A question has arisen since the hc committee at my club in Essex were 
told they could not lapse handicaps if members failed to compete in at 
least three qualifying comps.

This thread was useful (link to google groups):
http://tinyurl.com/68wsx2

So, it seems that under CONGU rules lapsed handicaps are an option, 
which has been adopted in Scotland, but not in England. Is that the 
current situation?

-- 
Mark Myers
usenet at mcm2007 dot plus dot com
I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

"Mark Myers"  wrote in message 
news:MPG.22c1eb9615669b219897b0@news.altopia.net...
>A question has arisen since the hc committee at my club in Essex were
> told they could not lapse handicaps if members failed to compete in at
> least three qualifying comps.
>
> This thread was useful (link to google groups):
> http://tinyurl.com/68wsx2
>
> So, it seems that under CONGU rules lapsed handicaps are an option,
> which has been adopted in Scotland, but not in England. Is that the
> current situation?
>
> -- 
> Mark Myers
> usenet at mcm2007 dot plus dot com
> I call that a radical interpretation of the text.


Yes, Mark.

The option to lapse handicaps is not new.
It came into effect 1st Jan 2001 but the EGU has never directed that it 
should apply in England.
Instead. the EGU has preferred to leave it to clubs to include within the 
conditions of their main competitions, if they so wish, a requirement that 
entrants must have played in a given number of qualifying competitions over 
a given period prior to entering.

Personally, I prefer this method.  There are many old b*****s like me whose 
playing ability (if one can call it that) will never be better than their 
current handicap and often with age, very much worse.
The handicap they have does them for the largely social and less competitive 
golf they play.
Why take it away from them?

Malcolm

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:10:24 +0100, M L Wadsworth said...
> 
> "Mark Myers"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.22c1eb9615669b219897b0@news.altopia.net...
> >
> > So, it seems that under CONGU rules lapsed handicaps are an option,
> > which has been adopted in Scotland, but not in England. Is that the
> > current situation?
> 
> Yes, Mark.
> 
> The option to lapse handicaps is not new.
> It came into effect 1st Jan 2001 but the EGU has never directed that it 
> should apply in England.
> Instead. the EGU has preferred to leave it to clubs to include within the 
> conditions of their main competitions, if they so wish, a requirement that 
> entrants must have played in a given number of qualifying competitions over 
> a given period prior to entering.
> 
> Personally, I prefer this method.  There are many old b*****s like me whose 
> playing ability (if one can call it that) will never be better than their 
> current handicap and often with age, very much worse.
> The handicap they have does them for the largely social and less competitive 
> golf they play.
> Why take it away from them?

You make a good point. I hadn't considered that side of the equation.

I don't think my committee has considered the option of amending 
conditions of competition, so I will suggest that.

-- 
Mark Myers
usenet at mcm2007 dot plus dot com
I call that a radical interpretation of the text.

I live in Scotland and until this year my handicap was 19.  It has now 
lapsed.
I am 73 and am not really interested in playing in the medals so doubt if I 
shall bother trying to get it back; however I do like to play in the 
interclub seniors matches and so far thsi year my handicap has ben accepted 
as 19.  If they say no to me then I shall just stop playing in these 
matches.
I do not play in the seniors competitions.
I think what you are doing in England is more sensible.


"M L Wadsworth"  wrote in 
message news:4vednZ3Xg9iTbcrVnZ2dnUVZ8t3inZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Mark Myers"  wrote in message 
> news:MPG.22c1eb9615669b219897b0@news.altopia.net...
>>A question has arisen since the hc committee at my club in Essex were
>> told they could not lapse handicaps if members failed to compete in at
>> least three qualifying comps.
>>
>> This thread was useful (link to google groups):
>> http://tinyurl.com/68wsx2
>>
>> So, it seems that under CONGU rules lapsed handicaps are an option,
>> which has been adopted in Scotland, but not in England. Is that the
>> current situation?
>>
>> -- 
>> Mark Myers
>> usenet at mcm2007 dot plus dot com
>> I call that a radical interpretation of the text.
>
>
> Yes, Mark.
>
> The option to lapse handicaps is not new.
> It came into effect 1st Jan 2001 but the EGU has never directed that it 
> should apply in England.
> Instead. the EGU has preferred to leave it to clubs to include within the 
> conditions of their main competitions, if they so wish, a requirement that 
> entrants must have played in a given number of qualifying competitions 
> over a given period prior to entering.
>
> Personally, I prefer this method.  There are many old b*****s like me 
> whose playing ability (if one can call it that) will never be better than 
> their current handicap and often with age, very much worse.
> The handicap they have does them for the largely social and less 
> competitive golf they play.
> Why take it away from them?
>
> Malcolm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

"Stewart"  wrote in message 
news:g3bsf5$3ad$1@aioe.org...
>I live in Scotland and until this year my handicap was 19.  It has now 
>lapsed.
> I am 73 and am not really interested in playing in the medals so doubt if 
> I shall bother trying to get it back; however I do like to play in the 
> interclub seniors matches and so far thsi year my handicap has ben 
> accepted as 19.  If they say no to me then I shall just stop playing in 
> these matches.
> I do not play in the seniors competitions.
> I think what you are doing in England is more sensible.
So you think that to play in interclub seniors matches is in order when your 
handicap has not been proven to be correct. I play in such matches, and in 
our club you would have to maintain your handicap in a proper way to be 
considered for the team.

