[A.G._Crockett]

Pete L.
The millions that Tom is referring to use the handicap number in Saturday morning points games, net skins games, and a variety of other gambling games, but might only play one or two (or none) "official" competitions per year.

[Rick Shefchik]

JohnV --

The letters you mention are a necessary part of the current handicap system. I would make two points:

1. Despite being barred from future events, when somebody manipulates their handicap to get into a top-drawer tournament, the damage has already been done.

2. From what I can tell, under the CONGU system, you'd have to send out far fewer letters.

[Pete Lavallee]

Sorry Tom your examples are frankly pathetic. You must join a club to get a handicap, per USGA rules. If all you want is a vanity handicap there are numerous free online programs which can do the math for you. We have one guy in our Sunday group who keeps his own cap, and will show us his scores on the spot on his PDA if we challange him. Most charity events are scrambles, where a handicap is unnecessary. Don't you know how many shots your friends need? Sorry you'll have to come up with better reasons than those!

[THuckaby2]

Now you are in my world, Dan!  I've used this many times before for many things...

To Halmi, or not to Halmi: that is the question:
Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer
The birdies and eagles of outrageous good fortune,
Or to take arms against a sea of sandbaggers,
And by opposing end them?

Somebody else'll have to take it from there. I have "work" (!?) to do.

To cheat: to play by the rules
No more; and, by such cheating to say we end
The heartache and the thousand natural bogeys
That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
Devoutly to be wish'd. To cheat; to play by the rules;
To play by the rules? perchance to achieve a true golf score! Ay, there's the rub;
For in that joy of scoring what dreams may come,
When we have shuffl'd off this mortal course,
Must give us pause. There's the respect
That makes calamity of so many long golf rounds.


Tommy Shakes

[THuckaby2]

Sorry Tom your examples are frankly pathetic. You must join a club to get a handicap, per USGA rules. If all you want is a vanity handicap there are numerous free online programs which can do the math for you. We have one guy in our Sunday group who keeps his own cap, and will show us his scores on the spot on his PDA if we challange him. Most charity events are scrambles, where a handicap is unnecessary. Don't you know how many shots your friends need? Sorry you'll have to come up with better reasons than those!

Pete - it's really simple - listen to AGC.  But I am tired of being cynical and defending worthless US golfers.  They simply do exist, and they ain't going away.

TH

[JohnV]

Rick, you're right and I don't disagree with you on it.  But, the USGA has decided that they want to be inclusive of all that would like a handicap for whatever reason vs the CONGU system of only those who play in monthly medals.  With that decision, they have to put up with the occasional vanity handicap or sandbagger.

I would like to see clubs be better at posting T scores which would lower the sandbaggers handicap pretty quick.  As for the vanity player, we only have to deal with each of them once and then they go away.  We really don't get that many of them showing at USGA or WPGA events.

[A.G._Crockett]

Pete L
Tom didn't post the reasons, I did, so I'm the one that's pathetic, I guess.  Thanks...
They're also not my reasons, just the ones I've observed in the world I live in.
If you accept scores off of a PDA from a buddy, that's great; you must know and trust him.  In my little group of 3-6 players on Sunday afternoon, we just play a scratch game and we don't have to fool with strokes at all. That might not work in larger groups with people that don't know and trust each other, like the 30 or so at my club that play skins on Friday or points on Saturday.
Anyway, I'm not trying to justify it.  You just asked why the millions that don't play tournaments need a handicap, so I told you.

[Pete Lavallee]

AGC, so what you're saying is we do all this so that golfers we don't want to participate in mainstream events can gamble amongst themselves? I'm not sure that the USGA would agree with you on this count.

[THuckaby2]

OK, I've been giving this some thought.  Too much thought.  But hey, as a course rater, the handicap process occupies too much of my time as it is, so what's a few more minutes?

The more I see abuses like Halmi's, and the more I read the ramblings of participants here, and the more I think about how all of this works in practice, the more my faith is shaken in the USGA/GHIN system.  Oh, I believe that if the rules are followed, the system is great... and I also believe there's very little chance any wholesale changes to it will come in any of our lifetimes... and I also continue to believe that it works for us quite well in the vast majority of instances... BUT, the words of Darren K. about the effect on playing by the rules, and the dominoes that follow from that, are weighing powerfully on me.  Our system is too damn weak about this, or at least too easy to abuse. I am sick and tired of having to be the one to tell groups that it's not really right to hit 'till your happy on the first tee and that "inside the leather" is not really in the rules of golf...  

