[Rick Lane]

You estimate a score in a situation like this:  four ball match play.   Your partner is on the green in 2 and you are on the green in 3.  He holes a 3.   You take one swipe at your ball to see if you make 4.   You either do, or you write down 5. Very common occurrence.


Also, if you play 13 holes here in the US, you must score the remaining 5 holes according to your potential, which means bogey on the holes you would get a stroke, otherwise par.   Those are two instance of estimating a score in the US system, when you are supposed to post every time you play, unless you are alone.  (Which I don’t get, if you are a cheater, you are a cheater anyway)

[MClutterbuck]

In my country, match play scores will not be allowed. End of problem.


Is there any place where most play is match play and this is needed?

[Michael Felton]

Jon--Not all of us are lucky or skilled enough to compete at golf without  a handicap.  I'm sorry you regard it as madness, but handicaps are what make golf a great game for 99% of us.  It is what separates us from other games that can't be played with people of varying abilities.

Jim--You are right that that is a risk.  But slower play is not a given.  Honest estimating is needed.  I believe it can work without slowing down play.

Jim,


I am very much in favour of a handicap system. The handicap is one of the things that makes the game of golf so great. That two people regardless of age or ability can have a competitive game is almost unique in sport. For most golfers in the UK golf is a social event where they knock a ball round a course with a group of friends. Playing serious handicap rounds is not the majority experience and talking with most golfers I meet I suspect the new system will not go down well.


We have taken what was a simple system that people could grasp and turned it into an over complicated mess removing peoples choice to decide whether to play a fun round or not. The fact that players are allowed to estimate what they think they might have scored shows how invalid this system is in reality. I am sorry but the US system was poor and now the ship of fools at the R&A is also going down this deluded route. It is as if they want to kill the game in the UK.


On the other hand maybe it is enlightened and I should apply to work for the R&A. I am sure that they won't expect me to really do an entire days work but instead will be happy for me to finish at lunch and estimate what I feel I would have worked in the afternoon 


The CONGU was perfectly good as a system.

Having lived under both systems, each has their pros and cons. CONGU is I guess easy enough to follow once you understand the different categories and buffer zones and what not. Just don't try to understand how the CSS adjustments happen. That it only counts competition rounds is a plus IMO. It is definitely too easy to manipulate a handicap in the US system if you want to. The T scores aspect is a vague attempt at avoiding it, but it's far from perfect.


One thing the US system does much better than CONGU is handicaps moving from course to course. In England, 18 handicappers at different courses may have very different ability levels. Slope does a great job of adjusting that so those two players can play against each other fairly. For example, if you're an 18 at a course that's 7000 yards long, wide open, no trouble and has flat greens, you're going to seriously struggle against an 18 handicapper from a 6500 yard tight course with trouble everywhere and wild greens.


I suspect slope is also a chunk of the reason why US handicaps are viewed as softer than UK ones. A 12 index in the US might get 14 strokes at a typical course. Very few courses have slopes under 113 in my experience. A 14 handicap in the UK gets 14 shots on that same course. There is part of your softness. Undoubtedly there is also a portion of that from competitive rounds only vs all rounds. In a competitive round you can't rake away that 3 footer and say oh I would have holed that.


I was under the impression that the UK was going to keep the competitive rounds only requirement? I'm sure that's an option. I am not sure why they wouldn't take that option.


Lastly, speaking personally, I like that my handicap in the US will be much more aligned with my friends back in the UK. And I'll be able to play in tournaments when I go back over again. My UK handicap has been inactive for 12 years. Now I'll just have one handicap and it will be usable in England when I go.

[Jon Wiggett]

Jim,


We have taken what was a simple system that people could grasp and turned it into an over complicated mess removing peoples choice to decide whether to play a fun round or not. The fact that players are allowed to estimate what they think they might have scored shows how invalid this system is in reality. I am sorry but the US system was poor and now the ship of fools at the R&A is also going down this deluded route. It is as if they want to kill the game in the UK.

Jon,


I believe you can still decide to play a friendly round. You just dont get a for handicap card issued at the start and therefore you dont need to post.


Please explain under what circumstance you think you would estimate or invent a score.

4bbb when players are encouraged to pick up and effectively estimate what they would/might shoot as soon as they are no longer in the hole. As to matchplay, there are many clubs and members who play a lot of this format here in the UK. Finally, one poster who proclaims to understand the system states all rounds need to be recorded except when less than 12 holes (7 for 9 hole courses) are played and yet you seem to be saying the player can opt out whenever the fancy takes them regardless (which I would say makes the system immeasurably better). My understanding is the former is correct but lets hope not.


Jon

[MClutterbuck]

Jon,


I have read the full rules as the Argentine Golf Association (AAG) has decided to implement them. The AAG was one of 6 entities to work on the new system, so they are very involved.


They are leaving out all fourball scores and all match scores. Only Medal Play and Stableford competition scores are included.


With regards to rounds played outside competition, they are valid ONLY y prior to playing, the player requests a CARD for HANDICAP purposes.


I believe these set of rules would work well in the UK.


M

[Sean_A]

M

If England does not include friendly games for handicapping then I have no serious issues with the new system. Although, I hope the cost to implement this system was cheap.

I don't think most Brits care if they are part of world system, which so far as I can tell at my level, is about if hackers from different parts of the globe can get together for a game based on reasonably similar handicap systems. The biggest difference right now is which scores are reported. If that isn't the same world wide I don't see how there has been enough improvement to warrant a massive overhaul.

The one thing I really like about the new system is proper attesting. While the US will surely remain a troublesome area in this regard, at least cards are meant to be attested. I don't know if this means cards are checked and countersigned in the US, but I hope this aspect of handicapping works its way into the US culture. I know some Americans are offended by the notion, but to many of the traditional golfing countries around the world attesting is an integral part of the submitting any card for inspection. For the system to have the best chance for being accurate as possible, it is vital that US culture on this matter shifts more toward transparency and accountability.

Happy Hockey

[Tim Martin]

M

If England does not include friendly games for handicapping then I have no serious issues with the new system. Although, I hope the cost to implement this system was cheap.

I don't think most Brits care if they are part of world system, which so far as I can tell at my level, is about if hackers from different parts of the globe can get together for a game based on reasonably similar handicap systems. The biggest difference right now is which scores are reported. If that isn't the same world wide I don't see how there has been enough improvement to warrant a massive overhaul.

The one thing I really like about the new system is proper attesting. While the US will surely remain a troublesome area in this regard, at least cards are meant to be attested. I don't know if this means cards are checked and countersigned in the US, but I hope this aspect of handicapping works its way into the US culture. I know some Americans are offended by the notion, but to many of the traditional golfing countries around the world attesting is an integral part of the submitting any card for inspection. For the system to have the best chance for being accurate as possible, it is vital that US culture on this matter shifts more toward transparency and accountability.

Happy Hockey

Sean-I don’t think most Americans care if they are part of a world system either.

[Sean_A]

M

If England does not include friendly games for handicapping then I have no serious issues with the new system. Although, I hope the cost to implement this system was cheap.

I don't think most Brits care if they are part of world system, which so far as I can tell at my level, is about if hackers from different parts of the globe can get together for a game based on reasonably similar handicap systems. The biggest difference right now is which scores are reported. If that isn't the same world wide I don't see how there has been enough improvement to warrant a massive overhaul.

The one thing I really like about the new system is proper attesting. While the US will surely remain a troublesome area in this regard, at least cards are meant to be attested. I don't know if this means cards are checked and countersigned in the US, but I hope this aspect of handicapping works its way into the US culture. I know some Americans are offended by the notion, but to many of the traditional golfing countries around the world attesting is an integral part of the submitting any card for inspection. For the system to have the best chance for being accurate as possible, it is vital that US culture on this matter shifts more toward transparency and accountability.

Happy Hockey

Sean-I don’t think most Americans care if they are part of a world system either.

