Golf Forums - Do We Think TSG Should outlaw some courses from the Leaderboard ???

A little bird told me this is being considered by the powers that be at TSG headquarters
and today talking it through with a group of TSGers we thought the wider TSG
Community should be asked about such a move.

It seems that if a course is deemed to easy then scores from that course will not be
counted on the leaderboard ??

what do you think ? all points of view welcome

 If the EGU have given any club an official SSS then it does not matter what number a player submits as a Stableford score, because it is done under EGU direction.

Epping looks a prime example for a 'too easy' designation, but if that is so why did I only score 34 points? I may not have scored well, but I was happy with my game.

'Too easy' is only in the eye of those looking in from the outside, just because you have a couple of stunning scores on a course, does NOT mean that the course is too easy.

I would also say that if a course was put on the list banning it from the leaderboard, people would stop playing there and then couldn't the course have a case against TSG for damaging their business??

t the root of this is the problem of 'bandits' - I have had my bleat about it before, but banning scores from particular courses is not the way to go. And if those that complain about certain courses having high scores entered want to rectify the matter, it's easy -

• Play the course yourself and get a low score yourself!

No offence to anyone, but banning is not a good idea at all.

John

The only problem you have got, lets take Epping as the example a friend of mine ( Yes rob I count you as a friend ) he scored 47 points at epping last month, he was a 28 Handicapper but only got cut I think was 2 shots because the SSS is low for that course.
If you happen to play courses that have low SSS in my opinion your handicap should be cut the full amount, This is my opinion.
Surely what would be fair is actually manually adjusting the score by taking the SSS shots away from the score, I hope you know what I mean.

I agree with John and think he has it right

'Too easy' is only in the eye of those looking in from the outside, just because you have a couple of stunning scores on a course, does NOT mean that the course is too easy.


 With regard to the problem of 'bandits' - You put your score in accordingly and will be cut and eventually you will recieve the correct handicap whever you play.  but banning scores from particular courses is not the way to go. And if those that complain about certain courses having high scores entered want to rectify the matter, it's easy -

• Play the course yourself and get a low score yourself!

No offence to anyone, but banning is not a good idea at all.

I agree DJ dont ban the courses just adjust score according with the SSS, Its as easy as that

 What a great topic for a change,well done Chris this could liven up the forum for some very interesting reading.
I have read all the points of veiw and have to agree banning any course from a leader board is not the answer.
I have never played Epping Forest G.C. so cant comment on it being easy or hard.
I have however just played the Priors at Stableford Abbotts G.C. some say thats an easy course,it is when there is no wind blowing across the course,a bit of a breeze and I challenge anyone to beat their H/c there.
Some regular guys I play with comment on Woolston Manor being a tough course with all the bunkers,the truth is if you end up in one ask yourself why you where in it in the first place,no one has said it should be taken off the LEADER BOARD becuase its too HARD.
No matter what course you play or how you score,everyone has a difference of oppinion of it.
This comes back to the same old arguments about Bandits and so forth.so long as you put in an honest card the H/c system set out by CONGU works for everyone and once you have entered a few cards you will know what your true H/C is.
New members starting off 28 H/c and going top of the leader board are now being monitored by the TSG team.
That is the same for me,I added 4 shots to my H/c this year because of injury, I was top of the Leader board for a few hours today but was beaten.My round over the PRIORS saw me loose a shot off my H/c now 11 
My target is to get back to single figures again regardless of what courses I play,it only proved one thing playing off 12H/C AND SCORING 42PTS means I am better than that.
Its great feeling knowing I am going in the right direction,if we where all honest enough to admitt it we all wish our H/c where lower.Its what you are prepared to do to reduce it,and to take a step back when someone hits a good stableford score. 
IT MIGHT BE YOU NEXT TIME. TOP OF THE LEADER BOARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!
great post this one again well done Chris.E.
Jack

  I have a question for you why do all low handicappers want to do 3/4 handicap when they are playing high handicappers ?

What do you mean by a low h/c Darren?
Jack 

Thanks for posting this thread Chris, you beat me to it!

Keep coming with all the views as this is an important debate and one that we would like all TSG members to join in with......

Regards, new joiners, we'll be announcing new rules on their entry into the monthly table later this week.

Ian

 I've only been playing just over a year, so please excuse me if I've missed something here,however, for what it's worth my limited opinion is:

The leader board should somehow link to the relevant SSS, which would cut the points in the same format as the handicap system does e.g the past 2 weeks I've had a round of 94, (not sure how?) scoring 41 & 40 points. The 94 for 41 was at Langdon hills with a SSS of 67 and my handicap was cut by 0.4, yesterday my round at Risebridge was 94 for 40 SSS of 71 which saw my handicap cut by a further 1.6!

Another point here is, personally I know myself that the first 9 at Langdon is a lot easier than the first 9 at Risebridge, so I give more personal value to yesterday's 94 than the week before. So unless you can regularly score similar strokes/ points at all courses your perhaps fooling only yourself by playing what may be deemed an easier (I dont think any course is easy) course.

I also thought the leader board was just for fun, with Ian kindly donating a T-shirt to the "winner" each month, but as I said at the beginning maybe I'm missing something?

Message was deleted by User.

 Would it be possible to construct the leaderboard such that it reports off of 3/4 handicaps?  That would tend to even things out, and we'd no longer see >25 handicaps at the top of the board month after month.

Surely just go by the SSS and that will even it out ?

103 Views and only 13 replys

If you reduced handicaps by 25% across the board , then I do not see how the leader board would change very much, although admittedly it will change. However if a 25 handicapper is at the top of the board month after month , then it stands to reason that the said players are being cut each month and therefore will no longer be top of the leader board , hence given them harder targets to achieve in future months.   

If anyone has a concern with the SSS of a course, then I think their first port of call is the relevent ruling body. It is not our place to decide how easy or hard a course may or may not be, or do we start making adjustments for 'local knowledge' after all some people play the same few courses week in and week out and only submit  a card when it suites them . 

A very good thread this.Some interesting posts all with very good points.Being part of the group that tends play here a bit and "sometimes"scoring well I can see peoples complaints. But as previously commented it should even out if regular cards are put in.However the course is very short and if you are on your game you will tend to score well. The 3/4 thing for me doesn't work. If you are scoring well all the time at the same course, as I said before the handicap system will bring your handicap down to a level that suits the course, you will notice the difference should you play elsewhere.As I have suggested to some of the guys, play off the back tees and see the difference.

The reason for this becoming an issue is undoubtedly Epping GC - 5 out of the top 10 on the leader board, being there by virtue of having played this course.
Epping GC claim a course length of 5,400yds, but this is off the white tees. As a former member, I know that during the winter months, all tees are deliberately moved forward, frequently many yards in front of the regular ladies tees. It is possible in fact, to drive some of the par 4 greens. This makes a complete mockery of the SSS rating and for that very reason, I believe that this course should not be considered for the leader board standings. On such a course, it is far easier for a 28 handicapper to score 7 or 8 under their handicap than it is for a 10 handicapper to do the same.
The comment that the course could hold the TGS to account does not hold water, as the  course is not as described on their scorecards or their own website. 
There are some members who take the leader board very seriously, evidenced by the fact that we are discusing this in the first place. Each to his own. Well that's my four penn'orth. 

In my opinion banning courses from the leaderboard is the wrong way to go. As is the idea of 3/4 handicaps.
Can a leaderboard system incorporating both Stableford points and score against par be used. For example a golfer scores 42 points playing a course that has a SSS of 67 against a par of 70....still with me?
Said golfer is 6 under his or her handicap based on stapleford points, but subtract from that the 3 shots the SSS is lower than par so this golfers score for our leaderboards sake would be 3 under Par.
This would also work at "harder" courses where the SSS is higher than par.

As for 3/4 handicaps, speaking from personal experience, I play off of 24 because I'm not very good (which those that have played with me will testify to!). Cutting this to 3/4 moves the goalposts to suit a small group just the same as banning or not banning a particular course does.

Banning  is the thin end of the wedge! Whats next "only off the white tees"! or "only in competition"! or "not under winter rules"! i thought that the TSG was about social golf haveing a round of golf and a bit of a laugh
with a few golfing buddies?? or am i wrong?

Adam that is spot on :) This seems the simplest solution surely ?

Chris as soon as you have a Leaderboard us men want to be leading it

 Tend to agree with chris, fair enough if we are playing for a week in spain,but its purely symbolic and speaking for myself,  i love to see other people scoring well whatever course it happens to be on

TSG.........The SOCIAL Golfer........it's all supposed to be fun, isn't it ?!!

Naturally, we all enjoy playing more when scoring well, but it's also good to see the scores of other members when they've had a good day.....as Dave A says....'on whatever course.' 

I think it would be difficult to 'exclude' courses from the Leaderboard, or to adjust scores re SSS as where would it end?   As Chris says ..... how about Winter Rules....or what happens about a windy day?   Let's keep it a 'fun' thing and good luck to those playing the easier tracks, but those having a great round on a tougher course will have more satisfaction...and a bigger handicap reduction!

Throughout 2011, scores from three courses won the monthly prize more than once - Epping, Stapleford Abbotts (Priors) and Kingswood.  Obviously some courses are easier to play - last year, 8 of the 12 winning monthly scores were on courses having a SSS at least 3 shots below par (including Seaford Head - Par 71 - SSS 66),  but we all have the opportunity to play these if we wish!   Every course has it's own Leaderboard, so try for a higher position there!

Incidentally, winning scores ranged from 44 to 47pts, by players with handicaps from 14 to 26 - but the high handicappers are all lower now!

 John, you have hit the nail right on the head:

• TSG.........The SOCIAL Golfer........it's all supposed to be fun, isn't it ?!!
•  

The minute we all forget it is for fun is the time we all need to pack the game up. If banning courses did happen, how soon before we have a list of courses, and how soon before the membership of this site drops to an unsustainable level?

jb

Message was deleted by User.

Don't ban course's just do away with the leaderboard problem solved. Any way as someone has already said its meant to be a social wed site for us to meet and play with new people.

 Here's one for the pot  
The winner for the leader board could be changed to the effect that you had to sumitt more than 3 cards in that month,instead of counting the one exeptional round.
Even if you submitt 10 CARDS you take the 3 highest Stableford scores giving you a total score for your best 3 rounds that month.Divide that total by 3. this will give you your average stableford score for your best 3 rounds that month.
The member with the highest average,wins the LEADER BOARD that month.
This will stop New members winning straight away,and cut out the bandits.
There seems to be some feelings that the Leader boad is not important,and creates hassell,and appears to deflect the MEANING OF the SOCIAL GOLFER.
Again its what it says on the tin.THE SOCIAL GOLFER,we all have our own ideas what we want from it.Obviously the most important aspect is the Social side,we have made this site what it is today,lets keep it that way,and make new members feel part of our community.
Also bear in mind things like the Leader Board are important to other members,I like nothing more than to see my name in the top 5 and may be one month I might WIN IT.
I am serious about my golf,and how I play,but more serious about always keeping the SOCIAL ASPECT FIRST.
This is true with most T.S.Gers I play with,long may it continue.
Jack

That makes sence jack what a good idea

 Jack Shelton, you have come up with a cracking idea with your average of the highest three cards. If you only put in one card with 45 points on it in the month, you will only end up with 15 points on the leaderboard. Still gives us something to play for (need a new shirt!) and removes the 'freak' round from the equation.

Very similar to the way the Yanks work out handicaps - and that seems to work. Gets my vote. If I am lucky my average over 3 is probably 29 to 33 (depending on if there is a vowel in the month) .

jb

Gets my vote       but the mechanics(software) might make it later rather than sooner

  Good idea Jack, but that excludes all of us who find it hard to play three time in a month, from the leaderboard

 Why not make the leaderboard just for fun, it doesn't have to have a prize.  That way those that do like to see our name up there can if we have a good round.  And the rest of us will have a wry smile whenever we see an Epping GC score go up.  
You cannot ban easy courses.  I'll usually play Selsdon Park, but if I'm not playing too well I'll play Addington Court as its an easier course and will make me feel better.

 Sorry to hear you can only play a couple of times a month,therefore the idea is not suited to you,thats what happens.
You will never resolve the problem to keep everyone happy.Maybe someone else may come up with something!!!!!!!!
My situation changes later in the year,and I will find it a problem too!!
If we can take one thing from this thread it has shown a great deal of positive feed back,and kept the forum alive for a change.
Come on guys lets have some more like this one.CHRIS.E. deserves a  polo shirt from the team

Well done, Jack - you've obviously put a lot of thought into this, which would effectively change the Leaderboard into a 'Golfer of the Month' league table.

Fair enough, when TSG is as big as The European Tour, with stats sponsored by Genworth Financial, but we currently pay £19.99 a year.....which must be an even better bargain than Thursday golf at Weald Park?!!!   The costs associated with reprogramming in order to 'average' scores would surely be beyond TSG resources.

We all have the opportunity to record scores and the overall best 5 are shown on the home page - so we can see who's playing well and where.   If 3 scores had to be entered, then it wouldn't work until later in the month and individual rounds couldn't be shown......far too complicated, I fear!   The new member handicap problem has now been addressed, so I think don't change something that isn't broke!

With your obvious determination and dedication, Jack, we'll all be happy to see your name continue to appear on that leaderboard and no doubt you'll soon be proudly wearing a TSG shirt !!  

  

I've quickly re-worked the top 10 using the format I mentioned on the previous page

1st) David Jacobs - 4 under "par"
1st) Robert Wooton - 4 under "par"
1st) Mark Tucknott - 4 under "par"
4th) Jack Shelton - 2 under "par"
5th) Chris Emms - 1 under "par"
6th) Michael Roos - level "par"
6th) Russell Gambrill - level "par"
8th) Dave Blaney - 2 over "par"
8th) Roger Marsland - 2 over "par"
10th) Colin Samuels - 4 over "par"

For those that didn't read my previous theory, this takes your stapleford score, in DJ's case 45 points as being 9 under par (36 points being a theoretical par score). Then adding back the difference between the SSS and course par. In Eppings case, SSS is 63 and par 68 so adding 5 onto David's -9 brings him to an adjusted score of 4 under.
To my mind this is the fairest way of adjusting a score based on the relative difficulty of a course. I know from experience 36 points scored at Stapleford Abbotts members course isn't equal to 36 points scored at their Priors course.

Ok Adam you  have got the job lol  but i do see what you are getting at, it just looks like lots of  T shirts for TSG to fund

I like this system....................probably the only way I'll ever be 1st 

You need to be 1st mate!! (get that Porche down to Epping by all accounts )

 Come on guys from over the Water,there is not much of a response from you!!!!!!!! Lets have some ideas or suggestions from you .
There have been some good threads in the past that you have jumped on made it very interesting,this is being dominated by Essex and Home counties.
All input is valid and read by the team,its not a waste of time,this is our site you included.
It only takes 5 minutes to write on here,so try and make the effort.
UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE COULD FALL.
 JACK

I think the 'I's have it!

Firstly, a big thank you to Chris E for posting this thread, I think the first thing we can take from this is that there is good number of you, that care about how the site is run, which is shown by the number of postings here on this topic, its great to see so many varying views and not just from the few, we are after all a democracy (we'll almost!).

My initial response, is as both Chris E and Dave A point out, The Social Golfer is NOT like the 'Bricks and Mortar' clubs, where there is constant sniping about scoring and handicaps that causes ill feeling and resentment (if we were, there would be a committee room and a Handicap secretary!). On the contrary, its that kind of out dated approach that leads us to have a site like TSG in the first place.

Like we have said previously many times, we are here to promote the positive side of the game, provide you with a platform to get together with like minded people, share some harmless banter and have a good time enjoying the game we love. Which is why we here at TSG HQ have always been quick to congratulate ANYONE that scores well, regardless of their handicap, their location OR the level of the courses they play, which leads us to the point in question....

Clearly, Epping GC (although it is not on its own here) has a case to answer, especially when you see the number of members scoring a high number of Stapleford points recently but as John B originally states and Colin S echoes, this is a case for the CONGU/EGU NOT TSG! The reason for such anomalies and high Stapleford scores on the TSG leaderboard is not with the player or their handicap or with the differential against the SSS. but as Alan H puts it, with the length/Par of the course and of this we have no control. However, as David J says "You put your score in accordingly and you will be cut and eventually you will receive the correct handicap wherever you play". Hence why we have spent so much development time (and money!) on making sure the TSG Handicap system works as well as it does.

Furthermore, as John A states, Epping GC is NOT dominating the monthly leaderboard every month, it has only produced ONE winner in the last twelve months, certainly since we introduced the 'White Polo Shirt' as a reward for good play and to add some healthy, good natured competition to the site. N.B. This is something I fund from my own pocket and am happy to do so!

As for Mark T, Adam P and Jack S's suggestions (very impressive though they ALL were!), I do not think these are workable, as they would be both difficult explain to those new to the game (my head is hurting already), costly to implement and would penalise those that work full time and dont always get the chance to play every week. I believe that a preferred system like they have in the US, where courses have a slope rating would help but I suspect it will be a long time before the EGU get around to this, they are more interested in whether our shorts and socks are the right length! (Oops, I allowed my personal opinions to creep in there!)

So what is the solution? Well unless the CONGU/EGU review their course ratings, there isnt one BUT we would like to ensure that the TSG system is fair for all and whilst Jack S is correct in saying that we do monitor the scores before awarding the prize, we have decided that the system doesn't currently reward the more established members on the site. As such, as John A hinted at, from the 1st January 2012, members will now be required to enter in 10 SCORECARDS to the system before you are considered for the monthly league table. New members joining will still see their handicap tracked on their own TSG profile page straight away but they will ONLY be eligible for winning the coveted "White Polo Shirt' on their tenth card. The usual three card rule will remain for TSG events and tournaments.

So there you have it guys, the verdict is NOT to ban Epping GC (or any other course) from the leaderboard, a level playing field for the more established handicappers and an incentive for the new members to enter their cards in order to be considered for the 'Good Natured' banter associated with being the TSG 'Player of the Month!

As for the question regarding why do Low Handicappers want to play off 3/4 handicaps when playing High Handicappers (Darren B) I suggest you start another thread on this one! :-)

Happy Golfing!

Ian

Didn't think i was going to get a mention

 DARREN BIGMORE, DARREN BIGMORE, you have been mentioned now Ha!Ha!

Thanks Jack

 Thanks TSG, I think that is a very considered response, and all those who feel strongly about the leaderboard should be happy with your ruling. It is only a bit of fun after all, but to see your name in lights is good for the golfing ego. I look forward to one day winning the coveted white jersey, but I'm not holding my breath, even though I'm due a good one.......!  Happy golfing everyone, and I look forward to playing with many more like minded chaps in 2012. I have enjoyed every one of the games played so far through the TSG, and that's because of it's members. 

K.I.S.S  Or "Less is More"

Well done Ian

 Well i am very much behind the times but what a great read. A shamre the fourm is not full of topics like this.

Just to add,

The so called "easy course" can work both ways IMO. I had a year off playing, so to get my swing back i went to Cranham Golf Course. Within 2 weeks my scores were low 80's and as a result my handicap dropped from 20 to 18 very fast. Now that was fine for cranham but as soon as i went to another course i had little chance of a good stableford score....

On a plus side, it did make me use my head and play better golf and have since took a cut to 15 without visiting cranham.

Speaking as someone who led this month's leaderboard, I did actually feel quite guilty about doing so as I was playing a course that pretty much plays as easy as it gets. I sprayed the ball about all over the place from the tee on the front 9, but still had straightforward shots to the green. Fortunately someone has gone lower than me now though, so I can rest easy :)

I am not sure what the long term answer is, but I agree that banning certain courses isn't the way to go.