Denis
>
>
> "M L Wadsworth"  wrote in 
> message news:4vednZ3Xg9iTbcrVnZ2dnUVZ8t3inZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>> "Mark Myers"  wrote in message 
>> news:MPG.22c1eb9615669b219897b0@news.altopia.net...
>>>A question has arisen since the hc committee at my club in Essex were
>>> told they could not lapse handicaps if members failed to compete in at
>>> least three qualifying comps.
>>>
>>> This thread was useful (link to google groups):
>>> http://tinyurl.com/68wsx2
>>>
>>> So, it seems that under CONGU rules lapsed handicaps are an option,
>>> which has been adopted in Scotland, but not in England. Is that the
>>> current situation?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Mark Myers
>>> usenet at mcm2007 dot plus dot com
>>> I call that a radical interpretation of the text.
>>
>>
>> Yes, Mark.
>>
>> The option to lapse handicaps is not new.
>> It came into effect 1st Jan 2001 but the EGU has never directed that it 
>> should apply in England.
>> Instead. the EGU has preferred to leave it to clubs to include within the 
>> conditions of their main competitions, if they so wish, a requirement 
>> that entrants must have played in a given number of qualifying 
>> competitions over a given period prior to entering.
>>
>> Personally, I prefer this method.  There are many old b*****s like me 
>> whose playing ability (if one can call it that) will never be better than 
>> their current handicap and often with age, very much worse.
>> The handicap they have does them for the largely social and less 
>> competitive golf they play.
>> Why take it away from them?
>>
>> Malcolm
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

"Stewart"  wrote in
news:g3bsf5$3ad$1@aioe.org: 

> I live in Scotland and until this year my handicap was 19.  It has now
> lapsed.
> I am 73 and am not really interested in playing in the medals so doubt
> if I shall bother trying to get it back; however I do like to play in
> the interclub seniors matches and so far thsi year my handicap has ben
> accepted as 19.  If they say no to me then I shall just stop playing
> in these matches.
> I do not play in the seniors competitions.
> I think what you are doing in England is more sensible.
> 
> 
 Can you tell me what club you play for so I can see if you are playing 
against my team off an illegal handicap.

If I did not use a handicap of 19 then I suppose I would be given the 
maximum and in my view that would not be fair as I would then be given far 
too many shots.  I really do not mind if I was told to use a handicap of 19 
(last known) or 18 (best ever achieved) but think it wrong to use anything 
over 20.


"Denis Cary"  wrote in message 
news:g3c1c6$mh3$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Stewart"  wrote in message 
> news:g3bsf5$3ad$1@aioe.org...
>>I live in Scotland and until this year my handicap was 19.  It has now 
>>lapsed.
>> I am 73 and am not really interested in playing in the medals so doubt if 
>> I shall bother trying to get it back; however I do like to play in the 
>> interclub seniors matches and so far thsi year my handicap has ben 
>> accepted as 19.  If they say no to me then I shall just stop playing in 
>> these matches.
>> I do not play in the seniors competitions.
>> I think what you are doing in England is more sensible.
> So you think that to play in interclub seniors matches is in order when 
> your handicap has not been proven to be correct. I play in such matches, 
> and in our club you would have to maintain your handicap in a proper way 
> to be considered for the team.
>
> Denis
>>
>>
>> "M L Wadsworth"  wrote in 
>> message news:4vednZ3Xg9iTbcrVnZ2dnUVZ8t3inZ2d@bt.com...
>>>
>>> "Mark Myers"  wrote in message 
>>> news:MPG.22c1eb9615669b219897b0@news.altopia.net...
>>>>A question has arisen since the hc committee at my club in Essex were
>>>> told they could not lapse handicaps if members failed to compete in at
>>>> least three qualifying comps.
>>>>
>>>> This thread was useful (link to google groups):
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/68wsx2
>>>>
>>>> So, it seems that under CONGU rules lapsed handicaps are an option,
>>>> which has been adopted in Scotland, but not in England. Is that the
>>>> current situation?
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Mark Myers
>>>> usenet at mcm2007 dot plus dot com
>>>> I call that a radical interpretation of the text.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, Mark.
>>>
>>> The option to lapse handicaps is not new.
>>> It came into effect 1st Jan 2001 but the EGU has never directed that it 
>>> should apply in England.
>>> Instead. the EGU has preferred to leave it to clubs to include within 
>>> the conditions of their main competitions, if they so wish, a 
>>> requirement that entrants must have played in a given number of 
>>> qualifying competitions over a given period prior to entering.
>>>
>>> Personally, I prefer this method.  There are many old b*****s like me 
>>> whose playing ability (if one can call it that) will never be better 
>>> than their current handicap and often with age, very much worse.
>>> The handicap they have does them for the largely social and less 
>>> competitive golf they play.
>>> Why take it away from them?
>>>
>>> Malcolm
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

"Stewart"  wrote in message 
news:g3e4f2$k7a$1@aioe.org...
> If I did not use a handicap of 19 then I suppose I would be given the 
> maximum and in my view that would not be fair as I would then be given far 
> too many shots.  I really do not mind if I was told to use a handicap of 
> 19 (last known) or 18 (best ever achieved) but think it wrong to use 
> anything over 20.
>
You are totally missing the point. You either have a handicap or you do not 
have a handicap.
If it has been lapsed you DO NOT HAVE ONE
To declare to anyone that you have a handicap can only lead to you being 
disqualified from any competition which accepted your declaration in good 
faith.

