2006 Scoring Title

[BrisVegas]

(Title changed to avoid confusion. Sorry courty.)

Here's my suggestion for a new title for 2006.  Let me know if you agree or disagree...

Scoring Title.
Min 10 events to qualify.  Either best 10 or all scores to count.  Average adjusted nett score at official 1st tee thread ozgolf days.  
eg. 78 gross, 70 nett when CCR for the comp was 71 would be a Vardon score of -1.

UPDATE: POLL added to gauge interest in counting ALL rounds towards the Scoring Title, rather than just ozgolf 1st tee games.  

If the masses vote to allow rounds other than just ozgolf games, then perhaps we should calculate the scoring average on at least 10 rounds or perhaps ALL rounds for the year ???

[drunken]

Mmm...10 round minimum is going to rule alot of people out (myself included). Coz it's just too hard to get away regularly to play golf.

[BrisVegas]

agreed drunken, at Lennox Head, you're a long way from most of the SEQ games. If we made it minimum 5 games over a year, would that help? Conversely, would that be enough to be accurate?

[markTHEblake]

Do you realise that if you come up with an idea you automatically become the organiser, manager and funder?



Money Title.
Exactly as per the current POTY title, ie. prizemoney based on number of players defeated at official 1st tee thread ozgolf days.

Next year i am not going to include non-ozgolfers in the money calculations at all, because including them was often confusing (like who the hell is Dave?).

I am also going to introduce a web form to submit scores.  This will make it easier for me to collate the scores, and be more accurate as well.


Scoring Title.
Min 10 events to qualify.  Either best 10 or all scores to count.  Average adjusted nett score at official 1st tee thread ozgolf days.  
eg. 78 gross, 70 nett when CCR for the comp was 71 would be a Vardon score of -1.

All of that sounds perfect, and the Web form i used above would help with that.

So far this year 25 have played 10+ rounds, and 44 have played 5+ rounds.

So yeah, go with 5.  Even though the few that are playing 20+ rounds still have a distinct advantage, it does get more players involved.

There is a possible variation to this,  instead of using Ozgolf days, use all golf rounds and get the data from Golflink.   Then we can also compare the two and find out who really has the Ozgolf curse!

[BrisVegas]

So far this year 25 have played 10+ rounds, and 44 have played 5+ rounds.

So yeah, go with 5.  Even though the few that are playing 20+ rounds still have a distinct advantage, it does get more players involved.

There is a possible variation to this,  instead of using Ozgolf days, use all golf rounds and get the data from Golflink.   Then we can also compare the two and find out who really has the Ozgolf curse!

My vote would be NOT to include games that are not ozgolf games. I think we need to measure how good people play at the different courses and with the pressure of playing with ozgolfers, rather than the comfort zone of one's home club. Just my 2 cents though, if the majority want to include non-ozgolf home games, then I don't mind.

[AndyP]

There is a possible variation to this,  instead of using Ozgolf days, use all golf rounds and get the data from Golflink.   Then we can also compare the two and find out who really has the Ozgolf curse!
So non-comp rounds don't count? The Champs don't show up on GolfLink.

I like the Vardon type idea. I also think it would have more meaning than the current POTY title.

[BrisVegas]

i guess for rounds that are not played in comps and have no CCR, then par could be used.

[AndyP]

i guess for rounds that are not played in comps and have no CCR, then par could be used.
ACR for that particular tee would probably be more appropriate (or the CCR if there also happened to be a comp on that day, even though we wouldn't have played in it).
For example, yesterday we weren't in a comp, and Gaz had nett par, but you'd credit him with +3, as the ACR is 67 (maybe less since we played from the yellows).

I was just arguing that the Golflink idea wouldn't work, and there would be a reliance on reporting the scores, as we do now.

[markTHEblake]

i guess for rounds that are not played in comps and have no CCR, then par could be used.

Use the ACR instead. And as we usually play on a weekend can always ring the club and ask what the CCR was.

[BrisVegas]

ACR suits me for when no CCR is available or it's not a comp round. I agree with AndyP, I don't wanna trawl through someone's golflink history. It should be up to the golfers to post their scores as is the case now.

[markTHEblake]

Now you only have to think of a proper name for this event.
Vardon Trophy is ok, it means consistency. But maybe we should put our own spin on the name, how about the "Golfer69 Trophy"? - he is very consistent.

[Fishman Dan]

I disagree.

I got bored of reading it about 4 posts in, but i feel at this point it wouldn't be right if i didn't object in some way.

PS - Blake, stop using the word "not"

[Grunt]

How about simply "The Best Ozgolfer"?

[Jarro]

sounds good Vegas ... let's run with your idea this year 8)

[markTHEblake]

PS - Blake, stop using the word "not"

whats your problem - i counted 10 nots on this page and you said it as often as i did.

[goughy]

I have the ozgolf curse. Just thought you should know.

[Courty]

There is a possible variation to this,  instead of using Ozgolf days, use all golf rounds and get the data from Golflink.

I'm all for this option. It's the only way guys like me, Mike & now Onewood can compete in these events... and anyone else who doesn't live near other Ozgolfers.

[BrisVegas]

There is a possible variation to this,  instead of using Ozgolf days, use all golf rounds and get the data from Golflink.

I'm all for this option. It's the only way guys like me, Mike & now Onewood can compete in these events... and anyone else who doesn't live near other Ozgolfers.

Fair enough. We could do that easily enough by simply taking all scores out of the "What Did you shoot this week" thread, as long as people list their net score and the CCR/ACR. There'd need to be an undertaking to fess up for ALL rounds played, not just the good ones though... :wink:

[peter_rs]

Thats a lot of golf for some people who play 3-4 times a week. I would recommend limiting to comp rounds (puts me out) if anything.

[Courty]

Thats a lot of golf for some people who play 3-4 times a week. I would recommend limiting to comp rounds (puts me out) if anything.

Yeah, wouldn't it be simpler (and more honest) if someone just harvested all the Golflink results once a month. Any scores over handicap could be construed as 'missed cuts' therefore, a nominal amount (or nothing) could be awarded. Scores under handicap could have a value assigned to them somehow (% based) as winnings... just an idea.

[Courty]

Yeah, wouldn't it be simpler (and more honest) if someone just harvested all the Golflink results once a month.

By the way, I don't mind doing this if

1. someone gets me all the golflink numbers
2. Blakey doesn't get offended at me taking his job. :wink:

[BrisVegas]

Yeah, wouldn't it be simpler (and more honest) if someone just harvested all the Golflink results once a month.

simpler - doubt it! big job to check 50-100 golflink records versus checking the relevant posts in a dedicated thread. IMHO of course... :oops:

As far as honesty goes.... if scores were limited to comp rounds then any disputes could be verified on golflink.

[AndyP]

I have over 40 members golflink numbers, but not everyone has golflink available. So that blows that idea.

[BrisVegas]

I voted for ALL comp rounds. :) I think that ensures that the scores would be verifiable via golflink and played under "proper" rules etc. ie. no mulligans! It also means CoffsHacker, Courty, FG, juanwood and the likes can have an equal chance.

I'm happy to manage the scores, unless courty or blakey wanna do it. My preference would be to have a thread like the "What did you shoot" where comp nett scores and either CCR or ACR are listed. I'm not keen on going through everyones golflinks though....


(looks like the POTY based on 1st tee games ie. "Money List", should stay how it is right now and blakey seems happy to keep tracking that. )

[Courty]

(looks like the POTY based on 1st tee games ie. "Money List",  should stay how it is right now and blakey seems happy to keep tracking that. )

Ok, I'm confused. What's the difference between the Money List & what we are talking about?

[AndyP]

I voted for ALL comp rounds.  :)   I think that ensures that the scores would be verifiable via golflink
DQ to Jono, Trung and Mike?

[BrisVegas]

Ok, I'm confused. What's the difference between the Money List & what we are talking about?

I'm proposing a NEW title for 2006, in addition to the Money List. We're not talking about the Money List at the moment...

The current POTY (Money List) rewards people who play a LOT at BIG events.

I'm proposing a SCORING Title to track people's nett scores through the year, to see which ozgolfer had the best year against par.  This would be like the Vardon Trophy on the PGA Tour for the player with the best stroke average, but in our case it would be NETT scoring average.

[Courty]

I'm proposing a NEW title for 2006, in addition to the Money List.

The current POTY (Money List) rewards people who play a LOT at BIG events.

I'm proposing a SCORING Title to track people's nett scores through the year, to see which ozgolfer had the best year against par.  This would be like the Vardon Trophy on the PGA Tour for the player with the best stroke average, but in our case it would be NETT scoring average.

OK. That makes sense. I was confusing the issue a little in my own head. #-o
However, I'm still voting for ALL comp rounds.

I still reckon it would be easier to check them via Golflink (for those that have a membership) as only the relevant numbers are there, and all comp rounds are shown. If you get the info from the thread, you have to sift through all of the non-relevant info (stories of huge drives & eagles etc. :twisted:) and also there is the chance of rounds going completely unreported.
Anyone without a Golflink no. might have to provide their scoring details to the Gatekeeper via PM or something :?:

[markTHEblake]

If your going to count all scores, Pulling the data from Golf Link wouldnt be that hard. Select, Copy, Paste into a preformatted spreadsheet - the calculations are done.

Now a really clever bloke would write a server side script to pull the data, insert into an SQL database, and then run a query to post the results on a web page.

If your just going to do a Top 5 scores. then the Ozgolfer has to advise when he has posted a round that would be counted in the top 5, and the scorekeeper checks golf link.

IMHO, 5 Ozgolf rounds is perfect, but if Comp rounds it should be much more - at least 10.

[drunken]

5 Ozgolf rounds is the way to go I think. After all it as an Ozgolf prize. Just means that a few of us have to get our arse into gear and organise a few games.

[Courty]

Now a really clever bloke would write a server side script to pull the data, insert into an SQL database, and then run a query to post the results on a web page.

I knew you would have a solution Blakey. :wink:


IMHO, 5 Ozgolf rounds is perfect, but if Comp rounds it should be much more - at least 10.

Why not just use all comp rounds throughtout the year, isn't that how the Vardon is worked out? As stated before, if it's Ozgolf rounds, myself, Onewood, Mike etc are no chance, despite the fact that we may play a lot of golf throughout the year. We're already out of the Money List by default, as we simply can't play in enough Ozgolf days to gain any sort of prize money. :? :cry:

[markTHEblake]

I knew you would have a solution Blakey. :wink:

the clue there was a 'really clever bloke'. i only know that it can be done, i dont know how. If you know what a cronjob is then you can handle it. Just watch Andy Lo avoid this thread now.


Why not just use all comp rounds throughtout the year, isn't that how the Vardon is worked out?

i think most scoring averages they dont count all rounds, cos everyone drops a few clangers. so thats why i was thinking best 10, nice round figure.

[BrisVegas]

Is this worth pursuing? Can't remember what happened to the POLL, but I think the concensus was to include comp rounds, whether played with ozgolf or not.

Should there be a minimum of say, 5 or 10 rounds, before being eligible for the Scoring Title or do we count EVERY comp round that makes it into golflink??

note - the few that don't have golflink will have to provide their nett score and either CCR or ACR for comp rounds.

[markTHEblake]

or do we count EVERY comp round that makes it into golflink??

take a leaf out of the USGA handicap book "best 10"

its just too harsh to count all scores, because all of us have a clanger every now and again, especialluy for someone who tends to play brookwater a lot.

