handicap system (ot)

[archie_struthers]

Continue to surprised how dis-functional our Ghin handicap system is after fifty years of playing golf. The idea to decrease the number of scores used seems silly. If anything they should use more not less to determine an accurate profile of a players current state of play.

[Wayne_Kozun]

Does it really make much difference if it is the best 8 of 20 rather than best 10 of 20?  Everyone will be a bit lower, but it likely make little difference on a relative basis.


IMO one shortcoming in the system is not accounting for the variance of a players scores.

[Matt MacIver]

How about not counting a 9 hole score the day you play but rather wait and add it to your next 9 hole round?  Could be days/weeks/months between. 


And not counting a score when you play alone?  That must mean the USGA thinks there are more cheaters in the game than not!

[Carl Johnson]

What's dysfunctional about GHIN is the way players post their scores.  Some straight, but many vanity postings and some sandbagging.  Eight or ten scores is not the issue.  And how about the rating/slope system that comes into play when different courses are involved?  Have you ever experienced how this work is really done?

[Matt Schoolfield]

Planning on writing about this. With modern machine learning we could easily revamp the system pretty easily.


I think the biggest problem, ironically, is that rating/slope/index is prescriptive. With ml we could use player scores to much better create ratings, dynamic slope, and properly create stroke indexes (par 3’s always being low index is myopic). Instead, we currently do the opposite.


Finally, delta between tournament indexes and non-tournament indexes should be weighed to blunt sandbagging/vanity. If delta between your tournament play and daily play is predictive, it should be netted.

[Thomas Dai]

Seems like the last couple of years have shown that the system the World moved to, the new system, hasn’t worked. Maybe we should scrap it entirely and adopt a universal new approach with all using the old U.K. system instead!!!!!


Atb

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Continue to surprised how dis-functional our Ghin handicap system is after fifty years of playing golf. The idea to decrease the number of scores used seems silly.

It achieves almost the same results as 10 of 20 with the 0.96 multiplier.

If anything they should use more not less to determine an accurate profile of a players current state of play.

It's about potential, not average.

Does it really make much difference if it is the best 8 of 20 rather than best 10 of 20?  Everyone will be a bit lower, but it likely make little difference on a relative basis.

They won't, actually, given that the 0.96 multiplier was dropped. Some went up, some went down (both slightly), most stayed about the same.

And not counting a score when you play alone?  That must mean the USGA thinks there are more cheaters in the game than not!

You never use a handicap when playing alone, so it's not about "cheating." Requiring someone to at least see you shoot your score is more like conditions that you'll encounter when you're actually using your handicap.

Have you ever experienced how this work is really done?

I'm a course rating captain for over a decade, so… yes.

I think the biggest problem, ironically, is that rating/slope/index is prescriptive. With ml we could use player scores to much better create ratings, dynamic slope, and properly create stroke indexes (par 3’s always being low index is myopic). Instead, we currently do the opposite.

So long as the low stroke index holes are not all clustered at the start or end of the round, their distribution is almost unimportant to the outcome of the match: matches up with the same result the vast majority of the time whether the fourth hole or the sixth hole is the #1 stroke index hole.

[Kalen Braley]

I'm agree wholeheartedly with Carl on this.

GHIN certainly has data integrity issues, but I wouldn't attribute much of it to sample size, its clearly a data entry/validation/vetting issue.

[Rob Marshall]

Lower handicaps are at a disadvantage under the system IMO. I also find it ironic that handicaps change daily but at out club they use you handicap as of the Monday before the event.


Game of honor but you can’t post a score when you play alone but you can post a score after playing out of town with three guys you’ve never met who have no idea what you post.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I also find it ironic that handicaps change daily but at out club they use you handicap as of the Monday before the event.

It's easier from an administration standpoint to have a cut-off that isn't "midnight before your event." You can print scorecards, etc. (If your event is on Saturday, though, I agree that Monday is a bit too far out.)

Game of honor but you can’t post a score when you play alone but you can post a score after playing out of town with three guys you’ve never met who have no idea what you post.

Again… the "peer review" is only a part of the reason for that. The other parts are, as has been mentioned several times now (including point #1 just above):

• You don't use your handicap when you play alone. You play with people in tournaments, match play, etc. So, playing with people is more like how you would USE your handicap, and it makes sense to establish it in situations that are more similar.
• It was a small concession to the rest of the world to create the WHS. The UK system (and much of the rest of the world) was to only post competitive rounds. So… would you rather they fully concede to that? To only posting competitive rounds?

