Myth 2
Myth….'You require at return at least a nett 60 or 48 Stableford points to win a competition nowadays…..'
Research
· To examine this 'myth' winning scores in club competitions were analysed relative to the CSS. As before all competitions were considered to be 'open' i.e. overall lowest score irrespective of class, division or handicap category. (To qualify for inclusion in this analysis the competitions had to have a minimum of 75 competitors.)
· The distribution of winning scores over a typical year (c. 750 competitions) is shown below:
· In the year shown winning scores ranged from 2 below the CSS to 11 below.
· The average winning score in 1997 was 5.6 strokes below the CSS (This equates to 41-42 Stableford points). In the following year the average winning score was 5.5 strokes below the CSS. This shows remarkable consistency!
In the above figure it can be seen (LHS of bar chart) that a relatively small number of competitions are won with scores of 9 strokes or more below the CSS.
It is these 'scandalous' winning scores that give the handicapping system a 'bad name' and to which critics frequently refer.
These 'scandalous' but infrequent very low winning scores prompted the following question:
Who are those players who return scores of nine or more under the CSS?
(Sandbaggers – Bandits – Handicap Builders?)
Research
· The Herald newspaper until recently identified the 'Bandit of the Week' (in a kind and sympathetic manner!) from their weekly golf returns i.e. the player(s) returning the most 'scandalous' score(s).
· With the co-operation of clubs and players, the playing records of a wide range of 'Bandits' were obtained.
· Analysis of these returns identified that 'Bandits' fell into three fairly distinct and evenly spread categories.
» Many displayed no previous 'form' and simply had a day 'in the golfing sun' playing beyond all reasonable expectation. (Group A)
» With the benefit of hindsight the second group gave a fairly clear indication of their potential to score lower than their handicap. A more vigilant handicapping committee could perhaps have applied a Clause 19 (General Play) handicap reduction before the 'scandalous' score occurred (Group B)
» Members of the third group were infrequent stroke play competitors and possessed handicaps that did not reflect their current improved ability. (Group C)
Group A 11, NR, 15, 3, NR, 4, 5, 3, 9, 5, 8, 7, 0, 2, -9, 5, 8, 11, 6, 3, 10, 16.
(Year starting h'cap 28. Closing h'cap 22.6. Clause 19 reduction of 2.4)
Group B -2, -2, -5, -2, 0, 5, NR, 6, NR, -10, 13, NR, 4, 0, 3, 6, 4, 3.
(Year starting h'cap 16.3. Closing h'cap 10.3.)
Group C 1996 NR, 3
1997 NR, -1
1998 0, -8, 5, -11, 13, 7, -1, 3, 1, NR, 6, 5.
(Year starting h'cap 17.3. Closing h'cap 8.5. Clause 19 reduction 3.8)