I agree with the principle that Rob has put out, it makes perfect sense to me that grades come from courses that everyone has shot rather than regional difference, 100% behind that but I don't think 12 is enough and I'm a bit worried for the new starters.
I'm a big fan of supporting the lower grades so I wonder how they'd get on cutting their teeth on a the last GP series and say The Masters. That's one baptistism of fire for sure and as the lower grades have only just started to pick up in numbers I'd hate to lose some of those people to the fact they don't think they are good enough.
Maybe we could get away with having the grades across 14 - 18 shoots and splitting into two "seasons" and updating at the end of each one. You'll need to do a bit of work getting the timing and distances right but you could also do what we did at The Masters or Frayed Knott and have two courses in one day, I like that format a lot as it makes the travel worth it but it's a lot of work for the clubs.
Personally I'm not a fan of dropping shoots or awarding 100% but I understand why it's there and can live with it but as dropping shoots (not turning up) doesn't effect your grade I'm not sure that it matters that much. In fact I've always found it odd that you can drop your two lowest scores locally but they still count to your grade!
If we are going to level the grades out to be more accurate/representative then I don't see what else we can do. Personally I'd like to see this:
- 18 shoots
- No Awarding 100% for not 100%
Whatever we do, I'll support it and get behind it.
The PR and how we look is in hand, I'm hoping I can make difference.