E-mail from Gavin Clark:

Why should anyone's handicap be controlled

by the rest of the players in the field?

I read with interest Cameron Barrie's article on the current amateur handicapping system and the subsequent replies from both Brian Young and Steven Robertson.
Whilst not of international standard, indeed a mere layman in the game of golf, I would tend to agree with Cameron's views. I think we all accept that the current handicapping system generally favours the lower handicapper.
Indeed, if conditions are difficult as a result of adverse conditions, invariably standard scratch rises to the level of three over par+ (non counting). Thus the majority of the golfers in the field use their "get out of jail free card " and the handful of top players benefit from the lesser quality of the players in the event putting up the Standard Scratch.
The question I would ask is: Why should anyone's handicap be controlled by the rest of the players in the field by varying the standard scratch ?
It is interesting to note that when I played in Category 1 events, as a result of the CONGU weighting system, standard scratch tended to rise more often than not. However, having slipped into Category 2, the result being that I play in events from 5 to 18 handicap, usually standard scratch stays either the same or indeed is reduced.
In brief, it could be said that whilst it is a major hurdle to achieve that "magical" Category 1 status, it's easier to keep once your there.
Finally, Cameron highlighted the issues of many top international amateurs being funded by the Amateur game and then switching to the Professional ranks. With golf subscriptions continually rising and the SGU increasing their annual fees year after year, perhaps we should adopt the Swedish philosophy, i.e when the amateurs turn professional they pay a percentage of their winning back into the amateur game, the people who helped fund them, coached them and made them what they are !

Gavin Clark