[Rich Goodale]

Andrew

If you mean one's reported score using ESC (Equitable Stroke Control) and allowing gimmies as per USGA/GHIN rules, then any player with an index of 18 or lower would only "break 100" (i.e. "shoot" in triple figures) once in a very blue moon (to quote Nancy Griffiths)....

Rkch

[Jud_T]

JC Jones is the poster child for this thread.  I've never met another guy who hits it 320, can put up an 80 one day and not break 100 the next.  Perhaps we are getting at the essence of why the UK handicap system is dramatically superior to ours.  In fact, I'd love to have more of our brethren from across the pond chime in on this.  My guess is CONGU guys who are single digit virtually never shoot over 100.

[Mark Pearce]

Jud,

For most of this year I have been a CONGU 9 (so only just single digit).  I haven't failed to break 100 but did have a 99 which, but for a strong finish, could have been worse....

[David Davis]

It's an interesting subject for me as well. At my home club my handicap is accurate as it's based on more than 60 tournaments in the last 3 years. It's frustrating as it's up to it's high point in years of 8.6 but that being said it travels extremely well if you don't mind people calling you a sandbagger. My worst round of the year in a strokeplay event was 90 which I conjured up last weekend. Conditions were perfect and there was no wind. I had 3 birdies and 7 pars on the way. However, my best round of the year at my home club was a 84 in a back tee stroke play event so there wasn't a wide margin there, that day however was blowing at 50 km/hr. The course is just tough as several of you have experienced.

During my travels seeing courses for the first time and usually playing from the back tees I was most often just under 80 outside of a collapse at Pine Valley (86) when nothing went right.

My best round of the year (72) was at Sand Hills - sorry Lou Duran. That's still an 18 stroke differential but if you take into consideration varying conditions, having your day or not, difficulty of the course (slope/course rating) you see quickly that not all courses are created equal and not all handicaps are either.

There are always the extremes that can be cited which may or may not be relevant. Sure put most single hcp'ers from the tips of a pro course set up with 8 inch rough and narrow fairways and 100+ might come into play if they start missing in stroke play or hit 10 balls into the water trying to make the carry etc. but those are extremes.

The National Open was held at my home course last year. The average hcp in the 100+man field was +2, the average score over 3 rounds was 86 and the conditions were not bad at all. Not even the average windforce. Throw in windforce 7 and the average become 96 and a good part of the field of scratch golfers don't break 100.

[Andrew Buck]

JC Jones is the poster child for this thread.  I've never met another guy who hits it 320, can put up an 80 one day and not break 100 the next.  Perhaps we are getting at the essence of why the UK handicap system is dramatically superior to ours.  In fact, I'd love to have more of our brethren from across the pond chime in on this.  My guess is CONGU guys who are single digit virtually never shoot over 100.

The UK system is superior to ours in which way?  I'm not intimately familiar with their system, but from what I can gather here a mid to high handicap player would certainly have a much higher handicap under their system due to removal of slope, ESC and addition of playing out every shot.

Most often I see handicaps being used in hole by hole competitions.  This could be match play or Net skins or team games.  I feel like in match play, my toughest matches are already against the guy getting 25 shots, and often I have little control over the outcome of many holes (both ways).  For net skins competitions against larger groups of high handicap players, they almost certainly have the advantage.  I also know there are many competitions where the low handicap player has an advantage, for example a scramble.  

I'm not sure the UK medal play handicap version without ESC does a better job making fair matches between players with a wide spread in handicap than our system does.  For that matter, I'm not sure it does a better job for match play against similarly matched players.

David,

Our systems are certainly worlds apart if as an 8.2 your unbelievably bad round is an 86 at Pine Valley and your other rounds at top flight golf clubs from the back tees were in the 70's.  

[Michael Felton]

The UK system has its own version of ESC. It's called the Stableford Scoring Adjustment and it makes the maximum score on a hole a net double bogey (i.e. 0 points in Stableford).

I think the pluses and minuses of each system are:

The US system's slope rating is great and the UK system has nothing similar to that. Only the SSS (which is the equivalent to the course rating). That means that handicaps from some courses travel much better than others (because those courses would have a higher slope).

The UK system uses only tournament scores and I think that's a good thing. Makes sandbagging much harder, but as a consequence...

The UK system is much slower to respond to changes in ability. If someone improves, their handicap will only come down as they play tournaments and more slowly than the US system. Likewise, the US system reacts much more quickly to someone's playing ability decreasing.

Very hard to reconcile both of those things. The UK system could definitely benefit from some kind of slope rating though.

[Andrew Buck]

The UK system uses only tournament scores and I think that's a good thing. Makes sandbagging much harder, but as a consequence...

The UK system is much slower to respond to changes in ability. If someone improves, their handicap will only come down as they play tournaments and more slowly than the US system. Likewise, the US system reacts much more quickly to someone's playing ability decreasing.

Another potential consequence of the "improving" golfer is sometimes they take more time to get comfortable in unusual events.  We even see this at the highest level where guys blow up on Sunday at majors and even legends like Watson or Phil knocked on the door of majors for years before breaking through.  I certainly suspect there could be guys who are relatively new to serious golf who can only play a few medal rounds a year, and may get extremely comfortable in their weekly games, but have rounds significantly worse in the designated tournaments.  As such, they get to potentially play off an inflated handicap for years.  

Can't argue with contra however, it certainly prevents people from deliberately manipulating the system (although I guess someone could still "give away" shots when they are having a poor round in a medal round on the UK system as well.)

[Tony_Muldoon]

Jud,

For most of this year I have been a CONGU 9 (so only just single digit). 

Congratulations Mark, a new personal best?


FWIW Off 13 this year, I have only played 5 competitions and shot in buffer 3x and twice about 4 over and once two under.  This has been easily my most consistent year and I do feel if I'd played more comps I would have been cut. Sat week gives me one more chance.  

That means 45+ games of matchplay/social rounds and even on my worst days I'd never have actually hit it 100 times.  If the shot doesn't count then pick up when you are out of the hole or can't pick up a stableford point.  So my worst score was 89 in a medal.  The advantage being I can walk off the course feeling it wasn't my day, but rarely am I totally despondent.

[Mark Pearce]

Andrew,

No.  Under CONGU each category  (cat 1 for scratch to 6, 2 for 7 to 12, 3 for 13 to 18 and 4 above that) has a buffer zone in any qualifying round.  Play better than CSS (competition scratch score, which is SSS qualified by scores on the day) and you get cut by a multiple of number of shots below CSS and a multiplier which is 0.1 for a cat 1 player and progresses to 0.4 for a cat 4 player.  A 15 handicapper who has a net score 3 below CSS gets cut, therefore by 3x0.3=0.9.  The buffer zone is the same as your category.  The same 15 handicapper has a 3shot buffer zone and their handicap will not be adjusted if they are at CSS or within 3 shots.  Above the buffer zone and, whatever category you are in, your handicap goes up by just 0.1 however many over CSS you are.  That 99, therefore, increased my handicap by 0.1, the same as if I had shot 85.

[Mark Pearce]

Tony,

Yes, though it came down last summer.  In 4 medal rounds (one a buffer zone round) I was cut from 14.6 to 8.8, in the process of which I had the lowest net score in the other 3rounds and won the 2 round handicap section of the Crail Club Championship by 11 shots!  Sadly my handicap has just last week crept back up to 9.5.

[Sean_A]

Perhaps the single best thing at which the UK system trumps the US system is that in my experience a very high percentage of folks who would call themselves golfers actually have valid handicaps.  In the US there is a huge percentage of "golfers" who don't have valid caps - this undermines the entire reason for handicapping.  Its far better to drop the inclusive approach, relabel what a golfer is and then make sure these people have valid caps.  

Perhaps the second best area where the UK system is superior is that scores must be attested.  The chances of a "bad" score being recorded is therefore much reduced.  I can't see the point of putting in cards where a player holds his own card or no card at all.  This essentially means all knock-abouts should not be then used for handicapping.  

I would like it explained to me why slope is a good thing for handicapping.

Ciao  

[Carl Nichols]

All you need to do is look at your highest index that counts or your lowest index that does not count.   That number will be your median score over the last 20 rounds.  Just be sure to convert that number into a handicap (using slope) and add it to the course rating in order to identify the score you would expect.

Jason:

I agree with you on this approach except that I think it fails to account for the effect of ESC.  I'm usually somewhere between a 4.5 and 6.0, and a completely wild guess is that in about half of my rounds, I make a triple that I have to count as a double.  If I'm right about that, then my average posted score is actually 1/2 stroke lower than my average actual score, and so after doing your calculation I'd need to add a 1/2 stroke to be able to predict the score I'm most likely to shoot.

I'd be curious if there are available data regarding the average adjustments that people in different handicap bands have to take as a result of ESC.  Anyone know?

[Michael Felton]

I would like it explained to me why slope is a good thing for handicapping.

The idea behind slope is that there are lots of different types of courses. Some will be hard for both scratch and mid-handicap players alike. Some will be harder for mid-handicap players than scratch players (relatively speaking) and some will be easier for mid-handicap players.

Imagine two courses. One of them is about 7000 yards long and is wide open with no trouble and flat greens. The other is 6500 yards long, but narrow and with trouble everywhere. A "typical" scratch player will shoot lower scores on the shorter course (tends to avoid the trouble and will be playing shorter clubs into the greens, thereby hitting it closer and holing more putts. A "typical" mid-handicap player would probably shoot better scores on the longer course, because there isn't any trouble to get into. The SSS is based virtually entirely on length, so might be 73 at the longer course and 71 at the shorter one.

Two scratch players are going to have similar handicaps whichever of the two courses they belong to. Two mid-handicap players who are on paper very similar, will have a higher handicap at the shorter course than the longer one. The idea behind slope rating courses is to remove that anomaly. If they both always play at their own course, then their course handicap (which unwinds the slope calculation) will be fair. If they switch courses, then the slope will adjust their course handicap to be relevant to the course they are playing, so they can play a sensible game together.

[Thomas Dai]

Out of curiosity, has there been a recent trial/test where an individuals scores were analysed in parallel by inputting all their scores into both hcp systems for a given period of time/number of rounds and if so, what was the outcome at the end of the trial, ie which system produced the lowest/highest hcp etc, or is such an analysis impossible due to calculation factors like slope, CSS etc.

All the best

[Andrew Buck]

I would like it explained to me why slope is a good thing for handicapping.

Ciao  

Sean,

I think it's safe to say that even if the course rating accurately reflects the difference in difficulty for a scratch golfer, that difference is not absolute as handicaps go up.  For example, while a difference of 6 shots between Chicago Golf and Butler National may be accurate for a scratch golfer, the difference is greater than 6 shots for the 18 handicap.  

Therefore, the slope helps correct two scenarios.  First is if a scratch golfer and an 18 handicap (not index, but course handicap) from Chicago Golf go to play Butler, it allows them to adjust the game so that the 18 gets a couple extra shots because the difference in difficulty should impact the 18 more than the 0.  In addition, if a player with a course handicap of 18 at Chicago Golf and Butler play together (at any venue) the reality is the "average" 18 at Butler is better than the "average" 18 at Chicago Gold and slope impacts that.

[Michael Felton]

Out of curiosity, has there been a recent trial/test where an individuals scores were analysed in parallel by inputting all their scores into both hcp systems for a given period of time/number of rounds and if so, what was the outcome at the end of the trial, ie which system produced the lowest/highest hcp etc, or is such an analysis impossible due to calculation factors like slope, CSS etc.

All the best

There are not very many courses that have a slope/course rating and a SSS. I think it would be very difficult to compare them anyway because of the different set of scores that counts under each. CSS is not an easy calculation to do and depends on the scores of all the players in the tournament that day (together with how they are split between handicap categories).

[Steve Wilson]

Back in 2003 when I playing to a steady twelve I cranked out a lovely 108 on the course I played the most.  I started hitting laterals--off the end of the club, not the hosel--and I must have hit fifteen balls OB or into hazards.  The harder I tried to straighten out the swing the worse I got.  So, if you have a primary fault that produces disastrous shots (I was severely over the top), triple digits is never out of the question.  My experience playing with people who have handicaps at five or less is that their idea of a bad shot would in most cases please me.

The only good thing about the experience was the next time I played I was fine.  I had endured the same experience on a par 34 nine holer a few years earlier when I shot 38, 38, 54, 38.  That last 38 may have been the best nine holes I ever played.  When the memory of several laterals is still fresh it's not easy to regain the confidence you need to make a good swing.

[jeffwarne]

How would someone who's an eight or so even know when he didn't break 100?
Are you finishing out every bad hole/retee lost ball etc. in a casual round?

[David Davis]

How would someone who's an eight or so even know when he didn't break 100?
Are you finishing out every bad hole/retee lost ball etc. in a casual round?

Jeff, over here we don't pick up our ball after making a double or worse and it's also shown on the score card. I think the computer system will allow us to fill in scores up to 15 if I'm not mistaken. I'd say the only casual rounds I play are matchplay but even then if I have a chance to play 18 holes at my club I always register my round in advance to make sure there are no "ah it doesn't really matter" rounds or holes. If I step out onto the course I want tournament play intensity because that adds to the fun and in the end it's the only thing besides actual tournament play that helps to improve my focus for competition.

[Mark Pearce]

How would someone who's an eight or so even know when he didn't break 100?
Are you finishing out every bad hole/retee lost ball etc. in a casual round?

In a medal competition, yes, I am.  In casual play, I'm not even keeping a score.  That's why GHIN is a crock compared to CONGU.

[Sean_A]

Andrew

Thanks.  However, in my experience, one can never tell if a 10 at a championship course is any better than a 10 at Joe Bloggs CC.  There will certainly be a discrepency in course difficulty, but somehow it doesn't seem to matter once a person has reasonable knowledge of the course.  In fact, if we are talking about good players, sight unseen I would bet on the guy coming from a shorter, easier course over a guy coming from a championship course - in matchplay.  

You are right though, the further down the food chain, the less accurate handicapping becomes, but I am not convinced slope does the job of leveling this out.  Nothing is perfect, but god I hope we don't get slope and the idea of best 10 of 20 over here - how tedious that would be.  For several years before I left the US I stopped putting in casual scores except for the odd one where all the guys in the group agreed to play a proper medal.  Usually that meant we were only three guys in what we thought would be a slow round anyway .

David - in England at least, when in a Stableford lots of guys pick up if they know they can't score and playing will slow the group down.  For the course rating to be absolutely spot on, all should play out.  Most will only tap in the last putt to mark a score down when they can't score.  I can't imagine watching a guy grind it out chipping and putting when it is clear he can't score.  Medals are different.  Guys will often finish a high scoring hole.  However, unless they have a good score going, many wouldn't walk back to the tee after losing a ball - they just write down a NR.  Again, it isn't great for calculating course rating etc, but a happy medium needs to be made to keep play moving.  Needless to say, I rarely enter medals and much prefer Stablefords.  

Ciao

[Mark Pearce]

Sean,

I think CSS is a function of the better scores by the better golfers, so NRs shouldn't really affect it too much.  I could be wrong (God knows, according to at least Pat Mucci I nearly always am) but I have never understood NRing to be a problem for CSS calculations.  In a medal round I would be likely, if having a stinker and having lost a ball without putting a provisional in play to NR rather than walk back.  Otherwise I will always aim to put in a medal score, rather than NR.

[Scott Warren]

Mark,

When we had CCR (calculated course rating) here in Aus, which was the same as CSS is, the issue of NCRs (no card returned) on CCR was this:

CCR was calculated as the score recorded by the golfer 12.5% of the way down the field, and NCRs weren't included.

So if 10 golfers NCRed instead of turning in a woeful score, there were 10 fewer bad scores in and the CCR could be a short or two different to what it would have been if those players had posted a score.

[Martin Toal]

This is a question about distributions. Each handicap has a range of scores across a distribution with typical score in the middle and increasing uncommon scores each side, better and worse. The distribution will be asymmetrical (skewed) because although you might score +10 over handicap the odd time, -10 below is vanishingly rare.

It is impossible to say that a given handicap will always beat a certain score, because very rare and unusual things happen, just very rarely, but if you said that the cutoff was 1 in 100 rounds, say, then I reckon a legitimate 10 handicap should break 100 99 times out of 100. That means playing within 18 shots of handicap, assuming par and CSS 72.

That excludes occasions when the weather isn't a 40 mph wind or the greenkeeper has a breakdown and put the flags in the bunkers (probably days that would be considered 'reductions only' for CONGU handicap purposes).

[Andrew Buck]

Andrew

Thanks.  However, in my experience, one can never tell if a 10 at a championship course is any better than a 10 at Joe Bloggs CC.  There will certainly be a discrepency in course difficulty, but somehow it doesn't seem to matter once a person has reasonable knowledge of the course.  In fact, if we are talking about good players, sight unseen I would bet on the guy coming from a shorter, easier course over a guy coming from a championship course - in matchplay.  

You are right though, the further down the food chain, the less accurate handicapping becomes, but I am not convinced slope does the job of leveling this out.  Nothing is perfect, but god I hope we don't get slope and the idea of best 10 of 20 over here - how tedious that would be.  For several years before I left the US I stopped putting in casual scores except for the odd one where all the guys in the group agreed to play a proper medal.  Usually that meant we were only three guys in what we thought would be a slow round anyway .

David - in England at least, when in a Stableford lots of guys pick up if they know they can't score and playing will slow the group down.  For the course rating to be absolutely spot on, all should play out.  Most will only tap in the last putt to mark a score down when they can't score.  I can't imagine watching a guy grind it out chipping and putting when it is clear he can't score.  Medals are different.  Guys will often finish a high scoring hole.  However, unless they have a good score going, many wouldn't walk back to the tee after losing a ball - they just write down a NR.  Again, it isn't great for calculating course rating etc, but a happy medium needs to be made to keep play moving.  Needless to say, I rarely enter medals and much prefer Stablefords.  

Ciao

Sean,

I think there are variables in all scenario's, but I generally think slope is a good concept and probably better than most.  Now, I'm certainly not confident that course ratings or slopes are applied correctly between courses, and I'd suspect that is a bigger issue in handicap variance for the 95% of golfers who don't try and "work" the system than picking up from 3 feet.  By not posting scores when you didn't play "proper medal" in the US, you were in fact utilizing the system in a manner that benefited you relative other golfers.  I have no problem with the fact that a handicap is measured on the rounds that are played in the manner that the handicap is most commonly used in, casual matches.

For all the shortcomings, I think the GHIN system is very good for it's most common use, applying shots on individual holes in matches among groups.  While I question whether US golfers would actually play enough medal tournament rounds to have handicaps, even absent that argument, I think our system does a very good job of applying strokes in matches.  I'd be concerned high scores in medal rounds (or the limited number of rounds) may adversely impact it's ability to do this.  

For example, in the finals of our club's two man, season long, net fourball competition we played a team with two 12 handicap players.  Neither of these guys were able to break 90 in any of the rounds of the medal club championship, however they can make a lot of pars.  During the middle of the round I made 7 straight pars and went from 2 up to 4 down, and it wasn't that either player was "unconscious" they're just capable of making lots of pars and some birdies.  Of course, anecdotal evidence is weak, and I'm naturally inclined to view things from the perspective of a lower handicap player, but I'd fear that the UK system would give a greater benefit to the higher handicap player in these "casual" matches.

That said, our system is awful when trying to determine a "Low Net" for a rather large group of golfers.  If there are a group of 50 golfers, there are undoubtedly 2 - 3 people who "cheat" the system and have a huge advantage.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()