Tim

I know you are right because the majority of American golfers don't have official handicaps! Hence my comments that this new system is basically catering to American private club members.  That shows the power of US golf.

Happy Hockey

[Tim Martin]

Sean-I can also appreciate your concern as to how scores are reported. The advent of online posting in my opinion made it easier to maintain a handicap but had the unintended consequence of making it far easier to game the system. Finally I am always a bit skeptical when I see a handicap card loaded with “combined” scores from nine hole rounds. The idea that you could play nine holes and then another nine three weeks later to come up with a total score has plenty of inherent flaws and I’ll leave it at that.

[MClutterbuck]

Sean,


I agree with what you say. I still think it is a step in the right direction.


Tim,


If the 9 holes are reported as soon as you finish, and then are stand-by on the system until you report another 9, I think it is a good system. This is how it is being implemented by the AAG. Attesting required both times.

[Brian Walshe]

The fundamental element of the system, rating the course difficulty for a mythical 19 marker is totally flawed.  When the system was thought up in the 1980's the distance various handicaps could hit the ball was a valid assumption.  These days there are 15 markers who smash it (often all over the planet) so for example, the distance bunkers are from the tee and therefore their value as a hazard is not related to handicap but by clubhead speed.  In an era of big data where (in Australia at least) we have recorded the hole by hole scores for every player for close to 10 years you'd get a much more accurate course rating by data analysis than having a group of guys wander around the course with a rangefinder.

[A.G._Crockett]

So I spent several years at the MGA president at a golf-only club with a LOT of really good players.  The club ran a $20 points/skins game 6 days a week and input the scores into GHIN, and also had a lot of club tournaments with net competitions.  I've also spent a lot of time and money playing local senior tournaments with both gross and net winners.  And you know what?

1.  The handicap system works beautifully IF it is properly implemented and monitored.  ALL of the problems that are attributed to the system are actually human frailty and nothing more.

2.  The single most reliable aspect of the handicap system is that better players don't like losing to lesser players, and are very often going to allege sandbagging as the reason.  In most cases, the correct response to these complaints by low indexes is, "Then don't play in net competitions!"

3. #2 above is true in part because the purpose of the system is to allow for competition between better and lesser players, which makes golf unique, but is really exacerbated by the fact that "vanity" handicaps are far more prevalent than actual sandbagging.  I believe the USGA estimates that the ratio is at least 3:1; I'd put it far, far higher than that.  The percentage of golfers who give themselves mulligans, preferred lies, gimmes, and don't take full stroke and distance penalties and then submit the score is huge; when those golfers are then forced to play by the Rules, they can't do it, and if they play against a player with an accurate handicap, they lose and then bitch endlessly about sandbagging. 


4.  The bigger the field, the more likely it becomes that a high index will do well; this is simple math.  The entire system works best for match play, and it works pretty well for flighted stroke play.  But higher indexes have a greater range of scores than low indexes, and as the size of the field increases, so does the likelihood that a higher index will catch lightning in a bottle and win.  That's just golf, and again, the answer to the low index that complains is, "Then don't play in net competitions!"

5.  If a club correctly monitors the system, true sandbagging becomes really rare.  It happens, but it's rare.  If the club does NOT monitor and deal with problems, then that's another human problem, rather than a system problem.

6.  None of this has anything to do with whether or not the new system will be better than the old.  I think it WILL be better, both because of the net double rule and the weather adjustment IF those are done properly.  Which brings us back to the human element, rather than the system.

[Sean_A]

AG

You speak of human issue as if it is a small matter when in truth the entire system relies very heavily on the human element. In terms of the human element there is nothing more important than ensuring submitted scores are accurate. Attesting scores goes a long way toward eliminating any kind of issues.

Happy Hockey

[Tim Martin]

If someone has their handicap at a public course and are not involved with the “Mens Club” which runs tournaments and will require cards to be attested and posted by the committee then it’s pretty tough to regulate that segment. Those same players can play in state, local and Member Guest type tournaments with a handicap derived solely from online posting without any real verification. Just saying.

[Sean_A]

Tim

I spose this is a big difference between posting friendly and comp scores. In comps its much easier for someone in authority to check cards for accuracy and signatures once handed in. At my club the pro does it. It is difficult to take cards at face value without a multiple check system in place which starts with your playing partner. But to me, this system should be a cornerstone of any official handicapping system.

Happy Hockey

[Jon Wiggett]

1.  The handicap system works beautifully IF it is properly implemented and monitored.  ALL of the problems that are attributed to the system are actually human frailty and nothing more.

Yet golf is a game that is all about 'human frailty' and how golfers deal with them. The handicap system is there to allow players to compete against each other. In the first instance, it is or should be up to the golfers to monitor each other not the club or handicap system. It is the golfer and the game that are the main reason that golf clubs survive and thrive not a handicap system however wonderful it my purport to be.


MClutterbuck,


I hope the UK is adopting the system as you describe it.


Jon

[A.G._Crockett]

AG

You speak of human issue as if it is a small matter when in truth the entire system relies very heavily on the human element. In terms of the human element there is nothing more important than ensuring submitted scores are accurate. Attesting scores goes a long way toward eliminating any kind of issues.

Happy Hockey

Sean,

I did no such thing, the human element isn't a "small matter", and in NO way do I underestimate human frailty.  But human frailty, especially when you are dealing with the male ego, plays out MUCH more often in the form of vanity handicaps than true sandbagging.  This primarily hurts the individual with the artificially low handicap, who then complains when he loses to what he believes to be a lesser player in a net competition. 

And I think if you read my post, you'll see that I said that some form of peer review is absolutely critical to deal with sandbagging. 

[Erik J. Barzeski]

This adjustment can only raise the rating by 3 points or down by 1 point maximum.

Not quite true. It can apply a -1.0, +1.0, +2.0, or +3.0 to differentials for the day, and all who played will get the same adjustment. The rating doesn't change; the differentials do.

https://www.whs.com/articles/2019/playing-conditions-calculation.html

And so the madness goes on. Why don't they just ask players what handicap they think they should have? Just glad as a professional my play is not affected by this terrible system.

It's going to require a fairly sizable change in scores for those things to kick in and for things to be adjusted.

Now we go to best eight rounds .....really   

Which will result in virtually no change across the board. Some will go up, some will go down. On average, though, no change.

Your gripes about "potential" are important because we don't really care who finishes in the middle of an event - we care who finishes at the top. So the 80s guy in your example who CAN shoot 69 or 71 more often than your 72-75 guy is the "better" golfer if we care about how often he's likely to win an event.

The fact that players are allowed to estimate what they think they might have scored shows how invalid this system is in reality.

People are hung up on this, but you do realize that it's not nearly that difficult. If you have a 25-footer for birdie, write down a par. If you have a four-footer for double, write down a double. If you're beyond net double, write down net double - that's all you can take anyway.

I'm probably an outlier in this, but I'm a great admirer of the handicap system in general, and think that these changes will be good one.  The "flaws" in the handicap system are always about either the character flaws of individuals, or the flaws in the application of the system by clubs.  And really, if the club can do a good job of policing the system, the problems tend to largely go away.

We can be outliers together. I think, given the task, that the handicap system does a great job.

Lots of misconceptions contained in these posts.  Roll out coming soon so let's see the materials.  Incidentally, GB& I will be delayed as Course Rating has not been completed, a necessary step.  Likely done by fall.

Right. The actual ratings aren't all done yet - that's the primary reason, as I understand it, why the system isn't being implemented on January 1.

I agree with MClutterbuck too, in post #46.

SSS was not perfect. But far superior, IMO.

Curious why you feel one number is "far superior" to two numbers?

In fact my only main criticism of CONGU current system was how bad scores and conditions would have to get to bring a +1 to +3 CSS adjustment to SSS.

