[Scott Warren]

Australia, incidentally, is in the process of adopting the US rating and handicap system, but will retain the stipulation that all scores for handicapping must be recorded in competition (so no gimmes or playing alone). Th average Aussie club has 3-4 competitions a week, of which 2-3 are generally open to members of other clubs.

Call me a homer, but the way clubs and their competitions are managed in Australia is far and away the best system I know of.

[Ulrich Mayring]

Interesting. Are you basing on Stableford or are you painfully holing out for 12?

Ulrich

[Scott Warren]

If the comp is stroke, we hole out. If stableford, we pick up after we're out of shots on that hole. If par event, we pick up when we have lost the hole to par.

[Mark Pearce]

Of course, if you are painfully holing out for 12, it's highly likely you'll be out of your buffer zone in CONGU, so it's always open to pick it up and NR and just take the 0.1 increase that's coming anyway.

[Scott Warren]

Only problem with that in Aus, mark, is that NCRs aren't included in the calculation of CCR (what we call CSS), so too many NCRs means the CCR is higher than it should have been and those who play well don't get cut by as much as they should.

[Mark Pearce]

Scott,

Presumably you mean that CSS is lower than it should have been?  I understood that CSS is decided by the proportion of various category golfers scoring below a certain number, not by the higher nett scores.  No returns wouldn't make a difference to that.  I may, of course, be wrong.

Mark

[Jud_T]

Sean, goof off golf? please explain.  Also, the only real issue with posting of match play scores is how honestly one estimates what he would have gotten on a hole.  i.e. if you have a 5 footer left would you honestly make it more than 50% of the time? In my experience the majority of golfers err on the side of a vanity handicap. That is, breakfast balls, not taking truly proper drops, and not recording gimmes correctly.  This is fine with me as I want as many strokes as I'm honestly allowed and I'll take that $20 nassau all day long....

[Scott Warren]

Scott,

Presumably you mean that CSS is lower than it should have been?  I understood that CSS is decided by the proportion of various category golfers scoring below a certain number, not by the higher nett scores.  No returns wouldn't make a difference to that.  I may, of course, be wrong.

Mark

Yeah, good pickup, I meant lower.

If that's the case in the UK then it turns out there is a difference between the UK system and Australia.

In Aus, the CCR is whatever score falls one-eighth (12.5%) of the way through the field. So if there are lots of NCRs, the score 1/8 of the way through will be less than if the NCRs were counted. Broadly, the only thing that governs the CCR beyond that is that in normal circumstances it can only rate between two shots above and one shot below the course rating.

[Mark Pearce]

Scott,

Here's how CSS is established under CONGU (from the CONGU wesite FAQs):

Q.1 How is the Competition Scratch Score (CSS) calculated?

A.1 The CSS table as contained in Appendix B of the System is based on the known performance of golfers of different abilities (Handicap Categories) in a range of golfing conditions. In ‘normal’ playing conditions, for example, 37-68% of participating Category 1 players are expected to return Nett scores to the SSS +2 or better.
In contrast, in the same conditions only 16-30% of Category 3 players are expected to return Nett scores to SSS +2 or better. In competition situations when course conditions are more or less favourable than ‘normal’ these percentages will increase or decrease respectively, resulting in movement of the SSS as expressed by the CSS.

The mechanics of the CSS calculation are:
• Establish the composition of the ‘field’ as a percentage of each handicap category excluding category 4 for men or category 5 for ladies. e.g. 10% Cat.1 50% Cat.2 40% Cat3[[+ Cat. 4 for Ladies]
• Establish the percentage of the ‘field’ (Cat.1 + Cat.2 + Cat.3 [+ Cat.4]) with a Nett score of the SSS +2 or better e.g. 20%
• Refer to Appendix B Competition Scratch Score Table 
• Using this example the CSS would be the SSS +1.


Sadly it doesn't confirm whether NRs are included in the calculation but I have always understood that they are.  I'll check with our club secretary this weekend.

[JESII]

Kyle,

There's only a couple items on my list of key ingredients for a good golf course and one of them is what are the holes like when I want to play very conservatively.

I typically play just a bit aggressive. I know my limitations pretty well, but I also like to try the more difficult shots. Whether it's medal or match play I'm usually thinking about a birdie from the tee but not by hitting high risk shots, more by looking for slight openings.

In Medal Play, it makes not one bit of difference to me if my opponent (hitting first from the tee) hits it somewhere that bogey is the best they can hope for...in Match Play, I can't ignore that because by my nature I am already thinking of taking on some degree of risk in an attempt to make a birdie (which I definitely don't need now).

Great courses make it difficult for me to make a conservative Par, with Bogey as the max I'll take and lesser courses do not have that dynamic.

Oh, and once again, conditioning is a major component of this...

