[Sean_A]

 In addition, my understanding is that the system has a small mathematical bias in favor of the lower handicaps so as to foster a desire for improvement.

I find it impossible to believe that the system has a bias in favor of lower handicaps. As a lower handicap it is virtually impossible for me to beat anyone above a 5 handicap in a match. Just as an example I played a 13 handicap in a match at my club this year. So, I was giving 13 shots (thankfully I'm not playing him now as it would be 16). I was 5 under through 13 holes and was 1 up (I birdied 11, 12, and 13). I was 6 under through 16 and still only 1 up. Even with the benefit of playing a set of tees up from what I normally play it's not often I'm 6 under through 16 holes at my home course. I've only shot better than 4 under there 2 or 3 times in five years. So basically, I'm playing one of my best rounds in 5 years and I lose the match. That's not the only time that has happened to me. Some bias for low handicappers. Why is it that higher handicappers (10-20) always win handicapped events? Are they just the best cheaters?

Steve

I don't believe the handicaping system works well once we are talking about about giving away 7, 8 or more shots.  If the filed is big enough, it is better to divide the field into two handicap groups so there are basically two winners of stableford or medal comps.  That said, I always believe that there should be third winner, lowest gross score. This guy should ALWAYS be acknowledged as the best golfer on the day.  I know in the UK folks often lose sight of this fact in their rush to see net scores.  This means in effect there are three comps running to suit the abilities of all.  One last point and I know its harsh, but now that we have full difference of shots in singles matches, I think the maximum handicap in a comp should be 18.  That means guys with higher caps play off 18 if they want to play.  Again, this is to reduce the crazy outlier results that can happen with high cappers and bring the scenario of shots given to no more than nine if there are two divisions (0-9 and 10-18). 

Ciao   

[Scott Warren]

John K Moore:

I say anyone who shoots more than 5 shots below their handicap should be disqualified on the spot... a true 8 handicap doesn't shoot 71 on a difficult course in semi-tournament conditions.

Played a match play event, real, true match play event at the club. I turned in 2 under and I was 1 down. I was +2 on the back when he closed me out 3&2. Yeah, I was pretty steamed.

When I was playing off 10 (I am now a 6-7) I shot one-over-par in a medal event at my club. I have watched plenty of people who are "a true 8" or higher shoot par or one over as a one-off thing. It happens, so does an 8-capper shooting 98.

You seem to post a lot of hyberpole and I think some of the time it dilutes what might otherwise be a valid point.

I don't think handicapped matchplay between two golfers with more than a 3-4 shot handicap difference really works as a fair fight, given the extra shots from a triple or quad only counts for a one hole loss in matchplay the same as if I parred and they bogied.

If I play a 20-marker, I don't believe that in a normal round, I will score lower than him on 13 holes, which handicap matchplay sort of suggests I should do to beat him.

Even off 7, I'd rather play a lower handicapper off the bat and just try to beat him straight up. That way he couldn't "get all steamed up" like JKM if I was 3-4 under my handicap after 16 holes and won.

Steve Kline: You play off +3?! You I would take shots from!

[Mark Pearce]

before changing from 3/4 to full handicap difference in matchplay the SGU conducted an exhaustive survey of matchplay results in handicap matchplay events at Scottish clubs.  These indicated that, with full allowance, lower handicappers did, indeed, win more than 50% of the time.  Indeed, the bigger the difference, the more likely the lower handicapper was to win.  They found that at no Scottish club in the relevant year (which I think was 2007 but I could be wrong) was the principal club handicap knockout competition won by a high handicapper (I think the highest handicap winner may have been a 6).

I think the CONGU system works pretty well.

BTW, I'm a solid 12 'capper.  I have been 10.5 and I have been back up to 13 a couple of times but am steady around 12.  I shot a gross 76 net 63 three years ago.  The best golf I have ever played.  Why the hell should I be DQed for playing the best I ever have.  Make the handicap system based on competitive results (like CONGU) and vanity 'caps and cheats disappear.

[Steve Kline]

Steve Kline: You play off +3?! You I would take shots from!

Yep. I almost never play in handicap events. I made an exception for this one because I hadn't been playing much and really wanted to play that weekend. So, I had to play in the event to play that Saturday morning. The only other exception I make is the Pinehurst member-guest with my dad. They have 18 flights with 8 teams in each flight. We have always been in the first flight (my dad's handicap is anywhere from 6 to 10). Partners are not allowed to have a handicap difference of more than 8 shots. If they do, then the higher gets his handicap knocked down until he is within 8 shots of the lower player (my dad lost a shot last year). Usually everyone in a given flight is within a couple of strokes of each other for handicap purposes. We've never given up more than a shot a day to our flight so you're basically playing scratch within your flight and there is no overall competition. We won our fight last year and get a rare chance to defend next week (usually you can only get in every other year).

[Fred Yanni]

Over the past few years almost all of the one day member guests and corporate/fund raiser outings have begun to recognize low gross teams and sometimes individuals which is a nice change.

For years we would play in these events and not have shot at winning anything (not that winning is at all important at a charity event but if you take clients or buddies you want a chance to be competitive).

I will say this, the net scores being posted in the best one ball of four are really low.  For example in the last 2 outings I played in at Shinnecock (2 teams shot a net 51 and one shot a net 52) and at Piping Rock (3 net 51s) the net scores were really low.  What are the odds that that many teams of higer handicappers are successfully using their strokes on every hole for birdies or better?  It must be pretty high as seems to happen at every outing I play in... 

Who knows - thank goodness they have started giving prizes out for gross scores recently.   

 

[John Moore II]

Scott-I don't mean to post hyperbole, I post, especially on this thread, factual stories that I have witnessed. Everything I have posted here, I have personally witnessed on a golf course. Perhaps DQ for shooting 5 strokes low is slightly excessive. I prefer to flight the field after the first or second round and then post a 'bust-out' number to prevent guys from shooting huge the first two days and taking it really deep that last day to win a flight. That is the most fair way to do it. That, for the most part, does away with both vanity and sandbag handicaps.

Now, to semi-relate this back to golf architecture, I feel it is very possible to have courses that are far off from each other in difficulty and numbers be way different. Guys that play very difficult courses on a daily basis could go to an easy course and play their same round of golf and shoot way lower; same goes the opposite way.

Steve Kline-I do the exact same thing. I play almost no events with handicap. The last time I did was the match play event I detailed above.

[Pete Lavallee]

  Make the handicap system based on competitive results (like CONGU) and vanity 'caps and cheats disappear.

Amen brother! Now if only you could get Huckaby and the USGA to listen to you.

[George Pazin]

Just a thought:

Like the various Rules threads, I am fascinated by the many folks who think they can come up with better systems than those tweaked over the years. In regards to handicaps, think about what you are trying to do: allow folks of differing abilities to compete against each other. This doesn't work well in almost any sport, why would you expect golf to be any different?

Similarly, you definitely have a selection reinforcement going on in all of these events: when they work well, no one remembers, but the times when something screwy happens, everyone remembers.

Consider this: I have a hole in one, and I'm one of the worst golfers on here, handicap-wise. Others who are far better don't have one.

Golf is sport that is prone to widely swinging outcomes - even the best golfers don't shoot the same scores day in and day out. Why would you expect any system devised to "level the playing field" to be effective?

[Pete Lavallee]

Why would you expect any system devised to "level the playing field" to be effective?

George,

There are two systems world wide, the broken one, ours and the one that works CONGU. On these handicap threads you never hear any bitching from the UK side of the pond about rampant sandbagging or vanity handicaps! Why, because they only include the results of tournament scores; played by the rules of golf with a marker. Why can't the USGA include a Tournament handicap into the GHIN system; then allow the Clubs to decide which handicaps they wish to use?

[Scott Warren]

Pete,

There is now a third: Australia is now using the USGA system, but only using competition scores to calculate it (Aussie clubs typically have about three competitions a week, at least one or two open to members of other clubs).

It will be interesting at the Boomerang next March to see how the Aussie guys and US guys, who all use the USGA calculation but with the difference ofwhat counts for calculation, feel they differ.

[George Pazin]

Why would you expect any system devised to "level the playing field" to be effective?

George,

There are two systems world wide, the broken one, ours and the one that works CONGU. On these handicap threads you never hear any bitching from the UK side of the pond about rampant sandbagging or vanity handicaps! Why, because they only include the results of tournament scores; played by the rules of golf with a marker. Why can't the USGA include a Tournament handicap into the GHIN system; then allow the Clubs to decide which handicaps they wish to use?

Interesting take, Pete. I'll take your word for it, but I'd be more convinced if there were evidence that CONGU works other than the lack of bitching from the UK - remember, those are the stiff upper lip guys.

To a certain degree, everything works better in smaller quantities.

[Jud_T]

Scott,

On paper at least this sounds like the best of both worlds.  Very interested to hear how it pans out...

[Pete Lavallee]

Scott,

That's very interesting. When my wife and I were at Barnbougle Dunes last month we were chatting with an Australian couple. The husband proudly declared his wife played off 9, she quickly corrected him saying she's off 11 now in the new US system. If anything you would have to think the average Australian handicap will come down with our system, as you only shoot 1 out of 4 rounds under your handicap; the CONGU was really more of an average score. Why did the Australians abandon the CONGU system?

[Pete Lavallee]

George,

When you let golfers of dubious character, post scores from the comfort of their living room, it's not hard to understand why some people are at their wits end!

[Scott Warren]

Pete,

I'm not 100% on top of the reasons for change as I've been in the UK since 2008, but I am returning home in November and I'm looking forward to seeing how old mates' handicaps have changed under the new system.

Hopefully one or more of the other Aussies might chime in with their thoughts.

[Tom Huckaby]

Pete - just so you know, I did read this, and refrained from battling it AGAIN.  Need we really make this conversation go into its second decade?

 

[Sean_A]

Why would you expect any system devised to "level the playing field" to be effective?

George,

There are two systems world wide, the broken one, ours and the one that works CONGU. On these handicap threads you never hear any bitching from the UK side of the pond about rampant sandbagging or vanity handicaps! Why, because they only include the results of tournament scores; played by the rules of golf with a marker. Why can't the USGA include a Tournament handicap into the GHIN system; then allow the Clubs to decide which handicaps they wish to use?

Pete

Believe me, bitching still goes on, but it tends to be heightened around non-club events such as societies and charity days etc. where handicapping is less scrutinized.  For the most part at the clubs I have been a member of the system works well.  Mind you, gthe two division system has been in place to split low and high cappers.  I firmly believe in attesting and using ONLY comp scores for handicap purposes.  I can't see how anybody cannot understand the importance of these two issues as cornerstones of a handicap system.  

Ciao

[Pete Lavallee]

Pete - just so you know, I did read this, and refrained from battling it AGAIN.  Need we really make this conversation go into its second decade?

 

Luring you out of hiding is soooo easy!

[Steve Lang]

   Pete, What's the current brew out of the garage?

[Pete Lavallee]

Steve,
Oh I've moved up in the world, we always have 3 types of Ballast Point microbrew in the kegerator in the kitchen; saving a fortune on lextricity. 

[Doug Siebert]

BTW, I'm a solid 12 'capper.  I have been 10.5 and I have been back up to 13 a couple of times but am steady around 12.  I shot a gross 76 net 63 three years ago.  The best golf I have ever played.  Why the hell should I be DQed for playing the best I ever have.  Make the handicap system based on competitive results (like CONGU) and vanity 'caps and cheats disappear.

I recall many long threads discussing the relative merits of the USGA and R&A handicapping systems when I was active on rec.sport.golf back in the 90s.  Those in the UK often said the USGA handicapping issues would disappear if we used only tournament scores, but most fail to realize that while weekly competitions are common in the UK, at least 90% of golfers with USGA handicaps (and 99% of golfers in the US) never play in competitions.  The system is what is due to how the game is played over here.  Though having the USGA system add a tournament handicap (once someone figures out exactly how it would be tracked for those who play in only 2-3 tournaments a year) wouldn't be a bad idea.

But I'm not sure I really buy that the R&A system eliminates sandbagging.  Sure, it reduces it a lot, because bad scores increase your handicap very little while good scores decrease it much more.  But one could just play their best for the first nine, and then unless you are playing nicely below your handicap and giving yourself a chance to win, you can start missing shots on the back nine.  No one would really know what you're doing, you'd just look like one of those guys who starts solidly then always blows up on the back nine (due to the pressure of competion, natch )  You can slowly increase your handicap all year long and then when you finally get off to a really hot start, for once you don't dog it on the back nine and you've got a nice trophy.  OK, so you can't win as many trophies as a sandbagger in the US does, but it'd be so stealthy no one would realize you are doing it

As for vanity caps, I'm not sure why people keep bringing this up as a problem.  Who does it hurt if someone posts only their good scores, or posts scores they cheated on, or posts numbers that have no basis in reality?  Sure, I can post a bunch of 66s for myself and no one is the wiser (unless they've played with me before ) but how's that any different than the guy who claims he makes four times as much as he really does or that he once banged Cameron Diaz?  It hurts no one, unless they try to play off that handicap in which case they hurt themselves.  So someone please explain to me why we give a damn about this "problem"...

[Sean_A]

BTW, I'm a solid 12 'capper.  I have been 10.5 and I have been back up to 13 a couple of times but am steady around 12.  I shot a gross 76 net 63 three years ago.  The best golf I have ever played.  Why the hell should I be DQed for playing the best I ever have.  Make the handicap system based on competitive results (like CONGU) and vanity 'caps and cheats disappear.

I recall many long threads discussing the relative merits of the USGA and R&A handicapping systems when I was active on rec.sport.golf back in the 90s.  Those in the UK often said the USGA handicapping issues would disappear if we used only tournament scores, but most fail to realize that while weekly competitions are common in the UK, at least 90% of golfers with USGA handicaps (and 99% of golfers in the US) never play in competitions.  The system is what is due to how the game is played over here.  Though having the USGA system add a tournament handicap (once someone figures out exactly how it would be tracked for those who play in only 2-3 tournaments a year) wouldn't be a bad idea.

But I'm not sure I really buy that the R&A system eliminates sandbagging.  Sure, it reduces it a lot, because bad scores increase your handicap very little while good scores decrease it much more.  But one could just play their best for the first nine, and then unless you are playing nicely below your handicap and giving yourself a chance to win, you can start missing shots on the back nine.  No one would really know what you're doing, you'd just look like one of those guys who starts solidly then always blows up on the back nine (due to the pressure of competion, natch )  You can slowly increase your handicap all year long and then when you finally get off to a really hot start, for once you don't dog it on the back nine and you've got a nice trophy.  OK, so you can't win as many trophies as a sandbagger in the US does, but it'd be so stealthy no one would realize you are doing it

As for vanity caps, I'm not sure why people keep bringing this up as a problem.  Who does it hurt if someone posts only their good scores, or posts scores they cheated on, or posts numbers that have no basis in reality?  Sure, I can post a bunch of 66s for myself and no one is the wiser (unless they've played with me before ) but how's that any different than the guy who claims he makes four times as much as he really does or that he once banged Cameron Diaz?  It hurts no one, unless they try to play off that handicap in which case they hurt themselves.  So someone please explain to me why we give a damn about this "problem"...

If one isn't playing in comps there isn't much reason for an offical handicap - is there?

Ciao

[Dónal Ó Ceallaigh]

But I'm not sure I really buy that the R&A system eliminates sandbagging.  Sure, it reduces it a lot, because bad scores increase your handicap very little while good scores decrease it much more.  But one could just play their best for the first nine, and then unless you are playing nicely below your handicap and giving yourself a chance to win, you can start missing shots on the back nine.  No one would really know what you're doing, you'd just look like one of those guys who starts solidly then always blows up on the back nine (due to the pressure of competion, natch )  You can slowly increase your handicap all year long and then when you finally get off to a really hot start, for once you don't dog it on the back nine and you've got a nice trophy.  OK, so you can't win as many trophies as a sandbagger in the US does, but it'd be so stealthy no one would realize you are doing it

Doug,

This type of behaviour does not go unoticed I can assure you. The HCAP committee at my old club used to examine back 9 scores of certain players at my club. There were prizes for 1st and 2nd nines, and a few of the usual suspects used to routinely pick up prizes for nines. One player in particular used to play 15 holes very well, and depending on how good the scoring might be that day, he "let the wheels come off" and take the +0.1 or play the last 3 holes well enough to equal the CSS (SSS in old money). He was eventually cut 2 strokes in general play and then left the club.

[Doug Siebert]

Donal,

That's interesting, I guess the handicap committees really watch things a lot more closely than here in the US (not that very many clubs actually HAVE handicap committees in the first place over here...)

I guess I know where I'd go if I wanted an honest handicap based game, but I think I'll always prefer playing golf for fun and worrying less about score and more for overall enjoyment (i.e., pulling off a few really awesome shots is worth a few extra strokes on the other few awesome shots that don't come off anything like I planned/hoped)  I maintain a handicap, but pretty much for my own information on whether I'm trending up or down at a given time.

[Jason Connor]

It seems that competition scores is the key.

I played in a Saturday & Sunday morning group of usually between 28-48 guys at my club depending upon the week.  We all played by the rules of golf and most guys knew enough to keep the rare other guy in line.  For group competition we had a handicap that was established only from rounds within the group.  So we knew everyone's handicap was 'true'.

The result was good competition.  And since that was usually the only golf I played, my traveling handicap was totally right on since it wasn't sandbagged, and since I was holing every putt (until I got to my ESC score, a 7).

If all posted scores were from tournaments (even weekly events like this that a pro can 'validate') and all tournament scores get posted (even that net 63) then we'd all be better off.

Plus I think too few people play using their ESC max.  I can card no more than a 7 for handicap purposes.  So I rarely take more than 7 real strokes on a hole.   I pick up and move on.  More people with handicaps should do that for the sake of pace of play.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()