We had a club competition today where the format was Stableford 7/8
allowance - max 24. (Therefore max ACTUAL allowance is 21)

I haven't got an up-to-date Congu book, but I'm still under the
impression that it is a non-qualifier, and thus no automatic change of
handicaps because it is played off less than full handicap - not
because of the 24 limit, but because of the 7/8 allowance.

In discussion with a new member to our handicap committee, he was
under the idea that it was a qualifier. When I pointed out otherwise,
he then asked if the handicaps could be adjusted under "General Play"
as though it had been full allowance - I then pointed out that this
was "applying a formula".

Has the CONGU UHS system recently changed to allow fractional handicap
allowances to be used for qualifying purposes?

Has the CONGU UHS system recently changed to allow application of a
formula to calculate General Play?

Can anyone with an up-to-date CONGU book please confirm or deny my
undertanding of the situation?

Cheers,
Mick

newbryford wrote:
> We had a club competition today where the format was Stableford 7/8
> allowance - max 24. (Therefore max ACTUAL allowance is 21)
> 
> I haven't got an up-to-date Congu book, but I'm still under the
> impression that it is a non-qualifier, and thus no automatic change of
> handicaps because it is played off less than full handicap - not
> because of the 24 limit, but because of the 7/8 allowance.
> 
> In discussion with a new member to our handicap committee, he was
> under the idea that it was a qualifier. When I pointed out otherwise,
> he then asked if the handicaps could be adjusted under "General Play"
> as though it had been full allowance - I then pointed out that this
> was "applying a formula".
> 
> Has the CONGU UHS system recently changed to allow fractional handicap
> allowances to be used for qualifying purposes?
> 
> Has the CONGU UHS system recently changed to allow application of a
> formula to calculate General Play?
> 
> Can anyone with an up-to-date CONGU book please confirm or deny my
> undertanding of the situation?
> 
> Cheers,
> Mick

Got to be non-qualifying for handicaps if it's not off full handicap. 
Reductions can only be considered in conjunction with other evidence and 
not on this round alone.

Reductions can only be full shots and not parts (i.e. you can't reduce 
somebody 0.4 or 1.2 etc) because that may be applying a formula.

Having said that there are many 'scratch' competitions which calculate 
CSS for each round and even though they don't actually have a nett 
prize, handicaps are adjusted as if it were a handicap competition.Such 
competitions are however in medal format not stableford and the 
corresponding restrictions on maximum nett double bogey do not apply as 
far as i am aware.

PS You have my total respect for being able to play Mytton Fold week in 
and week out. After playing there by virtue of your kind invitation last 
week, you are either a golfing god or married to the owner in line for 
potential inheritance ;-)

-- 
D

On 18 May, 23:49, newbryford  wrote:
> We had a club competition today where the format was Stableford 7/8
> allowance - max 24. (Therefore max ACTUAL allowance is 21)
>
> I haven't got an up-to-date Congu book, but I'm still under the
> impression that it is a non-qualifier, and thus no automatic change of
> handicaps because it is played off less than full handicap - not
> because of the 24 limit, but because of the 7/8 allowance.
>
> In discussion with a new member to our handicap committee, he was
> under the idea that it was a qualifier. When I pointed out otherwise,
> he then asked if the handicaps could be adjusted under "General Play"
> as though it had been full allowance - I then pointed out that this
> was "applying a formula".
>
> Has the CONGU UHS system recently changed to allow fractional handicap
> allowances to be used for qualifying purposes?
>
> Has the CONGU UHS system recently changed to allow application of a
> formula to calculate General Play?
>
> Can anyone with an up-to-date CONGU book please confirm or deny my
> undertanding of the situation?
>
> Cheers,
> Mick

Hi Mick,

Not getting involved with your question per se, but 7/8th HC is a
maximum of 24 and not 21. The latter is the case if it is 3/4 handicap
of course.

Cheers,

Richard

On 19 May, 06:49, Richard  wrote:
> On 18 May, 23:49, newbryford  wrote:
>
>
>
> > We had a club competition today where the format was Stableford 7/8
> > allowance - max 24. (Therefore max ACTUAL allowance is 21)
>
> > I haven't got an up-to-date Congu book, but I'm still under the
> > impression that it is a non-qualifier, and thus no automatic change of
> > handicaps because it is played off less than full handicap - not
> > because of the 24 limit, but because of the 7/8 allowance.
>
> > In discussion with a new member to our handicap committee, he was
> > under the idea that it was a qualifier. When I pointed out otherwise,
> > he then asked if the handicaps could be adjusted under "General Play"
> > as though it had been full allowance - I then pointed out that this
> > was "applying a formula".
>
> > Has the CONGU UHS system recently changed to allow fractional handicap
> > allowances to be used for qualifying purposes?
>
> > Has the CONGU UHS system recently changed to allow application of a
> > formula to calculate General Play?
>
> > Can anyone with an up-to-date CONGU book please confirm or deny my
> > undertanding of the situation?
>
> > Cheers,
> > Mick
>
> Hi Mick,
>
> Not getting involved with your question per se, but 7/8th HC is a
> maximum of 24 and not 21. The latter is the case if it is 3/4 handicap
> of course.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Richard

I read it as 7/8 of handicap allocation, with handicap allocation
clipped at 24. So mapping of actual handicap to Stableford allowance
for the competition would be:

1 -> 1
2 -> 2
3 -> 3
4 -> 4
5 -> 4
6 -> 5
   :
22 -> 19
23 -> 20
24+ -> 21

The 21 strokes that a 28-handicapper receives are then a consequence
of 7/8 being applied to 24, not 3/4 being applied to 28.

"newbryford"  wrote in message 
news:e9455787-2209-45dd-abd7-32a36c817d79@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> We had a club competition today where the format was Stableford 7/8
> allowance - max 24. (Therefore max ACTUAL allowance is 21)
>
> I haven't got an up-to-date Congu book, but I'm still under the
> impression that it is a non-qualifier, and thus no automatic change of
> handicaps because it is played off less than full handicap - not
> because of the 24 limit, but because of the 7/8 allowance.
>
> In discussion with a new member to our handicap committee, he was
> under the idea that it was a qualifier. When I pointed out otherwise,
> he then asked if the handicaps could be adjusted under "General Play"
> as though it had been full allowance - I then pointed out that this
> was "applying a formula".
>
> Has the CONGU UHS system recently changed to allow fractional handicap
> allowances to be used for qualifying purposes?
>
> Has the CONGU UHS system recently changed to allow application of a
> formula to calculate General Play?
>
> Can anyone with an up-to-date CONGU book please confirm or deny my
> undertanding of the situation?
>
> Cheers,
> Mick

CONGU Unified Handicapping System
Part 5 Appendix F (page 59) states that CONGU: "directs that the following 
handicap allowances be used for the undernoted forms of competition when 
played as handicap events and, where relevant, for the calculation of the 
CSS in scratch competitions......
Stableford Singles   Full handicap
Stableford Foursomes  1/2 aggregate handicap of partners
Stableford Four-ball  each partner receives 3/4 of full handicap"

The sections on General Play Adjustment appear on page 45:
23.7 In exceptional circumstances the Handicap Committee may adjust the 
handicap of a player in the period between Annual Reviews if there is 
compelling evidence that his Exact Handicap does not reflect his currently 
playing ability.  Appendix M should be consulted for guidance."
Appendix M on page 72 is too long to type out here, but in general, general 
play adjustments should not be worked to a formula and not used to "punish" 
winners.

IMO, your club, if it wishes to retain the privilege of issuing and 
maintaining CONGU handicaps had better start taking its responsibilities 
more seriously.  I think your competition was non-qualifying and there 
should be no handicap adjustments made on the basis of its results.

HTH,
Malcolm

On May 19, 12:22 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:

>
> IMO, your club, if it wishes to retain the privilege of issuing and
> maintaining CONGU handicaps had better start taking its responsibilities
> more seriously.  I think your competition was non-qualifying and there
> should be no handicap adjustments made on the basis of its results.
>
> HTH,
> Malcolm- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Hi Malcolm et al that have replied.
We've a new Handicap Chairman that thinks he knows
everything..........

I was pretty sure of my understanding but wanted it fully clarified
before I challenged him.

We went through something similar a number of years back as the 7/8
and 3/4 was biased towards the lower handicappers winning, but they
couldn't get their head round why handicaps couldn't be changed. It
took a little while of beating them around the head with the words
"non-qualifier" until they got the message.

It's only this year, after *many* years of lobbying by myself that
they've finally gone for full allowance in the singles knockouts,
although they did put a maximum limit of 18!!

Cheers,
Mick

Durram@Home wrote:

> PS You have my total respect for being able to play Mytton Fold week in 
> and week out. After playing there by virtue of your kind invitation last 
> week, you are either a golfing god or married to the owner in line for 
> potential inheritance ;-)

Did he make you walk and carry your bag, though ?  I'm usually 
completely cream crackered by about the 10th :-)  And as for getting on 
the 6th in regulation...

[What am I saying.  I had to tackle 3000' of jumbled rock instead !]

"newbryford"  wrote in message 
news:04aa014b-671c-4c86-8a6b-865c109b6d32@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 12:22 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:


The difference from this year is that CONGU directs - not recommends - full 
handicap.

John Laird wrote:
> Durram@Home wrote:
> 
>> PS You have my total respect for being able to play Mytton Fold week 
>> in and week out. After playing there by virtue of your kind invitation 
>> last week, you are either a golfing god or married to the owner in 
>> line for potential inheritance ;-)
> 
> Did he make you walk and carry your bag, though ?  I'm usually 
> completely cream crackered by about the 10th :-)  And as for getting on 
> the 6th in regulation...
> 
> [What am I saying.  I had to tackle 3000' of jumbled rock instead !]

Having reverted to carrying ever since my trolley broke I must say the 
line up of buggies looked mighty tempting but as whippet warrior a 
little hill wasn't going to scare me off - it was the fact that we had 
to climb the damn thing 6 times that nearly did for me! I could feel the 
pounds dripping off and it was more dehydration than tiredness in the 
end which kept us out of the winners' frame I think.

I did note to Mick that there didn't seem to be any 'fat' members of his 
club presumably because they'd either left or died before finding 
somewhere else to join!

Mick also told me you ran up the 6th instead of walking when I was 
having a bit of a whinge, which doesn't surprise me - what with your 
fell runner's physique!

Stunning views though and when you hit a drive from a raised tee 
downhill it seems to go for miles!

Durram wrote:
> John Laird wrote:
>> Durram@Home wrote:
>>
>>> PS You have my total respect for being able to play Mytton Fold week 
>>> in and week out. After playing there by virtue of your kind 
>>> invitation last week, you are either a golfing god or married to the 
>>> owner in line for potential inheritance ;-)
>>
>> Did he make you walk and carry your bag, though ?  I'm usually 
>> completely cream crackered by about the 10th :-)  And as for getting 
>> on the 6th in regulation...
>>
>> [What am I saying.  I had to tackle 3000' of jumbled rock instead !]
> 
> Having reverted to carrying ever since my trolley broke I must say the 
> line up of buggies looked mighty tempting but as whippet warrior a 
> little hill wasn't going to scare me off - it was the fact that we had 
> to climb the damn thing 6 times that nearly did for me! I could feel the 
> pounds dripping off and it was more dehydration than tiredness in the 
> end which kept us out of the winners' frame I think.
> 
> I did note to Mick that there didn't seem to be any 'fat' members of his 
> club presumably because they'd either left or died before finding 
> somewhere else to join!
> 
> Mick also told me you ran up the 6th instead of walking when I was 
> having a bit of a whinge, which doesn't surprise me - what with your 
> fell runner's physique!

That's why I'm knackered by the turn.  Actually, when the fairways are 
freshly mown you have to run after your ball up that hole and hit it 
before it is minded to start rolling back down and ending up behind the 
point you'd started from ;-)

> Stunning views though and when you hit a drive from a raised tee 
> downhill it seems to go for miles!

It's quite something isn't it.  We played in hail for our Whippets 
warmup, mind you.  Plenty of weather in those parts.

On May 20, 5:39 pm, John Laird  wrote:
> Durram wrote:
> > John Laird wrote:

>
> >> Did he make you walk and carry your bag, though ?  I'm usually
> >> completely cream crackered by about the 10th :-)  And as for getting
> >> on the 6th in regulation...
>

> > Mick also told me you ran up the 6th instead of walking when I was
> > having a bit of a whinge, which doesn't surprise me - what with your
> > fell runner's physique!


Ask Durram what he scored on the 6th.........

:-)

BTW,  47, yes 47, points won!

Mick

On May 19, 11:26 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
> "newbryford"  wrote in message
>
> news:04aa014b-671c-4c86-8a6b-865c109b6d32@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 19, 12:22 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
>
>  wrote:
>
> The difference from this year is that CONGU directs - not recommends - full
> handicap.

It was the only way that I could get them to play full in the KO, by
showing them the EGU Direction.

Muppets!

Mick

On May 19, 11:26 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
> "newbryford"  wrote in message
>
> news:04aa014b-671c-4c86-8a6b-865c109b6d32@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 19, 12:22 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
>
>  wrote:
>
> The difference from this year is that CONGU directs - not recommends - full
> handicap.

They (handicap committee) have declared the results based upon the 7/8
allowance. However, a full allowance result sheet has been generated,
with a CSS and consequent automatic change to handicaps.

They have used Clause 17.2e as a reason for doing this.
17.2  The following returns are not acceptable as Qualifying Scores:

(e) Scores returned in a competition with less than full handicap
allowance *unless* scores are recorded with full handicap allowance
applied and a Competition Scratch Score calculated - see definition of
a qualifying competition.

Reading the Definition of a Qualifying Competition, it isn't obviously
clear as to the difference between handicap limit and handicap
allowance.

The handicap changes have been calculated upon the application of full
allowance up to 28, although the competition limit was 24, with a
fractional adjustment of 7/8

So - all those who played outside buffer zone or under CSS - have we
got correct handicaps?

Now I realise something else - it's very possible that players
calculated their 7/8 allowance of shots, i.e. 14 for a 16 handicapper
and it's very possible that said player recorded a no-score on Si 15
and/or 16, when he may possibly have scored a point under full
allowance conditions - therefore it blows out of the water, the
"scores are recorded" bit and thus it definitely ISN'T a qualifying
comp with handicap adjustments.

Mick

"newbryford"  wrote in message 
news:8c965cda-1946-4d30-bfbe-93f362865ae5@g16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On May 19, 11:26 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
 wrote:
> "newbryford"  wrote in message
>
> news:04aa014b-671c-4c86-8a6b-865c109b6d32@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On May 19, 12:22 pm, "M L Wadsworth"
>
>  wrote:
>
> The difference from this year is that CONGU directs - not recommends - 
> full
> handicap.

They (handicap committee) have declared the results based upon the 7/8
allowance. However, a full allowance result sheet has been generated,
with a CSS and consequent automatic change to handicaps.

They have used Clause 17.2e as a reason for doing this.
17.2  The following returns are not acceptable as Qualifying Scores:

(e) Scores returned in a competition with less than full handicap
allowance *unless* scores are recorded with full handicap allowance
applied and a Competition Scratch Score calculated - see definition of
a qualifying competition.

Reading the Definition of a Qualifying Competition, it isn't obviously
clear as to the difference between handicap limit and handicap
allowance.

The handicap changes have been calculated upon the application of full
allowance up to 28, although the competition limit was 24, with a
fractional adjustment of 7/8

So - all those who played outside buffer zone or under CSS - have we
got correct handicaps?

Now I realise something else - it's very possible that players
calculated their 7/8 allowance of shots, i.e. 14 for a 16 handicapper
and it's very possible that said player recorded a no-score on Si 15
and/or 16, when he may possibly have scored a point under full
allowance conditions - therefore it blows out of the water, the
"scores are recorded" bit and thus it definitely ISN'T a qualifying
comp with handicap adjustments.

Mick


For your information, we are still allowed in the computer software (under 
the terms of the CONGU software licence) to process Stableford competitions 
off 7/8th allowance as handicap qualifiers, provided the computer software 
makes it clear that players must have used their FULL handicap when scoring 
the card (so the handicapping adjustments can be based on full handicap).

This is the same as last year.

However, from 2008, the EGU (and other Unions) have stated that it is no 
longer considered in the "sprit and intent" of the CONGU handicapping system 
to run competitions that do not offer each player eligible to play, their 
full handicap allowance.

They say it is OK to place restrictions on who can enter a competition 
(based on handicap limit, say), but each player who is eligible to enter 
should receive their full handicap once in the competition.

HTH
-- 
Nick Perkins
HandicapMaster Ltd

On 20 May, 23:29, "Nick Perkins"
 wrote:

> Mick
>
> For your information, we are still allowed in the computer software (under
> the terms of the CONGU software licence) to process Stableford competitions
> off 7/8th allowance as handicap qualifiers, provided the computer software
> makes it clear that players must have used their FULL handicap when scoring
> the card (so the handicapping adjustments can be based on full handicap).
>
> This is the same as last year.
>
> However, from 2008, the EGU (and other Unions) have stated that it is no
> longer considered in the "sprit and intent" of the CONGU handicapping system
> to run competitions that do not offer each player eligible to play, their
> full handicap allowance.
>
> They say it is OK to place restrictions on who can enter a competition
> (based on handicap limit, say), but each player who is eligible to enter
> should receive their full handicap once in the competition.
>
> HTH
> --
> Nick Perkins
> HandicapMaster Ltd

Hi Nick,
Thank you for the succint reply. I'll use it in my "reasoning" with
the handicap committee!
It certainly wasn't made clear - in fact it was never mentioned - that
scores would be used for handicap purposes.