So let's say the CONGU system is better, and by some miracle we do move to it here.

All shit, jibes, cracks aside, I still can't get over this issue with it, and perhaps it's due to misunderstanding I have of the system:

how do you get over the obvious problems of the small sample size?

By that I mean, as much as in a perfect world the CONGU works well - a world where everyone plays multiple medal events, and handicaps are based on these - what do you do about what would seem to me to be the majority of players who play the monthly medal, and that's there ONLY "posted" score that month?  Those who play 3-4 medal events per year, and those 3-4 determine their handicaps seemingly forever?  It just seriously does seem to me that basing one's handicap on such a small sample MIGHT give you a true indicator of their ability, but has much more chance that it won't!  And then given it takes so long to change, well... I can't get past this weakness.

I trust you understand what I mean by this.  What do you do about a player who just has bad luck in the medal, or plays an uncharatectistically poor round for him?  Darren says this evens out over time... but if he plays relatively few medals, that's a LONG time we're talking for it to even out... and he'd have to have a correspondingly GREAT round to even out the bad one....

It's easy to say just don't take strokes, or you know the handicap of your friends, or whatever.  But if that's the case, then why bother to get a handicap at all, even one so "pure" as based on medal scores?

I just can't get over the guy with 6 handicap ability who fires an 88, then for next month's medal gets an 18 handicap.  Perhaps this is myopic, but darn it every player has to start somewhere, and given it's gonna take SO LONG for this guy's handicap to change, I just see this as a weakness so great as to be prohibitive for me...

So perhaps the answer is it takes 3 medal scores to be given a handicap.  Sounds better - over three scores, take the average, that does get it closer to real... But then what does a player do during the 3 months AT LEAST that it takes to achieve this?  Just play scratch?  That's great for low 'cappers, but not a good alternative for the vast majority who need the strokes...

Then I think about a guy who just plain doesn't play up to his ability in medal events... there are SO MANY like this, well... I can't discount him as important.  He's gonna bounce along for years with a handicap higher than his true ability... and again, it's all well and good to say his friends will play him scratch, or give him what he REALLY deserves, but if that's the case, why bother to have the handicap at all?

An obvious answer is a strong handicap chairman with the ability to make changes outside of normal scores, upon petition or evidence.  But heck, we allow for that here already... no change.

Then I also think about the many, many people who belong to various organizations - what we call associate clubs over here - just to get a handicap... and I'm thinking the sample size for them might be 1 and that's it forever.... and yes, they do want handicaps... This is a huge cultural difference between the US and UK....

So can anyone answer for me how to get over this weakness?  Do so cogently and logically, and you shall have me on your side.  And while all the rest I say in here tends to be mental masturbation, on this issue I have at least a snowball's chance in hell to effect some change (although if Scott Seward ever reads this, please do understand my effect would just be lobbying gentlemen such as you!)....

I can't get over it.  Conguists, please explain.

Oh, and one other thing:  I really don't see moving to CONGU having a positive effect on architecture... whereas staying with GHIN and making the move to hole-by-hole posting, as advocated years ago by TEP in here and now advocated again in Geoff Shack's new book, could have VERY positive effect there, by allowing more easily for match-play to dominate... taking away the incentive/necessity to post 18-hole scores... Given CONGU is based just on medal scores, well... someone needs to explain this to me also.

A possible answer is that I am just too ingrained in the USGA handicap measuring concept, that is, of POTENTIAL.  Perhaps it's simple enough to say that the 6 who shots 88 in the medal really IS an 18, and thus should play with it.  But I just see so many instance of that happening... and I still can't get over the small sample size determing everything...

As I say, this is a long-winded plea for help.  Please do leave the jibes and attacks out of any replies...

Thanks!

TH

[JohnV]

I also can't see how the CONGU system could prevent sandbagging.  The really big sandbaggers make their money playing in matches against other golfers, not in tournaments.  After all, tournaments only pay up to $750 in prizes (just raised from $500 this year.)  The really big money comes in head-to-head matches.  

So, if I'm going to play for big money, I go to my monthly medal every month and throw up all over myself establishing a nice big handicap.  Then I can play my butt off while taking money from everyone in site and my handicap never goes down because of it.  Seems to me the CONGU system is perfect for the real cheaters.  They only have to play crappy once a month and nobody can argue with their handicap.

While it makes my life a lot easier, I sometimes wish the USGA hadn't allowed players to use computers for posting scores.  I wish that every time you played you had to turn in a signed card.  Some courses still do that and have the pro shop post the scores.  Of course, this doesn't allow for players who play by themselves.

[A.G._Crockett]

Pete L
No, I'm not saying we do all this so that golfers can gamble.  I'm saying (for the 3rd time, I think, so I must not be saying it very well!) that those golfers desire handicaps and so go through the process.  As I understand it, the USGA provides a service to encourage some degree of equitable competition; what golfers do with that service, i.e., what form(s) the competition takes, is up to the golfers themselves.

[Darren_Kilfara]

Tom, the CONGU system has a rule built into it that if you break your handicap by a significant margin in any given round, your handicap will descend much more quickly than it otherwise might. I'm not exactly sure how it works, but I think that in the situation you describe (a six-handicapper shoots 88 and gets "stuck" with an 18), if he then turns around and shoots a 78 in his next round, his handicap might drop by 4-5 shots straight away, and if he shoots another 78, it might drop by 2-3 additional shots. Something like that.

To address one of your other concerns: anyone who plays only 3-5 medal rounds per year in Britain will inevitably do so by choice, rather than through lack of opportunity. In 2003, I recorded no fewer than 33 scores in medal rounds - mostly at Machrihanish between March 22nd and October 4th (they have weekly medals most Saturdays and/or Sundays, plus situations where you double up in e.g. the Club Championship, plus the Golf Week where there were three midweek rounds), plus a couple of Open rounds at Dornoch and another at Dunaverty. I'm not the most experienced golfer on these shores, but from what I've seen most clubs have weekly rather than monthly medals.

The only real "abuse" the CONGU system lends itself to is the player who reaches a low handicap and then keeps it artificially low by playing few rounds. I'm a 2.8 at the moment; I could suffer an Ian-Baker-Finch-squared or -cubed attack and completely forget how to play golf, play in the minimum allowable three rounds every year, and my handicap would still be in single-digits until the year 2027. Or, to put a more likely face on it, someone could get himself down to +2 or +3 and artificially remain there, thereby remaining eligible for most of the prestigious amateur events over here. Of course, in that instance the R&A would probably come calling eventually. That aside, the system errs on the side of giving you a lower handicap than you deserve, which is much less inherently dangerous to formal competition than the opposite. (There is a rare breed of cheater who travels around to play in Open tournaments at various courses and arranges only for his bad scores to be transmitted back to his home club, but unfortunately I don't think there's any foolproof way around that difficulty.)

Hopefully I've addressed some of your questions, anyway...

Cheers,
Darren

[THuckaby2]

Darren:

That addresses some of the questions, but unfortunately not the main one, re sample size.  See, I fully agree that CONGU works wonderfully for guys like you who play lots of medal rounds - and that is likely quite the norm over there - but it never has been nor do I ever see it being the norm over here... so the problem is still there for what I would believe would always be the norm over here:  the fellow who's lucky to get in  a medal round every two or three months.

I'm glad to hear CONGU does allow for rapid decreases; I had thought that to be true.  But still, that doesn't address the small sample size very well either, because it assumes the fellow will play more medal events to even allow for this.

And sandbagging can certainly occur using ANY system - I am just taking that as a given.  That's not the issue here...

I still can't get over the small sample size being a problem big enough such that the worth of CONGU is defeated, in all too many instances.

But I remain open to further explanation... as I say, on the overall I do like the thought behind CONGU better than the thought behind our GHIN.  I just can't get past CONGU not working very well other than for those folks who play a lot of medal rounds - which as I say is the norm there, but surely isn't here.

TH

[Pete Lavallee]

AGC;

I understand your point, perhaps I didn't state mine clearly enough. The CONGU system is perfectly designed to make Club competitions fair. I doubt they have given much thought to even the playing field in high stakes gambling; in that case let the buyer beware. The idea of establishing a handicap while playing by the rules, in a meaningful event, with a witness to attest your score protects the field much better than our GHIN system. Correct me if I'm wrong but the CONGU system will also adjust the scores for an event if unusual conditions are encountered; high winds, driving rain, ect.. The USGA in their efforts to embrace all people who golf (not the same as all golfers) insists on allowing people who have never played in an official event to have a legitimate handicap. These are the millions that Tom cited, and I in turn suggested that these peple should not be embraced for that very same reason. The USGA insists that to get a handicap you must join a club, so there can be pier review. How can this happen if they don't play in recognized events with a marker in their group? Can the handicap chairman vouch for Joe Sixpack's authenticity if he doesn't know or ever play with Joe? When these golfers play in the Sat. points or skins game are they playing for pride or is there some monetary incentive attatched? If it's the latter, I'de feel much better with the CONGU system rather than GHIN. I also think that these millions would find out that it's fun to play by the rules with some new friends and embrace the true spirit of the game: to compete fairly and honestly.

[THuckaby2]

Pete:

I concur completely with the sentiment behind what you are saying.

BUT... you still haven't overcome the twin problems of small sample size and lack of interest here in medal events.  Re the latter, I gather you think things would change and more people would go this route... That would be great if they did - for all the reasons you say - but it's so against the normal golf culture here that I just don't see it.  But for the sake of argument let's say that does happen... do you have an answer to the small sample size issue I describe a few posts back?

I still find that to be prohibitive...

TH

[Darren_Kilfara]

Tom, one could argue that it's the American system which has problems with small sample size - it maxes out at 20 rounds, a sliding scale which cannot compare with the linear history of one's CONGU handicap. I don't think you're likely to buy that one, though , so let me also suggest that three medal rounds played by the rules are perhaps just as likely to produce an accurate measurement of one's ability as 20 rounds of Yankee Golf (TM).

Anyway, ultimately sample size is only an issue if you choose to make it so. I reckon that CONGU encourages golfers to play in medal rounds if they care about their handicaps, which in and of itself is a good thing. (Not because it fosters a scorecard-and-pencil mentality, of course, but because it forces people to play by the rules.) And in America, if you a) only play three rounds a year, or b) only turn in three scores during a year, your problem is exactly the same as the one you fear. Apart from that, I really don't know what to tell you...

Cheers,
Darren

[THuckaby2]

Darren:

I do appreciate the effort, but I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree.  If you think 3 medal rounds are worth more than the low 10 rounds out of the last 20, then there's really not much more to say other than I disagree.

Remember, I am basing this on honorable golfers.  There is little that can be done for those who would abuse a system, so I am trying not to base it on the abusers.  

Nor am I basing this on golfers who play three rounds PERIOD in any one year.  MANY golfers here play once a week and get maybe 1 medal tournament in over the course of the year, if that... Frequent golfers are those for whom this system should be based, and so many here would play a lot of golf and still wouldn't get the medal rounds in, just because it's not the culture here to do so.  Mr. Goodale knows this painfully well...

And to me in any case, honorable golfers who don't play many medal events just aren't adequately represented under CONGU.  Perhaps I am a pollyanna again, but I would like to think I just described the vast majority of American golfers.  

TH

 

[A_Clay_Man]

Huck- Since you begged... How about modifiying the usga system to make ones handicap a different number. Not a number just based on the last 20 scores, but a number that reflects the accurate level that that person is capable of playing to. In other words, a yearly low, or a two year low. However low it gets, it stays at that number for a very long tiime. It can really only go lower. But, once the one year or two year low, isn't as low as years past, it can finally start to move higher, naturally. No one is going to sandbag for two years without having some exposure to peer review.

[JohnV]

Adam, Northern Cal used to have a LH on their cards which was the lowest you got to in the last year.  Many clubs would use that in tournaments.  I don't think they put it on there anymore.

[A_Clay_Man]

JohnV- Any tournament of consequence, should use this gauge. Honestly, it is the best way to reward the best golfer. Not full proof, but with a little thought and some software, very doable.

[THuckaby2]

Adam:

JV is right, we used to have LH printed right there on the card, and lots of tourneys would use that.  Kinda solves the sandbagging issue, huh?  I have no idea why, but it's no longer on there... BUT it is findable on GHIN (they list a handicap history right there in the software), so tourneys could still very justifiably ask for this as the number one uses.  Obviously the downside is that it punishes severely the honest golfer in a bad run of luck... so perhaps there's your answer as to why it's not more utilized.

Another interesting sidenote:  GHIN also gives the most recent "T" scores achieved as a separate number... (scores in rounds designated as tournaments - supposed to be higher than just normal club rounds, but in any case roughly equivalent to the medal scores used in CONGU)... so if tourneys want to just use these for handicaps, that too is right there for use...

TH

[A_Clay_Man]

Obviously the downside is that it punishes severely the honest golfer in a bad run of luck... so perhaps there's your answer as to why it's not more utilized.

Huck- I hope I understand what you mean here. Punishing golfers is not how I see it. If a golfer is "insulted" by the number of strokes they aren't getting, they deserve less consideration than the golfer who actually plays to the highest level of their historical best. Not just the top ten of the latest 20 scores, or even a T cap which has scores constantly coming off the as time moves.

The classic example is an NCGA guy, who notorously played in all, or most, of the events at Poppy and Spy. I think he's from Coral de tiera (?). This guy used to be a stick 1 or 2. After succesful back surgery he plays to a 12 or 13, and is rarely out of the money. Now this guy is smart and he knows how to make it look good. He knows how to miss that 3 footer on 17 and 18 for bogie, to avoid shooting too low. I mean this guy was good.

Under stricter guildlines this type of lower than whale shit behavior would be minimized. Thats all I'm advocating

[JohnV]

Tom, the USGA Handicap System now automatically lowers your handicap if your "T" scores are too much lower than your index.  Ask Bob Huntley about that, he got lowered last year.  If the Handicap Committee at your club thinks that was done unfairly they could raise it back up.  They can also arbitrarily lower a handicap they think is too high.  

IF handicap committees did their job sandbagging would be less of an issue.  For this reason we now have a contract with the USGA that requires us to certify every club once every 4 years.  They must send a representative to the classes at least that often.

[Pete Lavallee]

Tom;

I really can't answer how the sample size of three scores affects the "new guys" overall performance in the tournaments he participates in, I would conceed that seems the weakest part of their system. On the face of it I can see the logic of your argument; perhaps our overseas contributors can enlighten us on how this plays out; my suspiscion is that it's a non-issue as 72 or 74  rarely follows 87,88 &89, or 83,86&81 for that matter. My main issue with the current policy is that the USGA should be encouraging, no mandating golfers to participte in club sanctioned events. Since the golfer has to belong to a club to get that handicap, to help  encourage the pier review process, he should have to participate in a minimum number of tournament to maintain his good standing. Is it that much to ask that 3 of his normal weekend rounds are in an organized event? The main advantage that I have witnessed first hand in GB&I is that the CONGU system builds a better golfer: one who knows and respects the rules, understands how proper ettiquette makes the game more enjoyable and quicker for everyone involved, and fosters a spirit to play off as low as possible rather than having a few shots in your pocket, to provide that little edge. It's my personal experience that formed my opinion and not a pure philosophical decision. Making the golfer participate more in club events can only have a positive impact, especially in larger urban area where, with so many daily fee courses, it's easy for someone to hit the driving range, join an association, and never be mentored by his fellow club members, an important part of what makes their system work. Interestingly the SCGA issues us a low index for the last 12 months (LI) and both the clubs I belong to use it for all their tournaments; what does that tell you about how well the current system was working down here?

[THuckaby2]

Adam:

You misunderstood me.  By "punished" I meant the poor guy who happens to get on a little roll - and remember, under GHIN it doesn't take much to get the handicap low - establishes this low index, then comes back to "reality"... he is "punished" in the low index scenario by having to keep that low number seemingly forever... I truly believe this is why LI isn's used as much as it seems like it should be.

JV - I know how T scores work.  I was just pointing out that in the GHIN readout, the most recent ones are listed in a separate little table, making such very easy to use if we were to go that route.

Pete:  that is very impassioned and like I said before, I do understand and appreciate the principles of what you call your main issues.  But you still haven't answered the very real weakness of the small sample size.  Even if we mandate people get 3 medal scores to count, that still is such a smaller sample, and changes so more more infrequently than the GHIN way, as to make it prohibitively weak in my mind.  Of course reasonable minds will differ on this... And then the obvious problem is require even more medal scores than this, to get a worthwhile sample, and you really run into the problem of it being very impractical to comply with.  Then we have the issue of encouraging all this stroke play, when we've all pretty much accepted that match play is better for the health of the game, architecture of courses, etc....

I guess we too are gonna have to agree to disagree.  I just can't get past the weakness of the small sample size, nor am I comfortable with this huge focus on medal play.  Of course GHIN has this also... but remember, the solution I advocate is changing GHIN to hole by hole posting.  I continue to truly believe this would be the best way to handle handicapping in the US.  Overseas, CONGU works just fine.  Here, it's never going to work, and the small sample size remains a huge weakness.

BTW, in both clubs I am in, one does have to play in a mininum number of events to maintain good standing, and we also have a very active handicap chair who has no fear of arbitrarily lowering indices... perhaps you need to move up here?

 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()