[Wayne_Kozun]

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.

What about Calcutta's for Member-Guest or Member-Member tournaments?  We have these at my club and the overall pool can be $10k+ and GHIN (technically Golf Canada here in Canada) handicaps are used.

[Rob Marshall]

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.

Except that has nothing to do with the reason stated by the usga that I posted. It says nothing about playing conditions. It’s pretty clear that it’s all about peer review.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It’s pretty clear that it’s all about peer review.

It's not "all about peer review." Peer review is a "key system premise" (or something like that), but there are other reasons for the change, too. Namely, the interest of compromise with the other systems (competitive only rounds) and the fact that you don't use a handicap in a solo round. I can only go by what I was told directly.

I'm not terribly interested in arguing with you when the argument seems to be your sole point here. You don't like that the WHS requires an observer or fellow player, but you think they "should have" gone all the way to allowing only competitive rounds.

Furthermore, it's not like this is new. It's been this way since 2016.

[Rob Marshall]

It’s pretty clear that it’s all about peer review.

It's not "all about peer review." Peer review is a "key system premise" (or something like that), but there are other reasons for the change, too. Namely, the interest of compromise with the other systems (competitive only rounds) and the fact that you don't use a handicap in a solo round. I can only go by what I was told directly.

I'm not terribly interested in arguing with you when the argument seems to be your sole point here. You don't like that the WHS requires an observer or fellow player, but you think they "should have" gone all the way to allowing only competitive rounds.

Furthermore, it's not like this is new. It's been this way since 2016.

Who said it was new?


Posting solo and using only competitive rounds are two different things. If you want the system to be as accurate as possible use of competitive rounds imo is the best solution.


Not posting solo rounds when it’s a game of integrity imo makes no sense. The usga is clear in their answer as to why you can’t post solo rounds. Peer review is their answer.

[size=78%]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[/size]


Question asked and answered by USGA

[archie_struthers]

 


Amazing how they have inculcated so many that "potential" is accepted by all ! we played today the handicaps are so skewed with mostly honest guys. One guy screws himself by having a vanity cap but that's his loss. He's fairly wealthy so it is what it is lol


We did have a great skins game and closest on par threes though. First group a guy hit it 2 feet from 180 (par three) and came in third . Two holes in one followed out of 16 guys ....plenty of drinking but no skin for either of the boys, loved it  !

[Matt Schoolfield]

Again, if there is a delta between tournament score distribution and standard play distributions, this can be measured and applied to adjust tournament scores.


This is why I think the debate about handicap is so problematic. We think we need one handicap, but it would be better if we had multiple handicaps for different situations.


One for a casual play, with given putts, and an adjustment for tournaments. Tournament play adjustments can even be varied for how much predictive power tournament play has on actual tournament score vs actual casual play scores.

[Ken Moum]

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.

Until I'm on a rating team, my opinion about HOW the rating system works is pretty irrelevant.


But all the thoughtful golfers I have talked to know that someone who plays a "hard" course is damned had to beat on an "easy" course.


IOW, handicaps don't travel nearly as equitably as they ought to.


Similarly,  when a player has an index based on play exclusively on one set of tees, but then moves up because the Men's Club plays shorter tees in its comps, the adjustment isn't enough. 


I had hoped that all the data available from the new system would show that and result in changes...maybe it's too soon.


Or maybe we're imagining things.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Who said it was new?

I didn't say you did. I'm just saying that still having this same conversation over seven years into the change is pointless, no? I'm not arguing just to argue, Rob. If you want to, go ahead.

But all the thoughtful golfers I have talked to know that someone who plays a "hard" course is damned had to beat on an "easy" course.

I've heard that. But I've also heard the opposite, and seen a good amount of evidence to the opposite, too: guys (or gals) who can shoot 71 on a 74.4/139 course often have trouble shooting 67 or lower on a 68.4/124 course even though the differentials for both are still pretty far apart: +2.8 versus +1.3.

IOW, handicaps don't travel nearly as equitably as they ought to.

I think you can appreciate the difficulty in creating a system where an entire golf course is boiled down to two numbers (scratch and bogey ratings). You can have two courses with identical ratings that favor very different styles of play: the long hitter on a wide open course and the short hitter and good putter on a classic tree-lined parkland course with greens built in the '50s with a ton of slope.


