BUDA 2019 - deposits being taken to secure places

[Niall C]

At the risk of being accused of being xenophobic I tend to think the new rules and handicapping changes are about caving in to the US in order to achieve a world-wide system, and frankly I think that a mistake.

The handicapping system in the UK, while no doubt imperfect, works well and I think the vast majority of golfers have respect for it. I think I’m right in saying the main criticism of it is that it doesn’t reflect casual play and that it allows cheats to deliberately keep a high handicap in order to presumably benefit during matchplay.

On the first charge, as long as it’s the same for everyone then I’m not sure that matters. I’d also argue that testing yourself under the gun is a better reflection on ability. On the second charge, I’ve got to think that anyone deliberately “taking a dive” during a medal would soon be found out and either ostracised or taken to task by the match and handicap secretary.

As it is, my experience is that most golfers enter competitions, not with any realistic prospect of winning the comp but instead of hopefully beating their handicap and getting it cut. That is their target. Of course once in a blue moon they have a really good day and they may get in the prizes.

Niall

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sean,

nothing has changed in that regard.

The R&A and USGA have developed a new world-wide handicap system. Whether the English Golfing Union adopts it or stays with CONGU is their decision. Same as it's always been.

But I suspect that the CONGU system will quickly turn from "working system" to "broken" as soon as the first CONGU player is turned back at some course for failing to hold a World Handicap

Ulrich

[Niall C]

Ulrich


My angle is slightly different. I think what we have now is fine. That is each country decides their own handicap system. I fail to understand how a global system will improve what we have in GB&I. Hence my comment that there will be a silent rebellion with posting non comp scores.


I also think your argument is a bit pulled. In over 20 years of living in England I have been requested to produce a handicap certificate a total of three times: TOC, St Enodoc and Praia del Rey (which was a shocker to be honest).


Ciao

+1 

Re handicap certificates, the only time I've been asked was at Dornoch. I had no issues at TOC.

[Sean_A]

Sean,

nothing has changed in that regard.

The R&A and USGA have developed a new world-wide handicap system. Whether the English Golfing Union adopts it or stays with CONGU is their decision. Same as it's always been.

But I suspect that the CONGU system will quickly turn from "working system" to "broken" as soon as the first CONGU player is turned back at some course for failing to hold a World Handicap

Ulrich

Given that Congu was a central player in the new system it would be odd if they opted out. It might have been nice if GB&I union members were consulted prior to negotiations.

Out of curiosity, what do you hope the advantages of a world system will be?

Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

Well, obviously, international competitions will profit, just think of Buda.

Then it's a lot cheaper to maintain one system compared to several.

But the main point for me is cultural. A world-wide system will bring the golfing community closer together. It's basically the same argument as for having the Queen of England as Head of the Commonwealth, instead of Canada, Australia etc. having their own Queen/King. There is a sense of "we belong together culturally".

Ulrich

[Jason Topp]

This article is old but still valid comparing the CONGU and USGA system.  The author basically invented the USGA system so you will not be surprised that he believes it is superior.


http://www.popeofslope.com/scotland/usscothandicaps.html




His points:


1. It [CONGU] is based on T (tournament) scores only. An average golfer gets in only 3 to 5 scores a year. This makes the system very slow to respond to current ability. The time late in detecting changes in ability is often six months, which Dr. Fran Scheid found in a study years ago. It simply does not keep pace with current skill.
[/size]
[/size]2. It uses ranges and step functions (buffer zones and varying the effect of a good score based on handicap level). Any step function system is inaccurate around the steps.
[/size]
[/size]3. The amount of bonus for excellence varies by handicap level. By design, the CONGU system gives a higher bonus for excellence to lower handicap players to the point that higher handicap players have little Competition chance against lower handicap players in the UK
[/size]
[/size]4. Low handicappers can stay low too easily under the CONGU system. It is hard to get the handicap to go up when a player's game is off.
[/size]
[/size]5. Scotland has used the USGA Course Rating System to evaluate the Scratch (SSS) rating for its courses. However, the CONGU course rating system in England is poor at best.
[/size]
[/size]6. I do like their ESC (Equitable Stroke Control system--Capping of extremely high hole scores) procedure
[/size]
[/size]
[/size]There was also a terrific George Peper article comparing the systems.  He had a big difference between his USGA and CONGU handicaps but if I remember correctly his CONGU number was lower.  I could not find it online. 
[/size]
[/size]The USGA system works fine in everyday play and match play but seems to go awry in a stroke play competition.   I feel like my index is a decent, if not perfect, reflection of how I am playing at any particular time.   

[Thomas Dai]

As Colonel Pharteface-MacBogie, the famous military sportsman of centuries ago who, back in the day when much of the world map was coloured pink, helped spread many a sporting activity to other parts of the world, apparently said, perhaps in lighthearted jest, perhaps not, "Bloody hell, we invented the sodding game, then we showed others how to play, then they started beating us and now they want to control the damn rules!!!!" (sic)

atb

[Jon Wiggett]

Ulrich,


I did not say the casual golfer plays just once or twice a year but rather the casual golfer 'who' plays just once or twice a year. It is clear that we see the situation differently and I am okay with that but do not think much of misrepresenting what I said in a poor attempt to undermine my opinion.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Jon,

sorry, I don't understand the intricacies in the first sentence of your last posting, which undoubtedly has to do with English being my second language only. So whatever rubbed you the wrong way, I am sorry for that and it was certainly unintentional.

From my point of view we were discussing the merits of a world-wide handicap system and I assumed that your "Joe Bloggs" was meant to represent the majority of world-wide golfers that this system is made for. Sorry if you meant something else and feel misrepresented by me.

Anyhow, while I believe it would make the UK look petty, they could certainly opt out from "uncomfortable" parts of the handicapping rules. It's not a "take it or leave it" system, any national Golf Assocation can cherry-pick. So it's not that evil foreigners are bringing the hammer down on you, it's your own Golfing Union's responsibility to create a better system for their constituents. Much like Brexit, actually

cheers,

Ulrich

[Mark Pearce]

I simply don't understand where Ulrich is coming from.  Perhaps a really deep misunderstanding of CONGU?  Or access to UK courses? 


Whatever, playing a round of social golf in the USA with someone who picks up on half the holes,. then spends 20 minutes entering a score before being able to have a beer bought for them is one of the strangest experiences I have ever had.  Handicaps based on anything but proper, competitive golf are a nonsense and the UK unions concession is not a step forwards.

[Jon Wiggett]

Ulrich,


thanks for the apology and I understand perfectly the problem with using a second language. I have to say I am with Mark Pearce on this one and am baffled as to why any sane person would think the new system will be/ is anything else other than convoluted and wholly inaccurate. It requires an expensive and complicated infrastructure, is cumbersome,  open to far more abuse than the current system and as is shown in the US ignored by many players a lot of the time.


Jon

[Ulrich Mayring]

Jon,

I'm curious, what do you mean by "the system is ignored in the US by many"? Do you mean there are competitions in the US and players turn up without a handicap? Surely they won't be eligible to play?

Ulrich

[Jon Wiggett]

No Ulrich and I suspect you know this.

[Thomas Dai]

I simply don't understand where Ulrich is coming from.  Perhaps a really deep misunderstanding of CONGU?  Or access to UK courses? 
Whatever, playing a round of social golf in the USA with someone who picks up on half the holes,. then spends 20 minutes entering a score before being able to have a beer bought for them is one of the strangest experiences I have ever had.  Handicaps based on anything but proper, competitive golf are a nonsense and the UK unions concession is not a step forwards.

+1
Arb

[Ulrich Mayring]

Well, I'm glad that I have a proper handicap then. Based on one comp round in 2018, two(!) in 2017, another one in 2016 and ... oops, I'm drawing a blank in 2015, but there's another comp round back in 2014. Good thing that none of the 250 other rounds I played since count - or else I'd have an improper handicap!

Coming back to the topic of the thread: let's all celebrate this year's Buda as possibly the last one with proper handicaps

Ulrich

[Lou_Duran]

4 Months and counting - I expect some trash talking between now and then.

OK, I began my participation on this thread following instructions from a leading candidate for the Captaincy of the American side.  As my attempt at levity seems to have missed, and if I had anything to do with the length and seriousness of the debate on the handicap systems, I should add my apologies to Ulrich's as English is also my second language.


For the record, my current handicap index in 5.9 which translates to a handicap of 7 on the tees I normally play on my home course (calculated by this formula [5.9 * 134]/113).  I was not kidding about the 2+ stroke differential between the two handicap systems for reasons noted on this thread, though I understand the hesitancy of those not wishing to extend the courtesy.


The handicap of an American golfer who follows the rules, plays a lot of golf, and mixes in a fair number of competitions is probably the least inaccurate measure of playing ability.  A significant concession was made from this side by excluding scores from rounds played alone.  I doubt that this improves accuracy as few social rounds are recorded by the exchanging of cards and close accounting of the strokes (even in competition rounds this can be a problem as players are often so preoccupied with their own games that they get behind on marking duties, sometimes having to fill the gaps at the scoring table).  It is my understanding that the proposed system is virtual, providing an new index each day instead of the current 15th and 1st cycles.


It is true I think that our UK brothers take competitions more seriously.  Though I play a lot of golf and care about how I score, I am a recreational golfer.  Exercise, fresh air, and camaraderie more than anything else keep me in the game.  My couple of forays each year into competitive golf don't usually end well.  At my home club, the segment which plays our monthly competitions is relatively small (a recent 2-day member-member filled less than half of the available tee times).  Perhaps part of the problem is the handicap system; maybe there are enough pressures in life here that golf is played more for R & R and not for another day of grinding.


I do think that the goals of a universal handicapping system have merit.  At the same time, I doubt that handicapping is that relevant for most golfers.  When I did play in small money games years ago, we all knew each other's playing ability, what trends we were on, and we paired accordingly.  I suspect that many weekend games are organized similarly.




 


     

[Sean_A]

Well, obviously, international competitions will profit, just think of Buda.

Then it's a lot cheaper to maintain one system compared to several.

But the main point for me is cultural. A world-wide system will bring the golfing community closer together. It's basically the same argument as for having the Queen of England as Head of the Commonwealth, instead of Canada, Australia etc. having their own Queen/King. There is a sense of "we belong together culturally".

Ulrich

Ulrich

I don't disagree with any of your points other than the cultural comment.  I don't think a global system will have much if any impact on "community togtherness".  Even if this is achieved, I am doubtful these three points are enough to basically scrap a handicap system which works better for its purposes than any other system I know.   

My comments about the US system failing relate to the percentage of "golfers" who have handicaps.  By any measurement, the US has failed to convince anything close to a majority of "golfers" that an official handicap is important or worth the effort.  Last I checked, something like 11% of US golfers maintained a proper handicap.  This number strongly cuts down the line of public and private golfers.  Bottom line, the concept of inclusiveness via the handicap system has failed. 

All that said, the one major weakness in the GB&I is the system is extremely slow to react to current form.  Of course, to react quickly to form the US system is far better, but relies on suspect scores using guesswork and often in conditions which often aren't attested properly.  The real issue is, Americans play in very few comps where the rules are applied systematically and with proper attesting...which is the application of systematically applying the rules.  I can see both sides of the coin as to which system fucntion is more important, i.e. a dynamic system VS a more verifiably accurate system.  Which brings me to the USGA premise of inclusion. i.e. trying to sign up as many golfers into the handicapping as possible.  Personally, I think this is a flawed underpinning to base a system on because the fact is the vast majority of US golfers don't need or want an official handicap.  Anybody interested in self improvement can track all the data they need very easily without ever coming in contact with the USGA in any form. 

I am far more interested in a system which had the accuracy checks of the GB&I system, but was more dynamic to reflect current form.  This could be as easy as altering the current formula.  If this isn't achievable, which I highly doubt, then I will take the accurate over the dynamic system.     

Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sean,

I think the reason why most US golfers have no handicap is not because their handicapping system sucks, but because they don't need one. They are recreational golfers and handicaps in the US are only needed in competitions.

In contrast, recreational golfers in Europe need a handicap, because the handicap is used to regulate access to courses.

In Germany you literally can't get onto 95% of courses without holding an official handicap. It's similar in France and Italy. And even some of the great courses in the UK have followed suit. Part of the reason is insurance and liability, btw.

The EGA has the same handicapping system as CONGU, insofar that only competetive rounds count. And thus, most EGA handicaps are worthless, because recreational golfers stop playing in competitions, once they have gotten their handicap down far enough to get access everywhere. These golfers would NEVER have a handicap, if they didn't need it to get access.

It has nothing to do with the accuracy or dynamics of the system itself. Only competetive golfers would worry about such things. I am pretty sure that the technical merits of a handicapping system are completely lost on recreational golfers. All they know is they need a handicap to belong. Hence my cultural point.

Ulrich

[Mark Pearce]

Under CONGU, if you don't play three qualifying rounds in a calendar year, your handicap becomes inactive.

[Thomas Dai]

Under CONGU, if you don't play three qualifying rounds in a calendar year, your handicap becomes inactive.

And a qualifying round can be in a home club competition or in an away course open competition or by completing a home club 18 or 9-hole supplementary card (stableford or medal) counter-signed as accurate by a marker. Such supplementary scores are then entered into the hcp computer system and hcp adjustments happen almost immediately.
So it’s not excessively difficult to keep your Congu hcp active if you really want to.
In addition there is the annual or interim hcp review undertaken within clubs that can adjust a players hcp up or down as deemed appropriate by the hcp committee although there are caveats for adjusting the hcps of those who are hcp 5 and below.
This all depends on a player being a member of a private members club though or a member of a pay-n-play type facility which has a members section within it.

And this is where a big difference between golfing cultures seems to raise its head.

The U.K. seems to primarily comprise private members clubs and pay-n-play facilities with a members sections attached. In other parts of the world there seem to be less private members clubs and maybe many pay-n-play facilities don’t have members sections attached to them. Hence I imagine a lower proportion of golfers have hcps in some parts of the world in comparison to the U.K.

Atb

[Ulrich Mayring]

Also, inactive handicaps work equally well for getting access. They're only a problem, if you want to play in competitions.

I seem to remember that the EGA had a similar rule a couple of years back, which resulted in tens of thousands of German handicaps becoming inactive without anyone giving a shit about it. So the idea came up to indicate inactive handicaps on the membership cards, hopefully shaming golfers into playing more competitions. They might even have printed the "inactivity blemish" on the cards for a year, but then a lot of people noted that the Golfing Association's main function was to manage handicaps and that inactive handicaps needed very little managing. So surely all those golfers should get a heavy discount off their membership dues? That was pretty much the end of inactive handicaps in Germany

Ulrich

[Jon Wiggett]

Ulrich,


then isn't the problem you are suggesting with the UK system really a problem of how the DGV chose to treat it's golfers? I do not know of any other sport where handicap or ranking is measured using none competition play undertaken with no verification.

[Mark Pearce]

Isn't the problem that handicaps have dual function.  The first, which the US and German models address, is a sort of golf MOT.  Holding a handicap is an indication that you are vaguely competent, know which end of the club to hold and are likely to be able to get your ball round the course eventually.  The second function is to provide balanced competition between golfers of different ability, particularly in competitive golf.  The proposal that a handicap system based on casual play can perform that second function as well as one based only on competitive rounds is a nonsense. 

[Ulrich Mayring]

Mark,

you're getting down to the crux of the matter. The dual function of the handicap is exactly the problem. I absolutely agree that for the second function it does not make any sense at all to include recreational rounds. I would, however, add that for exactly the same reason stroke play handicaps are a nonsense for match play. This point is easily proven by the convoluted fractional adjustments of stroke play handicaps in team games (3/8ths of the lower marker or whatever). These adjustments have no mathematical background, they are wild guesses based on real-world observations and as such not one iota better than handicaps attained in recreational play. Clearly, the same set of rules should be applied in attaining a handicap as in applying/using it.

The first function of handicaps - regulating access to courses - is not an official function in any way, so the Golfing Associations simply cop out and say they have nothing to do with that. But in reality this function is the only relevant function for recreational golfers.

If you want to do it right, you need to have seperate handicaps for each set of rules. If you're prepared to accept an inflation of handicaps, then certainly it wouldn't hurt to add one more, a "recreational handicap", which could be used for regulating access or a general sense of belonging.

But I'd wager that no golfer wants to have to manage more than one handicap. I certainly don't. So we're stuck with the original situation that the handicap has two functions and the rulesmakers only ever consider the competetive function and then wonder about unwanted or unexpected effects in the market.

cheers,

Ulrich

[Mark Pearce]

Or we replace that first function with a golf competence certification, which could be easier to manage and would not need the continual adjustment that a handicap does and only use handicaps for the second function?