handicap system (ot)

[Erik J. Barzeski]

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.

Why?

It's not about your average, it's about your potential. In the decades that we've had USGA handicapping in the U.S., it's been the best x number of your differentials. And with the WHS, they had a chance to re-write the whole thing… and they still went with a subset, reducing it to 8/20 (while also dropping the 0.96 multiplier).

So… you think you know better than the people who have been administrating it for decades, and the global audience of other golf associations who signed on to the WHS? What do you think their counter-argument to your position would be? What do you disagree with specifically, and why would you want 20/20 counted (or maybe since you're changing it, to go to your last 10 rounds, or 6, or 13…) and weighted? Do you like the idea of potential or do you like the idea of "average"? What changes to matches would you foresee? Because if you're looking at average… the higher handicapper is probably going to win a higher percentage of matches under your system. Currently, the lower handicap player has a very small edge (the size of the gap changes the advantage, but it's low single digits as a percentage).

[Jim Hoak]

Erik, I agree with your thinking 100%.  People who want to move to an "average" vs. a "potential" aren't thinking through the ramifications of their proposal.  This system has been well-thought-out over more than a year of work.  Keep up the good fight!

[Padraig Dooley]

1981 Munster Handicaps by Padraig Dooley,


There isn't a great enough bias towards excellence in the current WHS, it's much easier now for lower handicap golfers to get lower and high handicap golfers to stay high, the low handicap golfers are now not competitive in handicap/net competitions. Golfers who were 4/5 handicap golfers in the CONGU system are now scratch/1 in the new system without their ability improving. A friend was showing the 20 scores of two low handicap golfers to me recently, one had an index of 0.9 but only had one score of par or better in his 20 rounds and that was 71, another had an index of -2.6 and you wouldn't expect him to break par on a good day. Their indexes are out of whack.

Having a Scratch handicap used to mean much more, you really had to be a very good player to be Scratch, in the photo above is the list of Category 1 golfers in Munster in 1981, there were only 4 Scratch golfers in Munster in 1981, one of whom was Arthur Pierce who played Walker Cup two years later, now there are clubs in the area with 10 golfers who are scratch or lower.

I understand that a handicap system is to compare golfers to one another and not to their scores or the course. The CONGU system introduced to the UK and Ireland in the 80's was a better system, the higher handicaps would get cut more for good scores and the lower would get cut less, giving a greater bias towards excellence.

The thinking that every golfer should have a handicap index as soon as possible is flawed, most grow the game mantras are flawed, the grow the game mantra has been hijacked by corporations, as they are really just looking at ways to make money.

Golf is a game to be played and enjoyed, the greater the emphasis on scoring the less emphasis on enjoyment. I am aware of the paradox that the goal of golf is to shoot the lowest score possible but I don't see the golfers who shoot the lowest scores being the ones that enjoy the game the most. Too many golfers equate how they've enjoyed the round by the score they had and it's a terrible shame.

The WHS has accelerated the idea that every round should be posted and has created 22 handicaps who should be 16 playing against scratch golfers who should be 4, failing in the simple goal of having golfers of different abilities competing against each other on a relatively level playing field.

[Ken Moum]

Erik, I know that the system has too many moving parts to yield simple solutions. From my former life I also know that people like me too often assume they have all the answers.  We don't.


That said,  the simplest way to express my thoughts about rating is that there's not enough difference between simple courses and extremely difficult ones.


Similarly,  I think the difference between tees is too small. I moved up one tee and my index is down more than three strokes.


Moving up dropped my handicap by three, but now it's down seven.

[Steve Lang]

   Couldn't resist looking up some stats... for some perspective


per USGA/WHS at end of 2020, 2,417,905 golfers in USA had handicap index (79% men), about 30% are single digits.   Worldwide WHS has about 15 million golfers with index records.


Per NGF in 2022 25.6 million people in USA played golf and another 15.5 participated in off-course golf activities like ranges, Top Golf etc..


So after 400 years or so, the sport still hasn't figured out how to be fair across the board, or even in between small club circles of play... imagine that.  Important to many but not enough to get it right.  I don't need an index, but carry one from mostly competitions and often in casual play we adjust informally or revisit as needed at the turn... after all winner buys drinks!

[archie_struthers]

 


yeah Eric in the world where I'm king , I want the handicap to reflect how you are playing at a given time , not what you could shoot if you have everything clicking and every putt falls in . Maybe you don't play with your buddies for money , which I totally get , but if you do you know when you are in a bad game.


So right now I suck, trying to find a way to hit it further so I can be competitive has made me struggle. But I"m trying to get competitive at a higher level, which mandates hitting it further. If I'm playing for your life or for a lot of money can I shoot 74-78 , sure , but that doesn't beat anyone that's decent in a stroke play event. Could I bunt it around and shoot lower scores ,  absolutely. So if that's the reason you attach higher significance to club championship events and the like I'm all in. I know plenty of guys who manipulate their scores so they have a high number all winter....the system doesn't stop them , they post what they want to beat it. So you are never gonna stop these guys from cheating, you just don't bet them at the bad number.


So if the handicap system is for potential only , and not a reflection of what's current , so be it. YO COMPRENDE ....just don't tell me it reflects how good someone really is!@

[Mark Pearce]

It is a weird thread on this site that keeps me coming back to the conclusion that I agree with Erik.  But on this thread, he's spot on.


Those who argue for a handicap system (and I note they're mostly better players) obviously don't understand statistics.  If the system reflected average ability, rather than potential, or peak, then it would be a disaster in competition.  It's inevitable that higher handicaps have higher standard deviation of score.  Lower handicap players have lower standard deviations.  An inevitable result of this is that the differential between handicap and "average" gets greater as you get worse.  For scratch players, I imagine that the differential is quite low. 


Which means that high handicappers far more frequently score well below average (and, equally, well above average).  Club handicap competitions would nearly always be won by higher handicappers.  Low markers complain about that already.  Imagine what would happen if the system reflected average scores!

[archie_struthers]

 


Mark, good analysis and answer. Those are cogent reasons for the system as it exists. Some of us who fall in the  "doughnut hole " and occasionally shoot a couple very low rounds get beat up pretty good by the system on most days. So I guess we got to man up and play smarter.  Good stuff

[Mark Pearce]

Some of us who fall in the  "doughnut hole " and occasionally shoot a couple very low rounds get beat up pretty good by the system on most days.

The good news, though, is that those occasional very low scores happen about one time in ten (if they're counting at the same time) and you're presumably doing well against any field when they do!

[Thomas Dai]

Question … I played 5 holes last night on my own. I played from different colour tee markers. I didn’t putt out on every hole.
Should I have submitted the score?
Genuinely curious to know.
Atb

[Rob Marshall]

It is a weird thread on this site that keeps me coming back to the conclusion that I agree with Erik.  But on this thread, he's spot on.


Those who argue for a handicap system (and I note they're mostly better players) obviously don't understand statistics.  If the system reflected average ability, rather than potential, or peak, then it would be a disaster in competition.  It's inevitable that higher handicaps have higher standard deviation of score.  Lower handicap players have lower standard deviations.  An inevitable result of this is that the differential between handicap and "average" gets greater as you get worse.  For scratch players, I imagine that the differential is quite low. 


Which means that high handicappers far more frequently score well below average (and, equally, well above average).  Club handicap competitions would nearly always be won by higher handicappers.  Low markers complain about that already.  Imagine what would happen if the system reflected average scores!

The majority already are won by the higher handicappers..............

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It is a weird thread on this site that keeps me coming back to the conclusion that I agree with Erik.

If we all live long enough, anything is possible. 

Does anyone else here keep their anti-cap? Their worst 8 of their last 20 rounds? I like to as a measure of consistency.

[Bryan Izatt]

Question … I played 5 holes last night on my own. I played from different colour tee markers. I didn’t putt out on every hole.
Should I have submitted the score?
Genuinely curious to know.
Atb

The answer is no for a number of reasons:


You have to play a minimum of 7 holes to post a 9 hole score.


You played on your own.


The system would not have a course rating for whatever mix of tees you played.




There are guidelines for how to treat holes where you don't hole out.


You could get a drink and sit down and read the handicapping rules - it may take a while and give you a headache.  Try this site:


https://cdn.golfcanada.ca/app/uploads/golfcanada/production/2015/03/15131136/Golf-Canada-WHS-Rules-of-Handicap-%E2%80%93-ENG-Final.pdf


To our UK friends - you are gaming the handicap system if you only post your competitive scores because it no longer speaks to your potential because it is a smaller sample size presumably over a much longer time period.  How many competitions do you play in a month/season?


To the UK BUDApests on here, are the BUDA matches sufficiently competitive that you'd post them?


Archie, if you want the system to be more responsive to your current play you could lobby to have the system based on your best 4 out of you last 10 rounds or even 2 out of the last 5.  Handicaps would be a lot more volatile albeit based on more current playing ability.


In the few (loosely) competitive events I play there is usually prizing for gross scoring and separately for net scoring.  The better players always win the gross while the mid to higher handicaps always win the net.  Last week the net winner was a 14 cap who shot 78 and third was an 8 cap who shot 74.  The place I played in Florida last winter had multiple flights so you were generally going against players in the same handicap vicinity.  I thought that worked better. 


Sadly, I fall in the middle - not good enough to compete in gross and too consistent to shoot an exceptional score at any point. 

[Sean_A]

Bryan

Gaming? I think we need to allow for a generation to pass. This is a huge change in the system. Older guys except for Spangles will resist posting every score and for good reasons....mainly it slows the game down. Often times conditions are very difficult which the system has completely failed to address for the UK. Features such as wind and rough seem to have been ignored. 30 points can seem like a good score.

Ciao

[Niall C]

Sean,


I wouldn't be so sure about the powers that be retaining the new system. From some of the folk I've spoken to I detect an upswell of rebellion, or perhaps that is wishful thinking on my part.


Either way, it does seem to be changing how people play the game. It used to be frowned upon to continue putting in a bounce game once you were out the hole. Now it is the norm and I know I've been guilty of it as well.


Niall

[Thomas Dai]

Thank you Bryan.
For what it’s worth I think the answer should be no too. But should and shall/must are different things hence my enquiry.
Good question about the Buda matches. Posting scores in my matchplay/pairs matchplay?
Atb

[Sean_A]

Sean,


I wouldn't be so sure about the powers that be retaining the new system. From some of the folk I've spoken to I detect an upswell of rebellion, or perhaps that is wishful thinking on my part.


Either way, it does seem to be changing how people play the game. It used to be frowned upon to continue putting in a bounce game once you were out the hole. Now it is the norm and I know I've been guilty of it as well.


Niall

I think the new system with possible tweaks is here to stay.

Ciao

[D_Malley]

The elephant in the room that nobody has mentioned is that the USGA and local golf assoc. are in the process of taking the hdcp fees away from the local public golf courses. You are no longer required to be a member of a local club to obtain a hdcp, they want you to pay your fee directly to the USGA. I guess "peer review" is no longer a key aspect of the system.


In the near future you will see a big ad push to pay your fee directly to the USGA/local golf assoc. and push out the local public golf course. The local public golf course builds up a large list of public handicaps and now the USGA wants to undecut the price and sell the hdcp directly to the public golfer. This seems to be monopolistic practices to me.

[Sean_A]

The elephant in the room that nobody has mentioned is that the USGA and local golf assoc. are in the process of taking the hdcp fees away from the local public golf courses. You are no longer required to be a member of a local club to obtain a hdcp, they want you to pay your fee directly to the USGA. I guess "peer review" is no longer a key aspect of the system.


In the near future you will see a big ad push to pay your fee directly to the USGA/local golf assoc. and push out the local public golf course. The local public golf course builds up a large list of public handicaps and now the USGA wants to undecut the price and sell the hdcp directly to the public golfer. This seems to be monopolistic practices to me.

I wasn't a member of a club when I had a GHIN handicap. Got the handicap through the state association. Isn't getting more public players handicapped one of the reasons for the system?

Ciao

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It used to be frowned upon to continue putting in a bounce game once you were out the hole. Now it is the norm and I know I've been guilty of it as well.

Just pick up and put your most likely score.

Thank you Bryan.For what it’s worth I think the answer should be no too. But should and shall/must are different things hence my enquiry.Good question about the Buda matches. Posting scores in my matchplay/pairs matchplay?

No, you can't post it. Alone and five holes mandate it. It's a "shall" or a "shall not."

The elephant in the room that nobody has mentioned is that the USGA and local golf assoc. are in the process of taking the hdcp fees away from the local public golf courses. You are no longer required to be a member of a local club to obtain a hdcp, they want you to pay your fee directly to the USGA. I guess "peer review" is no longer a key aspect of the system.

Huh?

In the near future you will see a big ad push to pay your fee directly to the USGA/local golf assoc. and push out the local public golf course. The local public golf course builds up a large list of public handicaps and now the USGA wants to undecut the price and sell the hdcp directly to the public golfer. This seems to be monopolistic practices to me.

I don't think you have this right.