A 28 handicapper may well have put N/R against holes where he would no
score under his imposed 21 limit, for example, a gross 7 on a par 4
with SI 4-10, but for a comp with full handicap, his 7 would go on the
card and earn one point.
In an extreme case, if this happened 7 times, then his score is low by
7 points!

I'm sure we won't have a repeat of the problem again.

Cheers,
Mick

On May 20, 11:29 pm, "Nick Perkins"
 wrote:

>
> However, from 2008, the EGU (and other Unions) have stated that it is no
> longer considered in the "sprit and intent" of the CONGU handicapping system
> to run competitions that do not offer each player eligible to play, their
> full handicap allowance.
>
> They say it is OK to place restrictions on who can enter a competition
> (based on handicap limit, say), but each player who is eligible to enter
> should receive their full handicap once in the competition.
>

I've just noticed this 2nd paragraph above.

So - if a competition is limited to say 18 handicap maximum, then ONLY
players with 18 or less can play.
Does this mean that 19 and above are excluded from the competition,
or, can 19 players enter, but only playing to a maximum of 18??
Then invoking Clause 17.2e, they have to record all scores anyway!!!

I didn't used to be confused about handicaps, but not I am!

Cheers,
Mick
p.s. Can I get the "spirit and intent" statement anywhere online as a
quote?

"newbryford"  wrote in message 
news:5348b12c-e8da-4612-861b-3b06282b55c1@e39g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On May 20, 11:29 pm, "Nick Perkins"
 wrote:

>>
>> However, from 2008, the EGU (and other Unions) have stated that it is no
>> longer considered in the "sprit and intent" of the CONGU handicapping 
>> system
>> to run competitions that do not offer each player eligible to play, their
>> full handicap allowance.
>>
>> They say it is OK to place restrictions on who can enter a competition
>> (based on handicap limit, say), but each player who is eligible to enter
>> should receive their full handicap once in the competition.
>>
>
>I've just noticed this 2nd paragraph above.
>
>So - if a competition is limited to say 18 handicap maximum, then ONLY
>players with 18 or less can play.
>Does this mean that 19 and above are excluded from the competition,
>or, can 19+ players enter, but only playing to a maximum of 18??
>Then invoking Clause 17.2e, they have to record all scores anyway!!!
>
>I didn't used to be confused about handicaps, but not I am!
>
>Cheers,
>Mick
>p.s. Can I get the "spirit and intent" statement anywhere online as a
>quote?

I understand that the recommendation is that any player who is allowed to 
enter a competition should have a fair chance to win. Having players with 
handicaps up to 18 getting full handicap allowamce, whilst other players 
with handicaps above 18 getting only a portion of their handicap is not a 
fair competition! If the CONGU handicapping system is to be used, clubs are 
asked to give every competitor a fair chance to win (not some more than 
others!).

If a limit of 18 strokes is necessary, it would be unfair to allow players 
with higher handicaps into the competition and then disadvantage them by not 
getting the same allowance as other players in the competition.

This,. including the "sprit and intent" statement is included on slide 12 of 
the presentation of the Golf Union of Wales to its member clubs regarding 
the 2008 CONGU system. This is a power point presentaion downloadable from 
their web site here:
http://www.golfunionwales.org/Club_Downloads.aspx
(See "Handicap Seminar").

-- 
Nick Perkins
HandicapMaster Ltd

On 22 May, 22:53, "Nick Perkins"
 wrote:

>
> I understand that the recommendation is that any player who is allowed to
> enter a competition should have a fair chance to win. Having players with
> handicaps up to 18 getting full handicap allowamce, whilst other players
> with handicaps above 18 getting only a portion of their handicap is not a
> fair competition! If the CONGU handicapping system is to be used, clubs are
> asked to give every competitor a fair chance to win (not some more than
> others!).
>
> If a limit of 18 strokes is necessary, it would be unfair to allow players
> with higher handicaps into the competition and then disadvantage them by not
> getting the same allowance as other players in the competition.
>
> This,. including the "sprit and intent" statement is included on slide 12 of
> the presentation of the Golf Union of Wales to its member clubs regarding
> the 2008 CONGU system. This is a power point presentaion downloadable from
> their web site here:http://www.golfunionwales.org/Club_Downloads.aspx
> (See "Handicap Seminar").
>
> --
> Nick Perkins

Nick,
Thank you very much!!!

Cheers,
Mick