Re: GC Handicaps
Sorry Tim,toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
"of any kind" = AC and GC
Yes, on the surface you are correct.
I can appreciate that you still need a pyramid effect with fewer at the top but there is a limit. At the moment we have a squat one for GC.
Let me put it another way for NSW:
100 players in Division 1 (0 to 4 H/C) (6.5%) have an index range of 600 (400-1000)
523 Division 2 (5 to 8 H/C) (34.1%) have an index range of 200 (200-399)
912 Division 3 (9 to 12 H/C) (59.4%) have an index range of 200 (0 -199)
In NSW GC has 12 levels for 1535 players (ratio 128 players/Level). AC has 32 levels for 857 players (ratio 27 players/Level).
Where's the logic in that?
Over the years GC handicap levels have increased at the higher end but index ranges have not changed to accommodate the added levels.
There has been a lot of discussion that every one should have a handicap, be it AC or GC and that players should be encouraged to play competition.
Unfortunately that won't happen unless some effort is made at the bottom end to give these people some consideration in this system.
The system needs a complete analysis and complete revision.
The effort has been put into the AC system and it's time to do the same with GC.
One needs to consider the majority not just the few.
On 28/03/2014 9:52 PM, Tim Murphy wrote: