As a nomadic golfer, I’ve long been fascinated by general play scores and the perception of them with the club member community. From my conversations and observations, I’ve come to the conclusion they’re considered something of a taboo by those who are attached to one particular club.
It’s an interesting phenomenon. The R&A and USGA encourage submission of general play scores as often as possible – thereby implying credibility – but it seems various clubs and county unions have an issue with too many general play scores on someone’s handicap record and are quietly rebelling.
But why? Is it a distrust of nomadic golfers who predominantly register general play scores – which are deemed far more open to manipulation – or a more fundamental rebellion against the World Handicap System?
My colleague Elliott Heath recently wrote a piece stating he doesn’t understand why nomadic golfers need official handicaps. It’s a conversation I’ve had several times with other colleagues and club members and the majority agree.
There’s definitely a divide between members and non-members when it comes to the perceived validity of handicaps. Most of this stems from competition v general play scores.
Members generally argue ‘casual’ rounds are immune from the sort of pressure golfers experience in ‘proper’ competitions – something I refute, but I’m not going to get into here – and feel handicaps made up exclusively from general play rounds lack the validity of those forged during competition play.
'Increasingly self-conscious'
In Elliott’s article, he wrote something I’m sure resonates with many people in the club member camp.
“I respect nomadic golfers who are keen enough to have an official handicap, but I recently came to the realisation I’m not sure what the point of one is outside club golf. I know multiple iGolf members and none of them ever play in Opens or official competitions, so I am a little confused.
“This is not a knock on nomadic golfers - I am sure I'll become one at some point in the future as membership costs continue to rise. This is more of a knock at the system.”
Even though I’m a nomadic golfer, I can see Elliott’s point. I decided to follow up with someone else on the team, Fergus Bisset – a former captain and dedicated club member – to further understand attitudes towards competitions, the WHS and general play scores.
“There is definitely suspicion on general play scores. If someone has a handicap based only on general play, people will immediately think they are either trying to manipulate their handicap up or down,” he says.
“I think most competitive golfers in this country are feeling increasingly self-conscious about putting in general play scores. I want my handicap to be what it should be in competition, not casual games.”
Fergus recently penned an article titled: ‘I think we’ve given the WHS a fair shot. My club has now taken matters into its own hands’. His home club has instituted a new policy and introduced parameters around competition entry because it feels the WHS isn’t working as it should.
“Clubs are doing everything they can to protect themselves,” he adds. “Nomadic golf and general play is a threat to the member-owned clubs that are a huge percentage of the clubs in this country. They don't want their open competitions won by nomadic golfers who swan in with a general play handicap.”
Access Denied
Seemingly, this viewpoint is becoming more and more common. Off the back of a round-table article we published asking whether golfers should submit handicap cards every time they play, a reader emailed in:
“I note Nick Bonfield asserts that the viewpoint of the game's governing bodies is that every golfer should submit a card every time they play. Why is it then that entries into handicap limited events run by some county unions reject entries from players who have too many general play scores on their record?
“This hasn't happened to me personally, but I have heard of others being ballotted out for this reason. In Kent, there is a competition called the Oscar Ash Cups.
“If too many rounds on a player's record are general play they may be refused entry. A fellow golfer told me this recently when I asked why he hadn't entered his society round.”
This position seems incongruous with the advice from the game’s governing bodies – why would people submit numerous general plays scores if their place in an event were potentially at risk because of it?
I investigated the Oscar Ash Cups and our reader is absolutely right. On the competition website, it states: “An entry may be refused if, in the opinion of the Championship Committee, a player’s handicap index is not reflective of their playing ability.
“This decision may be based on but is not limited to: (a) A handicap record (most recent 20 scores) that contains more than four general play scores; (b) A handicap record (most recent 20 scores) that contains less than four competition scores.”
This is far from the only example. There is similar language on the Surrey Golf and York Union of Golf Clubs websites. I’d suggest – though I can’t say for sure – other unions and competitions probably employ similar stipulations.
My initial thought when reading these terms and conditions was that it doesn’t feel very ‘open’ to effectively exclude nomads from competitions. There are often complaints about nomadic golfers having too many general play cards on their record, but how will this change if they’re not able to enter competitive events?
I definitely feel some club members put themselves on a higher pedestal than non-members – even though we’re all golfers at the end of the day – and I sense paranoia, scepticism and distrust emanating from those who are attached to clubs.
However, I totally understand why some competitions and unions feel they need to introduce their own handicapping stipulations. They have to protect themselves and the integrity of their competitions as there are potential reputational and financial risks if they don’t take matters into their own hands.
It feels as if there’s a problem brewing and it seems like the home unions and governing bodies are on a collision course with some clubs and county unions. If overarching advice is effectively being rejected at a local and regional level, it’s a clear indication something is wrong.
