Re: GC Handicaps

Wal Mills

Sorry Tim,

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:

That's not counting those who don't seem to have a handicap of any kind (1458 or nearly 50% of registered NSW members!).

Do you mean 1,458 do not have a GC handicap or do you mean they do not have an AC or GC handicap?

As for the numbers you've quoted for GC divisions. Call me pedantic but the numbers alone do not prove there is a problem at either end of the spectrum similar to the quoted UK problem. To be clear I'm not saying there isn't a problem, nor would I know as AC is my game. However in my experience in AC & GC it's clear there will be more players in the divisions 2 & 3 vs 1. 


Join to automatically receive all group messages.