I'm not 100% certain how it works in all AGAs (allied golf associations), but here… the club fee is simply the number of handicaps they have. That's the only fee they pay their allied golf association to be a USGA member club. Let's say an AGA charges $25 per handicap… they pay the USGA a fraction of that, and keep the rest, but for that (let's say) $20, they provide all the services to the club, including course rating. WPGA has like four full-time staff and a bunch of volunteers, and almost their entire revenue stream is handicap fees. They make a little on some tournaments, lose a lot on some others…

I've gotta go or I'd say more, but…

[James Reader]

To our UK friends - you are gaming the handicap system if you only post your competitive scores because it no longer speaks to your potential because it is a smaller sample size presumably over a much longer time period.  How many competitions do you play in a month/season?




It really isn’t a case of “gaming the system” - at least for the vast majority of golfers playing competitive golf in the UK.

Personally I’ve already submitted 19 competitive scores this year, and I’m in no way exceptional amongst the members of my clubs.  I may be towards the upper end of the scale but there are two competitions most weeks and a lot of people playing in them.

If I think about the other golf I’ve played, there really haven’t been that many occasions when I would even consider submitting a general play score.  It’s either been on my own (and, even if it were allowed, the thought of playing like that to submit a score is complete anathema to me), in a foursomes/fourball match (not ‘acceptable formats’, in the UK at least) or in a singles match (technically it’s possible to submit a strokeplay card in parallel, but we don’t play to achieve our best strokeplay score when we’re playing a match, do we?).

As an aside I was talking to someone the other day who was complaining about a high handicapper winning a stableford competition with 45 points - all the fault of WHS apparently.  I checked.  Give or take a shot, he’s been off the same handicap since well before WHS was implemented. 

[James Reader]

It used to be frowned upon to continue putting in a bounce game once you were out the hole. Now it is the norm and I know I've been guilty of it as well.

Just pick up and put your most likely score.




The ‘most likely score’ rule hasn’t been implemented in the UK, which is probably why matchplay and fourballs are not ‘acceptable formats’ here.

[Sean_A]

It used to be frowned upon to continue putting in a bounce game once you were out the hole. Now it is the norm and I know I've been guilty of it as well.

Just pick up and put your most likely score.




The ‘most likely score’ rule hasn’t been implemented in the UK, which is probably why matchplay and fourballs are not ‘acceptable formats’ here.

Exactly. This is what slows things down because guys hole out anyway to post a score. The system isn't world wide if everyone has different rules. I expect eventually GB&I will figure it out. It's a process. Just so folks know, if I post a casual score it's using GHIN rules. It's great seeing Brits look at me sideways 😎. It's just a stinkin number.

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

It used to be frowned upon to continue putting in a bounce game once you were out the hole. Now it is the norm and I know I've been guilty of it as well.

Just pick up and put your most likely score.




The ‘most likely score’ rule hasn’t been implemented in the UK, which is probably why matchplay and fourballs are not ‘acceptable formats’ here.

Exactly. This is what slows things down because guys hole out anyway to post a score. The system isn't world wide if everyone has different rules. I expect eventually GB&I will figure it out. It's a process. Just so folks know, if I post a casual score it's using GHIN rules. It's great seeing Brits look at me sideways 😎. It's just a stinkin number.

Ciao

If posting a casual score the amount of strokes shouldn’t exceed the ESC calculation. For someone that can’t take more than double bogey on a par four that player should pick up at that point or even better after they miss their putt for bogey. Obviously if you need to hole out for a medal score or a wager is impacted then that changes the scenario.

[A.G._Crockett]

It is a weird thread on this site that keeps me coming back to the conclusion that I agree with Erik.  But on this thread, he's spot on.


Those who argue for a handicap system (and I note they're mostly better players) obviously don't understand statistics.  If the system reflected average ability, rather than potential, or peak, then it would be a disaster in competition.  It's inevitable that higher handicaps have higher standard deviation of score.  Lower handicap players have lower standard deviations.  An inevitable result of this is that the differential between handicap and "average" gets greater as you get worse.  For scratch players, I imagine that the differential is quite low. 


Which means that high handicappers far more frequently score well below average (and, equally, well above average).  Club handicap competitions would nearly always be won by higher handicappers.  Low markers complain about that already.  Imagine what would happen if the system reflected average scores!

The majority already are won by the higher handicappers..............

Data?
Fwiw, I have NOT found this to be true at the clubs I've belonged to.  All of the noise surrounding the handicap system is made by low indexes who lose to higher indexes in net competitions, but noise does not equal significance.