I cannot understand you reluctance to take part in medal competitions and 
properly maintain your handicap. It is only another round of golf.
Your age is no excuse.
You are either fit and capable to play golf, as evidenced by you wish to 
play in matches, or you are unfit. You should not deceive your fellow 
players by using an illegal handicap.

What makes you think that you would be given that maximum (28) if you did 
not use the illegal 19. You apparently do not know the rules for giving a 
person a handicap You should ask your clubs handicap committee but I expect 
that it is those who lapsed your handicap for some good reason.

The cavalier attitude of choosing whatever number you wish as a handicap can 
only lead to you not being allowed to take part in any competitions and  you 
will be limited to playing friendly golf with players of a similar attitude.

Denis

Denis, whenever I am told that I can no longer play in the interclub senior 
matches I shall do so at once.  I only played in the medals to get a 
handicap and have never enjoyed them, I just do not like competitive golf, 
especially stroke play.  Our senior matches are played in a very friendly 
fashion and are more of social outing rather than any side bothering who has 
won, indeed on a number of occassions we have been told which club won but 
no one bothers by how much.


"Denis Cary"  wrote in message 
news:g3e7ol$2sk$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Stewart"  wrote in message 
> news:g3e4f2$k7a$1@aioe.org...
>> If I did not use a handicap of 19 then I suppose I would be given the 
>> maximum and in my view that would not be fair as I would then be given 
>> far too many shots.  I really do not mind if I was told to use a handicap 
>> of 19 (last known) or 18 (best ever achieved) but think it wrong to use 
>> anything over 20.
>>
> You are totally missing the point. You either have a handicap or you do 
> not have a handicap.
> If it has been lapsed you DO NOT HAVE ONE
> To declare to anyone that you have a handicap can only lead to you being 
> disqualified from any competition which accepted your declaration in good 
> faith.
>
> I cannot understand you reluctance to take part in medal competitions and 
> properly maintain your handicap. It is only another round of golf.
> Your age is no excuse.
> You are either fit and capable to play golf, as evidenced by you wish to 
> play in matches, or you are unfit. You should not deceive your fellow 
> players by using an illegal handicap.
>
> What makes you think that you would be given that maximum (28) if you did 
> not use the illegal 19. You apparently do not know the rules for giving a 
> person a handicap You should ask your clubs handicap committee but I 
> expect that it is those who lapsed your handicap for some good reason.
>
> The cavalier attitude of choosing whatever number you wish as a handicap 
> can only lead to you not being allowed to take part in any competitions 
> and  you will be limited to playing friendly golf with players of a 
> similar attitude.
>
> Denis
>

"Denis Cary"  wrote in message 
news:g3e7ol$2sk$1@aioe.org...
>
> "Stewart"  wrote in message 
> news:g3e4f2$k7a$1@aioe.org...
>> If I did not use a handicap of 19 then I suppose I would be given the 
>> maximum and in my view that would not be fair as I would then be given 
>> far too many shots.  I really do not mind if I was told to use a handicap 
>> of 19 (last known) or 18 (best ever achieved) but think it wrong to use 
>> anything over 20.
>>
> You are totally missing the point. You either have a handicap or you do 
> not have a handicap.
> If it has been lapsed you DO NOT HAVE ONE
> To declare to anyone that you have a handicap can only lead to you being 
> disqualified from any competition which accepted your declaration in good 
> faith.
>
> I cannot understand you reluctance to take part in medal competitions and 
> properly maintain your handicap. It is only another round of golf.
> Your age is no excuse.
> You are either fit and capable to play golf, as evidenced by you wish to 
> play in matches, or you are unfit. You should not deceive your fellow 
> players by using an illegal handicap.
>
> What makes you think that you would be given that maximum (28) if you did 
> not use the illegal 19. You apparently do not know the rules for giving a 
> person a handicap You should ask your clubs handicap committee but I 
> expect that it is those who lapsed your handicap for some good reason.
>
> The cavalier attitude of choosing whatever number you wish as a handicap 
> can only lead to you not being allowed to take part in any competitions 
> and  you will be limited to playing friendly golf with players of a 
> similar attitude.
>
> Denis
>

Denis,
I think it is you who is missing the point.  Stewart has a perfectly valid 
handicap of 19.
The EGU does not lapse handicaps and provided the friendly matches against 
seniors at other clubs don't insist on all players having played in 10 
medals in the last 2 months, he is OK to play with them.
Most inter-club matches, unless they are league or county matches, are 
played in such a manner that the result is unimportant.
I have played in Foxes matches where traditionally, the result as to which 
club won was never announced.

Golf has its roots in match play, not stroke play, and many golfers prefer 
to simply enjoy 2-ball or 4-ball matches.  Often these matches are played 
off scratch if handicaps are similar.
Even if everyone in the group plays in medals and has a handicap recently 
tested in medal play, the group may still have their own handicapping system 
to prevent Bloggins always taking the money!

It must be very satisfying for you to belong a club with a waiting list, but 
most clubs have vacancies and if handicaps were to lapse, just because a 
member hadn't played in 3 medals in the past year, many members would 
resign.  It is holding a valid handicap that retains them as members.  Take 
away their handicaps and many would probably just pay and play or fall back 
on society golf only.

Perhaps you need to recognise, Denis, that all of us are not the same.  We 
like different things: we enjoy our golf different ways.

Malcolm

"M L Wadsworth"  wrote in 
message news:C4KdnVDSUtAGZ8bVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Denis Cary"  wrote in message 
> news:g3e7ol$2sk$1@aioe.org...
>>
>> "Stewart"  wrote in message 
>> news:g3e4f2$k7a$1@aioe.org...
>>> If I did not use a handicap of 19 then I suppose I would be given the 
>>> maximum and in my view that would not be fair as I would then be given 
>>> far too many shots.  I really do not mind if I was told to use a 
>>> handicap of 19 (last known) or 18 (best ever achieved) but think it 
>>> wrong to use anything over 20.
>>>
>> You are totally missing the point. You either have a handicap or you do 
>> not have a handicap.
>> If it has been lapsed you DO NOT HAVE ONE
>> To declare to anyone that you have a handicap can only lead to you being 
>> disqualified from any competition which accepted your declaration in good 
>> faith.
>>
>> I cannot understand you reluctance to take part in medal competitions and 
>> properly maintain your handicap. It is only another round of golf.
>> Your age is no excuse.
>> You are either fit and capable to play golf, as evidenced by you wish to 
>> play in matches, or you are unfit. You should not deceive your fellow 
>> players by using an illegal handicap.
>>
>> What makes you think that you would be given that maximum (28) if you did 
>> not use the illegal 19. You apparently do not know the rules for giving a 
>> person a handicap You should ask your clubs handicap committee but I 
>> expect that it is those who lapsed your handicap for some good reason.
>>
>> The cavalier attitude of choosing whatever number you wish as a handicap 
>> can only lead to you not being allowed to take part in any competitions 
>> and  you will be limited to playing friendly golf with players of a 
>> similar attitude.
>>
>> Denis
>>
>
> Denis,
> I think it is you who is missing the point.  Stewart has a perfectly valid 
> handicap of 19.
> The EGU does not lapse handicaps and provided the friendly matches against 
> seniors at other clubs don't insist on all players having played in 10 
> medals in the last 2 months, he is OK to play with them.
> Most inter-club matches, unless they are league or county matches, are 
> played in such a manner that the result is unimportant.
> I have played in Foxes matches where traditionally, the result as to which 
> club won was never announced.
>
> Golf has its roots in match play, not stroke play, and many golfers prefer 
> to simply enjoy 2-ball or 4-ball matches.  Often these matches are played 
> off scratch if handicaps are similar.
> Even if everyone in the group plays in medals and has a handicap recently 
> tested in medal play, the group may still have their own handicapping 
> system to prevent Bloggins always taking the money!
>
> It must be very satisfying for you to belong a club with a waiting list, 
> but most clubs have vacancies and if handicaps were to lapse, just because 
> a member hadn't played in 3 medals in the past year, many members would 
> resign.  It is holding a valid handicap that retains them as members. 
> Take away their handicaps and many would probably just pay and play or 
> fall back on society golf only.
>
> Perhaps you need to recognise, Denis, that all of us are not the same.  We 
> like different things: we enjoy our golf different ways.
>
> Malcolm
>
> I have not missed the point.
Whilst the EGU does not allow the lapsing handicaps the Scottish authority 
does and Stewart does not
therefore have a valid handicap.
I have no idea what you are talkin about in quoting 'Foxes Matches'. A match 
is a match and whilst the result is not important it is important that they 
are played within the rules of golf including those relating to handicaps 
which are controlled by the clubs under permission of the relevant union.
I have never come across or heard of an inter-club match where playing under 
an illegal 'handicap' is allowed and  I am most surprised to read a 
statement from you condoning such action.

>
>

"Denis Cary"  wrote in message 
news:g3h8gk$9s3$1@aioe.org...
>
> "M L Wadsworth"  wrote in 
> message news:C4KdnVDSUtAGZ8bVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>

>>
>> I have not missed the point.
> Whilst the EGU does not allow the lapsing handicaps the Scottish authority 
> does and Stewart does not
> therefore have a valid handicap.
> I have no idea what you are talkin about in quoting 'Foxes Matches'. A 
> match is a match and whilst the result is not important it is important 
> that they are played within the rules of golf including those relating to 
> handicaps which are controlled by the clubs under permission of the 
> relevant union.
> I have never come across or heard of an inter-club match where playing 
> under an illegal 'handicap' is allowed and  I am most surprised to read a 
> statement from you condoning such action.
>

I apologise.  I had missed the fact that Stewart was a member of a golf club 
affiliated to the SGU.
I accept therefore that he does not now have a current CONGU handicap.
The question therefore is whether the Conditions of Competition for his 
friendly seniors matches lay down that a player must hold a current CONGU 
handicap in order to play.
I suspect there are no Conditions of Competition at all. There is simply 
custom and practice whereby the matches are handicapped and players exchange 
handicap details at the first tee and give strokes based on 3/4 handicap.
While Stewart will be eligible to play in such matches, for the sake of 
accuracy and fairness, he should advise his opponents that his handicap was 
19 but has now lapsed.
Knowing the spirit in which such matches are played, I am sure the opponents 
will be happy to accept Stewart's lapsed handicap as the basis for stroke 
allowances, particularly since he is more likely at his age, to be playing 
above his lapsed handicap than below it.
Should he come across a player who objects, all he has to do is say: "show 
me where it says I have to hold a CONGU handicap to play in this match."
The uk.sport.golf annual bash has survived nine years based on CONGU 
handicaps, lapsed handicaps, society handicaps and no handicaps at all and 
in all those nine years, despite the contest between North and South being 
as fiercely contested as the Ryder Cup, I have never once heard anyone 
suggest that a player had declared an unfair handicap - apart from El 
Bandito of course ;-)

I applaud the fact that you, Denis, and all your members regularly play in 
qualifying competitions and there are no lone members in your club who 
haven't played in a qualifier this year and who nobody will play with as a 
consequence.

Malcolm

M L Wadsworth wrote:
> "Denis Cary"  wrote in message 
> news:g3h8gk$9s3$1@aioe.org...
>> "M L Wadsworth"  wrote in 
>> message news:C4KdnVDSUtAGZ8bVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> 
>>> I have not missed the point.
>> Whilst the EGU does not allow the lapsing handicaps the Scottish authority 
>> does and Stewart does not
>> therefore have a valid handicap.
>> I have no idea what you are talkin about in quoting 'Foxes Matches'. A 
>> match is a match and whilst the result is not important it is important 
>> that they are played within the rules of golf including those relating to 
>> handicaps which are controlled by the clubs under permission of the 
>> relevant union.
>> I have never come across or heard of an inter-club match where playing 
>> under an illegal 'handicap' is allowed and  I am most surprised to read a 
>> statement from you condoning such action.
>>
> 
> I apologise.  I had missed the fact that Stewart was a member of a golf club 
> affiliated to the SGU.
> I accept therefore that he does not now have a current CONGU handicap.
> The question therefore is whether the Conditions of Competition for his 
> friendly seniors matches lay down that a player must hold a current CONGU 
> handicap in order to play.
> I suspect there are no Conditions of Competition at all. There is simply 
> custom and practice whereby the matches are handicapped and players exchange 
> handicap details at the first tee and give strokes based on 3/4 handicap.
> While Stewart will be eligible to play in such matches, for the sake of 
> accuracy and fairness, he should advise his opponents that his handicap was 
> 19 but has now lapsed.
> Knowing the spirit in which such matches are played, I am sure the opponents 
> will be happy to accept Stewart's lapsed handicap as the basis for stroke 
> allowances, particularly since he is more likely at his age, to be playing 
> above his lapsed handicap than below it.
> Should he come across a player who objects, all he has to do is say: "show 
> me where it says I have to hold a CONGU handicap to play in this match."
> The uk.sport.golf annual bash has survived nine years based on CONGU 
> handicaps, lapsed handicaps, society handicaps and no handicaps at all and 
> in all those nine years, despite the contest between North and South being 
> as fiercely contested as the Ryder Cup, I have never once heard anyone 
> suggest that a player had declared an unfair handicap - apart from El 
> Bandito of course ;-)
> 
> I applaud the fact that you, Denis, and all your members regularly play in 
> qualifying competitions and there are no lone members in your club who 
> haven't played in a qualifier this year and who nobody will play with as a 
> consequence.
> 
> Malcolm
> 
> 

Though your tongue maybe somewhat in your cheek, I think you are being 
far too kind.

The points you made on your previous post I agree with totally and shows 
up the nonsense of lapsing handicaps so flagrantly. Our authorities 
needs to take a serious look at this issue and receive feedback as to 
what is actually happening regarding membership retention for as you say 
why should anybody be part of a club structure if they are treated like 
lepers just because they don't play in regular medals.

I don't myself come across many golfers like that as the sort of golf I 
enjoy playing is competitive, medal and match play, so all the people I 
play with/against usually have well managed handicaps but that covers 
only a small section of the golf playing public and there are many more 
informal games going on, using the CONGU handicap as a base and either 
playing off stick end or modifying it at poor Bloggins' expense.

I feel Denis is not being very inclusive or understanding towards 
Stewart's viewpoint on this matter, and is taking an overly officious 
position, coming across as being a pompous rules nanny, which I'm sure 
he's not in reality at all. If that is the attitude up there in SGU-land 
I am grateful for the national separation and for once can congratulate 
the EGU (this must be a first for me!) on it's open mindedness to how 
many people organise their golf enjoyment and have taken the common 
sense standpoint.

One size does not fit all - vive la différence! Golf clubs need more 
paying members and less pontificating snobbery with puritanical, 
non-inclusive officialdom (there's enough of that in Downing Street ;-) )

I think the smaller Unions have got it way wrong on this issue since as 
you have already pointed out, organising committee can create the 
necessary conditions of the competition to reduce the likelihood of 
sandbaggers.

Of course this is only MHO

-- 
Durram

Thank you all again; I have benefitted from the comments so from now on I 
shall tell the opposing 2 in our matches that my handicap last year was 19 
but has now lapsed and that if they are not happy with that then I shall 
play of scratch.  In playing in the seniors matches for the last 9 years I 
have never met a player with a handicap of less than 10 so offering to play 
of scratch should be OK.


"Durram"  wrote in message 
news:g3ik2n$e3$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>M L Wadsworth wrote:
>> "Denis Cary"  wrote in message 
>> news:g3h8gk$9s3$1@aioe.org...
>>> "M L Wadsworth"  wrote in 
>>> message news:C4KdnVDSUtAGZ8bVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
>>
>>>> I have not missed the point.
<snip>
<snip>

"Durram"  wrote in message 
news:g3ik2n$e3$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>M L Wadsworth wrote:
>> "Denis Cary"  wrote in message 
>> news:g3h8gk$9s3$1@aioe.org...
>>> "M L Wadsworth"  wrote in 
>>> message news:C4KdnVDSUtAGZ8bVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.> playing off stick end 
>>> or modifying it at poor Bloggins' expense.
>
> I feel Denis is not being very inclusive or understanding towards 
> Stewart's viewpoint on this matter, and is taking an overly officious 
> position, coming across as being a pompous rules nanny, which I'm sure 
> he's not in reality at all. If that is the attitude up there in SGU-land I 
> am grateful for the national separation and for once can congratulate the 
> EGU (this must be a first for me!) on it's open mindedness to how many 
> people organise their golf enjoyment and have taken the common sense 
> standpoint.
>
> One size does not fit all - vive la différence! Golf clubs need more 
> paying members and less pontificating snobbery with puritanical, 
> non-inclusive officialdom (there's enough of that in Downing Street ;-) )
>
> I think the smaller Unions have got it way wrong on this issue since as 
> you have already pointed out, organising committee can create the 
> necessary conditions of the competition to reduce the likelihood of 
> sandbaggers.
>
> Of course this is only MHO
>
> -- 
> Durram

I am in no way objecting to members with no handicap playing wherever and in 
what method they wish but I do object to players taking part in a properly 
organized competitions by deception.
I agree that not all competitions need to be played in a serious matter but 
it is necessary that opposing players or teams are aware that some are 
playing without properly maintained handicaps.
The whole purpose of the lapsing of handicaps in Scotland and the 
recommendations recently made by EGU is solely to attempt to ensure that all 
players are using proper and fair handicaps. The acceptance of players 
choosing to be dishonest in their actions after their handicap has either 
been lapsed in Scotland or the equivalent in England leads me on to consider 
which other breach of the rules do you wish to accept.
In the county, where I play my Seniors Golf, the organization of these 
matches is taken seriously and we expect that all the clubs (May club plays 
against 16 other clubs) who take part are following all the rules of golf. 
However, when we are actually playing the matches, the mood of the players 
is less that serious and I find that the enjoyment of playing with fellow 
players and opposition leads to the build up of serious friendships over the 
years. I feel that this is based on mutual respect for each other.
Whilst I understand the comment 'Golf clubs need more paying members' I can 
in no way accept that financial considerations should be a basis for the 
making and honoring rules of golf.

Denis

Denis Cary wrote:
> 
> "Durram"  wrote in message 
> news:g3ik2n$e3$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> M L Wadsworth wrote:
>>> "Denis Cary"  wrote in message 
>>> news:g3h8gk$9s3$1@aioe.org...
>>>> "M L Wadsworth"  wrote 
>>>> in message news:C4KdnVDSUtAGZ8bVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.> playing off 
>>>> stick end or modifying it at poor Bloggins' expense.
>>
>> I feel Denis is not being very inclusive or understanding towards 
>> Stewart's viewpoint on this matter, and is taking an overly officious 
>> position, coming across as being a pompous rules nanny, which I'm sure 
>> he's not in reality at all. If that is the attitude up there in 
>> SGU-land I am grateful for the national separation and for once can 
>> congratulate the EGU (this must be a first for me!) on it's open 
>> mindedness to how many people organise their golf enjoyment and have 
>> taken the common sense standpoint.
>>
>> One size does not fit all - vive la différence! Golf clubs need more 
>> paying members and less pontificating snobbery with puritanical, 
>> non-inclusive officialdom (there's enough of that in Downing Street ;-) )
>>
>> I think the smaller Unions have got it way wrong on this issue since 
>> as you have already pointed out, organising committee can create the 
>> necessary conditions of the competition to reduce the likelihood of 
>> sandbaggers.
>>
>> Of course this is only MHO
>>
>> -- 
>> Durram
> 
> I am in no way objecting to members with no handicap playing wherever 
> and in what method they wish but I do object to players taking part in a 
> properly organized competitions by deception.
> I agree that not all competitions need to be played in a serious matter 
> but it is necessary that opposing players or teams are aware that some 
> are playing without properly maintained handicaps.
> The whole purpose of the lapsing of handicaps in Scotland and the 
> recommendations recently made by EGU is solely to attempt to ensure that 
> all players are using proper and fair handicaps. The acceptance of 
> players choosing to be dishonest in their actions after their handicap 
> has either been lapsed in Scotland or the equivalent in England leads me 
> on to consider which other breach of the rules do you wish to accept.
> In the county, where I play my Seniors Golf, the organization of these 
> matches is taken seriously and we expect that all the clubs (May club 
> plays against 16 other clubs) who take part are following all the rules 
> of golf. However, when we are actually playing the matches, the mood of 
> the players is less that serious and I find that the enjoyment of 
> playing with fellow players and opposition leads to the build up of 
> serious friendships over the years. I feel that this is based on mutual 
> respect for each other.
> Whilst I understand the comment 'Golf clubs need more paying members' I 
> can in no way accept that financial considerations should be a basis for 
> the making and honoring rules of golf.
> 
> Denis

I really do appreciate your thoughts but still think the method of 
lapsing handicaps so easily is a bit of a blunt instrument.

Golf is basically a game of honour and trust. Taking the actions of 
lapsing handicaps further, in order to ensure golfers aren't cheating 
with their handicap allowances, would mean CCTV on golf courses watching 
every shot or all matched to be witness and officiated by an independent 
referee!