It's going to have to be pretty bad for differentials to be adjusted upward, too.

AG, good post as well (#61).

[Ryan Coles]

Erik


That part of my post references SSS standard Scratch Scheme, not Score.


I just prefer the CONGU UHS over WHS.


I like the concept of and distinction made between social golf and qualifying competitions. I don’t believe the former should have any part in handicapping. It creates layers of complexity, costs, unintended consequences.


I also touched upon the new rating of courses here. SSS was consistent albeit limited to length being the biggest factor.


The method of rating has and is being rushed here and is the hands of those who have the time, rather than the expertise.

[Jim Hoak]

Ryan, in response to your comment that you like counting scores in qualifying competitions rather than social golf as well, this is probably being redundant but--The problem is that US golfers do not play regular competitions as are done in other countries.  Most US golfers play no competitions in a year and I would guess the average would be 1-2 at the most.  So, if we are going to have worldwide handicaps, we have to count social scores.  If you don't care about worldwide handicaps, then there is no need for a change.  US golfers are not going to go to the tradition of regular competitions where stroke play scores are kept.  It's not part of our golf traditions.
This is no comment on which system is better--it's just a matter of reality.

[Sean_A]

Ryan, in response to your comment that you like counting scores in qualifying competitions rather than social golf as well, this is probably being redundant but--The problem is that US golfers do not play regular competitions as are done in other countries.  Most US golfers play no competitions in a year and I would guess the average would be 1-2 at the most.  So, if we are going to have worldwide handicaps, we have to count social scores.  If you don't care about worldwide handicaps, then there is no need for a change.  US golfers are not going to go to the tradition of regular competitions where stroke play scores are kept.  It's not part of our golf traditions.
This is no comment on which system is better--it's just a matter of reality.

The mention of tradition is apt and a multiple way street.

Happy Hockey

[Jim Hoak]

Sean--Absolutely.
And, so, it may be necessary in the final analysis to not have worldwide handicaps.  But, then let's not pretend that the handicaps as they are currently derived are usable for international competitions, and rather seek other ways to compete across borders.

[Wayne_Kozun]

I don’t understand a lot of the comments in this thread.


The new system is NOT more complicated for those of us in North America. It is simpler as we are removing the .96 multiplier. So making a general statement like “the new system is more complicated” is misleading.


Handicaps are not always negotiated before big money matches. I have played in many member-guest tournaments with Calcutta pools greater than $10,000 and the tournament committee uses handicaps off of the system unaltered.

[Sean_A]

Sean--Absolutely.
And, so, it may be necessary in the final analysis to not have worldwide handicaps.  But, then let's not pretend that the handicaps as they are currently derived are usable for international competitions, and rather seek other ways to compete across borders.

Strangely, as I stated before, this new system is really about very good AMS qualifying for the less than elite events. Assuming all countries follow the same procedures and use the same type of scores it makes sense at that level. At my level I am hard pressed to believe anybody really cares about cross country handicapping. At the end of the day it doesn't matter enough to drastically alter systems with which people are satisfied. If Americans don't want to play comps to determine handicaps that's fine, but that approach should not mean everybody else needs to alter their systems to effectively accommodate US private club members. It's a lot of faffing about.

Happy Hockey

[Niall C]

And I think if you read my post, you'll see that I said that some form of peer review is absolutely critical to deal with sandbagging.

AG


The ultimate peer review is standing up in a competition with someone else marking your score and that score being checked, verified and signed for. By allowing or mandating casual social play, with estimated scores and self-certified at that, to form part of the calculation of handicap greatly dilutes peer review in the whole process and makes sand-bagging as you call it much easier. That I think is irrefutable. So if the sole or main purpose of the change is to reduce incidences of false handicapping, in a UK context it is a spectacular own goal.


However that isn't the main objection from this side of the pond, as posts from many UK GCa'ers testify to, the main objection is what this going to do to golf culture over here. No one wants to see longer and longer rounds as golfers grind over every shot. Lets just leave that for the competitions please.


Niall

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()