What's "ironic" is that people will complain on one hand that golfers can post whatever score they want (pick up and estimate they'd have one-putted, etc.), but then complain that they don't "trust" you to play alone. Maybe because it's not really mostly about "trust."

[Rob Marshall]

I also find it ironic that handicaps change daily but at out club they use you handicap as of the Monday before the event.

It's easier from an administration standpoint to have a cut-off that isn't "midnight before your event." You can print scorecards, etc. (If your event is on Saturday, though, I agree that Monday is a bit too far out.)

Game of honor but you can’t post a score when you play alone but you can post a score after playing out of town with three guys you’ve never met who have no idea what you post.

Again… the "peer review" is only a part of the reason for that. The other parts are, as has been mentioned several times now (including point #1 just above):

• You don't use your handicap when you play alone. You play with people in tournaments, match play, etc. So, playing with people is more like how you would USE your handicap, and it makes sense to establish it in situations that are more similar.
• It was a small concession to the rest of the world to create the WHS. The UK system (and much of the rest of the world) was to only post competitive rounds. So… would you rather they fully concede to that? To only posting competitive rounds?

What's "ironic" is that people will complain on one hand that golfers can post whatever score they want (pick up and estimate they'd have one-putted, etc.), but then complain that they don't "trust" you to play alone. Maybe because it's not really mostly about "trust."

Except there are a lot of people with handicaps that don’t gamble. When I play with three guys I don’t know in Florida I’m not using my handicap. Most decent size money games aren’t using the GHIN system to determine the stroke either.

[Michael Felton]

(par 3’s always being low index is myopic)

Do you mean low or high? In theory the longer a hole is, the more opportunity there is for a better player to differentiate himself from a worse player, so the hole's length ought to be a reasonable match to index (reversed). A par 5 has more shots to be better than someone else on than a par 3 does. 2ish on average. Stroke indices are generally speaking for matchplay, so that's more important than a hole's difficulty relative to its par.


I think the biggest issue with the handicap system is the randomness with which scores are posted. I played an event a couple of years ago at the Bridge on Long Island. It was littered with +5 and +6 handicaps who shot 80+ and didn't post. The PCC adjustment was +1 for all three rounds, but if everyone posted their scores it may have been +3 (it certainly should have been - conditions were joke difficult).


The other thing I've noticed is playing events where the tees are kind of randomly placed between the back and the next to back tees and some people post on the back tees and others on the next to back tees. Consequently two people shooting the same score on the same course on the same day have different differentials. The association really ought to post all the scores automatically, not leave it to the players to "forget" to post when they have a bad day.


Those are my beefs with the system.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Except there are a lot of people with handicaps that don’t gamble.

That doesn't speak to what I said. You don't use a handicap playing alone, so why create it under dissimilar conditions? Maybe they should have gone full rest-of-the-world and limited handicap rounds to weekly "comp" rounds, as that's even more like how you'll actually use your handicap.

[Rob Marshall]

Except there are a lot of people with handicaps that don’t gamble.

That doesn't speak to what I said. You don't use a handicap playing alone, so why create it under dissimilar conditions? Maybe they should have gone full rest-of-the-world and limited handicap rounds to weekly "comp" rounds, as that's even more like how you'll actually use your handicap.

That exactly what they should have done.

[Rob Marshall]

(par 3’s always being low index is myopic)

Do you mean low or high? In theory the longer a hole is, the more opportunity there is for a better player to differentiate himself from a worse player, so the hole's length ought to be a reasonable match to index (reversed). A par 5 has more shots to be better than someone else on than a par 3 does. 2ish on average. Stroke indices are generally speaking for matchplay, so that's more important than a hole's difficulty relative to its par.


I think the biggest issue with the handicap system is the randomness with which scores are posted. I played an event a couple of years ago at the Bridge on Long Island. It was littered with +5 and +6 handicaps who shot 80+ and didn't post. The PCC adjustment was +1 for all three rounds, but if everyone posted their scores it may have been +3 (it certainly should have been - conditions were joke difficult).


The other thing I've noticed is playing events where the tees are kind of randomly placed between the back and the next to back tees and some people post on the back tees and others on the next to back tees. Consequently two people shooting the same score on the same course on the same day have different differentials. The association really ought to post all the scores automatically, not leave it to the players to "forget" to post when they have a bad day.


Those are my beefs with the system.

Problem with scores posted  automatically is you can’t put in your stats. That’s really what I use the system for.

[archie_struthers]

 


When I turned 57 I retired from my part time job arguing with Dean Knuth about the handicap system as we knew it .  By the tenth year of calling in we had a great 😊 rapport and I would always send him a Christmas card 🤓


Most of us know that the system as designed tries to determine potential and it may indeed work to some extent. However the best guys I have ever played with had talent but were consistent , not just mercurial.


So I guess if all you play is a skins game it’s fine .  I’ve been trying to fix my swing to get more speed , with deleterious effect to my scores . I have shot 7 of the worst scores of my life and my handicap has moved up .6 in the last month . You would think 🤔 that a fair game would address current form far batter than this .


Who’s better a guy who shoots 72…73…72.  74.     Or the guy who goes 67….   80….78….83…: 75.   


Why not just count and post all scores / scotch the high numbers and get a real idea of what your average would be. 


Just never saw the light 💡 on this one

[Steve Lang]

   Archie, who ever said golf was a fair game??

[archie_struthers]

 




Of course it’s not fair but to me the system was modified to deter sandbagging or cheating. 


Can you imagine if baseball did averages this way or bowling 🎳 😂

[Sean_A]

This new system has taken hold of so many British players. They care more about posting scores than about golf. It's sad. I have to stand around watching guys putt out when their score is immaterial to the match 🙈. Very heavy sigh. Guessing a score after picking up is a tough sell to Brits. They want to grind out the card like it's a comp. It's boring. I wonder how long it will take for Brits to properly grasp the system.

Plus, the attestation for this new system is a joke. It's not quite as bad as in the US, but man, it's very lax.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Seems like the last couple of years have shown that the system the World moved to, the new system, hasn’t worked. Maybe we should scrap it entirely and adopt a universal new approach with all using the old U.K. system instead!!!!!
 

Atb

David


I appreciate you are to an extent joking however I'm not sure I've met anyone yet who is enthusiastic about the new system with many being highly critical for the reasons that Sean alludes to. The culture of golf in this country is changing and I fear not in a good way.


Niall

[Rob Marshall]

Except there are a lot of people with handicaps that don’t gamble.

That doesn't speak to what I said. You don't use a handicap playing alone, so why create it under dissimilar conditions? Maybe they should have gone full rest-of-the-world and limited handicap rounds to weekly "comp" rounds, as that's even more like how you'll actually use your handicap.

If the rational is that you aren’t using your handicap when playing alone why can I post a score with my wife is riding in the cart watching?

As long as someone accompanies the player during the round (e.g., fellow competitor, opponent, caddie, marker for a tournament, friend riding along in a cart) the player is not playing alone.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system-usga-golf-faqs/faqs---played-a-round-by-myself.html

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If the rational is that you aren’t using your handicap when playing alone why can I post a score with my wife is riding in the cart watching?

Hmmm.

Requiring someone to at least see you shoot your score is more like conditions that you'll encounter when you're actually using your handicap.

A spectator (or ten) is still closer to the conditions under which you'd use a handicap than being out there completely alone. And very few people play solo with a spectator; most solo rounds are truly solo, and thus the most unlike the conditions under which you'd use the handicap.

[Ken Moum]

When I heard we were exporting our dysfunctional handicap system worldwide i predicted that golfers in the UK were going to be very unhappy.


It's taken longer than I expected, but the reactions are exactly what I expected.


Including casual rounds fails to measure a key component of skill.


The ability to play well when you want to, under competitive circumstances, is important, and failing to measure it is just dumb.


And don't get me started on the course rating system.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

And don't get me started on the course rating system.

Would love to hear how you'd make it better, and wish you the best of luck with that.

[Sean_A]

When I heard we were exporting our dysfunctional handicap system worldwide i predicted that golfers in the UK were going to be very unhappy.


It's taken longer than I expected, but the reactions are exactly what I expected.


Including casual rounds fails to measure a key component of skill.


The ability to play well when you want to, under competitive circumstances, is important, and failing to measure it is just dumb.


And don't get me started on the course rating system.

They haven't sorted out the rating system. Everyone who plays links knows the courses are rated at a very minimal level. Hardly ever do the adjustments for wind or harsh rough kick in. I guess it will take time to sort it?

Ciao