We share the same enjoyment experiencing competitive team golf and I 
don't deny that there will be golfers who bend, modify or choose to 
ignore the rules but if I go around assuming this is happening all the 
time them my own personal enjoyment is diminished. I therefore must 
assume that they are playing with a legitimate handicap and are 
conducting their game play in accordance with the Rules of Golf, without 
exception for that is how it is, a game of honour and trust.

If someone chooses to have less integrity in these areas they may have a 
short term win but lose in the long run, mainly because they are missing 
the point and it is their loss not mine as I don't want to play with 
such people anyway apart from to beat them mercilessly at the game!

As for financial considerations, if we want to continue to enjoy our 
past time in comfortable surroundings in the club house socially and 
play on well kept greens, fairways and tees then we either have to pay 
more or have more members.  Whilst welcoming the playing golf membership 
we should, by example, show them the enjoyment to be gained by self 
discipline of honourable and strict adherence to the rules of 
handicapping and golf rather that assuming they are going to try and 
cheat the system. Two opposite approaches: one positive and one 
negative. Which one would you prefer to use? Are we not all in this 
forum as a result of the inspiration created by the Honourable Company 
of Edinburgh Golfers? Where did it all go wrong?

-- 
Durram

"Durram"  wrote in message 
news:g3nstk$t81$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Denis Cary wrote:
>>
>> "Durram"  wrote in message 
>> news:g3ik2n$e3$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> M L Wadsworth wrote:
>>>> "Denis Cary"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:g3h8gk$9s3$1@aioe.org...
>>>>> "M L Wadsworth"  wrote in 
>>>>> message news:C4KdnVDSUtAGZ8bVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.> playing off stick 
>>>>> end or modifying it at poor Bloggins' expense.
>>>
>
> I really do appreciate your thoughts but still think the method of lapsing 
> handicaps so easily is a bit of a blunt instrument.
>
> Golf is basically a game of honour and trust. Taking the actions of 
> lapsing handicaps further, in order to ensure golfers aren't cheating with 
> their handicap allowances, would mean CCTV on golf courses watching every 
> shot or all matched to be witness and officiated by an independent 
> referee!
>
> We share the same enjoyment experiencing competitive team golf and I don't 
> deny that there will be golfers who bend, modify or choose to ignore the 
> rules but if I go around assuming this is happening all the time them my 
> own personal enjoyment is diminished. I therefore must assume that they 
> are playing with a legitimate handicap and are conducting their game play 
> in accordance with the Rules of Golf, without exception for that is how it 
> is, a game of honour and trust.
>
> If someone chooses to have less integrity in these areas they may have a 
> short term win but lose in the long run, mainly because they are missing 
> the point and it is their loss not mine as I don't want to play with such 
> people anyway apart from to beat them mercilessly at the game!
>
> As for financial considerations, if we want to continue to enjoy our past 
> time in comfortable surroundings in the club house socially and play on 
> well kept greens, fairways and tees then we either have to pay more or 
> have more members.  Whilst welcoming the playing golf membership we 
> should, by example, show them the enjoyment to be gained by self 
> discipline of honourable and strict adherence to the rules of handicapping 
> and golf rather that assuming they are going to try and cheat the system. 
> Two opposite approaches: one positive and one negative. Which one would 
> you prefer to use? Are we not all in this forum as a result of the 
> inspiration created by the Honourable Company of Edinburgh Golfers? Where 
> did it all go wrong?
>
> -- 
> Durram
>
Today I was playing, against a club in my area, in a Seniors match.
After a few holes an opposition player informed me that one of his team was 
playing with an illegal handicap. The player has not played in any 
qualifying competition for some years.
He was embarrassed by this and said he believed that his captain should not 
have selected him to play and that he did not agree that such players should 
be taking part in his clubs matches.
Co-incidence!

Denis

Denis Cary wrote:
> 
> "Durram"  wrote in message 
> news:g3nstk$t81$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>> Denis Cary wrote:
>>>
>>> "Durram"  wrote in message 
>>> news:g3ik2n$e3$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>> M L Wadsworth wrote:
>>>>> "Denis Cary"  wrote in message 
>>>>> news:g3h8gk$9s3$1@aioe.org...
>>>>>> "M L Wadsworth"  
>>>>>> wrote in message news:C4KdnVDSUtAGZ8bVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.> 
>>>>>> playing off stick end or modifying it at poor Bloggins' expense.
>>>>
>>
>> I really do appreciate your thoughts but still think the method of 
>> lapsing handicaps so easily is a bit of a blunt instrument.
>>
>> Golf is basically a game of honour and trust. Taking the actions of 
>> lapsing handicaps further, in order to ensure golfers aren't cheating 
>> with their handicap allowances, would mean CCTV on golf courses 
>> watching every shot or all matched to be witness and officiated by an 
>> independent referee!
>>
>> We share the same enjoyment experiencing competitive team golf and I 
>> don't deny that there will be golfers who bend, modify or choose to 
>> ignore the rules but if I go around assuming this is happening all the 
>> time them my own personal enjoyment is diminished. I therefore must 
>> assume that they are playing with a legitimate handicap and are 
>> conducting their game play in accordance with the Rules of Golf, 
>> without exception for that is how it is, a game of honour and trust.
>>
>> If someone chooses to have less integrity in these areas they may have 
>> a short term win but lose in the long run, mainly because they are 
>> missing the point and it is their loss not mine as I don't want to 
>> play with such people anyway apart from to beat them mercilessly at 
>> the game!
>>
>> As for financial considerations, if we want to continue to enjoy our 
>> past time in comfortable surroundings in the club house socially and 
>> play on well kept greens, fairways and tees then we either have to pay 
>> more or have more members.  Whilst welcoming the playing golf 
>> membership we should, by example, show them the enjoyment to be gained 
>> by self discipline of honourable and strict adherence to the rules of 
>> handicapping and golf rather that assuming they are going to try and 
>> cheat the system. Two opposite approaches: one positive and one 
>> negative. Which one would you prefer to use? Are we not all in this 
>> forum as a result of the inspiration created by the Honourable Company 
>> of Edinburgh Golfers? Where did it all go wrong?
>>
>> -- 
>> Durram
>>
> Today I was playing, against a club in my area, in a Seniors match.
> After a few holes an opposition player informed me that one of his team 
> was playing with an illegal handicap. The player has not played in any 
> qualifying competition for some years.
> He was embarrassed by this and said he believed that his captain should 
> not have selected him to play and that he did not agree that such 
> players should be taking part in his clubs matches.
> Co-incidence!
> 
> Denis
> 
> 

