Change to US style slope system from current CSS

[delc]

And yet in CONGU we use the same handicap for both .....

Your handicap gained in qualifying stroke play competitions should be a reasonable measure of your golfing ability for matchplay. However you will probably just pick your ball up at some holes in matchplay, because you have already lost the hole, or a partner has got a better score for a win or a half. Matchplay is not a good basis for assessing a handicap.

 

[Crow]

Why?

the_coach is merely stating that at or around Scratch, Congu and the slope system are pretty close to each other (and congrats t_c on going further into the Plus category!).

For others, the Slope system adjusts expected score/handicap for the day along the lines of reality!

If you check out this document http://www.congu.com/faqs/old_site/Review of Handicaps.pdf
you will note that the 'expected score' on any day is rather different from your Congu handicap!

The USGA Index is exactly that - not a Handicap! Most courses are probably around 127-135, so there needs to be an adjustment (for Course Rating and along the slope) to that Index for 'handicap for the round' and the result is probably not all that far off what a Congu 'expected score' would end up with!

The way I read it is that if you want to be eligible for representational teams (whatever they are) then you must be closely monitored through State & National competition play and as a result your "handicap" more closely resembles that of the UK or, more to the point, is higher than if using the standard USGA system.

To me that means that the USGA system doesn't work correctly and therefore it's flawed.
Either that or there's some serious sandbagging going on!

 

[daverollo]

All the courses in Scotland were rated a number of years ago. Although I am sure some will need revisiting to take account of different tee positions

http://www.popeofslope.com/scotland/courseratings.html

 

[Foxholer]

The way I read it is that if you want to be eligible for representational teams (whatever they are) then you must be closely monitored through State & National competition play...

This part I agree with.

...as a result your "handicap" more closely resembles that of the UK or, more to the point, is higher than if using the standard USGA system.

To me that means that the USGA system doesn't work correctly and therefore it's flawed.
Either that or there's some serious sandbagging going on!

But you have drawn the wrong conclusion!

The whole gist of the Slope system is that there is a 'Slope' of an additional allowance required from Scratch (starting at zero, so pretty much equivalent - as t_c seems to me to be suggesting - in both countries!) to 20+ 'Index'. The angle of the slope depends on the difficulty of the course and the allowance required is governed by the Index.

 

[Old Skier]

All the courses in Scotland were rated a number of years ago. Although I am sure some will need revisiting to take account of different tee positions

http://www.popeofslope.com/scotland/courseratings.html

My understanding is all courses will be re-done to take account of the changes that occurred in the ladies handicap system a few years back.

 

[Crow]

Reading the_coach's post through a couple more times I think I did misread it.

if I now understand it correctly the "representational teams" are teams to play internationally and this process is to even out the recognised discrepancies between two different country's systems such as the US and the UK where the UK's handicaps are higher.

The close monitoring through State & National competition play thereby provides a handicap adjusted depending on the overseas country they're playing.

(At least this is what I hope it's saying, otherwise my original view still stands.)

 

[the_coach]

The way I read it is that if you want to be eligible for representational teams (whatever they are) then you must be closely monitored through State & National competition play..

This part I agree with.

and as a result your "handicap" more closely resembles that of the UK or, more to the point, is higher than if using the standard USGA system.

To me that means that the USGA system doesn't work correctly and therefore it's flawed.
Either that or there's some serious sandbagging going on!

But you have drawn the wrong conclusion!

The whole gist of the Slope system is that there is a 'Slope' of an additional allowance required from Scratch (starting at zero, so pretty much equivalent - as t_c seems to me to be suggesting - in both countries!) to 20+ 'Index'. The angle of the slope depends on the difficulty of the course and the allowance required is governed by the Index.

would think that maybes you not really gone into how the system works - the index is a ways to work out a course handicap for the course to be played - don't really see how you can interpret that the system doesn't work correctly and is flawed .... seems a pretty big conclusion clouded perhaps by some misconceptions.

"Fox" has outlined a pretty fair precis of how it all fits together & understood my perhaps less than clearly put points

all kinda 'elite' representational team events have 'committees' in charge of 'picking' the best team squads possible they naturally monitor current successive scores in larger state/national & open competitions (rather than home course play) (bunch of these are played 'flat' at scratch some to index (course handicap) all from the pool of elite ams that could make up the squads

not all are solely arrived at through just national or world rankings

even the biggest the walker cup team is not that transparent in how the team is arrived at it isn't solely down to world ranking places or the bigger competition winners - take this years losing side when two places were curiously given to couple of mid am winners - guessing given this years outcome how this side is arrived at could well be getting overhauled ......

as at the sharp end of usga handicap calculations is a system based around the score of a scratch player on a course so why there is no real difference at this end of the spectrum to our relative systems handicaps/index's at around scratch level & further up the plus ladder

to my mind, although nothing is perfect, our system seems to give a mark of the current up to date standard of play of folks at around bogey level & above, therefore play between folks across the index spectrum is more equitable

 

[Crow]

Eh?

Now you are talking smoke and mirrors.

 

[MadAdey]

to my mind, although nothing is perfect, our system seems to give a mark of the current up to date standard of play of folks at around bogey level & above, therefore play between folks across the index spectrum is more equitable

Personally after seeing both systems in person I am leaning towards the USGA system. The bottom line is both systems work in their own way.

CONGU makes it difficult to make your handicap go up, but on the other side of things it is far harder to drop your handicap fast as a rapidly improving golfer. Also with the way the system is it is easier to be a bandit as you do not have to submit all your cards.

USGA is a marker as to how your currently playing. It is easy for your handicap to tumble as a rapidly improving golfer, but likewise you can make it go up, even though it does take a lot of effort to do it.

To me it is all about which system is better at stopping people that sandbag their handicap for when a big comp comes up. I play nomadic golf so have played with dozens of different players of all abilities over the last 18 months and not once have I played with someone who I would consider better than what their handicap says. If I was still in the UK I think I would have played with a few in that time period, not just bandits, but also improving players that the system can't cut quick enough.

 

[delc]

Personally after seeing both systems in person I am leaning towards the USGA system. The bottom line is both systems work in their own way.

CONGU makes it difficult to make your handicap go up, but on the other side of things it is far harder to drop your handicap fast as a rapidly improving golfer. Also with the way the system is it is easier to be a bandit as you do not have to submit all your cards.

USGA is a marker as to how your currently playing. It is easy for your handicap to tumble as a rapidly improving golfer, but likewise you can make it go up, even though it does take a lot of effort to do it.

To me it is all about which system is better at stopping people that sandbag their handicap for when a big comp comes up. I play nomadic golf so have played with dozens of different players of all abilities over the last 18 months and not once have I played with someone who I would consider better than what their handicap says. If I was still in the UK I think I would have played with a few in that time period, not just bandits, but also improving players that the system can't cut quick enough.

The CONGU system works well provided players play in enough formal competitions, and/or submit enough supplementary cards. There are Exceptional Score Reductions (ESR's) to catch rapidly improving golfers, except for some strange reason in Scotland. As they only play comps for about 6 months a year in the Summer, I would have thought that they need ESR's more than most, as a player could practice hard over the Winter and then clean up up the first few comps the following Summer!

The other advantage of CONGU in comps is the CSS adjustment for the conditions, so your handicap won't necessarily go up just because you play in awful conditions. I understand that USGA has no such provision, but maybe the weather is a bit kinder over in the States?

 

[Imurg]

I can see the merits of both systems.
I think the biggest stumbling block to many over here is the notion that their handicap can change, sometimes pretty quickly.
Under CONGU, you're unlikely to start the season on 10 and finish it on 16.
That's entirely possible if you suffer a prolonged dip in form with the USGA method
And some/many/most don't like the idea of being a 10 in March but a 16 in September.
On the down side, a run of poor form could see your number rise a few shots. Then the form returns and you play well. OK your handicap comes back down but those 2 or 3 extra shots mean you win, possibly a big trophy, solely due to those 2 or 3 shots that wouldn't have been there via CONGU.

 

[Slab]

I think for players happy just being on their own course the Congu system covers most players handicap requirements quite well but if you like to play other courses (especially competitively) then if there's variances in course difficulty its probably beyond the UK system to still deliver the original purpose of using a handicap

Without blowing any trumpet I'm pretty sure my handicap would be several shots lower if I returned to the course I seriously started playing golf on which was pretty benign and a under 6,000yrds and even as a newish player I got to a PB of 93

Swap to longer, much tougher courses and 4 yrs on my PB is still only 90 but I feel i've made a huge leap from the player I was

The slope system would show a (guesstimated) rating difference of perhaps 90 on one course to 135 on another and then adjust my handicap whichever way round I play them which might mean a 4 or 5 shot difference for me in playing handicap

So maybe the UK wont end up with a full bells & whistles USGA system but a national course rating seems a minimum step in the right direction

 

[delc]

I think for players happy just being on their own course the Congu system covers most players handicap requirements quite well but if you like to play other courses (especially competitively) then if there's variances in course difficulty its probably beyond the UK system to still deliver the original purpose of using a handicap

Without blowing any trumpet I'm pretty sure my handicap would be several shots lower if I returned to the course I seriously started playing golf on which was pretty benign and a under 6,000yrds and even as a newish player I got to a PB of 93

Swap to longer, much tougher courses and 4 yrs on my PB is still only 90 but I feel i've made a huge leap from the player I was

The slope system would show a (guesstimated) rating difference of perhaps 90 on one course to 135 on another and then adjust my handicap whichever way round I play them which might mean a 4 or 5 shot difference for me in playing handicap

So maybe the UK wont end up with a full bells & whistles USGA system but a national course rating seems a minimum step in the right direction

Your short easy course is likely to have a much lower SSS than the longer more difficult one, so it's all relative. The only advantage of a slope rating is that it also looks at the course from the point of view of a short hitting 20 handicapper, who is more likely to fall foul of the hazards than a competent scratch player. However this adds complications to the handicapping system,

 

[FairwayDodger]

The real implementation problem is going to be educating people about the new system and convincing them of its merits. On here we're fairly self-selecting as some of the keenest golf nerds in the country and yet we're (I think) still undecided if this will be a good change or not. I think the average club golfer will be bemused by it, to be honest.

I've recently read about the furore because USGA have changed the rules so solo rounds no longer count for handicap. My instinct is that must be the right decision and yet golfers on the other side of the pond are up in arms about it. Canada has even stuck two fingers up and announced they're going to ignore that change. I think that just shows what a different attitude to handicapping we have. I see trouble ahead, frankly.

 

[garyinderry]

We can't agree on the rules of golf never mind get our heads around a raft of new measures.

Our method is pretty simple. Play well get cut. Play poorly go up 0.1 .

The amount of people who won't know their handicap from one week to the next will be crazy.

I can't see too many putting in cards when they played 13 holes, it raining, cold their car is right there and the club house is over there.

 

[Slab]

Your short easy course is likely to have a much lower SSS than the longer more difficult one, so it's all relative. The only advantage of a slope rating is that it also looks at the course from the point of view of a short hitting 20 handicapper, who is more likely to fall foul of the hazards than a competent scratch player. However this adds complications to the handicapping system,

Not so much as you'd think, if I recall correctly the easy course was 71 SSS so prob only a couple of strokes while the reality is very different

Yes it'll be a more complicated piece of software but thankfully the players don't have to build it, you still just get 18 little boxes to write down your score on each hole

 

[duncan mackie]

I think for players happy just being on their own course the Congu system covers most players handicap requirements quite well but if you like to play other courses (especially competitively) then if there's variances in course difficulty its probably beyond the UK system to still deliver the original purpose of using a handicap

Without blowing any trumpet I'm pretty sure my handicap would be several shots lower if I returned to the course I seriously started playing golf on which was pretty benign and a under 6,000yrds and even as a newish player I got to a PB of 93

Swap to longer, much tougher courses and 4 yrs on my PB is still only 90 but I feel i've made a huge leap from the player I was

The slope system would show a (guesstimated) rating difference of perhaps 90 on one course to 135 on another and then adjust my handicap whichever way round I play them which might mean a 4 or 5 shot difference for me in playing handicap

So maybe the UK wont end up with a full bells & whistles USGA system but a national course rating seems a minimum step in the right direction

As ive already said I don't expect much change in the ratings of such courses - but what will change is that you will have a playing handicap of (probably) 4 shots more when teeing up on the second course you reference.

Threads/posts on here highlight over and over again that people have no inherent recognition of SSS and constantly reference irrelevant data such as scores relative to par and stableford points when discussing performance. When you have a playing handicap of (say) 8 at your home course and stand on the tee as a visitor somewhere with a playing handicap of 4 there's no hiding from the easier nature of the challenge to par you face.

 

[duncan mackie]

Personally after seeing both systems in person I am leaning towards the USGA system. The bottom line is both systems work in their own way.

CONGU makes it difficult to make your handicap go up, but on the other side of things it is far harder to drop your handicap fast as a rapidly improving golfer. Also with the way the system is it is easier to be a bandit as you do not have to submit all your cards.

USGA is a marker as to how your currently playing. It is easy for your handicap to tumble as a rapidly improving golfer, but likewise you can make it go up, even though it does take a lot of effort to do it.

To me it is all about which system is better at stopping people that sandbag their handicap for when a big comp comes up. I play nomadic golf so have played with dozens of different players of all abilities over the last 18 months and not once have I played with someone who I would consider better than what their handicap says. If I was still in the UK I think I would have played with a few in that time period, not just bandits, but also improving players that the system can't cut quick enough.

There's extremely little between them on reductions now, although the change to ESRs next year will v slightly slow extreme cases. I've run various scores through both systems over the last few years and there aren't major differences in the system output. Where they fundamentally differ is obviously in the scores counted.
The revisions to upward reviews won't get close to the USGA system for increases in the case of a loss of form for a frequent player. I'm personally not a fan of handicapping for form in the short term and would be extremely embarrassed to have a handicap index of 19 currently (which I would have under the USGA system). However, for Joe average it really won't make much difference (except when they meet me in competition returning to form!)

 

[delc]

The real implementation problem is going to be educating people about the new system and convincing them of its merits. On here we're fairly self-selecting as some of the keenest golf nerds in the country and yet we're (I think) still undecided if this will be a good change or not. I think the average club golfer will be bemused by it, to be honest.

I've recently read about the furore because USGA have changed the rules so solo rounds no longer count for handicap. My instinct is that must be the right decision and yet golfers on the other side of the pond are up in arms about it. Canada has even stuck two fingers up and announced they're going to ignore that change. I think that just shows what a different attitude to handicapping we have. I see trouble ahead, frankly.

I can't believe that the Americans think it's OK to enter the score from a solo round into the handicapping system with no-one to validate the score! That seems absolutely open to abuse and handicap manipulation. If we are looking towards a Worldwide handicapping system, surely the European Golf Association Handicapping system also has to come into it. The EGA system seems more sensible than both CONGU and USGA to me.

 

[FairwayDodger]

I can't believe that the Americans think it's OK to enter the score from a solo round into the handicapping system with no-one to validate the score! That seems absolutely open to abuse and handicap manipulation. If we are looking towards a Worldwide handicapping system, surely the European Golf Association Handicapping system also has to come into it. The EGA system seems more sensible than both CONGU and USGA to me.

Del, it's not just that they think it's OK, they are outraged that it's been changed.