[George Blunt]

This is really in response to Ran's plea for help in a different post and an explanation, as I understand it, of the handicapping system in Australia.  The system is really quite simple even though my explanation probably isn't!All the courses in Australia are given a course rating (ACR) by the AGU.  My course has a par of 72 and an ACR of 71.9.  I think the Australian GC has a par of 72 and an ACR near 74.Every competition round a "Calculated Course Rating" or CCR is established in the following manner:  all completed cards are turned in and the 15th percentile of the total number of cards is established; e.g if 200 players submitted cards then the 30th player's score would be used.  This then becomes the CCR for the day, with the qualification that the CCR cannot vary by more than 4 strokes from the ACR.  It is the CCR which is then used to adjust our handicaps.  Therfore the player's handicap adjusted against the CCR takes account of weather, course conditions and strength of field, not just against par.In my opinion the system has a major weakness, which could be easily remedied.  The use of the 15th percentile to calculate the CCR has not been reconciled over time with the ACR for each course.  If we accept that the ACR is the true measure of the course then the CCR and ACR should match up over a long enough time period.  The percentile that matches up with the ACR over say, a year, could then be used for the following year.  The time period could be shortened or lenghened to take account of course changes and playing conditions.If it weren't for this major weakness the system works relatively well.  As we all know though, sandbaggers will always prevail and honest golfer's will suffer!

[John Morrisett]

George--That's interesting.  It sounds as though your CCR is the equivalent of the Standard Scratch Score (SSS)used in the British Isles?  The element I like about your system is that it can take into account particularly difficult weather conditions (granted, something that is more rare in this country).  I believe that our course rating does the same, but just in general terms of what a typical wind would be (and used 365 days a year, regardless of the actual conditions).  What is interesting is how the approach to handicapping differs so much from the US and other countries.  My understanding from the R&A (and it appears to be the case in Australia as well) is that players post for handicap purposes only the scores made in stroke play competitions.  In the US, we post all our scores (match or stroke play, competitive or casual).  Our philosphy is that the more scores that are posted, the more accurate the handicap should be.  However, our system does seem to be open to more manipulation than yours. If only rounds made in competitions are to be posted (a point on which I may well be wrong), my question is what role does the ACR have?  Is it really necessary?John V or Wendy U: any comments?

[George Blunt]

John, the ACR was developed before the CCR was thought of, so the CCR is really in response to the ACR.  The funtion of the ACR now is to prevent the CCR from "blowing out" or being too low.  If you recall my earlier post I think the CCR cannot be more than 4 shots higher or lower than the ACR.

[John Morrissett]

George--I'm curious: how often is the four-stroke limit used?

[T. Doak]

Australia is light years ahead of us.  When I first visited they came up with a course rating by having the pro look at the pin placements and the wind and adjusting the ACR.  Now they've bypassed the Slope System altogether and let the computer calculate the true daily course rating by observing play!The Slope System is a good idea, but quantifying the difficulties of a course's design is much more complicated than their manual.  Psychological factors aren't given enough weight, and strategy and positioning are totally overlooked.  So far, nearly every course I've designed has been 5-8 points lower than it should have been sloped on the first crack.  Eventually, they see how the course plays, and adjust it to where it fits in with other courses.Stupidest slope rating ever -- Stonewall 128 from the back tees!!!!!

[Wendy Uzelac]

I am not familiar with the ACR and the CCR - let alone the SSS methods of handicapping.  The CCR sounds very interesting and addresses many of the problems with the Slope system.  Seasonal course conditioning is such a factor and not taken into account under Slope.  Spring is always wet and the rough is usually thickest.  Slope only assesses mid season conditions.  Therefore, your handicap will go up during the spring months and go back down in late summer and fall due to the course condition (as well as the lack of play over the winter months).  The Handicap Committee believes that it is a player's "potential" ability that needs to be addressed and not their average.  Calculating the course ratings is all part of that potential ability philosophy.  Unfortunately it can't be an exact science.

[George Blunt]

John,I am waiting on some stats re the four stroke deviation and also checking my facts.  Someone in the club thought it was only a two shot deviation, so I will return with the correct info shortly.Any thoughts on the reconciliation of the 15th percentile over time against the ACR?My reasoning is that if your membership has a particularly high or low standard of golf, it is reflected in your handicap.  Doesn't this kind of defeat the purpose of linking the ACR to the CCR?Any comments or thoughts from those down under who are using this sysyem?

[TEPaul]

      I'm no mathematician, but it seems to me that the most accurate method of calculating handicaps is to crunch raw data over an extended period of time (one-two years).        In this age of technology and data storage that shouldn't be too hard to do.

[TEPaul]

    Sorry, I hit the submit button in mid-sentence.    As I was saying raw data number crunching could be a solution to all inherent handicapping inaccuracies.    Firstly, gross scores or even Adjusted Gross scores simply can't work that accurately in a match play context.     The answer in a match play (or medal play) context is to input scores hole by hole. With ESC programmed in that would basically take care of the ongoing problem of ESC compliance, not to mention strengthening peer review bigtime.       But horror of all horrors, according to the associations and ruling bodies H by H input would be way too input intensive. Is that really true? Players spend hours playing the game; to ask them to input H by H takes a matter of seconds on the keyboard if the card is programmed into the computer and onto the screen.       In a nutshell that should solve almost all handicappng problems eg. hole rating and sloping (even individaully), course rating, match and medal play separately, tournament administration etc.         The USGA apparently has such a method in their GHIN system: I believe it is called "Menu Option #2", but for some reason they are not making the golfing public aware of it. One wonders why?

[peter_p]

The Australian system seems far superior to the USGA system. The golf course changes daily because of weather conditions and course setup.      I might shoot a 75 to easy pins on a benign Wednesday afternoon, and someone else could shoot 75 Thursday morning after the super pours .25" water, it's raining with tougher pins, yet the two rounds ar counted exactly the same. NOT.     This system would more accurately reflect the quality of the round, and the ability of the player.     The other part of the Australian system I liked was the changing of stroke  holes depending on the method of scoring. When playing a match a hole might be ranked differently than if it was played in a stableford competition.      Lots of players can't understand why a hole is or isn't listed as the #1 handicap hole, even when very patiently explained.That would help.

[George Blunt]

John M.I have checked on a few facts, as follows:1) The CCR can only vary by 2 shots from the ACR at most courses2) The AGU allows some courses that regularly suffer from extremely harsh weather a four shot margin, e.g New South Wales Golf Course, which is usually played in a howling gale.  (Tip for GCA readers, never play a match against a low marker from NSW golf course in windy conditions, you will lose your shirt)3) Most course's CCR do not vary by much more than a shot from the ACR.4) At our club the CCR is always 2 shots higher than the ACR because an estimated 25% of the field cannot play to their 27 handicap.  This drags the rest of the field down.  (The maximum h'cap allowed for men in Aus is 27 - do you limit the men's h'cap in USA?) 5) Next year the CCR across Australia will be calculated for three grades of players in the competition, so point 4 will not apply. The grades are A:0-12, B:13- 18, and C:19-27

[Tom_Doak]

While playing a match in Australia last year, it was pointed out to me that the "match play handicaps" of holes there are spread out through the round without regard to the design of the holes.  If you get four strokes, they fall on holes 4, 8, 12 and 16, everywhere.I'm not sure if this is true, but it's very intriguing.  At first it seems silly, but it adds another layer of drama and emotion.  Say you're giving me four, and one of them falls on a short, easy par three.  You're pissed, because if I hit a good tee shot, you're done.  So I win a hole!  But then I don't get a stroke on the long par-4 which follows, and you may come right back.Makes you wonder why we worry about these things.

[TEPaul]

It's interesting reading about the Australian handicap system and maybe it works better than ours or Europe or whatever else is being used around the world.The fact of the matter is the world of golf handicapping is so labyrintine even administrators sometimes can't figure it out. Handicapping is the third and last area of golf that is not unified world-wide. Rules have been unified, balls and implements have essentially been unified, now is the time for the USGA and the R&A to get together with representatives of the various national organizations (which are under the umbrella of the R&A) and come up with a unified handicap formula and system (this includes inputting and peer review).Please lets not hear that there are too many obstacles and it will never happen. The same was said before the unification of the rules in the 1950s but the USGA and  R&A were resolved to do it because they could see it was for the good of the game. The unification of the handicap formulas and system are definitely for the good of the game. Any reasonable American player will admit that net tournaments etc. presently cannot span the handicap spectrum. This is a shame. The USGA prabability tables are a joke, so is par in a net context etc. The technology is there today to analyze and create a sensible system and resolve this hodge-podge under a unified system world-wide. This would complete the unification of all facets of the game and cannot help but be good for golf!

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()