Ha! And we're supposed to look to our seniors to set an example.

Up in Scotland I suppose they have tried to avoid personal confrontation 
with the issue by using the lapsed handicap option but I still think the 
'honourable' approach should be self-regulation by the individual 
supported by his playing partners and certainly the team captain should 
should know who he/she is picking to represent the Club. By this I mean 
that the player should be encouraged to ensure his own handicap is well 
monitored not because to avoid doing this is 'illegal' but that it's 
'not right'. We can't check upon every action, we have to rely on 
honesty on the small things as well as the big things.

It was Tacitus that stated, "The more corrupt the state, the more 
numerous the laws".

Nothing changes.
-- 
Durram

"Durram"  wrote in message 
news:g3qel1$al0$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> Denis Cary wrote:
>>
>> "Durram"  wrote in message 
>> news:g3nstk$t81$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>> Denis Cary wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Durram"  wrote in message 
>>>> news:g3ik2n$e3$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>>>>> M L Wadsworth wrote:
>>>>>> "Denis Cary"  wrote in message 
>>>>>> news:g3h8gk$9s3$1@aioe.org...
>>>>>>> "M L Wadsworth"  wrote 
>>>>>>> in message news:C4KdnVDSUtAGZ8bVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.> playing off 
>>>>>>> stick end or modifying it at poor Bloggins' expense.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> I really do appreciate your thoughts but still think the method of 
>>> lapsing handicaps so easily is a bit of a blunt instrument.
>>>
>>> Golf is basically a game of honour and trust. Taking the actions of 
>>> lapsing handicaps further, in order to ensure golfers aren't cheating 
>>> with their handicap allowances, would mean CCTV on golf courses watching 
>>> every shot or all matched to be witness and officiated by an independent 
>>> referee!
>>>
>>> We share the same enjoyment experiencing competitive team golf and I 
>>> don't deny that there will be golfers who bend, modify or choose to 
>>> ignore the rules but if I go around assuming this is happening all the 
>>> time them my own personal enjoyment is diminished. I therefore must 
>>> assume that they are playing with a legitimate handicap and are 
>>> conducting their game play in accordance with the Rules of Golf, without 
>>> exception for that is how it is, a game of honour and trust.
>>>
>>> If someone chooses to have less integrity in these areas they may have a 
>>> short term win but lose in the long run, mainly because they are missing 
>>> the point and it is their loss not mine as I don't want to play with 
>>> such people anyway apart from to beat them mercilessly at the game!
>>>
>>> As for financial considerations, if we want to continue to enjoy our 
>>> past time in comfortable surroundings in the club house socially and 
>>> play on well kept greens, fairways and tees then we either have to pay 
>>> more or have more members.  Whilst welcoming the playing golf membership 
>>> we should, by example, show them the enjoyment to be gained by self 
>>> discipline of honourable and strict adherence to the rules of 
>>> handicapping and golf rather that assuming they are going to try and 
>>> cheat the system. Two opposite approaches: one positive and one 
>>> negative. Which one would you prefer to use? Are we not all in this 
>>> forum as a result of the inspiration created by the Honourable Company 
>>> of Edinburgh Golfers? Where did it all go wrong?
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Durram
>>>
>> Today I was playing, against a club in my area, in a Seniors match.
>> After a few holes an opposition player informed me that one of his team 
>> was playing with an illegal handicap. The player has not played in any 
>> qualifying competition for some years.
>> He was embarrassed by this and said he believed that his captain should 
>> not have selected him to play and that he did not agree that such players 
>> should be taking part in his clubs matches.
>> Co-incidence!
>>
>> Denis
>>
>>
>
> Ha! And we're supposed to look to our seniors to set an example.
>
> Up in Scotland I suppose they have tried to avoid personal confrontation 
> with the issue by using the lapsed handicap option but I still think the 
> 'honourable' approach should be self-regulation by the individual 
> supported by his playing partners and certainly the team captain should 
> should know who he/she is picking to represent the Club. By this I mean 
> that the player should be encouraged to ensure his own handicap is well 
> monitored not because to avoid doing this is 'illegal' but that it's 'not 
> right'. We can't check upon every action, we have to rely on honesty on 
> the small things as well as the big things.
>
> It was Tacitus that stated, "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous 
> the laws".
>
> Nothing changes.
> -- 
> Durram

Well put.
I absolutely agree with you

Denis