Handicap bias by course type?...

[Roger Wolfe]

How about an actual example?

Carolina Golf Club was 6,400 yards with small greens averaging 4,000 sq ft leading up to 2007.

Carolina Golf Club is now 7,100 yards with regular/big greens
averaging 6,000 sq ft.  Most of the old 6400 yard golfers now
play a hybrid 6800 yard golf course (still too long) between
the tips and "one up."

Handicaps have gone up 3-4 shots and now travel quite well
relative to prior years.

The lengthened course with bigger greens really exposed length
as a critical factor.  Those who already had length now had to use
irons instead of wedges.  Those who struggle with length hit 7,5 and
3 woods to most of the par fours.

[Sean_A]

I am very close to the links player being described except for my short game can get very suspect at times.  I often score better with a card in my hand because I focus on the game at hand better.  I know I often don't play anywhere near my handicap for friendlies because I am out there for different reasons than purely scoring - I don't drift in and out of conversations etc back into the game very well.  Consequently I would assume both golfers will fail to play to their cap a significant percentage of the time.  The links player will have his cap padded by wind and field adjustments to the course standard scratch, but the US player takes 10 best of last 20 of all rounds played.  I don't really know what would happen between these two players, but their skills are relatively at the same level so I would expect close to a 50-50 split over many matchplay games.  

To answer the question, I think both guys would level out to their real handicap after a year or so. At first caps may rise, but they should then come down with knowledge if indeed that original cap was accurate.

Ciao

[Jud_T]

Roger,

Great example.  This was the other thing I wanted to touch on, which I guess gets to course ratings/slopes....

[Will Peterson]

When I left the US for the UK my handicap was 1.1.  While spending 18 months in the UK, it was 2.4-2.7.  When I returned and entered my first scores it was 0.3, and then progressively dropped to +1.6.  I found it more difficult to get the handicap to drop in the UK.  It was all tournaments (fewer scores and tougher conditions, especially for big club events), and the SSS was always around par or better. 

One of the courses that I play regularly in the US has a rating of 75, so it is quite easy to maintain a lower handicap by shooting rounds just over par.  I think that US handicaps are influenced much more by the course you play the most rounds at than in the UK.  I think that ratings have a wider range than SSS do.

In my experience, I would expect the UK player to win the majority.  I also found that handicaps in the UK are more accurate (excluding the few bandits every club has).  Nearly all the matches I played with handicaps up to 22 the proper amount of shots were given.  Only on a rare occasion of very good play by one side accompanied by very bad play on the other did the match not make it to 16-18.

I think that most handicaps in the US are way off.  I have also found that people in the US think that your handicap is your average, which it is not.  It is your potential, and you should only shoot your handicap or better about 30% of the time.  I play in too many matches were people will say I'm a 10.  Later you find out that they average around 81-82, which would make them more of a 6-7 in the US.

[Phil_the_Author]

They both learn to adapt their games to differing circumstances or they play lousy...

[Rory Connaughton]

I have played informal team matches overseas on inland courses and the US CONGU handicaps seem to have been very close in terms of player ability.  i would not expect my us handicap to hold up as well on a links.

This fall we hosted a group of single digit links golfers who were over for the Walker Cup.  just as we are fish out of water on links they simply could not carry the ball long enough off the tee to put themselves in position to score well.  The match wasn't competitive even though the handicaps were essentially the same.

On balance on a links I would always give the edge to the CONGU handicap but I'm not sure that translates to parkland golf as a rule.

[Sean_A]

One of the courses that I play regularly in the US has a rating of 75, so it is quite easy to maintain a lower handicap by shooting rounds just over par.  I think that US handicaps are influenced much more by the course you play the most rounds at than in the UK.  I think that ratings have a wider range than SSS do.

Will

I agree with this 100%.  For the fairly good amateur around 4 to scratch or better, length is just not an issue for nearly all of the players.  So a high SSS mainly due to length (in the UK) is easy street compared to playing a 6000 yarder with a par of 70 and an SSS of 68.  Players can't make too many mistakes on the short course to break par everyday just to maintain a handicap let alone try to improve it.  I know of more than a few guys who left a club I used to belong to because they found it far easier to carry a lower cap at a longer course and thus qualify for many of the 2nd tier amateur events.  The non-Walker Cup qualifying tournies which can still draw a very good field of Jr and County level players. 

Ciao

[Mark Chaplin]

On our US club tour we gave a good account for ourselves but los most matches. At Flossmoor our handicaps had in retrospect been udjusted to slope or atever you call it. On the fist tee i was told your off 14 thinking they'd made a mistake I confirmed I was a 12, looks like we should have had a couple of shots each.

I would point out that one off matches are not the greatest way of comparing, if Flossmoor beat us at Deal in September I'll reconsider!!

[Sean_A]

On our US club tour we gave a good account for ourselves but los most matches. At Flossmoor our handicaps had in retrospect been udjusted to slope or atever you call it. On the fist tee i was told your off 14 thinking they'd made a mistake I confirmed I was a 12, looks like we should have had a couple of shots each.

I would point out that one off matches are not the greatest way of comparing, if Flossmoor beat us at Deal in September I'll reconsider!!

Chappers

I had the same experience when I brought a load of guys to Detroit for the Ryder Cup.  The only one to win a match from our side was me, but I know the course quite well.  The greens at Grosse Ile were far too tricky for the Brits (and they weren't running nearly as fast as normal) and they paid heavily.  I am not sure I have seen quite so many guys with putters in their hand end up with wedges in their hands for the next shot.  It was great entertainment from my perspective even though it was my side taking a beating.  Mind you, I tried to steer several of the guys round the greens and often my advice was ignored.  The part I couldn't understand was these guys saw the lines of putts totally opposite to the true line.  It was really freaky to watch guys pay absolutely no attention to the overall lay of the land.  They were myopic with studying only the contours.  Plus, they far too often broke the golden rule of Grosse Ile (and a great many Ross greens), always keep your ball between yourself and the hole. 

Ciao

[Scott Warren]

I also found that handicaps in the UK are more accurate (excluding the few bandits every club has).

I just wanted to isolate this bit for Chappers to read!

[Kevin Cahoon]

I would point out that one off matches are not the greatest way of comparing, if Flossmoor beat us at Deal in September I'll reconsider!!

Mark,

I will be shocked if we win at Deal. So few players in the US understand the ground game. It took a friend 22 holes at Bandon to figure out his 60 deg wedge didn't work on firm turf.