New Handicap System

[Pete Lavallee]

We have a thread on the new Rules of Golf but what about the new Handicap System? I always thought the U.K, system was superior:


Only Medal Play Tournament rounds are counted, play by the rules with a witness and hole out everything.


Shoot above your handicap and you only go up by .1 strokes; sandbagging is virtually eliminated. No posting bogus scores from the comfort of your couch on the Internet.


Course rating adjusted daily for poor conditions due to bad weather: overall a good change but in essence it will only lower your cap.


The new System includes:


Daily adjustment of the course rating: a good thing.


Only 8 of 20 scores counted: don’t see how this will make any difference?


Handicaps adjusted daily: seems like a pain in the ass looking that up before each round?


I’m very interested in what our U.K. Members think of the change? They will now be forced to post all casual rounds. Unscruplious golfers now have a means to manipulate the System. I’ve seen this happen here in the US, forcing Handicap Chairman’s to confront the offender and impose a lower handicap.


I’m glad we have unified, making handicaps equal throughout the world but think we have taken a turn in the wrong direction.


What do you think?

[Daryl David]

The change that has the higher handicap folks in an uproar is the new equitable stroke control rules. In 2020 the score limit for posting will be a net double no matter what your index is. Lower handicaps will be able to post the occasional 8 (par 5 where they get a stroke) or 7 (par 4 if they get a stroke) as before being limited only to gross doubles. Steam is rising from some 14 indexers I know.

[Mark Pearce]

Pete,


I don't believe that we will have to record non-competitive rounds.  The calculation, however, will change.  I think it's stupid.  CONGU works well, IMO and clearly makes sandbagging harder.

[Pete Lavallee]

Sorry Mark but from what I’ve read ALL SCORES will be posted, except if you play alone. Please correct me if I’m wrong!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sorry Mark but from what I’ve read ALL SCORES will be posted, except if you play alone. Please correct me if I’m wrong!

Yep, that's accurate.

8 out of 10 is a change, but the 0.96 multiplier goes away, so that should be about the same.

The automatic adjustment of the course rating/slope is going to be pretty small and only when there's a large enough sample size AND a large enough difference in the expected scores. Tournament rounds, poor weather, days when the tees are moved up from where they should be… that sort of stuff.

I think the change is good. I think the concerns over sandbagging are over-stated - I think there are  fewer sandbaggers out there than people seem to think. And correct me if I'm wrong, but a player who improves somewhat quickly also can take advantage of how slowly the CONGU system lowers their scores, too, right?

Plus handicaps will be updated daily. I don't think that one was mentioned.

P.S. I've been on the course rating team for my golf association in my area for 14 years, and captain for four. So I like and understand the course rating system pretty well, too.

[Jim Hoak]

These handicap changes are still being considered.  Unlike the new rules that are effective 1/1/19, the handicap rules are projected to be effective 1/1/20.  There is still time for comments, I believe.
I like the proposed handicap procedure.  I understand that the data analysis showed a slight bias in favor of the higher handicappers in the current system; it is correct that the new system will very slightly tilt back toward the lower handicappers.  Based on the data, the new rules will be fairer to all.  As a mid-handicap, I think the recommended changes are good.

[Ulrich Mayring]

It's undoubtedly good to have a global handicap system, so that our American friends will have better chances at future Buda cups!

However, I am not particularly in favor of taking course conditions into account. We had that for a couple of years in Germany and it didn't work at all. You had finished your round and didn't know your result with respect to your handicap. Only when all players had come in and the entire field was calculated, it was computed what the course conditions actually were! In other words: the performance of the field was taken into account, not the actual course conditions (which are, of course, hard to objectify).

In other words: if you fought bravely through the rain and went home to dry up after the round, you would not know what your handicap was on the next day. If everyone else also fought valiantly, you might even lose another stroke or you might gain three, if everyone else sucked. You had to basically spend the entire day at the golf club and wait for your result - that was highly unpopular with German golfers and, I suspect, would be so anywhere else.

As for the discussion about sandbagging: there is another issue at the other end of the spectrum and that is vanity handicaps. By definition, if you do something against one issue, conditions for the other issue will automatically deteriorate. You could argue that vanity handicaps are not as bad as sandbagging, but if you think a bit outside of the box, you might just come to the conclusion that the reverse is the case. Whichever way your thinking goes, I believe that a handicap system should not go out of its way to protect the field from cheating players and in the process make proceedings more difficult or less useful for honest players.

Let's concentrate on making the system workable for the vast majority and not worry so much about possible cheaters.

Ulrich

[Pete Lavallee]

I belong to 3 Men’s Clubs here in SD and two use tournament handicaps to curb the sandbagging. The other uses Low Index which punishes the working man by holding him to his summer handicap all winter long.


I would really like to see the computer spit out 2 handicaps, one for casual rounds and the other just factoring in Tournament rounds. Why hasn’t this been considered?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

However, I am not particularly in favor of taking course conditions into account. We had that for a couple of years in Germany and it didn't work at all. You had finished your round and didn't know your result with respect to your handicap.

You're likely worrying about a few tenths of a point on the differential.

In other words: if you fought bravely through the rain and went home to dry up after the round, you would not know what your handicap was on the next day.

The handicaps update daily.

If everyone else also fought valiantly, you might even lose another stroke or you might gain three, if everyone else sucked.

That's really not going to happen. For a handicap to move even ONE stroke based on ONE round? Virtually unheard of. That one round would have to replace another round (of the best 8 of the last 20) that was eight shots or so higher. Three shots would be ridiculous. No way.

By definition, if you do something against one issue, conditions for the other issue will automatically deteriorate.

I disagree that's by definition. Vanity handicappers and sandbaggers are operating outside of the system, so changes to the system don't necessarily guarantee that either of them are going to do anything. And, since nobody really cares about vanity handicappers (most people wish their opponents are vanity handicappers), the only real concern is the sandbaggers. So you could enact controls for sandbaggers, but have no effect on vanity handicappers.

Both are liars, in a sense, operating outside of the system. Peer review and tournament score probability tables can help with sandbaggers… but again does anyone actually care about vanity handicappers?

Let's concentrate on making the system workable for the vast majority and not worry so much about possible cheaters.

To me, the new system doesn't do anything to change that for the liars on either end of the spectrum, BUT I'm already basically in the system, and you're coming from the German system. So what do you think is going to be the problem or benefit of the new system over your current system? I'm curious.

[Andrew Bertram]

Pete


The new system is essentially what we have been using in Australia since 2013, there are 2 changes of substance to the current handicap system.
The changes are:


1. [/size]There will be a Hard Cap of 5 strokes as per GA’s current regulation.  There will also be a Soft Cap currently set at 3 strokes which will be a new regulation for Australia.[/color][/color]2. The Daily Handicap calculation will be changed to incorporate the difference between the Scratch Rating and the Par.
[/color][/color]The rest of the system is what we currently use. We put through 800 to 900 handicap scores a week, Members have competitions to play in 6 days a week [/font][/color][/font][/size][/color][/font][/color][/font][/size][/color]I hope I can provide some insight on some of the comments from the perspective of being involved everyday and having had 6 years to see the pitfalls and positives.[/font][/color][/font][/size][/color][/font][/color][/font][/size][/color][/font][/color][/font][/size][/color]How it works for Club Members - when they come to the club they simply print a card out for the day, this has their daily handicap on it, at the end of play they scan their card[/font][/color][/font][/size][/color][/font][/color][/font][/size][/color]after doing results we upload all the scores, the daily rating is calculated and then posted within minutes. The DSR in brief  is (Golf link is the body who runs handicapping in Australia under the guise of Golf Australia):[/font][/color][/font][/size][/color][/font][/color][/font][/size][/color]Once it has established each of these factors, GOLF Link will compare the average net score it has calculated from the scores on the day, with the average net score it EXPECTS for this precise field composition. The EXPECTED average is determined by GOLF Link from millions of prior rounds. For greater accuracy, the averages above are weighted averages. GOLF Link will then determine the DSR by using the difference between what happened on the day and what was EXPECTED to happen. [/color]
The system can be manipulated, however it is actually pretty easy to pick out the sandbaggers within your membership.
You can get outward movement of handicap reasonably quickly if you have 2 or 3 good scores dropping off,  round 20, if you go out and play badly it may go out, if you only have 1 good score in your last few the movement is minor

Members who watch their handicaps closely know what is dropping off, what events are coming up etc
However it is no easier or harder to sand bag than any other system

We do have members who "casually" watch scores and will "advise us" of their concerns about other members handicaps
All scores from any given day get published on the club leaderboard on our website where you can see another members scorecard with all 18 scores.

One of the bigger issues I see is that it is far too easy to become a low marker, we have far more golfers below 2 handicap than ever before and most of them cannot bust an egg

Out of 20 rounds if you shoot a few good scores close to par on an easy day you will very quickly get your handicap low, a lot of these young players get inflated opinions pretty quickly when their index is around 0 and think they are good players.



While it did take some work to move to this system it is really simple to operate from my end, my staff were up to speed very quickly, the education process for Members was quite effective and we have very few issues.
 
Every now and then I will get a call from a member questioning how this or that works but over all the system is user friendly.


The updated system will probably commence in Australia mid 2019 from last reports, the software update here is minor and Golf Australia will roll out when ready.


Happy to answer questions if you have any

[Mark Chaplin]

I guess for us players at the 20 or so two ball clubs in the UK it won’t make any difference.

[Sean_A]

It's undoubtedly good to have a global handicap system, so that our American friends will have better chances at future Buda cups!

However, I am not particularly in favor of taking course conditions into account. We had that for a couple of years in Germany and it didn't work at all. You had finished your round and didn't know your result with respect to your handicap. Only when all players had come in and the entire field was calculated, it was computed what the course conditions actually were! In other words: the performance of the field was taken into account, not the actual course conditions (which are, of course, hard to objectify).

In other words: if you fought bravely through the rain and went home to dry up after the round, you would not know what your handicap was on the next day. If everyone else also fought valiantly, you might even lose another stroke or you might gain three, if everyone else sucked. You had to basically spend the entire day at the golf club and wait for your result - that was highly unpopular with German golfers and, I suspect, would be so anywhere else.

As for the discussion about sandbagging: there is another issue at the other end of the spectrum and that is vanity handicaps. By definition, if you do something against one issue, conditions for the other issue will automatically deteriorate. You could argue that vanity handicaps are not as bad as sandbagging, but if you think a bit outside of the box, you might just come to the conclusion that the reverse is the case. Whichever way your thinking goes, I believe that a handicap system should not go out of its way to protect the field from cheating players and in the process make proceedings more difficult or less useful for honest players.

Let's concentrate on making the system workable for the vast majority and not worry so much about possible cheaters.

Ulrich

Ulrich

I admit to being a bit confused by your post.  Of course you don't know how you did until all scores are in.  Secondly, when the results are published is down to the club. My club reports results the same day as the comp except in rare circumstances.  In any case, its hard to believe that many people anxiously await how their handicap will be altered. 

I do think just as in the US, there will be tons of people that don't report casual scores...I know I won't do it because the idea of guessing a score after picking up is wrong and completely counter-intuitive to attesting scores.  How can one attest a score he doesn't know happened?  The attester is basically being asked to accept that the score is accurate even though it is non-existent. Very strange inconsistency that is.


The question I have is how will the system initially start?  Will it


1. Start with the carry-over handicap then wait for 8 new scores?


2. Start with a new handicap based on 8 of the last 20 scores?


3. Be something else


Ciao

[Jim Sherma]

Sandbagging matters when members stop playing in club events because they are sick of the same guys regularly having the 3 and 4 standard deviation rounds tournament after tournament. If no one has the courage to confront them and they themselves have no shame then the club events themselves get compromised.


I always wished the US would move toward the CONGU method and am saddened that it went the other way.


The best game I've ever seen was at a public course and run by the pro who kept association handicaps beaded only on tournament rounds. What was in the computer didn't matter. Everyone always played including guys from nearby private clubs driven by the fact that everyone trusted the handicaps being used.

[Jim Hoak]

Eric, I care about vanity handicappers.  When we throw up balls for partners, and I get one of the vanity guys, I feel like heading back into the locker room!
But, as you said, I don't think the new system is going to do anything to eliminate sandbaggers or vanity guys.  That's up to a good handicap chairman--something too few clubs have.
People can--and will--nitpick the new system, but it is based on a lot of study, and I believe it is very worthwhile.

[Pete_Pittock]

I'd like to have EquitableStrokeControl applied to penalty strokes. Penalties from penalty areas (previously water hazards and out-of-bounds), lost balls  and unplayable lies count towards handicap. All other penalty strokes are eliminated for handicap purposes. They should have zero impact on a handicap.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I'd like to have EquitableStrokeControl applied to penalty strokes. Penalties from penalty areas and unplayable lies count towards handicap. All other penalty strokes are eliminated for handicap purposes. They should have zero impact on a handicap.

Why?


Even OB or lost balls?

[Pete_Pittock]

I'd like to have EquitableStrokeControl applied to penalty strokes. Penalties from penalty areas and unplayable lies count towards handicap. All other penalty strokes are eliminated for handicap purposes. They should have zero impact on a handicap.

Why?


Even OB or lost balls?

Thanks, I assumed OB was a penalty area and spaced on lost ball.  Will fix prior post.

[Jay Mickle]

I would expect that match play round scores would not be included as one is not trying to attain the lowest score only to beat one’s opponent. True or false?

[Pete Lavallee]

Jay,


I don’t see why this would change under the new system With the current system you count all match play scores, recording what you most likely would have made if out of the hole. I’m sure we’ve all encountered the golfer who never made a putt he didn’t need; one of the best ways to manipulate the system. You would record par on non-stroke holes and bogies on any remaining stoke holes once the match is over.

[Niall C]

I've always thought that winning a handicap comp is nice but it is not as good a feeling as lowering your handicap in the process. I couldn't care less about sandbaggers as they are only kidding themselves and opening themselves up to ridicule and disdain. As for vanity handicaps, I suspect that a lot of the time most folk play like they have a vanity handicap, I know I do.

However the idea that you have to post a score every time you go out is a nonsense. It will do away with the casual match, and as we all know matchplay is the essence of the game 

Niall

[Ian Galbraith]

My understanding is that only pre-registered scores will be returned in the UK. Essentially the same as now with competition scores and supplementary cards. There will be differences in how the WHS is implemented in different regions, at least initially.

[Jim Hoak]

Jay,


I don’t see why this would change under the new system With the current system you count all match play scores, recording what you most likely would have made if out of the hole. I’m sure we’ve all encountered the golfer who never made a putt he didn’t need; one of the best ways to manipulate the system. You would record par on non-stroke holes and bogies on any remaining stoke holes once the match is over.

To follow up on what Pete wrote here, the rule--at least in the US--now and under the new system is you must record a score in all but 3 situations:  1) You played a course without a course rating and slope rating; 2) You played fewer than 13 holes (although you can record a 9-hole score if you play at least 7 holes)(net par is taken on the unplayed holes if 7 or 13 holes are completed); or 3) you played an off-beat format like a scramble, one-club round, alternate shot (excuse me, UK posters, for calling foursomes offbeat), etc.
As Pete says you estimate the most likely score you would have achieved in match play or other times when you pick up before completing a hole.  On the green, if you pick up a putt (which you should do for speed of play if your score doesn't matter in the match), you take 1 or 2 putts (never 3) based on whether you feel you would make more or less than half of the putts from that distance.
To many people all this may sound silly, too legalistic, too formal or whatever.  But I think that a good handicap system is key to the joy and beauty of our game.  In what other sport (bowling maybe?), can people of varying ability compete in an enjoyable way?  But if the handicaps are not proper, the joy is lost.  I applaud the USGA and the R&A for trying to improve the system on a worldwide basis!

[Ulrich Mayring]

Sean,
I am merely reporting what went on in Germany, not judging it. But this much should be understandable by all: not everyone wants to spend the entire Sunday at the club.

If you have a 10 AM tee time and the last guys of the competition go out at 2 PM it means a 4-5 hour wait until you are told what your new handicap is. That was a major gripe among German golfers and the reason why the CSA/CBA was abolished after two or three years.

For 90% or more of German golfers the number one reason to play in a tournament is to improve your handicap. So you play a great round, are perhaps two strokes better than your handicap and those two strokes are then "stolen" from you, because everybody else also played great. Of course, sometimes you get gifted a few strokes and improve or hold your handicap, even though you haven't played to it. That also doesn't feel right. The psychological effect of getting your result altered after you have holed out on #18 turned out to be disastrous for too many.

Ulrich

PS: as for the World Handicap System, every local golf association will have a bit of wiggle room how to implement it. For example, whether casual rounds count is probably going to be a local implementation issue. Only the formulae are truly global, but not when and how they are used.

PS2: Match play will be undisturbed by the World Handicap System, as match play results are never eligible for handicap purposes (although, funny enough, match play appears to be the reason why handicaps were invented in the first place).

[Jim Hoak]

Ulrich, I think you are mistaken in your PS2.  In the US at least, match play scores must always be recorded except for the 3 instances I noted in my earlier post.  I was under the impression this rule would go worldwide in 2020, but maybe I'm wrong.

[Sean_A]

Sean,
I am merely reporting what went on in Germany, not judging it. But this much should be understandable by all: not everyone wants to spend the entire Sunday at the club.

If you have a 10 AM tee time and the last guys of the competition go out at 2 PM it means a 4-5 hour wait until you are told what your new handicap is. That was a major gripe among German golfers and the reason why the CSA/CBA was abolished after two or three years.

For 90% or more of German golfers the number one reason to play in a tournament is to improve your handicap. So you play a great round, are perhaps two strokes better than your handicap and those two strokes are then "stolen" from you, because everybody else also played great. Of course, sometimes you get gifted a few strokes and improve or hold your handicap, even though you haven't played to it. That also doesn't feel right. The psychological effect of getting your result altered after you have holed out on #18 turned out to be disastrous for too many.

Ulrich

PS: as for the World Handicap System, every local golf association will have a bit of wiggle room how to implement it. For example, whether casual rounds count is probably going to be a local implementation issue. Only the formulae are truly global, but not when and how they are used.

PS2: Match play will be undisturbed by the World Handicap System, as match play results are never eligible for handicap purposes (although, funny enough, match play appears to be the reason why handicaps were invented in the first place).

Ulrich


Jeepers..talk about anal retentive!  Nobody I have ever known hangs around waiting for results...an email is sent later in the day.  Wanting to know how well one scores relative to handicap on an immediate basis is a thin excuse for eliminating conditions/comp scoring as elements of handicapping.  That said, I have no idea how the effects of weather will be calculated when there isn't a comp on.  Just another reason why I think it is a mistake to use all scores for handicapping.  I think the big issue with this point is in the US there are loads of golfers who rarely play real comps where holing out and attesting scores is necessary.  All this friendly scoring stuff is a huge concession for the US market.  Not to drag out the issue, but this is one more reason Stableford should be more widely used in the US.


Ciao

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: