Handicap bias by course type?...

[Jud_T]

Question-Let's say on the one hand you have a U.K. golfer who belongs to a traditional firm & fast links layout of about 6400 yards.  He's not particularly long off the tee, but has a keen short game and uses the ground game and the wind extensively to his advantage and is a 10 Handicap under the UK system...On the other hand, you have a U.S. golfer who belongs to a very penal 7200 yard club with a lot of forced carries and little opportunity for a ground game.  He bombs it off the tee and hits his irons with a very high trajectory, however his short game is a bit suspect. He is also a 10 under the U.S. system...Now they trade places for a season and post their scores.  What happens?

[Tom Huckaby]

Well first of all, they are not golfers of equal ability, given the methodology for determining handicaps is very different in the two places.  A UK 10 has achieved his number based on results in tournament play only, with pretty much all scores counting (deviants on the extremes being thrown out).  A US 10 has achieved this based on the low 10 of his last 20 scores achieved in any manner.  The bottom line is that a UK 10 is roughly equivalent to a US 12-13, if not higher.

So if you really want an answer to your question, the UK 10 is gonna do better just because he's a better player than the US 10.

But let's assume you meant two golfers of equal skill....

My feeling is the bomber would have a harder time there than the links guy would have here.  The bomber's lack of creativity and poor short game is gonna kill him over there.  The links-guy will adapt far better... but also won't be required to adapt as much.

[Jud_T]

my bad- let's assume equal ability....

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

I think what you meant to say is...

A UK 10 handi is equal to a 7 or 8 US capper.  Thus the 10 UK capper is "better" than a 10 US capper.

[Dean Stokes]

Well first of all, they are not golfers of equal ability, given the methodology for determining handicaps is very different in the two places.  A UK 10 has achieved his number based on results in tournament play only, with pretty much all scores counting (deviants on the extremes being thrown out).  A US 10 has achieved this based on the low 10 of his last 20 scores achieved in any manner.  The bottom line is that a UK 10 is roughly equivalent to a US 12-13, if not higher.

So if you really want an answer to your question, the UK 10 is gonna do better just because he's a better player than the US 10.

But let's assume you meant two golfers of equal skill....

My feeling is the bomber would have a harder time there than the links guy would have here.  The bomber's lack of creativity and poor short game is gonna kill him over there.  The links-guy will adapt far better... but also won't be required to adapt as much.

Tom, surely you mean a uk 10 is more like a us 6 don't you?

I would agree with you on everything else. The links golfer coming to the bombers course has more chance of succeeding than visa versa.

[Kalen Braley]

As it relates to the equal golfers though...

I think the US player has the advantage and here's why.

1)  If he's a long bomber and used to playing longer and softer courses, he's going to be much closer to the green with his drive in the UK.
2)  If he also plays penal courses, this would also mean he's good at avoiding trouble like bunkers and is a relativly straight hitter, which is good for UK courses as well.

In the meantime

3) The UK player, who has relied on F&F to get him around links courses, is going to find himself with much longer approaches.
4)  Additionally he's going to find out that the ground game isn't worth a hill of beans on the long soggy courses and his game will be under constant pressure to save par due to all those missed greens with the long irons in hand.

In the end I go with the %'s.  Even though the long bomber has a lesser short game...he still has a much better chance at driving close to greens and at least getting the ball on the green with his approach shots, even if they aren't close, and being able to two putt for pars.  In the meantime, the UK player will have much longer approaches with long irons and utility woods and will be under constant pressure to scramble and get up and down for pars.

In this scenario, I put my money on the US player given thier playing styles...and also assuming he's a 7 or 8 US capp and not a 10.

The professional tourneys seem to confirm this as well....far more americans can compete and be in contention in the Open, than UK players can be competitive in the US based tourneys.  Until Padraig won the PGA in 2008, when was the last time a European won a major on US soil?  It had been years and years and years.

[Jud_T]

Kalen,

That may have more to do with the relative strength/depth of the two tours....

[Gary Slatter]

I'd bet US 10 beats UK 10 7 out of 10 rounds. 
US handicaps are currecnt, UK are potential.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

I think what you meant to say is...

A UK 10 handi is equal to a 7 or 8 US capper.  Thus the 10 UK capper is "better" than a 10 US capper.

Yes sir.  I dig how you know what I mean even when I state it so horribly wrong.  Thanks man.  Thank you too, Dean.

 

[Kalen Braley]

Kalen,

That may have more to do with the relative strength/depth of the two tours....

That could be, but on the surface it seemed to sound good!! 

[Tom Huckaby]

I'd bet US 10 beats UK 10 7 out of 10 rounds. 
US handicaps are currecnt, UK are potential.

Wow can I have that bet?  I see it going the exact opposite.  UK handicaps are based on tournament play and inclued nearly all results; US handicaps are the ones based on potential, as only the best rounds are included.   To me a UK 10 is a far better player than a US 10.  Of course you could find the UK 10 who achieved this based on one or a very few rounds and then hasn't played in years... and match him against a US 10 who plays 5 days per week... in that case it works as you say... but I am assuming the two golfers play about the same number of rounds, and have their handicaps determined per the system local to them.

How did you mean this, Gary?

[JMEvensky]

I don't think US handicaps are as equitable course to course as they're supposed to be.Indexes and slopes aren't completely valid.

So,if this hypothetical 10 earned it playing all his golf at WFW or Oakmont,I'll bet the US guy--especially if this match takes place at an equivalent course.

If this 10 was earned at a pretender,no bet.

There are penal courses and there are PENAL courses.

[Jud_T]

JM-

I agree at least so far as equitability...My former club's main defense was distance and that not being my long suit, pun intended, my handicap always travelled well...

[jeffwarne]

I'd bet US 10 beats UK 10 7 out of 10 rounds. 
US handicaps are currecnt, UK are potential.

Gary,
In my experience at 4-5 different US clubs, the average US 10 shoots between 90 and 100(20-30 over par) in stroke play events (Club Championships)
Their handicaps are established based on their BEST 10 scores in casual games with given putts, x's, and other shenanigans.

Since UK players are stroked BASED on stroke play tournaments their 10 handicaps means they are averaging withing 10 shots of par or course rating.
Who would you want on your team?

[Scott Warren]

The Buda Cup tests UK v US handicaps each year.

While last year was the first time the result was posted publically, I am told the UK side has generally had the better of the exchanges.

[Jud_T]

Gee- sounds like the UK guys are offering to give us a couple extra a side!

[Jason Topp]

I don't think it is easy to generalize how the same player's handicap would compare under the two systems.  George Peper wrote a funny chapter in his book showing how widely his handicap varied between the two systems and I think the CONGU system resulted in a lower handicap in certain situations.

One difference is that once a person has a low handicap under CONGU it is difficult for that handicap to rise.

Another difference is that low handicaps have a greater advantage over high handicaps under the CONGU system than they do in the U.S.

Here is Dean Knuth's article on the subject:

http://www.popeofslope.com/scotland/usscothandicaps.html

[Kevin Cahoon]

The USGA research points out that a golfer will only match or better his handicap 25% of the time. That golfer will most often shoot 3 strokes over the handicap. Under these circumstances, I believe the UK golfer would have the upper hand.

[Gary Slatter]

UK golf is usually match play with a monthly medal for handicap purposes. 
In 2.5 years I seldom say a UK player play to his handicap, other than Gordon Murray who did every Thursday. 
George Peper's 6 was always better than any other 6.
There are exceptions of course.
there was one annual event on the Old Course that you had to be a +2 to enter, scores were not indicative of the handicaps, however US scratch players could not enter because their handicaps were too high.

[Tom Huckaby]

Gary:  I believe your anecdotes.

But given the two methodologies, as several have explained, do you not see how it surely should NOT work out as you say?  That just due to the way things are measured, the UK 6 is a better player than the US 6?  That perhaps what you are seeing are the exceptions and not the rule?

One note as well:  it's built right into the way handicaps are compiled in the US that one "plays" to his handicap only a small percentage of the time... that Dean Knuth article explains it all.

TH

[Andrew Summerell]

I’m Australian, but have played a lot in the U.S. & the U.K. over the years. I know this is probably going to offend a few people, so I apologise up front, but in the overall sense I believe a U.K. 10 is much better than a U.S. 10. Most golfers I have played with that have a U.S. handicap would be 3 or 4 shots higher if they played in Australia, yet most of the U.K. golfers I have played with play as their handicap indicates.

Of course, if we were playing The Plantation Course, Australians would beat the U.K. & U.S. most times. 

[Tom Huckaby]

Andrew:  I am a US golfer and I assure you no offense is taken.  I assume Australia uses the CONGU system as they do most of the world governed by the R&A?  If so, it all comes down to the methodology, as stated previously here.  The Aussie 10 damn well SHOULD be better than the US 10 and if not, it's the Aussie who is the fraud!

 

[Scott Warren]

Tom: Australia is currently transferring from Congu to the US system - but with one important difference - scores for handicap can only be lodged in a competition round (no sweat about that at home as almost all clubs have at least 2-3 a week).

My stats program has always tracked my USGA handicap, and using competition rounds only (no gimmes or preferred lies), the Aussie mark and the USGA index have generally been within half a shot of each other, and usually within .2 or .3.

[Tom Huckaby]

Scott - gotcha.
Of course you do understand the rules of USGA system, not to mention the practices of the vast majority of golfers, do NOT do it as you say, right?

That is, we count all rounds here.  And the vast majority do take liberties with the rules.

Methinks anyway that just like most things in life, the Aussies are getting things right, taking the best of both systems and creating their own using only that.

TH

[Mark Pearce]

Back to the original question, I think both handicaps go up.  The US because, as has been said, a UK handicap is probably "better" than a US and both because they are playing a course that doesn't suit their game.