New Handicap System

[Niall C]

This discussion is boiling down to a disagreement between the merits of the USGA system where most all scores, tournament and recreational, are posted, and the R&A system, where traditionally only tournament, usually singles scores, are posted.  So how do you come up with a single world-wide system that applies to all?  As a US golfer, who plays some in the UK every year, I understand the merits of both systems.

The central dilemma in my mind is that the style of how golf is normally played is different in each of our countries.  In the US, most of my golf is partner better-ball, match play competition on a recreational basis for a small wager--or some variation thereof. In the UK, a lot of the non-recreational golf may be singles, with a small tournament played on many weekends.  In the US, I don't play more than 1-2 tournament rounds all year.  I don't see the golf at my US clubs ever going to regular weekly tournaments, and I don't see many UK clubs wanting to post recreational rounds--especially partners, match play, recreational rounds.  In the US, if we adopted the UK system, I might only have a couple of rounds to post all year.  And my US friends don't want to have regular tournaments--especially if they require singles play.

Therefore, I think the real problem is not which handicap system is best, but rather how do you devise a unified system that accommodates the different playing preferences of each country?  I don't see all countries ever adopting the same style of play.  So if we are going to have a world-wide handicap system some compromise is needed.  Maybe it will be concluded that given our varying playing preferences a unified system is not possible.  But I think the proposed system is worth a try; it was devised after a lot of negotiation and study.  Let's give it a chance to see how it works.  Nothing need be cast in stone forever.

Jim

I was right with you right up to the last two or three sentences. How about we give leaving alone a try ? 

Niall

[Niall C]

Pete

The thing with the UK system is that generally you get your handicap set by entering comps. I say generally, as I believe you can post a non-comp score if you are struggling to enter enough comps to keep your handicap. In practice, nearly all golfers handicaps are worked out by the scores that are posted in comps. It follows therefore if someone did manage to get themselves a handicap that was much higher than their play merited then they would get it slashed the first time they entered a comp and posted a realistic score. That alone should stop serial sandbagging in strokeplay comps at least.

Niall

[Rich Goodale]

Rich,


I would imagine that adjustments in your CONGU System were minor. What was the most strokes you had to cut somebody by? I doubt you had to take a 15 down to a 7!

I cut a guy from 15 to 10 who spent the whole winter playing golf (and other pleasures) in Thailand, after he came back home with a net 57 on his first medal round.  He moaned but accepted it.

[Kalen Braley]

I don't think the fundamental question should be, what works best for everyone most of the time?  It should be, which system is most difficult to exploit, and that answer appears clear cut from what I've experienced with the US system and understand about CONGU.

Implement that system everywhere and let the golfers adjust.  Sure they'll moan and whine a bit at first, but they'll get in line, especially when they start having a consistently more competitive experience.

Question for those in the UK.  How often do you see one player smash everyone else in a flight by 10+ strokes over 2-3 rounds?

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The higher handicaps and sandbaggers complained of course that they weren't getting their full strokes, but they quickly shut up when we pointed out that they were getting their shots on the hardest holes while the better player was not, whatever his/her HC.  It worked.

Two quick comments… Except for the 66-75% thing, that's how you handicap match play events, yes. Go off the lowest player, and assign strokes based on that. If you meant in fourball, then… I defer to Sean_A on that. Singles it's full amount, typically, and the lower handicapper should still win 50%+ of the time.

And also, note, the "hardest holes" is not how handicaps are assigned. Common misconception. For most lower index players, the par fives are the easiest holes (relative to par). That's why they're the lower handicap number holes. Handicap strokes are assigned based on where the higher handicap player is most likely to need strokes against a lower handicap player. These numbers are supposed to be calculated from about 400+ scorecards of players of all ability levels, and then massaged so that there are odds on the front and evens on the back (or whatever the club/committee wants to do there).

I don't think the fundamental question should be, what works best for everyone most of the time?  It should be, which system is most difficult to exploit, and that answer appears clear cut from what I've experienced with the US system and understand about CONGU.

That's obviously not the way they're going to go, nor should it be IMO. The ruling bodies have an interest in having people with handicaps, and if the vast majority of even semi-serious golfers in the U.S. almost never play in competitions, if they just play their usual Thursday morning skins game or whatever informal thing they have set up with their usual groups, then they wouldn't have a handicap.

Implementing something like the CONGU system here - which again obviously the people who get to make these decisions have clearly decided against - would possibly cause more harm to "handicapping" than sandbaggers do.

[Jim Hoak]

I don't think the fundamental question should be, what works best for everyone most of the time?  It should be, which system is most difficult to exploit, and that answer appears clear cut from what I've experienced with the US system and understand about CONGU.

Implement that system everywhere and let the golfers adjust.  Sure they'll moan and whine a bit at first, but they'll get in line, especially when they start having a consistently more competitive experience.

Question for those in the UK.  How often do you see one player smash everyone else in a flight by 10+ strokes over 2-3 rounds?

Kalen, do you believe that if they adopted the CONGU system of counting only tournament scores in the US, that US golfers would "get in line" and begin to play more singles tournaments on a regular basis?  I don't.  The handicap dog's tail can't wag the dog's body--the preference for golf play.

[Sean_A]

I don't think the fundamental question should be, what works best for everyone most of the time?  It should be, which system is most difficult to exploit, and that answer appears clear cut from what I've experienced with the US system and understand about CONGU.

Implement that system everywhere and let the golfers adjust.  Sure they'll moan and whine a bit at first, but they'll get in line, especially when they start having a consistently more competitive experience.

Question for those in the UK.  How often do you see one player smash everyone else in a flight by 10+ strokes over 2-3 rounds?

Kalen, do you believe that if they adopted the CONGU system of counting only tournament scores in the US, that US golfers would "get in line" and begin to play more singles tournaments on a regular basis?  I don't.  The handicap dog's tail can't wag the dog's body--the preference for golf play.

Jim


I agree with you.  However, making the rest of the traditional golf markets in the world go the US way is tail wagging the dog as well...no?


To me the obvious concession is no matchplay scores used for handicapping.  If US players want to use more friendly scores for handicapping then play friendly medal or stableford.  Its not as if the system needs 50 scores per golfer to work well.  Probably 10-15 does the job fine.  In all honesty, this is what is lacking in the UK system...usually 3-4 scores per year are all that are required to keep a valid handicap...that isn't enough.  That said, there are often many opportunities thru societies, open day comps and throwups etc to post stableford scores. 


Ciao

[Jim Hoak]

Sean, your point is well taken.  But for most of us in the US, if you do not count match play scores (generally with partners), you exclude 95%+ of our scores.  It wouldn't be 10-15 scores that count, but 1-2.  Not enough.
It does raise the mega-issue--how important, really, are unified, international handicaps.  I play one event a year between international teams (and it is Stableford, but two-man partners better ball).  I play 125+ rounds a year, and I can't remember the last singles round I played.
I favor unified handicaps, but  maybe it's not worth the aggravation it causes.

[Kalen Braley]

Jim,

My premise is based on the guess that the vast majority of US golfers who regulary play tournaments...will still want to do so even with a handicap format change.  Yes they will grumble and bitch and moan... but those competitive juices will still be there and they'll still want to compete.  I don't see a mass exodus even if they lose a handful of casual tourney players.

Long term, as stated before, I think it will beneficial as people start realizing they'll get a more competitive environment week in and out.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sean, your point is well taken.  But for most of us in the US, if you do not count match play scores (generally with partners), you exclude 95%+ of our scores.

Huh? Where are you playing golf that 95%+ of your scores are match play?

I almost never see people playing match play. Even when they're gambling a little, it's stroke play. Nassaus, skins, etc.

My premise is based on the guess that the vast majority of US golfers who regulary play tournaments...will still want to do so even with a handicap format change.  Yes they will grumble and bitch and moan... but those competitive juices will still be there and they'll still want to compete.  I don't see a mass exodus even if they lose a handful of casual tourney players.

I think that's a relatively small portion of golfers with handicaps. Clubs with 400 golfing members often struggle to get 20% of them to play in events.

[Tim Martin]

Sean, your point is well taken.  But for most of us in the US, if you do not count match play scores (generally with partners), you exclude 95%+ of our scores.

Huh? Where are you playing golf that 95%+ of your scores are match play?

I almost never see people playing match play. Even when they're gambling a little, it's stroke play. Nassaus, skins, etc.

My premise is based on the guess that the vast majority of US golfers who regulary play tournaments...will still want to do so even with a handicap format change.  Yes they will grumble and bitch and moan... but those competitive juices will still be there and they'll still want to compete.  I don't see a mass exodus even if they lose a handful of casual tourney players.

I think that's a relatively small portion of golfers with handicaps. Clubs with 400 golfing members often struggle to get 20% of them to play in events.

Erik-A Nassau bet is the standard gambling game for match play. How do you incorporate into a non match play format? The definition even references “match play”.

[John Kavanaugh]

I've played golf and gambled for 50 yrs and never been in a game where final score mattered. All bets are on a hole by hole basis. To me that is match play. We do however off very large bonuses for birdies and beating everyone else in the group by 2 strokes. But nobody has a bet based on total strokes for the day.


What does worry me is that in two man best ball tournaments you are asked to pick up if you are out of the hole. It helps with already God forsaken slow play. We never post these scores where you pick up no less than a half dozen 10 footers. Talk about manipulating your handicap with oopsie misses.


No matter what changes are made the same people are going to win. I want to be a 60 yr old 300 lb 5 handicap and that's what I'm going to be. I have yet meet anyone who has a problem with that. No self respecting athlete has the balls to admit they couldn't beat me with that cap.

[Tim Martin]

I've played golf and gambled for 50 yrs and never been in a game where final score mattered. All bets are on a hole by hole basis. To me that is match play. We do however off very large bonuses for birdies and beating everyone else in the group by 2 strokes. But nobody has a bet based on total strokes for the day.


What does worry me is that in two man best ball tournaments you are asked to pick up if you are out of the hole. It helps with already God forsaken slow play. We never post these scores where you pick up no less than a half dozen 10 footers. Talk about manipulating your handicap with oopsie misses.


No matter what changes are made the same people are going to win. I want to be a 60 yr old 300 lb 5 handicap and that's what I'm going to be. I have yet meet anyone who has a problem with that. No self respecting athlete has the balls to admit they couldn't beat me with that cap.

JKav-I have played a lifetime with four ball as king in casual games where final score didn’t/doesn’t matter.

[Sean_A]

Sean, your point is well taken.  But for most of us in the US, if you do not count match play scores (generally with partners), you exclude 95%+ of our scores.  It wouldn't be 10-15 scores that count, but 1-2.  Not enough.
It does raise the mega-issue--how important, really, are unified, international handicaps.  I play one event a year between international teams (and it is Stableford, but two-man partners better ball).  I play 125+ rounds a year, and I can't remember the last singles round I played.
I favor unified handicaps, but  maybe it's not worth the aggravation it causes.

In the end, I think that is right.  How important is it to unify a system when it is at the expense of deeply entrenched cultures? The system works fine in the UK with a few minor flaws which have in the main been addressed already. At the end of the day, it is the US which has the problems with handicapping in that 1) the system is open to serious abuse and 2) it has a huge percentage of golfers who don't even have handicaps because of the relatively small percentage of private club golfers (and club golfers can have very sketchy caps!).  Changing the system isn't going to encourage more Americans to obtain a handicap.  The rest of the world gets on relatively well so it seems sensible to either drop the idea or convince Americans to submit more proper scores.  The funny thing is the I suspect USGA is trying hard to jam this unity thing through when the rules should be going toward bifurcation.

The new handicapping system has the annoyingly familiar ring of "exporting democracy" 

Ciao

[Kalen Braley]

Tim,

I agree that most US golfers don't carry a handicap, but of those that do, most of those are likely playing in regular tournaments...and thats the group I was attempting to target in my last post.  These guys for the most part are very active, playing a lot of rounds and lots of local regional/tournies. I should also make sure to exclude the 4 ball corporate beer scrambles, I've never played in one that required a handicap.

P.S.  When I most active a few years back in Spokane, entering most of the local tournies for a couple of years, a big part of what turned me off was the sandbagging. A new system, with at least some integrity and check points, might have a growing effect on the local tourney scene if word got out they were real competitions again! 

[Tim Martin]

Tim,

I agree that most US golfers don't carry a handicap, but of those that do, most of those are likely playing in regular tournaments...and thats the group I was attempting to target in my last post.  These guys for the most part are very active, playing a lot of rounds and lots of local regional/tournies. I should also make sure to exclude the 4 ball corporate beer scrambles, I've never played in one that required a handicap.

P.S.  When I most active a few years back in Spokane, entering most of the local tournies for a couple of years, a big part of what turned me off was the sandbagging. A new system, with at least some integrity and check points, might have a growing effect on the local tourney scene if word got out they were real competitions again! 

Kalen-My point wasn’t to comment on who has handicaps. Rather it was for Erik who stated that a Nassau bet is unrelated to match play.

[Jim Hoak]

Tim,

I agree that most US golfers don't carry a handicap, but of those that do, most of those are likely playing in regular tournaments...and thats the group I was attempting to target in my last post.  These guys for the most part are very active, playing a lot of rounds and lots of local regional/tournies. I should also make sure to exclude the 4 ball corporate beer scrambles, I've never played in one that required a handicap.

P.S.  When I most active a few years back in Spokane, entering most of the local tournies for a couple of years, a big part of what turned me off was the sandbagging. A new system, with at least some integrity and check points, might have a growing effect on the local tourney scene if word got out they were real competitions again! 

Kalen, most members of private clubs in the US have handicaps mandatorily, and few of them play in regular tournaments--especially as singles.

[Jason Topp]

It will be interesting to see whether participation in regular club events in the UK will wither as a result of this change.  In the US a very small percentage of players ever participate in stroke play events.  I suspect many more would participate if necessary for a handicap.   

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Erik-A Nassau bet is the standard gambling game for match play. How do you incorporate into a non match play format? The definition even references “match play”.

Yeah, sorry, rushed that post a bit too quickly. Nassau is match play, and that's how I play it, but a lot of the guys here will do front, back, total strokes. I could easily be persuaded that's very regional, though. Maybe the guys I've played with around here are weird.

Virtually all of the golfers I've talked with or played with still hole everything out, even if they're playing a (match play) Nassau, because they usually have skins or low gross or low net prizes, too. They'll play in foursomes, but have a few games going that involve all 12-20 of the guys in "their group."

I agree that most US golfers don't carry a handicap, but of those that do, most of those are likely playing in regular tournaments...

This is NOT my experience at all. If you're a member at a club, you get a GHIN membership and thus a handicap. Guys organize their own leagues and regular Saturday morning groups, but that doesn't mean even 40% of them regularly play in tournaments. They'll do the odd charity scramble or two a season, but the majority of golfers here just have handicaps so they can sort out their $5 weekly bets and skins and stuff.

Kalen, most members of private clubs in the US have handicaps mandatorily, and few of them play in regular tournaments--especially as singles.

Yes, this.

[Ulrich Mayring]

How important is it to unify a system when it is at the expense of deeply entrenched cultures?

That is an interesting question. I believe that our governing bodies have answered it thusly: "precisely to break up these entrenched cultures and make golf more of a global community". It is the same argument as to why there should be a European Union or why every web page in the world should use the same "http(s)://" prefix. Sure, you could brexit out of using the HTTP protocol and require UK websites to use a different technology, but it would have culturally significant consequences (good? bad? I suspect remainers as well as brexiteers don't know!).

Brexit (as a metaphor) means you can do things your own way, but you also lose influence in the rest of the world and you lose creative input from outside, because you are making it harder for the rest of the world to deal with you.

If we don't need a globally consistent handicap system, then why would we even need globally consistent rules in golf? If the argument for the rules is that we want international competition to be possible, then the same argument holds for the handicap system.

Ulrich

[Lou_Duran]

Rich,


I would imagine that adjustments in your CONGU System were minor. What was the most strokes you had to cut somebody by? I doubt you had to take a 15 down to a 7!

I cut a guy from 15 to 10 who spent the whole winter playing golf (and other pleasures) in Thailand, after he came back home with a net 57 on his first medal round.  He moaned but accepted it.

Yea, Rich, but you're one scary dude.  I've known you for what, 16+ years, and you still intimidate me. 


Contrast your steel demeanor with that of a former friend who flew B-52s in Nam and served as handicap chair for a couple years at my then home club.  One time he informed a well-known sandbagging member that his handicap was being lowered by two strokes for a meaningless MGA event and the guy cold-cocked him in the mouth and nose.  I didn't see the fight, but Bob, who ran the county prosecutor's office as his paying gig, said to hell with the thankless job and the MGA.  Sorry to say, peer review didn't work either and participation in large handicap events declined to nothing.


Though I don't think that the handicap system can ever be improved to be mostly fair, I am with Jim H on this one.  Let's give the eventual negotiated changes a try and see what happens.


I personally think that small groups like at the Buda can have fairer matches if the captains are willing to adjust the handicaps on the basis of goodwill and sportsmanship.  The only problem has been that reasonable American captains are shamed or out-maneuvered by their European counterparts into making too many concessions, thus putting the weary, unfamiliar travelers at a large disadvantage from the outset.  Hopefully a stronger breed of leaders will emerge from this side of the Atlantic while the new world handicap system is being hammered out.


For what it is worth, I think a straight 10 CONGU translates to a 5 or 6 USGA.  I doubt that the new system will overcome the problem of cheating, but if it bridges and meets the two major systems halfway, that's progress.  I do suppose that if an algorithm can be devised to somewhat accurately adjust the daily course rating, that the same geniuses can come up with something that flags the cheaters.  I can tolerate the vain, but not the two or three guys who get strokes, outdrive me by 50 yards, and seem to have several career rounds every tournament season.       

[Garland Bayley]

Bruce was being sarcastic. I'm going to kick some serious chump ass when they can no longer post 7's on par threes. Good riddance.

We chumps are going to kick you, because we will now be posting 8 and 9 on par 6s.

[Sean_A]

How important is it to unify a system when it is at the expense of deeply entrenched cultures?

That is an interesting question. I believe that our governing bodies have answered it thusly: "precisely to break up these entrenched cultures and make golf more of a global community". It is the same argument as to why there should be a European Union or why every web page in the world should use the same "http(s)://" prefix. Sure, you could brexit out of using the HTTP protocol and require UK websites to use a different technology, but it would have culturally significant consequences (good? bad? I suspect remainers as well as brexiteers don't know!).

Brexit (as a metaphor) means you can do things your own way, but you also lose influence in the rest of the world and you lose creative input from outside, because you are making it harder for the rest of the world to deal with you.

If we don't need a globally consistent handicap system, then why would we even need globally consistent rules in golf? If the argument for the rules is that we want international competition to be possible, then the same argument holds for the handicap system.

Ulrich

Well, I would say that it is wise to make sure that a new world wide system is better than the current systems which aren't broken. The problems lie with N America.  When Americans take a handicapping system seriously then there will be no issues.  For many, handicapping is another point of gamesmanship. 

Also, comparing rules and handicaps isn't a good analogy.  Consistent(ish) rules are necessary for high level golf.  The rest of us can still do what we want and frequently do.  International consistency in handicapping is a fake priority that essentially masks the real issues facing golf.  I don't believe a bunch of hacks on holiday is a good reason tear down tried, tested and successful systems....unless the countries with the problems adopt the successful models. I don't trust a system of handicapping where friendly games are posted.  Everybody knows that concept is wide open to corruption.   

Ciao

[Ulrich Mayring]

Someone has to give. Either the Americans are going to have much higher handicaps than now or the Brits are going way lower. I suspect continental Europe (EGA system) falls somewhere in-between.

Basing a handicap on comp rounds only means that you are making it impossible for many to maintain an appropriate handicap. Cheaters gonna cheat, no matter what. But how about giving the honest, but time-constrained golfers a way to align their handicap to their abilities?

Ulrich

[John Kavanaugh]

Bruce was being sarcastic. I'm going to kick some serious chump ass when they can no longer post 7's on par threes. Good riddance.

We chumps are going to kick you, because we will now be posting 8 and 9 on par 6s.

I'm sorry but that is not how it works. You see, the chump always plays well on stroke holes.


I honestly grew so tired of a guy knocking a ball in the water on a par three, missing the green on his provisional and picking up for 7 that our group Rudolfed him. Play bogey golf and shoot 90. Add three quads and you post 99.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags: