The new world-wide handicap system begins January 1, 2020

[Ryan Coles]

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.

Being thousands of miles away I couldn’t care less about US golfers or their lax, vanity handicaps and I suspect in return no one there cares about CONGU UHS.


That’s the point. We don’t need a worldwide system.

[Niall C]

One other consequence for the UK that I think only Ryan has touched on is the idea of course rating and slopes and all that business. By introducing this new (for the UK) metric are we not just igniting another arms race in terms of toughening up and lengthening of courses ? I mean one good thing about the advance of golf equipment was that it made the notion of a standard par 72 for a course less relevant such that it was no longer the dream of green committee chairman.


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

From the feedback I’ve had from folks who’ve been on the introductory discussions, workshops etc the likelihood is that in the U.K. the hcps of higher hcp players may well go up. Perhaps this may encourage someone who still wants to hold a lower hcp to move up a set of tees which with the introduction of multi-tee singles comps should be possible. Maybe not though! Fingers crossed.
Atb

[Michael Felton]

There are two things that the new system will do better than the current system in the UK. One is it will be much faster to catch up to a change in ability. Junior events in particular are something of a farce where you have to shoot net 60 to have a snifter of a chance. Similarly on the other end when older golfers get worse, it can take forever for their handicap to catch up to them. Under the new system by the time you’ve played 20 rounds your handicap will be entirely new.


The other is slope, which substantially improves inter club play and makes handicaps travel much more effectively. It’s not perfect but it’s definitely better.


CONGU have the option to keep it competition only. It seems like everyone is in a tizz about something that doesn’t matter anyway.

[Sean_A]

Michael

For sure the new system is far more dynamic in reflecting current 'ability'. Of course, a reasonable number of scores need to be posted to really make a difference. I wouldn't want to see social scores used to seriously effect handicap indexes because I don't trust the accuracy of those scores.

Happy Hockey

[Mark Pearce]

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.

Being thousands of miles away I couldn’t care less about US golfers or their lax, vanity handicaps and I suspect in return no one there cares about CONGU UHS.


That’s the point. We don’t need a worldwide system.

Spot on.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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

I know that. SSS is one number, the handicapping system in the U.S. is two (course rating and slope). I think two numbers (and the way they're used) is better than a single score for the range of handicaps.

Strangely, as I stated before, this new system is really about very good AMS qualifying for the less than elite events.

Source?

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/WHS-resources/new-world-handicap-system-designed-to-welcome-more-golfers--.html

I haven't seen anything about what you've said the system is "really about."

[Niall C]

Erik


When someone refers to "what is really about" what they mean is read between the lines and not just the PR guff which is what you provide the link to. Having a world handicap system in order to welcome more golfers is perhaps the lamest reason you could imagine. No one needs a handicap to pick up a club and play as many seem to testify to.


Niall

[archie_struthers]

 


My bitch about the system being flawed for years was that "potential" doesn't translate to day to day competition. If someone has a range from 68-85 their handicap tends to be quite low. Perhaps they can't concentrate as good as others or they are a great putter and lousy driver of the ball. The days they hit it in play they score really well. Or they drive it great and putt lousy as a rule, the opsit applies.


Why you would ignore scores that were posted continues to amaze me. Certainly consistency is a trait that should be most admired in golf!

[MClutterbuck]

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.

Brian, I believe that course ratings WILL be adjusted by actual data as time passes.

[Brock Lynch]

My bitch about the system being flawed for years was that "potential" doesn't translate to day to day competition. If someone has a range from 68-85 their handicap tends to be quite low. Perhaps they can't concentrate as good as others or they are a great putter and lousy driver of the ball. The days they hit it in play they score really well. Or they drive it great and putt lousy as a rule, the opsit applies.


Why you would ignore scores that were posted continues to amaze me. Certainly consistency is a trait that should be most admired in golf!

Archie,


I'm curious as to what you would do with the likes of Rory McIlroy. 64 - 74 - 65 - 73 this weekend. He scores in this manner constantly. If I read your opinion correctly, you think we should take his average score as his handicap. Obviously, he would subsequently win half of your clubs one-day events.  How would you deal with a player of this type at your club?

[archie_struthers]

 


I'm certainly not against scotching out any high scores during the course of the round which ameliorates this to some degree. However it is what it is. You shoot what you shoot!


Do you think Rory isn't trying on his less than superb days? He's just inconsistent and uber talented.
 Should he be punished for that ?  At the end of the year he might not have the lowest handicap in golf but rather the stroke average he really shot!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

When someone refers to "what is really about" what they mean is read between the lines and not just the PR guff which is what you provide the link to.

I understand that, but everyone I've talked with genuinely believes it's "about" just having a world handicap system that lets everyone compete and so on - it's not really at all about the "high level amateurs" at all.

My bitch about the system being flawed for years was that "potential" doesn't translate to day to day competition. If someone has a range from 68-85 their handicap tends to be quite low.

Um, as it should be, if they actually have a range of 68-85. Who are these people?

Why you would ignore scores that were posted continues to amaze me. Certainly consistency is a trait that should be most admired in golf!

The handicapping system works pretty darn well for handicapping matches, and another part of the reason to care about the "potential" (the ceiling) is that we care about players who win. Should the guy who shoots 68-85 (if these creatures exist in any real numbers) get more strokes and more easily (and often) beat the guy who shoots 69-75?

[archie_struthers]

 
   Eric, for many years my low and high scores varied dramatically. 68-82 wasn't at all unusual.


It's why golf is so intoxicating for so many! Our good shots and putts can be pretty good, and occasionally last all day. But someone who is really good can get it around under 73 or 74 even when he's struggling. At least for me when I played more there would be a lot of low 70's offsetting the 76-82's hence my handicap was as low as many of my buddies who never shot over 75. So potential doesn't help me and when they go low we often wash and all the rest of the time ouch!


So I don't get it lol

[Michael Felton]

My last 20 includes a 68 and two 85s. The 85s show up as 84 and 82 on GHIN because of ESC. I backed up the 68 with an 81 the next day.


That said I have no problem with the handicap system as it is (or as it will be).


Incidentally my club used to have an annual match against Baltusrol. Having the same handicap system for both clubs would have made that work better. There are also I know a few british societies that travel to the US and play matches against a range of clubs. Those will benefit too.

[Lou_Duran]

Maybe a simpler solution might have been to try to generalize what the handicap differential between the two systems is on average and adjust handicaps accordingly when international play is involved.  I would guess (with no analytical backup) that a 20% increase in US handicaps might be required.  Given the fact that most play for anyone is not international, and that golfers are wedded to their own national system based on their style of play, this might have been a better result, and  it may be where we go eventually.

[size=78%]You nailed it right there.[/size]


and where did that well reasoned conclusion come from?
an open discussion which yes involves negativity towards the system they have adopted which is doomed to fail due to all the current and proposed adjustmenst that each country/governing body makes for their unique culture.

I normally think that Occam's Razor is overly simplistic, but relative to handicapping, simple is best.


I'm in full agreement with the gentlemen above.  Unfortunately, as a fairly regular Buda participant, my pleas for simple, fair adjustments are summarily dismissed.  Not even the regular conversion of the index to handicap is normally entertained.  As a mid-single digit handicapper, I estimate my handicap to be at least two strokes too low to compete fairly, more if the differential is greater than six.  But we are playing "fun", not big money, so it is unimportant.


As to the comment about why the USGA does not allow scores to be posted when playing alone, I have it from a very high source that is was done as a concession to the R & A to get to a global system.  It is not policed widely and I doubt that it makes much of a difference in substance.


I am intrigued with the adjustable course rating process.  Our winter golf in north Texas is significantly more difficult than much of the rest of the year as typically reflected in our handicaps.  Mechanically, I just don't know how it will work.  Maybe the Chinese can help us with some AI, ubiquitous cameras, chips in balls and virtual processing of many variables as we're playing.  Keep it simple?   

[Jim Hoak]

Lou, some comments--

1)  In statistical sampling for this new system, it was found that lower handicap players are adversely affected by the current system.  So it was decided that there will be come advantage under the new rules for them.

2)  You are correct as I understand it--the "no playing alone" rule for posting came from the R&A.

3)  The new "adjustable course rating" feature will be simple and transparent to the player.  It will be done by an algorithm in the computer system.  The only thing the player needs to do is to be sure to post his or her scores immediately, since the system will collect all scores from the Club that day and look for signs of outlier scoring.  It can adjust the course rating up by up to 3 points or down by up to 1.  Scores posted after the immediate day will receive the same adjusted course rating but will not be calculated in figuring it.  This system is somewhat like the current UK system where the course rating can be adjusted by a Club administrator if the scores are obviously out of the norm.  I don't expect this new computer adjustment to happen that often, but it is sure getting a lot of the press.

[Lou_Duran]

I post all my eligible scores on the GHIN webpage directly, nearly always on the same day.  I suspect that I am in a minority, though I sense that the use of scorecards is also less frequent and harried asst. pros in the past seemed to be less than accurate (especially when playing a different set of tees) and timely.  Perhaps the algorithmic adjustment will work.


Personally, I would like to see the volunteer position of handicap chair elevated, strongly supported and incentivized.  Having seen a friend in that role cold-cocked by a blatant cheater after a tournament round where he had lowered the member's calculated handicap by a couple strokes, a club couldn't pay me enough to do it.


Golf is supposed to be a game of honor, but as practiced, is it?  The big money gamblers at my old club had a good fix- they all played wolf from different sets of tees and set the strokes before each game.  Vanity handicaps were not a problem- after a couple of pluckings, those sporting them didn't come back.  Watching $$$$$ wolf games from three sets of tees in around 3 hours (five carts) was entertaining.  And to my knowledge, there was never any gun play involved!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It can adjust the course rating up by up to 3 points or down by up to 1.

Jim, I believe the course rating remains unchanged with the PCC (playing conditions calculations). I believe the differentials themselves are adjusted, in whole numbers, from -1.0 to +3.0.

Here are some JPEGs of this section of the manual:
https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/geuY5qJl/2019-11-14+16.56.29.jpg?v=31ddeb838cc052847d7d052a8ee61779
https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/d5ubmpxg/2019-11-14+16.56.41.jpg?v=f5d8c97f56222990e05671a31fec9674
https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/NQuey1zE/2019-11-14+16.56.48.jpg?v=42b3ffd4eff2a0333d0d7a0adf75745c

It's a bit vague as it says "it's applied to the calculation of the differential," and while I'm a Rules expert, I'm not an expert in the new handicapping system. So, I asked someone what that meant, and he told me it applies an adjustment to everyone's differential for that day, and everyone gets the same adjustment. So, a 3.7 and a 14.2 differential might go UP to a 4.7 and a 15.2.

But, having typed that out now, that doesn't make sense, because with a range of -1 to +3, that would imply the course played easier (the +3 side) more often or more so than it plays more difficult… (-1), if you apply those to differentials. So, while the answer I got said it applied to the differentials… I'm not so sure anymore.

[Michael Felton]

It can adjust the course rating up by up to 3 points or down by up to 1.

Jim, I believe the course rating remains unchanged with the PCC (playing conditions calculations). I believe the differentials themselves are adjusted, in whole numbers, from -1.0 to +3.0.

Here are some JPEGs of this section of the manual:
https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/geuY5qJl/2019-11-14+16.56.29.jpg?v=31ddeb838cc052847d7d052a8ee61779
https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/d5ubmpxg/2019-11-14+16.56.41.jpg?v=f5d8c97f56222990e05671a31fec9674
https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/NQuey1zE/2019-11-14+16.56.48.jpg?v=42b3ffd4eff2a0333d0d7a0adf75745c

It's a bit vague as it says "it's applied to the calculation of the differential," and while I'm a Rules expert, I'm not an expert in the new handicapping system. So, I asked someone what that meant, and he told me it applies an adjustment to everyone's differential for that day, and everyone gets the same adjustment. So, a 3.7 and a 14.2 differential might go UP to a 4.7 and a 15.2.

But, having typed that out now, that doesn't make sense, because with a range of -1 to +3, that would imply the course played easier (the +3 side) more often or more so than it plays more difficult… (-1), if you apply those to differentials. So, while the answer I got said it applied to the differentials… I'm not so sure anymore.

The current UK system where this is coming from varies the CSS (Competition Scratch Score - analogous to the course rating) from -1 to +3. If the SSS is 72, then the CSS can be from 71 to 75. The -1 to +3 either needs to be upside down or applied to the course rating.

[Rick Lane]

It can adjust the course rating up by up to 3 points or down by up to 1.

Jim, I believe the course rating remains unchanged with the PCC (playing conditions calculations). I believe the differentials themselves are adjusted, in whole numbers, from -1.0 to +3.0.

Here are some JPEGs of this section of the manual:
https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/geuY5qJl/2019-11-14+16.56.29.jpg?v=31ddeb838cc052847d7d052a8ee61779
https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/d5ubmpxg/2019-11-14+16.56.41.jpg?v=f5d8c97f56222990e05671a31fec9674
https://p197.p4.n0.cdn.getcloudapp.com/items/NQuey1zE/2019-11-14+16.56.48.jpg?v=42b3ffd4eff2a0333d0d7a0adf75745c

It's a bit vague as it says "it's applied to the calculation of the differential," and while I'm a Rules expert, I'm not an expert in the new handicapping system. So, I asked someone what that meant, and he told me it applies an adjustment to everyone's differential for that day, and everyone gets the same adjustment. So, a 3.7 and a 14.2 differential might go UP to a 4.7 and a 15.2.

But, having typed that out now, that doesn't make sense, because with a range of -1 to +3, that would imply the course played easier (the +3 side) more often or more so than it plays more difficult… (-1), if you apply those to differentials. So, while the answer I got said it applied to the differentials… I'm not so sure anymore.

Hmm, you are right it seems inverted.....the language in the pages you included says the pcc is used in the calculation of score differentials......which means maybe +3 or -1 is added to the course rating in determining the differential for the day.....that would make more sense?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Hmm, you are right it seems inverted.....the language in the pages you included says the pcc is used in the calculation of score differentials......which means maybe +3 or -1 is added to the course rating in determining the differential for the day.....that would make more sense?

Right.

I specifically asked someone if they adjust the differentials themselves, after they're determined, and he said yes.

But now I think he was mistaken, and they adjust the course rating and then calculate new differentials. Which would make sense for the -1 to +3 range, IMO.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I asked him again to clarify if the -1.0 to +3.0 adjustment is applied to the differential or the course rating and he replied:

The range for a PCC adjustment is -1.0 to +3.0 and is applied to the differential, not the course rating, though we would get the same result. This way the course ratings remain the same for viewing and the player knows there was an adjustment that day.

So… I'm not sure that's right, still. I don't foresee situations where differentials will go +3 very often, but could see them going -2.0 on many more occasions. A guy who should shoot 80 shoots 87 on a super windy day with fast greens… and his differential might go from 14.3 to 11.3 or 12.3. But that's not possible as -1.0 is the only thing.

Plus "get the same result" isn't quite right:

80 on a 72.0/133 course = differential of 6.8, so 5.8 with a -1.0.
80 on a 73.0/133 course (adding the 1 to the course rating) becomes 5.9, not 5.8.

[Scott Warren]

$$$$ wolf games from three sets of tees in around 3 hours (five carts) was entertaining.

When I close my eyes and picture hell...


Lou — agree with the Buda handicap thing. The two systems are clearly out to achieve different things and the Index in the US system is just an input number, not a handicap itself.

[A.G._Crockett]

$$$$ wolf games from three sets of tees in around 3 hours (five carts) was entertaining.

When I close my eyes and picture hell...


Lou — agree with the Buda handicap thing. The two systems are clearly out to achieve different things and the Index in the US system is just an input number, not a handicap itself.

Scott Warren,

I don't understand what "input number" means.  Can you clarify?