Tom
One of these days I'm going to explain the CONGU system to you, yet again, in detail, but this is not one of them. Suffice it to say that you are not listening!
1. If a 6 HCP player shoots 88 in a medal, his handicap does not go to 18, it goes to 6.1. If he shooots another 88 it goes to 6.2. He's gotta play in a helluva lot of medals to get his handicap up to 18. Alternatively, as Darren suggests, if, after shooting all these 88's he suddenly shoots a few 78's, he'll be back down to 6 before you can say "Bob's your Uncle."
2. Forget about this "sample size" bugbear of yours. For one thing, the "sample size" in the CONGU system is huge. Just assuming 100 active members at each of the 600 or so clubs in Scotland playing 10 medal rounds a year, you have 600,000 scores a year, just in Scotland. AND, these scores of of extremely high quality, in that virtually all of them will have been played strictly under the rules of golf. I don't care what the "sample sizes" in the USGA systems are because they are of such poor quality as to be irrelvant for the purpose (i.e. determining the relative skills of players). Just repeat the mantra "Garbage In/Garbage Out" next time you get the urge to post the words "sample size."
3. Per the above, and to confirm what Darren said, most active golfers who are interested in the game will play at least 10 "medal" rounds a year. Some play as little as 3 (the minimum required to keep your handicap) while others (e.g. Darren and I) play 25 or more. Virtually all clubs have weekly medal events, often more than one in a week, and there are also numerous Open competitions at other courses during the Spring and Summer. I would suspect that the members of the various men's clubs with which you are affiliated, would be able to easily keep and use proper "CONGU" handicaps, IF they played all their tournaments under the Rules of Golf. What they would not be able to do is go away for a couple of months, post onanistically during that period, and come back with a new handicap of 18 or 3 or whatever. If you have proper clubs, which I think you do, this sort of behavior would not be tolerated. So why do you tolerate it?
4. The problems Darren talked about in terms of people not reporting "away' acores (for sandbagging or vanity purposes) has largely been resolved. Now, any time you play in an Open tournament, yours scores are automatically sent back to our home club. One can hold onto a lowish handicap for a fairly long time, but Category One players (5 and below) are audited annually by their clubs and regional associations. In terms of sandbagging and high stakes betting, well as JohnV should know, and Rick S. and others have said, anybody who bets large sums of money against players they don't know, based on a handicap card they have in their pocket, deserves whatever ever fate awaits them.
5. Pete L. makes the most compelling posts. Read them and re-read them again. The whole issue is about how handicapping systems influence the way the game is played. If the ruling bodies promote a system in which a handicap is whatever any individual golfer thinks it is, based on "scores" which conform only very loosely to the Rules of Golf, then you get a game such as what is played in America. And, what this is is not one game but many games, ranging from pure tournament golf through high stakes gambling games to buddies just playing each other every weekend to occasional participants for whom the cart girls are more important than the Maxwell rolls on the greens. Talk about "bifurcation!" US golf is multifurcated! Always has, always will be--particularly as long as the USGA sticks with it's "let a thousand flowers bloom" attitudes to handicapping.
On the other hand, if the ruling bodies promote a system which is fundamentally based on the Rules of Golf and which requries all participants to play by these rules, at least 3 times a year, you end up with a game in which a very high percentage of ALL players play by the Rules, including the ones regarding etiquette. particularly pace of play.
6. Don't talk about "participation" or inclusivity. In the UK, anybody can find a golf club to join and get a handicap from, if they want to, even in places such as London. Maybe I'm old ffashiioned, but I storngly think that if the powers that be (almost tyoped "posers that be...") really want to increase participation, lowering the hurdles may not be the proper way to achieve this. One of the defining characteristics of the game of golf is its Rules and the self-discipline required to play within them. If we say to new players, in efffect, "yeah, we've got these rules, and, sure, WE play by them most of the time, but you don't really have to if you don't want to" then are we surprised that what we get is far to many golfers who really do not know how to play the game?
End of rant.