[Lynn_Shackelford]

I am probably closer to Rich and Garland on this matter.  Frankly I thought the UK had the better system of handicaps based on competition scores only.
Like every club, my club has its members who "manage" their handicaps.  They love the hammer game so as not to have to post a score due to picking up on so many holes.
I have played with 3 mates and forked out money at the conclusion even though I shot the lowest gross score in the group.
I try and avoid handicap events.  I think those that group players by age or in a flight and then play at gross are more enjoyable.
Yes, it should be a game played for fun, but the competitiveness in us creates something whereby the dub can obtain some self esteem by "winning."
Face it, handicaps are not going away and there is no fair system.

[Jim Hoak]

One thing that is lost or ignored on this thread--and on many others on here too--is that (at least in the US) most of the amateur, recreational, everyday play is at Match Play, not Stroke Play.  I would guess 75%+.
This fact changes a lot of things, including the importance of handicaps.  Without them what fun would it be to play golf with friends, who are probably of varying abilities?  A wager, and bragging rights, is integral to the fun of club golf.
I'm not arguing that the  handicap system--old or proposed--is perfect.  I can see things wrong with it.  Not the least of which are handicap cheaters (whom I just avoid playing with).  But without handicaps, much of the joy of golf would be lost.

[Steve_ Shaffer]

Personally, I favor the handicap system supposedly in use or previously used at a famous club in Georgia that hosts a major tournament:


Max handicap 18 calculated:
 "As Golf Digest Contributing Editor David Owen wrote in his book, The Making of the Masters, the system developed by co-founder Clifford Roberts is based on the number of pars a player ordinarily makes in a round, with a small adjustment for birdies. If you average six pars per round, for example, your handicap would be 12. (Think of it as 18 holes minus six pars equals a handicap of 12.) The club also uses Roberts' method for allocating handicap strokes, using yardage as the criterion."

https://www.golfdigest.com/story/how-tough-augusta-knuth

[Nick Prafke]

Do handicaps really allow you to compete fairly against someone of radically different skill? I play to a 1 but if I was going up against an 18, their chance of beating their handicap by several shots is far far better than mine. I think handicaps are more usable when the players are close but at that point you are incentivising against becoming a better player.

[John Kavanaugh]

Do handicaps really allow you to compete fairly against someone of radically different skill? I play to a 1 but if I was going up against an 18, their chance of beating their handicap by several shots is far far better than mine. I think handicaps are more usable when the players are close but at that point you are incentivising against becoming a better player.

That is why you pay extra for birdies and sand saves while penalizing three putts.  It is not difficult to structure a game that benefits the better player.

[Jeff Schley]

Do handicaps really allow you to compete fairly against someone of radically different skill? I play to a 1 but if I was going up against an 18, their chance of beating their handicap by several shots is far far better than mine. I think handicaps are more usable when the players are close but at that point you are incentivising against becoming a better player.

If your goal is to sandbag to win a non-name amateur title or become officially crowned the sandbagger of the year at your club it does.   

My club used to have the open handicap match play tournament with 75% handicaps AND the championship was 2 out of 3 matches over the course of the weekend. Each round changed the handicap as well so that was our way of mitigating any sandbagging somewhat.  However, 36 holes the first day and 18 the next (potentially) also wore out some of our golfers physically and they stopped it.

[SL_Solow]

Nick,  the data says you are wrong.  Sine the differential used for handicaps is only a percentage of the 10 best scores out of the last 20 (soon to be 8 best) the size of the differential for a 1 will be closer to a full allowance than for an 18.  Also, 1's are generally more consistent.  So while an 18 is more likely to have a very good round as againt handicap, they are also far more likely to have a bad round.  If both have an average round, the 1 has the advantage.

[John Kavanaugh]

I've played and gambled at golf now for 50 years and don't think I have ever played in a game that was structured and or developed by a high handicapped player. If you study the nuances of any local game you will find the lowest best handicapped golfer wins most of the time. Most 18 handicaps are happy just to get invited. And besides, they usually don't play 5 days a week so they got the cash to play.