Etc.

Similarly,  when a player has an index based on play exclusively on one set of tees, but then moves up because the Men's Club plays shorter tees in its comps, the adjustment isn't enough.

Doesn't that contradict what you said above? They play an easier course and play comparatively worse?

[James Reader]

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

It seems that experiences with the new system (for the UK) vary wildly.  I’m yet to play with anyone posting a general play score and I’ve only done so once myself (when I was marking for a pair playing in a foursome competition).


I also keep reading complaints about high handicappers winning everything with ridiculously low scores but just haven’t seen that at the (4) clubs of which I’m a member.  The most extreme winning score I’ve seen was a net 60 by a 10-handicapper (who then shot 91 when I played with him the following weekend!).

[Mark Pearce]

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

It seems that experiences with the new system (for the UK) vary wildly.  I’m yet to play with anyone posting a general play score and I’ve only done so once myself (when I was marking for a pair playing in a foursome competition).


I also keep reading complaints about high handicappers winning everything with ridiculously low scores but just haven’t seen that at the (4) clubs of which I’m a member.  The most extreme winning score I’ve seen was a net 60 by a 10-handicapper (who then shot 91 when I played with him the following weekend!).

I couldn't agree more.


I saw Sean's post and wondered who on Earth he chooses to play his golf with.  The guys I play with would laugh if I suggested recording a general play score.  Handicaps are for, and should be based on, competition rounds.  The new system works fine in the UK because no-one (except Seans's friends, apparently!) records general play rounds.


And under the old CONGU system I played with someone who shot 75 net 60.  And he was, at the time, a genuine 15 but always capable of playing good golf, just never, previously, for 18 holes.

[Sean_A]

I have been playing quite a bit with a younger set of folks. Generally speaking, they want to post scores. Spangles did as well during a recent game! I think for older guys, its probably quite a bit different. In any case, my larger point was if Brits realized the correct way to post scores it wouldn't be a big deal. They want to hole out everything. Its not necessary. You can still play matchplay with picking up and post scores. Brits haven't accepted this yet...so its a pain in the ass over here. I posted a few rounds with picking up and received sideways looks. Its obvious they don't know the system is designed for approximations. But then I was using this system back in the 90s before moving to England so I am used to it.


I still believe the most accurate way to determine handicaps is in a proper competition setting with someone holding your card and properly attesting it. However, this system lacks elasticity in terms of a more accurate reflection of the current playing trends that the new system provides. Using the old system it could take forever for a handicap to move enough to more accurately reflect current play...this was a serious flaw, but the only one so far as I can tell if accuracy is the prime objective. However, accuracy is only one objective with the new system.


Ciao 

[Mark Pearce]

Spangles did as well during a recent game!

I am appalled.

[Sean_A]

Spangles did as well during a recent game!

I am appalled.

I did give him grief. Just desserts as he scored poorly 😎.

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

The problem with only posting competitive rounds is that the majority of golfers don’t play in such events. The guys that want to play four ball or money games inside their group in a casual fashion are on the outside looking in for purposes of obtaining a handicap.

[Mark Pearce]

Spangles did as well during a recent game!

I am appalled.

I did give him grief.

Good.  As it should be.

Just desserts as he scored poorly 😎.

Ciao

So he was manipulating his handicap?

[Mark Pearce]

The problem with only posting competitive rounds is that the majority of golfers don’t play in such events. The guys that want to play four ball or money games inside their group in a casual fashion are on the outside looking in for purposes of obtaining a handicap.

This may be true in the USA but isn't in the UK or Australia, for instance, where most club golfers regularly play in competitions.

[Rob Marshall]

Why can't you have both? Handicaps based on Comp's and also have an average score? Ghin System allows you to do both now.

[Sean_A]

Spangles did as well during a recent game!

I am appalled.

I did give him grief.

Good.  As it should be.

Just desserts as he scored poorly .

Ciao

So he was manipulating his handicap?

No idea, I wasn't involved 😎

Ciao

[Niall C]

Spangles did as well during a recent game!

I am appalled.

I had a whole week of him doing it. And checking his handicap movement on a daily basis !


Like Mark I think competition scores should only count towards a handicap when players are playing under the gun, and when their scores can be compared to others playing under the same conditions. However unlike Mark I agree with Sean that a lot of folk are using the current system to log scores in casual play. This had lead to abuse which the old system effectively prevented. I'm hearing of a long-standing member at one of my old clubs who played off a 7 or 8 handicap for a good many years who has taken to posting scores in the high 80's and 90's an almost daily basis who miraculously then plays to his old handicap in the medals. Many in the club are now questioning whether it is worth the while entering comps.


Niall 


ps I am in no way suggesting that Mr Muldoon is up to such skullduggery. Heaven forbid.

[Sean_A]

Spangles did as well during a recent game!

I am appalled.

I had a whole week of him doing it. And checking his handicap movement on a daily basis !


Like Mark I think competition scores should only count towards a handicap when players are playing under the gun, and when their scores can be compared to others playing under the same conditions. However unlike Mark I agree with Sean that a lot of folk are using the current system to log scores in casual play. This had lead to abuse which the old system effectively prevented. I'm hearing of a long-standing member at one of my old clubs who played off a 7 or 8 handicap for a good many years who has taken to posting scores in the high 80's and 90's an almost daily basis who miraculously then plays to his old handicap in the medals. Many in the club are now questioning whether it is worth the while entering comps.


Niall 


ps I am in no way suggesting that Mr Muldoon is up to such skullduggery. Heaven forbid.

Spangles is a sad character.

To be fair, all scores are meany to be posted. However, I suspect very few people do this. I posted a few casual rounds because 1),I rarely play comps and 2)only post scores I think might lower my handicap. But that is not how the system is designed. Mind you, it's a major flaw in the system when all scores are expected to be posted.

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

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

100%

[Peter Sayegh]

The problem with only posting competitive rounds is that the majority of golfers don’t play in such events. The guys that want to play four ball or money games inside their group in a casual fashion are on the outside looking in for purposes of obtaining a handicap.

Thanks for bringing this up Tim.

[Sean_A]

The problem with only posting competitive rounds is that the majority of golfers don’t play in such events. The guys that want to play four ball or money games inside their group in a casual fashion are on the outside looking in for purposes of obtaining a handicap.

Thats an obvious issue which is a tradeoff between accuracy and a significant percentage of US handicap holders, many of which are private club members who as a lobby would have a loud voice. What really upsets me is to a large degree the US has failed miserably with getting golfers on board with proper handicaps. This system has been in place for at least 25 years. It's sad that other countries have to cow tow to the power of the USGA despite their failings.

Ciao

[archie_struthers]

 


I think it is absurd that they count less than half the rounds you play to assess a handicap. You should count them all , scotch them accordingly and give tournament play extra weight.

[Adrian_Stiff]

I think it is absurd that they count less than half the rounds you play to assess a handicap. You should count them all , scotch them accordingly and give tournament play extra weight.

I think you are getting nearer, if the system was your best 8 out of 10 then the average we would be nearer the mark, but even that means you could be a 5 handicap and in 2 months suddenly be off 15. We all experience off form times, and I dare say it opens up even more opportunities to cheat although those players wont see it that way. So perhaps there needs to be something that if the rise in hcp over 2 months is more than 2 shots then 16 cards in 20 count. There are lots of faults with the current system. I am 7 handicap and should be 12, but I only have 12 counting cards play a couple of times a year, if I play in Spain it seems hard to register it. If a tee is 11 yards away from a measured position the round is non counting, which to be honest is all a bit crazy. So I think overall if its 20 cards then 16 should count, if you dont have 20 cards in then 4 from 5, 6 from 8, 7 from 9, 8 from 10, 9 from 12, 10 from 13, 11 from 14, 12 from 15, 13 from 16, 14 from 17 and 15 from 18. That is a a lot of shit golf to get to a false handicap and it stop the silly +4 handicappers that are really 2 handicap.
So abandon the 'markers must be within 10 yards of the tee' rule.
16 out of 20. Or the Average of your best 80% cards which will restore a plus 2 handicap being something.
I also think that the increase in prize money you can win has not helped, there are those that search gain from non qualifying competitions because of their format, team or BB. They don't think its cheating.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()