[Brent Hutto]

Sean, goof off golf? please explain.  Also, the only real issue with posting of match play scores is how honestly one estimates what he would have gotten on a hole.  i.e. if you have a 5 footer left would you honestly make it more than 50% of the time? In my experience the majority of golfers err on the side of a vanity handicap. That is, breakfast balls, not taking truly proper drops, and not recording gimmes correctly.  This is fine with me as I want as many strokes as I'm honestly allowed and I'll take that $20 nassau all day long....

Jud,

That's the essence of the problem, though. It's why some of us are saying that a handicap based on 90%+ "goof off" rounds is, well, goofy. There's a group I sometimes play with on Saturdays who give each other ridiculous putts (if they're to halve a hole, not typically for hole-winning putts). Five-footers are routine and even the odd six- or seven-footer, depending on mood. And they play two off the first tee. Plus they never putt out for anything worse than double and will pick up earlier than that if their partner has won the hole.

There's just no valid way of guessing a score for four, five, six, eight holes a round. Yet these guys also play in the club championship, match play and various other competitions during the year. They play in those using their handicaps that are based on 60+ rounds a year of "good off golf" and maybe 8-9 rounds a year of "real golf". It just makes no sense to be playing in a strict medal comp using a handicap derived from guesswork and b.s., right?

[Jud_T]

Brendt,

good point. But how many medal competitions do most U.S. clubs have, and what about joe 6-pack?

[Brent Hutto]

Jud,

Not to put too fine a point on it but I honestly don't care about Joe Sixpack. Anyone who doesn't play in even a handful of medal competitions a year doesn't really need a handicap that's valid in medal competitions, right?

I'd be fine if the qualifying "medal competitions" were extremely informal. Just send out twosome, threesomes, foursomes however you want to play and have them play it down, putt it out and attest each other's scores. Offer enough opportunities that anyone wanting a handicap can easily do that 3-4 times a year.

As far as I understand it, that's pretty close to what goes on at many clubs in the UK. Or maybe I misunderstand, my point is that a handicap based on even 3-4 loosey-goosey rounds where you play it down and putt it out (even with a Stableford points deal for that matter) is way more valid than one based on 100 rounds of "goof off golf". And the guys playing "goof off golf" usually arrange their own stroke-giving without respect to the official handicap index index, that's the real irony of the matter in my view.

[Jud_T]

Brendt,

Is 3-4 rounds a year sufficient? so your best 10 of last 20 would involve a 5 year history? Even if you go with the 7 round minimum, that still brings in 2 years of play...

[Brent Hutto]

No, the 10 of 20 deal is part of the "every stroke is sacred" USGA regime. It would need to be an entirely different formula, not simply punching 3-4 rounds a year into the same old computer program.

[Mark Pearce]

Brendt,

Is 3-4 rounds a year sufficient? so your best 10 of last 20 would involve a 5 year history? Even if you go with the 7 round minimum, that still brings in 2 years of play...

3 rounds a year is all that is required in the UK under CONGU.  Of course, most serious club golfers play far more qualifying competitions than that.  As to very occasional golfers, why do they need a current handicap?

[Rich Goodale]

Rich Goodale,

Did it occur to you that I might wish to improve so I can enjoy beating you...in match play...at Dornoch?  In fact, I wish to beat your brains out while conceding several putts...few things would make me happier 

Not really, Eric, but be my guest, next time you make it up to Dornoch!  If you don't beat me you'll be one of the few GCAers that hasn't over my "home" course.  I'm such a softy when I am a host....

Rich

[Ulrich Mayring]

In Germany everyone needs a handicap, because the courses don't let you on without one (has something to do with insurance and also the courses being full, so they lock out bad players on the week-ends). Also, occasional medal players like myself (or, apparently, Mark Chaplin) need a sensible handicap, because they play competetive match or foursomes all the time.

Ulrich

[Mark Pearce]

Also, occasional medal players like myself (or, apparently, Mark Chaplin) need a sensible handicap, because they play competetive match or foursomes all the time.

Ulrich

There is a word that springs to mind for both you and Chappers, but it wasn't "occasional medal players".  Given that between you, off your respective "sensible handicaps" you achieved 8.5/9 at BUDA, the word "Bandit" seems to fit so much more readily

[Scott Warren]

Not to mentionChappers then finishing 5, 5, 5 to shoot 76 at Deal this Monday just gone...

[Ulrich Mayring]

Well, I did offer to play off 3 shots less, but my captain would have none of that 

Anyhow, of the 49 rounds of golf that I played without goofing off this year, my stableford average is 32.3 points. My BUDA rounds were 30, 37, 30. I stand before you unremorseful 

Ulrich

[Bill_McBride]

Well, I did offer to play off 3 shots less, but my captain would have none of that 

Anyhow, of the 49 rounds of golf that I played without goofing off this year, my stableford average is 32.3 points. My BUDA rounds were 30, 37, 30. I stand before you unremorseful 

Ulrich

And we STILL lost!   

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()