual sport. It's one of the few that uses a handicap system to regulate the amateur game. Once you accept that handicaps are part of the system, it's really only a matter of deciding where to draw the line where handicaps stop.

We're used to the 28 limit. I suspect we'll get used to 54. I personally don't believe I will ever see a 54 handicapper in the wild, but it's theoretically possible. I absolutely believe there will be a good few in the thirties though. And I think that's reasonable.

My experience of high handicappers is that they seldom compete. I think that's a shame. For me, the point of competing is to improve. If I just go out for casual rounds, I enjoy the game, but there's something missing that only competition provides.

What you say about the guy winning on 41 points with 120 shots is (imo) a groundless fear. If that guy is a 54 handicapper (I honestly don't think we'll ever see one of those) then they're going to get cut three shots immediately. It would take them three years to get back to where they were. They are far more likely to lose shots in that time than gain them.

Something else struck me. I don't thiink anyone can get an immediate 54 shots under the current rules. Initial handicap allotment works off a maximum of double-bogey on any hole. So the max initial handicap would be 36 unless they change that double-bogey rule. Is that envisaged?

Some of your own comments imply you don't support the 54 yourself.
"out in the wild" .

I think first ups post is a fair reflection of what most people would feel.

Golf is different to other sports with such a wide skill set competing in the one event. I have to accept that I have particular views on this and it is nothing to do with my ability. I genuinely prefer to recognize excellence in every field.

It is not just in golf - but not a fan of rewarding mediocrity in anything.

You find a level of equals in other sports and compete with them.

So I'll have to let this one go. The majority support the ideal of the handicap system. They enjoy it, they love it.

If I'm being fully honest, I would have an issue with handicaps over 18. So this is never going to rest easy with me. I would prefer if golf was like ever other sports - and purely Cat based. You could increase your 54 to 108 if you liked then.

Like this year a lad won a major at our club off a high 20 handicap , to me that isn't real competition.

I play golf in a society and lads are off 36 who played other sports at a decent level- they are pragmatic, know they don't play golf and are not expecting to win, they dont even want to win. Many of them have asked me why is golf handicapped at all. They think it should be like other sports. I don't fully agree with this - but not a fan of a lad in 20s winning events.

I wonder if there are many people out there aggrieved that they can't increase their handicap more. I genuinely say the majority are happy where they are.

I love playing golf with all different types of players , but I think the competitive side of golf is a nonsense and this is basically a further extension of that.
We already have guys coming in with high 40s and some 50pts. Genuinely pushing that up to 60 with this.

Best of luck to them - but not for me

If a lad came in winning something in the 120s strokes. I don't know what I would do or think or say - A little bit of me would die inside. I'd be finished with club competitions anyway.

But , I'm sure the world would turn.

FixdePitchmark

CalamariFritti wrote: »

As for abuse and 'bandits'; I think even bandits will be too embarrassed winning comps off 28+. The 'bandits' I know seem to be more like 8 handicappers playing off 14.

Love this

:D:D:D

prawnsambo

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

Some of your own comments imply you don't support the 54 yourself.
"out in the wild" .

I think first ups post is a fair reflection of what most people would feel.

Golf is different to other sports with such a wide skill set competing in the one event. I have to accept that I have particular views on this and it is nothing to do with my ability. I genuinely prefer to recognize excellence in every field.

It is not just in golf - but not a fan of rewarding mediocrity in anything.

You find a level of equals in other sports and compete with them.

So I'll have to let this one go. The majority support the ideal of the handicap system. They enjoy it, they love it.

If I'm being fully honest, I would have an issue with handicaps over 18. So this is never going to rest easy with me. I would prefer if golf was like ever other sports - and purely Cat based. You could increase your 54 to 108 if you liked then.

Like this year a lad won a major at our club off a high 20 handicap , to me that isn't real competition.

I play golf in a society and lads are off 36 who played other sports at a decent level- they are pragmatic, know they don't play golf and are not expecting to win, they dont even want to win. Many of them have asked me why is golf handicapped at all. They think it should be like other sports. I don't fully agree with this - but not a fan of a lad in 20s winning events.

I wonder if there are many people out there aggrieved that they can't increase their handicap more. I genuinely say the majority are happy where they are.

I love playing golf with all different types of players , but I think the competitive side of golf is a nonsense and this is basically a further extension of that.
We already have guys coming in with high 40s and some 50pts. Genuinely pushing that up to 60 with this.

Best of luck to them - but not for me

Effectively you issue is with guys winning competitions off handicaps higher than 18 (or somewhere around that) if I'm reading you correctly.

I understand where you're coming from. However I think you're putting too narrow a focus on the word 'competing'.

In individual sports, the first and last competition is with yourself. You measure your successes or failures against previous benchmarks. You don't have to win to be competitive. It may be as simple as finishing mid-table or improving on your previous score, making more pars or getting your first birdie (gross ).

Dragging the bottom of every competition you enter is not encouraging and that's why (imo) many high handicappers don't enter them. And so they languish in the doldrums. I'm not saying that this change is the answer, but perhaps it's something that will give these guys the impetus to improve.

I just had a quick look at the last ten competitions in my club. The winners by handicap were: 24, 14, 15, 2, 14, 6, 1, 21, 8, 14. So just two winners over 20. It's not the problem you seem to think it is. At least not in my club.

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

If a lad came in winning something in the 120s strokes. I don't know what I would do or think or say - A little bit of me would die inside. I'd be finished with club competitions anyway.

But , I'm sure the world would turn.

You're talking about a hugely exceptional situation here. I really think that's just a teensy bit hysterical. Would that little bit of you survive someone winning off 110?

First Up

prawnsambo wrote:

I just had a quick look at the last ten competitions in my club. The winners by handicap were: 24, 14, 15, 2, 14, 6, 1, 21, 8, 14. So just two winners over 20. It's not the problem you seem to think it is. At least not in my club.

Its great that a 24 can win a competition. It would be the highlight of their year and motivate them like nothing else. But 24 and 54 are two very different situations.

The 28 limit reflects many years experience and observation of how the handicap system works. The 54 limit to me smacks of a gimmick to lure people into golf for commercial reasons. That is understandable in its own way but it turns golf from being a competitive sport into something closer to a school prize giving ceremony.

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

Its great that a 24 can win a competition. It would be the highlight of their year and motivate them like nothing else. But 24 and 54 are two very different situations.

The 28 limit reflects many years experience and observation of how the handicap system works. The 54 limit to me smacks of a gimmick to lure people into golf for commercial reasons. That is understandable in its own way but it turns golf from being a competitive sport into something closer to a school prize giving ceremony.

And that 24 handicapper has had more shots cut than gained this year. Our two 28 handicappers hardly play. One has never entered a competition and the other has NR for almost half the dozen or so he has entered in the last eighteen months. That has to be addressed imo.

I think people are focusing too much on the 54 handicap as a headline. I honestly don't see it as being in any way prevalent. I would even go further and say that a Category 6 golfer would be the rarest of beasts. Even just to think of how you get to a 54 handicap is hard to fathom. The initial handicap allocation process as it currently stands, can't produce anything higher than a 36 handicap and only an annual review could do it in any significant time-frame and I have never seen an annual review give more then four shots.

I'd be interested to see how widespread it is in the jurisdictions that currently have it.

Tom.D.BJJ

Wichita Lineman wrote: »

The majority of golfers in this country are not <10 so you would find a huge number of golfers not bothering to compete at all if this was the norm. The handicap system is there so a 15, 18 or 22 etc etc can compete with low handicappers. Otherwise why bother with a handicap system at all and just tell everyone they are playing off scratch.

That's my point. A 15 should not be competing with a 5. They should only be competing against others in their range. When their h/cap reduces to that level, that's when they compete against them.

CalamariFritti

Are you saying comps should be completely divided by category then?

I can see the point from a sporting angle. But it would leave some categories with a pretty small prize pool.

prawnsambo

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Are you saying comps should be completely divided by category then?

I can see the point from a sporting angle. But it would leave some categories with a pretty small prize pool.

It would potentially leave all of them with a small prize pool. Five categories would require a minimum of five prizes with just first in each getting a prize. Add a second place and that would be ten. Instead of three.

I'm assuming no category 6 golfers. Having handicaps dispenses with the need for category prizes.

Tom.D.BJJ

Lads, forget about prizes. Prizes are the reason some people maintain high handicaps.

prawnsambo

Tom.D.BJJ wrote: »

Lads, forget about prizes. Prizes are the reason some people maintain high handicaps.

Clubs can't forget about prizes. That's what we were talking about I thought?

CalamariFritti

But my point is for cat 1 it would be a very small prize. You could hardly expect cat 3 - I imagine that’s where the bulk of handicaps are - to be sponsoring the other categories.

death1234567

Why is everyone talking about a 54 handicap that's designed for people with disabilities or elderly but not talking about being able to play 9 hole comps that count towards your handicap???

I've a 14 handicap and played the front nine +2 a few times because it's the easier 9. If I did that in a 9 hole comp my handicap would be shredded.

CalamariFritti

Thats what the indexes are for, no? Off 14 there are 4 holes where you don't have a shot, 3 or all 4 of them could be on the front 9?

I find the obvious problem is that it's only 9 holes. Its much easier to put 9 good holes together than 18.

Roger_007

CalamariFritti wrote: »

Thats what the indexes are for, no? Off 14 there are 4 holes where you don't have a shot, 3 or all 4 of them could be on the front 9?

I find the obvious problem is that it's only 9 holes. Its much easier to put 9 good holes together than 18.

I think that on most courses the indices are evenly divided between the front and back nines. So if index 18 is on the front nine, index 17 will usually be on the back nine etc etc.
The indices on each nine generally reflect the difficulty relative to the other holes on that nine rather than to the course as a whole. This is done specifically to cater for nine-hole comps.

The Rape of Lucretia

Roger_007 wrote: »

I think that on most courses the indices are evenly divided between the front and back nines. So if index 18 is on the front nine, index 17 will usually be on the back nine etc etc.
The indices on each nine generally reflect the difficulty relative to the other holes on that nine rather than to the course as a whole. This is done specifically to cater for nine-hole comps.

Roughly correct, but it is match play competition that is the motivation for stroke indexes being distributed not according to hole difficulty exclusively, but in an order that makes matches as fair as possible.
Generally the strokes are devided odd to one nine and even to the other, the odd holes are the more difficult nine, and the even ones the easier nine, but many considerations then alter the basic 1 to nine number of the difficulty within that: index 1 or 2 cannot be hole 18, spreading close indexes between par 3s,4s, 5s, consecutive indexes cannot be consecutive in holes, etc.

You often hear people commenting on on how they cant see how a particular hole can be the toughest hole on the course, or too easy for its index, etc. They're probably right - its not meant to be.
To some extent it goes against fairness for the mostly played comp of Stableford - but the downside is considered more acceptable than the greater imbalance that matchplay would suffer if holes were truly indexed by difficulty.

Wichita Lineman

If a non golfer ever had a reason to stay away from golf he will find it in this snobby 'low handicappers rule' thread. I can hardly believe some of the comments. I'm all for everyone having an opinion but I don't have to agree with it so I think I'll steer clear of this section for a while.

FixdePitchmark

Wichita Lineman wrote: »

If a non golfer ever had a reason to stay away from golf he will find it in this snobby 'low handicappers rule' thread. I can hardly believe some of the comments. I'm all for everyone having an opinion but I don't have to agree with it so I think I'll steer clear of this section for a while.

There are real issues with snobbiness in golf. To bring this into that context undermines a genuine problem in the game.

All sports have competition rules. People have views on them, debate them in the context of the sport they play, their own experience. It is part of the joy of sport. Debate, rules , changes.

This is passed – so clearly there was a vote or majority at some forum ?

This was a more important forum than a bit of online banter.

But shutting down opinion is not a healthy place for any sport or anything. It has become an increasing feature of Irish life.

　
Some low players will never play with people below their ability.
Some people will only play with the same people every single week.
Some players will not even talk to you if you not in a certain clique
Some clubs will not even let you enter
Some clubs will not even let a certain sex enter
Some clubs hate and ignore junior golfers
Some high handicap players don’t play with low players

　
I hate all above – so to bring changes to the handicap system or ideas on competition into that context is undermining some real issues we need to resolve in the game.


My basic objections are.

• Golf has to have a practical minimum standard. 54 is not practical. The scoring variance will be too large resulting in very high scores. These score will be so outside the normal, the competition was not a competition all could win in. Mathematically their scoring potential is too large. I’ve made the point that over 18 also has this issue (Statistically).
• Formal golf is not the place for someone of that golfing ability. It would be just too dangerous ,slow and incredibly frustrating for many regular golfers. I could deal with it (and have) – but not many golfer I play with could.
• If golfers of that ability are to play – they should be in their own competitions – at a different time. This is the way most sports are. This is what happens now at most clubs. I’ve played with guys who have very high handicaps and they love this type of set up.
• Fully open and inclusive competitions, is a nice ideal. But not the norm in sport. You can’t go for a 5 K swim in open water unless you have got to some standard. You don’t play Rugby with 115 KG top level amateurs as a beginner, you don’t box or get into a UFC ring. You don’t go out and try rally driving, even road cycling has many many different levels. Golf is different – but there IS categorisation and scratch golf.

We are talking competitive club golf here. I know the majority are just in it for fun. But it is competitive golf we are talking about – not pub golf.
　
I’ve openly admitted that unusually, I’m not a fan of handicapped golf at all. It gives a claim over excellence that I don’t value. It is a personal thing.

Handicapped golf has great value for the majority of golfers – they love the system.

Even If I’m not a fan of handicapped golf myself – I see it works for the majority of events. The exception being most classics and Interclub golf. You also get the odd guy at a club minding and telling you so.

So – there is golf out there at present for everyone. Even outside the handicap system.

But for me a guy off 28 + winning or being in the same event as a lad off say 12 is a logical nonsense.

　
But so be it. I’m no snob.

reax

Folks,
Just to clarify that the new Category 5 handicaps from 1st Jan 2018 are up to 36 for men and up to 54 for women. Golfers will automatically go to 28.1 from 28.0 in their first qualifying competition in 2018.
CONGU have removed the club handicap in place for the last couple of years which allowed men a handicap up to 54 due to the poor uptake.