[BrisVegas]

or do we count EVERY comp round that makes it into golflink??

take a leaf out of the USGA handicap book "best 10"

its just too harsh to count all scores, because all of us have a clanger every now and again, especialluy for someone who tends to play brookwater a lot.

agreed. Best 10 comp rounds it is. At some point blakey, I'll need some help from you to setup a web spreadsheet to collect all the scores.... unless someone else is particularly talented at this stuff and wants to do it! :lol:

[AndyP]

I have a record of a lot of OZgolfers Golflink web links, if that helps, BV.

[Courty]

I'll need some help to setup a web spreadsheet to collect all the scores....

I just had a bit of a muck around with 'web queries' and managed to import all the info from my own Golflink data. I just have to figure out how to cut out all the incidental crap I don't want. If I can figure that out (with a bit of Googling) I can either hand it over to you, or run with it myself.

[BrisVegas]

I'll need some help to setup a web spreadsheet to collect all the scores....

I just had a bit of a muck around with 'web queries' and managed to import all the info from my own Golflink data. I just have to figure out how to cut out all the incidental crap I don't want. If I can figure that out (with a bit of Googling) I can either hand it over to you, or run with it myself.

Cool! I don't mind, I'm happy to do it, but would be even happier if you took it on!! I'm naturally very lazy. :wink:

[Courty]

It's all a bit much for me. Can we come to an agreement on how we are going to calculate this? :? :roll:

http://www.golfrankindex.com/sc-dif01.htm :-k

http://www.golfrankindex.com/sc-asa01.htm :-k

[markTHEblake]

Firstly suggest wait 3-4 months for a few scores to go into golf link. then copy/paste into a spreadsheet. delete all but the best 10 rounds.

then post a ladder and tell the ozgoofers that they need to let you know when a update to the best 10 is required.

[Courty]

Firstly suggest wait 3-4 months for a few scores to go into golf link.  then copy/paste into a spreadsheet.   delete all but the best 10 rounds.

then post a ladder and tell the ozgoofers that they need to let you know when a update to the best 10 is required.

That's it, just get an average from the best 10 and leave it at that?

Too easy. Consider it done.

AndyP, can I have that list of Golflink Number's please.

[BrisVegas]

That's it, just get an average from the best 10 and leave it at that?

Too easy. Consider it done.

AndyP, can I have that list of Golflink Number's please.

Sweet! I'm off the hook. :lol: You da man courty. 8) 8)

[AndyP]

AndyP, can I have that list of Golflink Number's please.
Email sent.

[miro]

So is this going to be scratch scores, net scores, scores adjusted for course rating? whihc of the above?

[BrisVegas]

So is this going to be scratch scores, net scores, scores adjusted for course rating? whihc of the above?

net scores and either CCR or ACR are required for each round.

[miro]

I reckon you should add scratch (pre handicap) as for us lower markers we have no hope in hell of winnig post handicap. So have two awards one for best net player and one for best actual player.

[Grunt]

Don't want to start an arguement, but why is it low markers always complain about not having a chance in nett compititions? Fair enough in some comps there are burglars but in amongst us everyone is playing to a genuine handicap (I think so anyway). If the handicaps are right then the result should be 40 people with an equal nett score. In the real world this does not happen does it, so someone will win; be it a low marker or high marker they will have deserved to win as possibly they have beaten their handicap to do so.
Why should there be 2 comps for the low markers and only 1 for the higher handicapers? Realistically with a nett and stroke comp only the A grade players have a chance to win don't they.
I really hope that if I ever get to single figures with my handicap that I don't resent the high markers as seems to be the case with most low handicap golfers. The reason we have a high handicap is due to the inconsistency of our golf game in most cases.
Sorry for the long post, just my 2 cents worth.

[markTHEblake]

Don't want to start an arguement, but why is it low markers always complain about not having a chance in nett compititions?

we dont.

do you have a club championships at your club, is it played off scratch or handicap?

low markers prefer to play scratch events, personally i dont give two hoots about winning a net event, or more to the point getting beaten in the net when i have a good round.

as for the earlier question, the scores should be measured against the CCR, as in a + for over and - for under.

[Grunt]

Yes the Club Champs are off scratch and are also graded so everyone sort off has a chance in each grade.
OzGolf Champ wont be graded will it? So it will realistically give the B grade golfer the worst chance as they will get beat in the nett by the high handicapper and should get beat in the scratch by the A graders.

[miro]

grunt,

We low markers (yes a breed apart :D ) cannot ever consistently win a handicap / stableford event against the vast unwashed masses of higher handicappers.

Why i hear you ask? Well I play 25% better than handicap and I score 37 points. You play 25% better than handicap and you score 42 points. Hence I lose to high handicappers in net events.

Two weeks ago I shot even par for 40 points (yeah me!!) and lost by about 5 shot to some hacker off more than 30. Lets face it I beat the guy by about 25 shots and yet he won comp. Where is the justice in that :roll: . And you wonder why occasionally low markers complain about playing net comps. :shock:

[Grunt]

I can understand you there Miro, but I was thinking when with us the handicap are pretty legit so yes good days for me are better but my bad days are way worse that your bad days.
I don't agree with club letting members handicaps go out over 27. I played at Bankstown one day with a guy that was off 35. It was hard for me of 25 to compete wit hhim as he was really a 21 marker I reckon.

[BrisVegas]

interesting debate.  :)   I agree with Miro.  It's rare that an A-grader's good round is enough to win a comp.  Typically it's someone off 13-15 who shoots 75 or a 27 hcapper who shoots 85 and blows the field away.  

For this Ozgolf Scoring Title, however....  the only way to make it fair & accurate would be to include include EVERY comp round over the year.  

The high hcapper should have just as many complete shockers as brilliant sub-par rounds. The A-grader will, theoretically, have smaller variances from their hcap than the high hcapper over time, but as long as things are calculated in strokes, not percentages, it would work out even... assuming the players aren't improving or getting worse...  

If we go with the "best 10" nett, then I feel that it favours the high hcapper, as their good rounds can be so much better than a low marker.  But, the consensus seems to have been to go with this, so I'll go with it.  

There's always the "Most Improved" and "Player of the Year" awards!!  :wink:

[miro]

Bris,

Someone has to make a decision -and you're the man.

[BrisVegas]

Bris,

Someone has to make a decision -and you're the man.

Heheh. I thought the decision had been made already to go with best 10. (I'll go back and read this thread again....)

Courty is now running this thing, so if he wants to change anything, he's welcome to. I was just "spitballing" (apologies to golfer69 for using his term) about how to make it fair.... As I've stated on this thread and as I voted, I would prefer it to include all comp rounds to get the most accurate numbers.

[Stoney]

Heheh. I thought the decision had been made already to go with best 10. (I'll go back and read this thread again....)

Courty is now running this thing, so if he wants to change anything, he's welcome to. I was just "spitballing" (apologies to golfer69 for using his term) about how to make it fair.... As I've stated on this thread and as I voted, I would prefer it to include all comp rounds to get the most accurate numbers.

Is this thing dead?

[AndyP]

Was thinking the same thing, but I'd say that it is at the moment. Your bump might revive it though.

[BrisVegas]

Is this thing dead?
Have you given up on Player of the Year Pete? :smt002

[Stoney]

Have you given up on Player of the Year Pete? :smt002

I have 2 words for you Dion.

First one is SMART, Second one is A@#E

Only title I am ever going to win on this forum is the "Making AndyP get upset about playing off the Tips" award.

[AndyP]

Only title I am ever going to win on this forum is the "Making AndyP get upset about playing off the Tips" award.
Good luck with that....

[Courty]

Thanks for the reminder. It had slipped my mind.
I will endeavour to get it up & running asap.

[Courty]

This is now underway: see here (http://www.ozgolf.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5510)