Things you always wanted to know the answer to [Vol. 3]

[schmunk]

talksthetorque said:

alcohol, and I now attempt two or three rounds a year.

You skinflint...

[Nimby]

AstonZagato said:

I've always suggested that the only valid sports for Olympic should be those that require no judges for the layman to know who won. First across the line: winner. Jumps the highest: winner. Lifts the heaviest weight: winner.

I agree, yet still feel that somehow gymnastics is more valid as a sport than ice-dancing.

There was a recent case with the Bridge federation claiming that was a sport, though this was more to do with VAT exemptions than Olympic inclusion.

[DRFC1879]

schmunk said:

talksthetorque said:

alcohol, and I now attempt two or three rounds a year.

You skinflint...

[SpeckledJim]

motco said:

There's a lot of truth in that view, and I would suggest that it is impossible to have a fair paralympics competition unless there's a 'standard' disability.

Sadly I think that's the case in a lot of the events. By their very disparate natures, the disabilities are 'unfair' and even the best efforts of the authorities to level the field are not going to right the imbalances.

And as a result there are so many categories of competition, it's hard to follow as a spectator.

[SCEtoAUX]

SpeckledJim said:

You don't have a best gross prize (or at least recognition) at every competition? That's unusual I'd say.

Nope, though if the numbers in a comp are high enough they are split (by the handicapping software) into two or three divisions. Then there are prizes for each division. In other words, golfers of similar-ish ability are competing against each other for prizes).

I can only think of two competitions where the best gross score is all that really matters, and one of those is the club championship over 36 holes.

[SCEtoAUX]

popeyewhite said:

Reams and reams of sports psychology research suggests otherwise. Improvement = motivation = more self-confidence = greater chance of success.

There's psychological research, and there's what actually happens. Every golfer at every golf club will be able to pick out a decent number of players who do well in competitions because their handicaps don't reflect their ability. They're often called "bandits".

The system allows for this to happen because playing just three qualifying rounds per year will give you an active handicap, and nobody is forcing you to play your best when you play those rounds. Then, you team up with your mate(s) and do well in pairs and team competitions because they don't affect your handicap.

There are annual reviews where such things can be addressed to a certain extent, but it remains a system that can be manipulated.

I have no doubt that your statement above is correct if one is a pole-jumper, or a footballer, or any other type of sportsman taking part in a sport without a handicap system. But... and this is why I asked the question... golf does have a handicap system. It allows for the situation above to occur and also means that getting better doesn't necessarily mean you enjoy it more and win more prizes.

[RizzoTheRat]

SCEtoAUX said:

Nope, though if the numbers in a comp are high enough they are split (by the handicapping software) into two or three divisions. Then there are prizes for each division. In other words, golfers of similar-ish ability are competing against each other for prizes).

I can only think of two competitions where the best gross score is all that really matters, and one of those is the club championship over 36 holes.

Are there any other sports that do a handicap system like this? My running club does a handicap race one a year, where everyones start time is based on their years performance so we should all finish together, and the therefore the overall winner is the one who performs best against themselves. Do other sports do this as well?

[popeyewhite]

SCEtoAUX said:

It allows for the situation above to occur and also means that getting better doesn't necessarily mean you enjoy it more and win more prizes.

Getting better? In the situation you describe no-one is getting better. The word you use - 'bandit' - to describe people who openly misuse the system suggests that everyone knows these handicaps are an untrue indication of a players ability and something dishonest is occurring. Perhaps the rules concerning frequency of updating a player's handicap need changing.

[SpeckledJim]

SCEtoAUX said:

There's psychological research, and there's what actually happens. Every golfer at every golf club will be able to pick out a decent number of players who do well in competitions because their handicaps don't reflect their ability. They're often called "bandits".

The system allows for this to happen because playing just three qualifying rounds per year will give you an active handicap, and nobody is forcing you to play your best when you play those rounds. Then, you team up with your mate(s) and do well in pairs and team competitions because they don't affect your handicap.

There are annual reviews where such things can be addressed to a certain extent, but it remains a system that can be manipulated.

I have no doubt that your statement above is correct if one is a pole-jumper, or a footballer, or any other type of sportsman taking part in a sport without a handicap system. But... and this is why I asked the question... golf does have a handicap system. It allows for the situation above to occur and also means that getting better doesn't necessarily mean you enjoy it more and win more prizes.

But you're equating enjoying it more with winning more Best Nett competitions. When the very essence of Best Nett is a fudge, and you recognise that it's wide open to cheating.

You want to score low, but only in relation to your handicap, instead of scoring low for its own reward.

Golf is the ultimate honest man's sport, as the opportunities to cheat out on the course are simply endless, and the chances of getting caught are very low.

As a result, anyone ever caught cheating on the course is rightly ostracised. And that's why winning Best Nett is somewhat suspect, because unless they're playing very regularly and their handicap is recognised as fair, there's always doubt about the veracity of the handicap, and so very little respect for the score.

I'd suggest that having a great round by one's own standards is obviously great fun. But unless the handicap is widely recognised in the club as being scrupulously honest, winning Best Nett is more likely to spoil a day than make it.

It's a bit like winning the Tour de France. Great achievement, but everyone quietly or not quietly reckons you probably cheated.

The low groan and slow clap that a bandit gets when he wins Best Nett is a horrible thing, I can't imagine anyone getting any satisfaction from it at all. The idea of it fills me with dread.

I'd rather play to 9 off a 9 handicap, than play to 10 off a 15 handicap and 'win' a competition. Because 9 is better than 10.

[Abbott]

RizzoTheRat said:

Are there any other sports that do a handicap system like this? My running club does a handicap race one a year, where everyones start time is based on their years performance so we should all finish together, and the therefore the overall winner is the one who performs best against themselves. Do other sports do this as well?

Portsmouth Yardstick in dinghy sailing but that only applies to the boat not the sailors skill level

[SpeckledJim]

RizzoTheRat said:

Are there any other sports that do a handicap system like this? My running club does a handicap race one a year, where everyones start time is based on their years performance so we should all finish together, and the therefore the overall winner is the one who performs best against themselves. Do other sports do this as well?

Not really, and neither does golf in a serious sense. The handicapping system does a good job of allowing players to have a fun informal match against each other, but it's not a real part of the rules of the game.

A parallel might be offering an opponent in table tennis a 5 point head start in each game, or a runner offering a 2 minute head start in a race. It enables a closer finish and an unpredictable result, but it doesn't really mean anything.

[Dr Jekyll]

Abbott said:

RizzoTheRat said:

Are there any other sports that do a handicap system like this? My running club does a handicap race one a year, where everyones start time is based on their years performance so we should all finish together, and the therefore the overall winner is the one who performs best against themselves. Do other sports do this as well?

Portsmouth Yardstick in dinghy sailing but that only applies to the boat not the sailors skill level

Not sure everyone will agree it's a sport but air racing sometimes works like this. Various types of aircraft start at different times calculated so that in theory they all cross the finish line together. Terrific from a spectator point of view.

[kowalski655]

How is air racing NOT a sport?
World's fastest motor sport, surely.

[Ayahuasca]

Tax -

Let's say I own a property that is let out.

Under a covenant, only paying tenants are allowed to stay there.

But let's say I wanted to stay there myself, so I just paid the landlord (me) a commercial rent.

So I am both landlord and tenant.

Would I have to pay income tax on the rental 'income' that I pay to myself?





.

[oscmax]

Ayahuasca said:

Tax -

Let's say I own a property that is let out.

Under a covenant, only paying tenants are allowed to stay there.

But let's say I wanted to stay there myself, so I just paid the landlord (me) a commercial rent.

So I am both landlord and tenant.

Would I have to pay income tax on the rental 'income' that I pay to myself?


.

No income tax, as it is not income properly so called. You are not actually either landlord or tenant.

However, for exactly the same reason, you would still be in breach of the covenant.

[Einion Yrth]

oscmax said:

Ayahuasca said:

Tax -

Let's say I own a property that is let out.

Under a covenant, only paying tenants are allowed to stay there.

But let's say I wanted to stay there myself, so I just paid the landlord (me) a commercial rent.

So I am both landlord and tenant.

Would I have to pay income tax on the rental 'income' that I pay to myself?


.

No income tax, as it is not income properly so called. You are not actually either landlord or tenant.

However, for exactly the same reason, you would still be in breach of the covenant.

What prevents you paying a peppercorn rent?

[AstonZagato]

RizzoTheRat said:

Are there any other sports that do a handicap system like this? My running club does a handicap race one a year, where everyones start time is based on their years performance so we should all finish together, and the therefore the overall winner is the one who performs best against themselves. Do other sports do this as well?

Polo has a pretty efficient system:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polo_handicap

[popeyewhite]

RizzoTheRat said:

Are there any other sports that do a handicap system like this? My running club does a handicap race one a year, where everyones start time is based on their years performance so we should all finish together, and the therefore the overall winner is the one who performs best against themselves. Do other sports do this as well?

Surely if the start time is the handicap, ie the slowest runners go first and the fastest go last, then the winner will be the one who crosses the line first out of everyone? I may have misunderstood something here, but...

[Roofless Toothless]

RizzoTheRat said:

SCEtoAUX said:

Nope, though if the numbers in a comp are high enough they are split (by the handicapping software) into two or three divisions. Then there are prizes for each division. In other words, golfers of similar-ish ability are competing against each other for prizes).

I can only think of two competitions where the best gross score is all that really matters, and one of those is the club championship over 36 holes.

Are there any other sports that do a handicap system like this? My running club does a handicap race one a year, where everyones start time is based on their years performance so we should all finish together, and the therefore the overall winner is the one who performs best against themselves. Do other sports do this as well?

It strikes me that the seeding system in tennis works in entirely the opposite way. By keeping the top performing players apart for as long as possible you end up with the situation that the same handful of names get through to the last couple of rounds at every tournament.

The FA Cup does limit the entry of the top professional sides until a later round, but even so it is quite possible for the top two Premiership sides to be drawn against eachother the first time their names go into the draw, and giant killing minnows get more of a chance. Look how much interest and local excitement it generates when this happens and a small club has a good run.

But why does tennis refuse to do this?

The only reason I can think of is that the people who run the tournament think that they will be financially damaged if interest in it wanes due to the big guns getting beaten early on. I can't believe how tennis fans put up with such a rigged system.

[talksthetorque]

schmunk said:

You skinflint...

Excellent selective quoting