[Tim Martin]

I’ve always been fond of the “bustout” feature of multiround tournaments whereby if you best your stated handicap either individually or team score by a certain number of shots you bust out into the next lower flight and the handicaps are adjusted accordingly. It can take the place of a practice round in a member guest tournament and become a compulsory part of the event. If you have a nice prize pool for the one round where players have to put up their own money it can negate some of the sand bagging.

[Kalen Braley]

I think the system is fine....its the players who sandbag, don't know the rules, don't use ESC, etc and post inaccurate scores which results in the actual problem. So on one hand, I can agree that as long as players don't abide by whatever is in place, it will always be crap..


Of which I've always found amusing given golf is supposed to be a game of honor and integrity and all that....

[John Kavanaugh]

I'd rather be a sandbagger than the guy who every time he gets beat thinks he was cheated.

[Nick Prafke]

I think the system is fine....its the players who sandbag, don't know the rules, don't use ESC, etc and post inaccurate scores which results in the actual problem. So on one hand, I can agree that as long as players don't abide by whatever is in place, it will always be crap..


Of which I've always found amusing given golf is supposed to be a game of honor and integrity and all that....

To some extent I agree completely with this. I have seen too many net 63's in my life to trust how the system is executed in the real world, it should be difficult for any handicap to get a net 72 (or whatever par is). I don't know how to best handle it but not all strokes are equal, shaving a stroke off of a 90 is far easier than shaving one off of a 72.

[Garland Bayley]

I think the system is fine....its the players who sandbag, don't know the rules, don't use ESC, etc and post inaccurate scores which results in the actual problem. So on one hand, I can agree that as long as players don't abide by whatever is in place, it will always be crap..


Of which I've always found amusing given golf is supposed to be a game of honor and integrity and all that....

To some extent I agree completely with this. I have seen too many net 63's in my life to trust how the system is executed in the real world, it should be difficult for any handicap to get a net 72 (or whatever par is). I don't know how to best handle it but not all strokes are equal, shaving a stroke off of a 90 is far easier than shaving one off of a 72.

You seem to be lacking in knowledge of the handicap system. Par has nothing to do with it. Probably a significant number of high handicappers establish their handicap on a par 72 that is rated lower at 70. So netting 72 is not an exceptional round.

[Ed Brzezowski]

My question is how are they going to introduce the weather into the calculations. Is it based on a scale of crappy to beautiful?

I wish their media push would explain this a bit better.

[Kalen Braley]

Given all the variance in even the best of handicapping systems,


Seems like gross score pool play (0-5, 6-10, etc) is the best option.....

[Sean_A]

My question is how are they going to introduce the weather into the calculations. Is it based on a scale of crappy to beautiful?

I wish their media push would explain this a bit better.

CSS is a day-to-day variation in SSS against which handicap changes are based. It ranges from one below SSS to three above according to the handicap make-up of the field and the scores returned. This, in turn, should be a function of the difficulty or otherwise of playing conditions on the day. If scores on the day are generally very good you can assume that playing conditions were good. In that case it would be unfair to cut a player’s handicap too much as some of the success was probably down to conditions. In other words it wasn’t a change in ability that allowed you to score well or forced you to struggle, but a variation in course conditions and difficulty. So it is only right that this is factored into the figure against which handicaps are assessed.

Calculations are made via a mathematical equation often by a computer program, however it is not uncommon to see some clubs do the math manually, as soon as the last competition card is handed in.

To begin, the make-up of the field is established based on the percentage of the players in each handicap category. Then the the percentage of the field who have returned net scores within their respective buffer zones is calculated (a buffer zone is how many over par your nett score can be to avoid the dreaded 0.1 increase. It is simple’ category one golfers can be one over their handicap; category two can be two over and so on).

If a high percentage of golfers have met or buffered, CSS can drop one below SSS. One shot is the most that CSS can drop by. If a low percentage of players have met or bettered their buffer zones, CSS may well go up and it can climb up to three shots above SSS before a round becomes “reduction only.”

What the exact formula is, I don't know.

Ciao

[Rick Lane]

My question is how are they going to introduce the weather into the calculations. Is it based on a scale of crappy to beautiful?

I wish their media push would explain this a bit better.

I think I read somewhere, might have been a thread here, that they would look at ALL the scores of a day, and based on those scores relative to their indexes, they would adjust the slope of the course that day in arrears.   So course slop is adjusted daily, based on the performance of the field that day.   Devil in the details, but it sounds interesting.   For sure when I was just at Streamsong in 30mph winds, the courses were more than their rated slope of 130!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I've given 18 shots and lost handicap tournaments to hackers because most of them can throw in a gross 85 from time to time.  Did he (or she) "beat" me if I shot 68?  No way.

"Beating" a player and "winning" the match (or the bets) are two very different things.

More importantly, how do you get players to continue to try to improve their game?

To those that want to, they'll use their handicap index as a measurement of their improvement. To those who are content to play in the same Saturday and Wednesday games every week, who cares, as they're not trying to improve anyway?

Do handicaps really allow you to compete fairly against someone of radically different skill? I play to a 1 but if I was going up against an 18, their chance of beating their handicap by several shots is far far better than mine. I think handicaps are more usable when the players are close but at that point you are incentivising against becoming a better player.

SL already answered this, I think, but you'll win more often. Even without the 96% Bonus for Excellence that's true. That 4% hurts them a bit more than it hurts you.

My question is how are they going to introduce the weather into the calculations. Is it based on a scale of crappy to beautiful?

I wish their media push would explain this a bit better.

It's a few years away. They have plenty of time to explain it, and honestly, I don't think they've worked out the specifics yet.

In the end it's just going to be a math problem.

I think I read somewhere, might have been a thread here, that they would look at ALL the scores of a day, and based on those scores relative to their indexes, they would adjust the slope of the course that day in arrears.   So course slop is adjusted daily, based on the performance of the field that day.   Devil in the details, but it sounds interesting.   For sure when I was just at Streamsong in 30mph winds, the courses were more than their rated slope of 130!

To be clear I don't think there will be a "they." Pretty sure it's simply going to be a computation. A calculation. Something the computer does automatically when a bunch of scores higher (or lower) enough than they should be are posted. (And not just slope, but the rating too.)

[MClutterbuck]

I do wonder how this will work since not all international course have the course rating/slope that the USGA uses and standard scratch of the UK.

In the case of South America, the USGA and the R&A sent raters down last year to Argentina. They rated 6 courses while training local Argentine officials to rate courses, and train officials from other countries to rate courses. The idea is to have all South America covered by the time of full implementation.

As part of the process I have confirmed how hard my home course is (one of the original 6 courses rated by R&A and USGA). This from the USGA database, now including South America courses.




 

[Jeff Schley]

I do wonder how this will work since not all international course have the course rating/slope that the USGA uses and standard scratch of the UK.

In the case of South America, the USGA and the R&A sent raters down last year to Argentina. They rated 6 courses while training local Argentine officials to rate courses, and train officials from other countries to rate courses. The idea is to have all South America covered by the time of full implementation.

As part of the process I have confirmed how hard my home course is (one of the original 6 courses rated by R&A and USGA). This from the USGA database, now including South America courses.

That is one tough track to have as a home course! What is the par/yardage?  Who was the designer?

Also I didn't realize that Argentina had their own course rating associations as one of the 6.  Interesting.

[Colin Shellard]

As a golfer who has 3 kids, a demanding job and a beautiful and understanding wife (who I'd like to keep!) I may be one of the few in the UK the actually like the sound of the WHS. In the past with fewer time restrictions, and a  membership at a club that had 2 or 3 medals a week I would play between a dozen and 25 medal rounds a year - last year I managed just 5 (my current club only has about 6 medals a month). The introduction of this new system allowing me to record "non-competition" rounds to have a handicap more reflective of the golf I'm playing.


Out of interest I analysed my best 8 of the last 20 rounds and did the handicap calculation based on USGA methods (which it seems is closest to the proposed WHS), under this my USGA H/Cap would be 4.1 - my current CONGU (UK) handicap is 5.2 - and I played very poorly last year compared to previous years, failing to beat my handicap in all 4 of the comps I played (although I did buffer once). To me this is great news and I nowhave a much better chance of reaching my lifelong ambition of getting to scratch


I know a lot of Brits are complaining that this will lead to longer rounds with everyone holing out every putt etc, but I don't think that has to happen if people apply some common sense (along with the USGA guidelines which allow for gimmies, matchplay scores etc) plus hopefully the new simplified rules will help a bit in that direction. Most people are resistant to change, but I'm sure that after a couple of years, the vast majority of people will be on board and it'll be great to have handicaps that travel to the US.

[Steve Lang]

   Couple of points come to mind:


I was taught that real players don't ask for strokes, but give them.


I generally concur with Rich and Garland... and would note that better players generally don't seek out play with high handicappers unless its purely social and then the strokes given or taken are more often than not, pure ritual if not hilarious negotiations, usually for beer money anyway...


I once had to give 14 strokes in a match play competition and lost 1&0.  That was definitely a grind, kind of like trekking up the 18th at Reddish Vale for 4 hours.  Felt like a win in the end, though the other guy went on...

[Mike Bodo]

Do handicaps really allow you to compete fairly against someone of radically different skill? I play to a 1 but if I was going up against an 18, their chance of beating their handicap by several shots is far far better than mine. I think handicaps are more usable when the players are close but at that point you are incentivising against becoming a better player.

In certain club tournaments we play only 90% handicap is given making the playing field a little more even for the lower the handicapper for the reasons you mentioned.

[Andy Stamm]

The introduction of this new system allowing me to record "non-competition" rounds to have a handicap more reflective of the golf I'm playing.

I assume you're not in Scotland? That's a shame because here you (a category 1 golfer above 2.4) could submit 10 supplementary scores which would address this problem. Golfers in a category other than 1 can submit as many supplementary scores as they'd like, so it's really only a problem for better golfers.

It is a shame though. EGU adoption of the rule in Scotland would help. And of course your handicap may well be adjusted up in handicap review, although that's a slow remedy.

I guess my point is that adoption of American style score submission is a to me a poor solution to a very real problem.

[MClutterbuck]

I do wonder how this will work since not all international course have the course rating/slope that the USGA uses and standard scratch of the UK.

In the case of South America, the USGA and the R&A sent raters down last year to Argentina. They rated 6 courses while training local Argentine officials to rate courses, and train officials from other countries to rate courses. The idea is to have all South America covered by the time of full implementation.

As part of the process I have confirmed how hard my home course is (one of the original 6 courses rated by R&A and USGA). This from the USGA database, now including South America courses.

That is one tough track to have as a home course! What is the par/yardage?  Who was the designer?

Also I didn't realize that Argentina had their own course rating associations as one of the 6.  Interesting.

Jeff,


Par 72, 7275 yards on a windy site. Jack Nicklaus. Yes, it is too tough, and we play medal play tourmanents nearly every week-end. The new handicap system with its net double bogey max will be a big benefit. The front 9 is a beast and it actually now plays easier than when it opened.


The USGA and R&A (and now The Masters) have worked closely with the Argentine Golf Association (AAG) for the development of golf in South America and organizing tournaments such as the LAAC and South America amateur championships. The Argentine Amateur Championship has been played for 123 years, and the Argentine Open for 113 years. There is a lot of golf history in the country and therefore the AAG got invited along with the major golf ruling bodies for this initiative. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()