[Glen Rapoport]

Does anyone out there know why the USGA went with a system that requires posting of scores everytime one plays...whether or not it is a causal round or not....as opposed to the UK system that has the "monthly medal" or tournament rounds as the determining factor for ones HCP?  It seems to me that our USGA system fosters slow play, discourages match play and picking up when you are out of the hole, and despite "peer review" allows both "vanity HCP" and "sandbagging".

I think that American golf has become obscessed with numbers.

Glen

[Tom Huckaby]

Glen:

I doubt any single subject has been battled over more in this forum than this one.  Well, I take that back.  If one considers magazine ratings a single subject, that has been more battled over.  But this is a very strong contender.

You have me, Tom Paul, John VanderBorght and a few others trying to defend the US system v. Rich Goodale, Pete Lavallee and a few others trumpeting the superiority of the UK system.

We've covered every possible aspect of this, and have yet to come close to any agreement.

Look for a pithy reply by Goodale to this - in fact I look forward to his latest take - they usually are fun to read.

As for me, it's a reality thing.  The bottom line is their system works for them, ours works for us.  Both have strengths, both have weaknesses.  On the whole I have admitted many times that theirs is better.  I just don't think it could possibly work here, because the "monthly medal" is something that not many clubs do, and is FAR from the ingrained thing it is over there.

You also have to remember that if the rules are followed, our system works damn well.  The problem in the US isn't the system, it's the people.

Here's hoping your post doesn't reignite WWIII.  I shall try my damndest to stay out of it!

TH

[Brent Hutto]

At the risk of rehashing a previously-hashed subject...There are two distinct issues we can talk about regarding the USGA handicapping system.

The first question is whether the USGA handicap system succeeds or not. As Huck points out, if golf is generally played according to the Rules of Golf and if the handicap system is applied correctly (with its provisions for imputing scores for holes not played and so forth) you get indices that convert into handicaps that do a decent job of providing fair competition between golfers of widely disparate abilities. So the system works.

The second question is what effect does the system have on golfers' behavior and their enjoyment of the game. I think this is the big drawback of the USGA handicap system. It reifies the principle that "Every Stroke is Sacred" and tends to reinforce the a couple of already-common beliefs among US golfers: 1) that the purpose of the game is to produce a valid score on every hole of every round and 2) that the measure of a golfer's worth is in large part quantified by the scores he records.

I think is would be possible to have implemented a workable handicapping system in the US that does not engender such a limited and frustrating perspective on the game. At this point we'll never know but I wish this unintended cultural consequence had been taken into account when the current system was being considered.

[JohnV]

Does anyone out there know why the USGA went with a system that requires posting of scores everytime one plays...whether or not it is a causal round or not....as opposed to the UK system that has the "monthly medal" or tournament rounds as the determining factor for ones HCP?
Glen

Glen to answer your basic question.  I think one reason the USGA went with the system they did is because most golfers who want handicaps in the US don't play in club events that often.  Because of this they would not establish handicaps.  

In order to try to add some level of sanity to this, the "T" score concept and the automatic adjustment of handicaps for those who play well in tournaments was added.  That can fix the sandbagger problem if it is used correctly although it won't do anything about the vanity handicap problem, which is why the USGA and many associations have scoring limits in their qualifiers and kick out players who can't play well enough.

Does it add to slow play?  Yes and No.  It does because people try harder to make a number on every hole, but it speeds it up because many people pick up when their reach their Equitable Stroke Control limit.

For those of us who work for regional golf associations, our membership fee is looked at as a handicap fee by many golfers and if they weren't getting handicaps we'd have a hard time staying in business.  So, for that reason alone, I like the current system.

Tom Huckaby slightly overstated things regarding my defending the USGA system.  I try to explain it, not neccesarily defend it.  I like parts of it like the Slope system, but I like parts of the British system also, especially how their handicaps change based on the scores shot.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Huckaby slightly overstated things regarding my defending the USGA system.  I try to explain it, not neccesarily defend it.  I like parts of it like the Slope system, but I like parts of the British system also, especially how their handicaps change based on the scores shot.

Sorry about that, JV.  But I also went on to say I don't necessarily "defend" it, if one takes that to mean saying it has no flaws and is perfect in every way.  None of us have done that.  But poor choice of words by me.

I just have repeatedly tried to explain to those who insist on the superiority of the UK system that it's great for them, but won't work for us - the main reason being we just don't have the monthly medal as standard operating procedure - which of course you so correctly explain is one of the reasons the US went to this system in the first place.

TH

[Larry_Keltto]

Is there a variation on the UK system that could work in the U.S.?

For example, perhaps club members could be required to post one score per month that would count for handicapping purposes (like like the monthly medal in the UK), but members could be allowed to play that round when it's convenient.

[Jason Topp]

Ths excerpt is from "the Making of the Masters" and while it doesn't work above an 18 handicap, I've always thought it a somewhat attractive, simple alternative:


Roberts' rules of handicapping

Augusta National doesn't use the U.S. Golf Association's method of computing handicaps for members. The club has its own simple system, devised by Roberts, which is based on the number of pars a player ordinarily shoots, with a small adjustment for birdies. (If you make six pars in 18 holes, your handicap is 12 -- 18 minus six.) The Roberts system works well, is easy to compute, and permits daily modification.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jason - the more I think about it, the more Roberts' rules are gonna work out damn near the same as an index achieved under USGA rules - for those less than 18 anyway.  Given ESC you throw out the high scores, so most rounds with 6 pars are going to equal around 84, which at a reasonably tough course (Augusta from members' tees) is gonna work out to an 11 or so Index, 12 handicap.

The obvious problem with it is it only works at the one course - it makes no allowances for different difficulty of courses.  One also could sandbag it to death if one was so inclined.

But then again, it's never going to be all that far off from how we do it now....

I kinda like it.  Simplicity itself.

TH

[TEPaul]

Since it's hard to deny that the basic application of handicapping in golf is sort of the oil that makes the game work so well amongst such diverse levels of ability, I think a way should be found under the auspices of the world's two governing bodies in amateur golf to unify the handicap system and procedures world-wide.

Back in the early 1950s the USGA and R&A attempted to minimize the significant differences in the playing rules between the two organizations and work toward almost total unification in the playing rules. Back then most said they could never do something like that, that there'd never be agreement. But they did manage to do it for the betterment of golf.

The same should be done for golf's handicap system. It should be unified world-wide. Like the attempts to unifying the playing rules that proved successful in the 1950s a spirit of compromise must reign.

The significant difference between the unification of the playing rules by the R&A and the USGA in the 1950s and the establishment of a unified world wide handicap system is unfortunately the R&A has virtually nothing to do with handicapping. But I feel they could certainly help in unification of the handicap system if they sort of marshalled the app 130 National Unions around the world that are under the administration of the R&A in the playing rules.

So this time it would basically be the USGA negotiating with app 130 National Unions. Again, I believe the R&A could very definitely lend a hand even if they are not actually in the area of handicapping.

[JohnV]

Tom P,

I agree, it would be great to unify the handicap system.  As I understand it, the Slope portion of the USGA handicap system seems to have caught on in most countries with the notable exception of the British Isles (although many of the top courses have slope ratings).  Perhaps that time will come.

[ForkaB]

John etc.

Slope is not the issue.  UK clubs are happy to have their courses "sloped" to humour visitors form the US, but I very much doubt that it will ever get into the handicap system.  No need for it.

The really issue is the posting of scores.  Unless the USA adopts some sort of real peer review (counter signature of cards) and insistence on posting scores strictly under the Rules of Golf, I can't see the UK golf unions integrating with the USGA. More likely will be some sort of bifurcated arrangement in which serious players (from both sides of the pond) are handicapped under some sort of CONGU-style/Tournament Score system, while those (on both sides again) who want a loosey-goosey USGA-style handicap get one of those, from their regional association, the internet, the back of a matchbox or wherever.

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
You have me, Tom Paul, John VanderBorght and a few others trying to defend the US system v. Rich Goodale, Pete Lavallee and a few others trumpeting the superiority of the UK system.

I'm a little hurt you didn't include me. I've long been an opponent of the U.S. system.

John Vander Borght writes:
Does it add to slow play?  Yes and No.  It does because people try harder to make a number on every hole, but it speeds it up because many people pick up when their reach their Equitable Stroke Control limit.

I don't think anything has slowed down golf in America more than those terminals in every pro shop in the U.S. Everybody believes every single square must be filled out. Nobody seems to understand how ESC works because the organizations have done a poor job explaining it. I've only seen one golfer pick up and use ESC and that was myself. Everyone I know plays out the hole and then adjusts their score afterwards using ESC.

The USGA should recognize there are two different games played in the U.S. Those playing by stroke play rules, usually tournaments, and those playing other type games, either match play, according to more casual rules or miscellaneous other non-medal play formats. Medal play and match play can't be played by the same rules and they should not be treated the same for handicaps.

TEPaul writes:
Since it's hard to deny that the basic application of handicapping in golf is sort of the oil that makes the game work so well amongst such diverse levels of ability, I think a way should be found under the auspices of the world's two governing bodies in amateur golf to unify the handicap system and procedures world-wide.

First why? and second how?

Just the few posts here make it clear the U.S. has no desire to go to the U.K. system. It would be un-American. The U.K. golfer has a system that works, so why would they want to change to the American system? Not a lot of compromise possibility between a working system and a broken system when the ones using the broken system would refuse to use any portion of the working system.

Rich Goodale writes:
Unless the USA adopts some sort of real peer review (counter signature of cards) and insistence on posting scores strictly under the Rules of Golf, I can't see the UK golf unions integrating with the USGA.

There are numerous ways the USGA could adopt real peer review, but every handicap decision they've made seems to take it further from effective peer review.

Dan King

It became slowly but painfully apparent that playing a different sized ball in the championship matches of each country would present a problem, if not an ultimatum. The R & A followed the usual practice of British diplomacy. They thought a sensible compromise was possible, in the shape of a ball somewhere in between. They manufactured two experimental balls, 1.65 and 1.66 inches in diameter respectively. They were offered to the Americans as a proud solution. The Americans, however, remembering Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase (which was unconstitutional, and sneaky, but worked), had a better idea. Why not compromise, they suggested, by using our ball. And so it was. The bigger American ball is now compulsory in all R & A championships and in British professional tournaments.
 --Alistair Cooke

[Brent Hutto]

I don't think anything has slowed down golf in America more than those terminals in every pro shop in the U.S. Everybody believes every single square must be filled out. Nobody seems to understand how ESC works because the organizations have done a poor job explaining it. I've only seen one golfer pick up and use ESC and that was myself. Everyone I know plays out the hole and then adjusts their score afterwards using ESC.

Exactly. I've heard all sorts of tortured "explanations" of ESC from golfers who are making their best effort at complying with the handicap system but in fact don't have a clue.

The USGA should recognize there are two different games played in the U.S. Those playing by stroke play rules, usually tournaments, and those playing other type games, either match play, according to more casual rules or miscellaneous other non-medal play formats. Medal play and match play can't be played by the same rules and they should not be treated the same for handicaps.

Dan points out the one salient point that determines everything else about the impact of the USGA handicap system on golfer behavior. Most golfers maintaining a handicap in this country try to force-fit every game they play into a single mold of pseudo-medal-play scoring.

Now in fact the handicap system manual contains ways of posting a valid handicap "score" for almost any game where you play your own ball. But 99% of golfers using the system will never see that manual. They just take the path of least resistance to coming up with a number that they can type into the computer.

I'll make one personal observation that goes beyond what Dan is saying. In my opinion, any system utilizing "scores" generated by a single golfer playing alone with no intention or incentive related to scoring is silly. That's not an opinion arrived at by any particular line of reasoning. Such a system is invalid on its face and should have been rejected out of hand long ago. It's dumb. Sorry if that offends anyone.

[Tom Huckaby]

Dan King:

Sorry man.  We've discussed many, many issues over the years but I honestly didn't recall you caring about this one way or the other.  You have to understand this - handicaps are for people who actually play the game and you've reminded us for years that you no longer play the game.

Brent:

You don't acknowledge honor at all?

TH

[Brent Hutto]

Huck,

I'm not talking about cheating. I'm talking about the reason a golfer is out there on the course in the first place. Apparently, the people who designed the system can't imagine any reason for setting foot on the course other than to post the best score possible. Here's the thing...that's often not the reason I play golf.

So let's say you and I meet up this afternoon for a friendly game. Match play, five bucks a side, winner buys the drinks. To a pretty good approximation I'm going to be trying pretty hard on every shot to get the ball in the hole in few enough shots to win the hole. You'll be doing the same thing.

But there's a problem. You're giving me six strokes a side based on our USGA handicaps. It just so happens that in something like a third of the rounds that I post in the computer I was making no attempt at all to bear down and get the ball in the hole as efficiently as possible. I might be playing with four clubs, maybe I'm trying a new putter for the first time, maybe I'm playing a couple ProV1's I found instead of my Noodle, whatever. Heck, maybe I'm playing two balls on every hole and three on the one-shotter. I'm just out there by myself having a good old time and not keeping score.

Now there are all sort of band-aids in the handicap system that let me estimate a number to post on each hole. And if I get too far afield from the Rules then I'm supposed to just not post a score. But an awful lot of my play falls into that middle ground where I've got to post something but it's a very vague approximation of what I woulda, coulda, shoulda scored that day if you'd have been there to play me for a little money.

Why all the bandaids? The system ought to be based on those rounds I play in friendly games or at the Saturday dogfight at my club or in GCA events. I play 50-60 rounds a year where I'm actually shooting a score on each hole and not just screwing around. But my screwing around is always tempered by having to track in the back of my mind how to represent each hole when I get back to the computer in the clubhouse. It's stupid and it detracts from the game.

I bailed out of the system for 3+ months this fall. I just said no, didn't post anything after Labor Day weekend. My golf swing turned to crap this summer, I've had back trouble and a lot of non-golf stuff on my mind and no patience for dealing with a silly system. Perhaps the honorable thing to have done is keep posting some estimated 110 or 98 or whatever each time I set foot on the course. But the resulting 30 index isn't useful to handicapping a real match. At my new club (as of Dec. 1) I've started playing in the weekend dogfights and have to use my last index of 21.1 which I can't play to. After I've posted a handful of rounds this month I'll get an up to date index of 23, 24, whatever that reflects how I'm playing but in the mean while I don't really have a valid handicap. Kind of sucks but it'll all sort out at the end.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent:

The handicapping guidelines clearly state that it's assumed you give your honest best effort on all posted scores, the further assumption being if you don't do that, you don't post.

Now of course one can shoot all sorts of holes in this as to why it doesn't work, blah blah blah.

But as I've said many times, that's not the fault of the system, that's the fault of people.

Sean:

If we are to base this on medal competitive play only, then yes, there is no place for honor.  But again as I've said many times, and others have concurred with, we just plain don't have regular competitive medal play here, so our answer is the system we have.  And that requires a bit of honor.  Countersigning cards?  Jeez how far do you really want to take this?  And what good does that really do?  The unscrupulous would just get good at forgery.

The peer review system we have works if the rules are followed.  Once again, the problem isn't the system; it's lack of compliance.

TH

[ForkaB]

Sean

If one's club's handicap committee is vigilant and appropriately uses Clause 19 (allowing for summarily cutting or raising an obviously bogus handicap), three posted rounds a year is quite enough.

[ForkaB]

our answer is the system we have.  And that requires a bit of honor.

No, Tom, it requires complete and utter honor.  And, you ain't got it, so your "system" is fatally flawed.

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:  I prefer to have more positive thoughts.  But enjoy your cynical world!

 

You know what we also ain't got?

Monthly medals.

So we do what we can do.

TH

[ForkaB]

Tom

When I was a member of the Kathouse at Half Moon Bay in the mid-80's we had WEEKLY medals, played under the rules of golf, and it worked just fine, thank you very much.  What's wrong with you dweebs in Silicon Valley?  Can't you count to 6 without an internet connection?

[Brent Hutto]

Huck,

Nothing you say is incorrect but it begs the question of why the system is based on "every time you are on the course" in the first place. Nobody maintains a handicap so that they will know how many strokes to give themselves in a solo round on some random Tuesday evening. So why use those "scores" to compute an index intended for competitive play?

The measurement geek in me is offended by this obvious flaw in the system. If you state that the purpose of a system is to produce a measure of a golfer's scoring potential in competition (which I believe is a pretty close paraphrase of the USGA's intention for the current handicap system) then it is quite a stretch to assert that the most accurate way to measure that that potential is to include a potentitally large number solo non-competitive rounds. Perhaps some basis exists for that argument but I don't buy it.

I can't imagine what they were thinking. Do they think you're going to sandbag when you're playing for money and then save your best play for when you're by yourself? Even golfers aren't that silly. At my old club as part of an anti-sandbagging effort (much needed, BTW) they started checking the computer score entry against the tee sheet. If you went out and played and didn't post a score you were supposed to justify to the committee why you thought it should be exempt. As if the sandbaggers wouldn't post a made-up score anyway.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent:

You're reading WAY too much into this.

A golfer playing solo is rarely giving his best competitive effort.  If he is, he posts it.  If he's not - and if he's honest with himself, he knows he's not - then he doesn't post the score.

It's really that simple.

Once again, the rules and guidelines work if people care to read and follow them.

BUT PERHAPS MORE IMPORTANTLY, TO SET YOUR MIND AT EASE:

Any system can be defeated by those with the will to do so.  That goes for ours and theirs.   I truly believe that no system can be developed that will prevent sandbagging or other cheating by those who wish to do so.  So why not try your best to put in roadblocks to the cheaters, but base the system overall primarily on honor and integrity?

TH

[ForkaB]

Tom

I think Hollywood's going to remake "Pollyanna" (originally starring Hayley Mills) with gender neutral casting.  Go for it, Buckaroo!

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:

I think they're also doing a new one:

THE CONTRARIAN CYNIC

It's screaming out for you, expat-aroo!

TH
 

ps - this is a lot more fun than debating handicap systems AGAIN.

[Brent Hutto]

Well, unless I run afoul of the committee at my new club I'm going to take a pretty hard line on posting my solo rounds. Basically, I'm not going to post them. It's just not that often that I play by myself and give a darn what I score. It may be that my interpretation of the intent of the system errs too far toward figuring out something valid to post every time I more or less play according to the Rules.

The new club has a little Stableford game on both Saturday and Sunday so in practice I'll probably end up with 6-7 competitive rounds per month and not many solo ones unlike at the old place where there weren't as many games available. Not to mention the golfer's buffet on Sunday with fried chicken, ummmm...oops, wrong thread.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()