CONGU, does the system discourage golfers?

[SGC001]

Seen as I'm still struggling to get outta here, thought I'd ask a question.


Does the handicapping system discourage people from playing more golf or even lead to them quitting?

Is there a better system?

Was the old ladies system more encouraging for golf?

If you accept that with CONGU you're not supposed to play to your handicap, but roughly handicap + 1.5 + handicap x 1.25 (as has been suggested before). Then it would follow that you're always going to struggle to play to your handicap.

Does this struggle lead to people feeling they are playing badly and result in less enjoyment? Does less enjoyment equal less golf played and maybe even quitting the game?

If you've ever read lady golfer there tended to be a lot of concerns expressed regarding the CONGU system when they moved across. I believe the system they moved from was something like you're best 10 cards (6 from home and 4 away - someone may be able to correct me on that or confirm it). The suggestions seemed to be that the ladies were struggling to play to their old handicaps and would suggest therefore that it produced lower handicaps than the CONGU system.

Would that be a more encouraging system? You could get lower (most peoples aim, hopefully), it may be harder to sandbag though not impossible, it rewards playing more golf as it's your best 10 cards and arguably there is less pressure as ah well it won't count anyway.

Would it lead to happier golfers playing more golf?

Is this system hurting the game?

Do any other old system offer alternatives?

Would you want to switch to a system more encouraging to golf or are you happy with rarely playing to your handicap? Do you jut think you need to practice more, get better, have lessons or buy new clubs?

 

[fundy]

Im confused, you say the current system discourages people as we struggle to play to handicap but that the alternative would lead to having even lower handicaps - surely this would discourage even more or have I misunderstood

 

[duncan mackie]

Im confused, you say the current system discourages people as we struggle to play to handicap but that the alternative would lead to having even lower handicaps - surely this would discourage even more or have I misunderstood

"Do you jut think you need to practice more, get better, have lessons or buy new clubs? " is even more confusing in that it logically leads to improvement followed by handicap reduction - and the player's in the same situation but with a different number against their name!

The only potential for discouragement is based on any misconception that higher handicap players should be able to go out and 'shoot net par', '36 points' or any such nominal (and probably inappropriate target when SSS is taken into account etc etc)

The handicap is there to enable players of different capabilities to compete as fairly as possible. You could change the numbers so that everyone increases but you don't change the underlying relative nature of them.

 

[harpo_72]

I am confused with your argument, but I am also unimpressed with Congu and its agenda. But this is the system that everyone wanted and this system we have. I went away from golf membership for 10 years and came back to this. If I were to do it again I would not bother with getting an "official" handicap and just carry on playing the way I had for 10 years ... I was happy then and achieving my targets I set now I am not.

 

[SGC001]

fundy:

Yes it would lower handicaps, but as it's your best 10 that count, not every round it's easier to play to. That seemed to be the argument the ladies were putting forward. Their was a lot of animosity towards the CONGU system, but who likes change.

Duncan mackie:

The congu system lags behind improving players so to some extent they may not be affected as much. However, yes I should've left it out.

That misconception on shooting net par is the crux of the argument, that golf frustrates people. The stableford points adjust probably makes this worse as it would lower people.
I agree it's there to allow for competition between all, but could you do that of a system that didn't discourage golf?

You may know is this how the previous ladies system worked? Does it encourage more golf? Does it allow people to compete against each other?


My question is does the current handicap system hurt golf in the long run, if it's a system that discourages enjoyment and playing of the game.

 

[fundy]

fundy:

Yes it would to lower handicaps, but as it's your best 10 that count not every round it's easier to play to or at least that you are. That seemed to be the argument the ladies were putting forward. Their was a lot of animosity towards the CONGU system, but who likes change.


My question is does the current handicap system hurt golf in the long run, if it's a system that discourages enjoyment and playing of the game.

Nope, still confused. Why is it now easier to play to a lower handicap?

 

[SGC001]

Nope, still confused. Why is it now easier to play to a lower handicap?

Yes I see your point.

I think it's that it's viewed that your handicap is not on the line every game, so potentially alleviates the pressure in the mind.


I'd really like to hear any ladies thoughts on this who've experienced this system and the current one. Also club organisers, secretaries etc: who have to try and attract people to golf and keep them in golf.

 

[MadAdey]

I still do not understand what your point is. You want people to use a system that will lead to you playing from a lower handicap than you currently do and would probably struggle to play to on a regular basis, but you want people to enjoy playing golf more.

For me the perfect handicap system is one that does not punish a low handicap player for a having a couple of good rounds, by putting him off a handicap that he really has no chance of playing to. On the other hand though it has to be lenient enough to enable him to reduce his handicap. The flip side is that this system has to reduce improving golfers/bandits fast enough to stop them from having a free run for a season cleaning up in all the comps.

What is this system I talk about? Well I do not know myself but I am sure someone with a lot more qualifications than me could figure it out. I think most would agree with you SGC that the CONGU system is not the best, but apparently there is not a better one out there otherwise it would have been changed by know.

 

[SGC001]

Maybe I erred in mentioning the oler ladies system and should have said

is a handicap system that provides a handicap you can't play too regularly a potential barrier to people playing more golf or Would it be better to have a system that rewarded people for playing more often

(for instance off topic but you could have a world ranking system based on your best 20 results from the previous 52 weeks so if you play 20 games you're at a disadvantage to someone playing 30 - would we see a world number 1 play more then?).

 

[Ethan]

The handicap system is simply a way of interpreting data, golf scores, obviously. But data is messy and variable, so you need to establish some ground rules before you start.

One aspect of messiness is due to variability. Someone who shoots an average score of 84, say, can on occasions shoot 72, say, but sometimes shoots 100. So which of those scores should their handicap be based on? If it is 84, then you must accept that sometimes they will be nett -12. It may be even worse for the 95 shooter, who on occasions can shoot 78 or 80. You simply can't have a stable handicap system based on average scores.

So one way of dealing with this is to set the reference/balance point closer to their lower score, and that is basically what both USGA and CONGU handicap systems do, albeit using different formulae (also partly driven by lower club membership rates in the US).

But then you have balance the syatem by making the downward effect of the less common better scores be greater than the upward effect of more common worse scores. Hence multiples of 0.X reductions versus a flat 0.1 up.

 

[MadAdey]

Really struggling to understand what your point is. So you want a system that puts people on a lower handicap than they should be and also one that penalizes people for not being able to play as often as others?

 

[duncan mackie]

Maybe I erred in mentioning the oler ladies system and should have said

is a handicap system that provides a handicap you can't play too regularly a potential barrier to people playing more golf

or

Would it be better to have a system that rewarded people for playing more often

these two issues are completely unrelated - one's a handicap system and the other is ..... well it's nothing to do with handicapping!

I do understand the nub of your post (I think) but the only aspect that can be changed is where on the distribution curve (bell curve in this instance) you choose to position the handicap relative to the centre.

In this, I fail to see how it would be any less 'frustrating' to 'play to handicap' and come in the middle of the pack than things are now - in practice most society's operate a rudimentary (and some quite cute) handicapping system that does exactly that, overlayed by a redistribution of winners through over reductions.

You also keep mentioning the averageing approach, but that's inherent in the USGA system and is then tweaked to deliver the same underlying handicaps as CONGU; your general premise is not affected by the actual differences between the 2 systems!

Much easier all round to educate people into understanding that 'playing to handicap' is basically playing to buffer - and this has much more relevance given the distribution of scores over the categories.

Anyway - we will have a new system within 5 years so we can really go to town in threads like this when that's implemented!

 

[bigslice]

my handicap doesn't mean anything to me, im all about GROSS. ive set my targets and am trying to achieve them. if my handicap goes up or down so be it. I don't think about my handicap and don't worry about it. GROSS is where its at.

 

[duncan mackie]

my handicap doesn't mean anything to me, im all about GROSS. ive set my targets and am trying to achieve them. if my handicap goes up or down so be it. I don't think about my handicap and don't worry about it. GROSS is where its at.

presumably you weren't one of the 51 NRs in the Higgins Cup recently then.

 

[SGC001]

Really struggling to understand what your point is. So you want a system that puts people on a lower handicap than they should be and also one that penalizes people for not being able to play as often as others?

The question I'm trying to ask is basically:

Is the handicap system a handicap to growing the game of golf?


and I seem to be confusing the issue with the below points:
A I'm asking if there's a different way of doing things that could result in less frustration.

I mentioned the ladies old system as there seemed to be a lot of complaints when coming over to the CONGU system so wondered if by taking peoples better averages (different from USGA system, which is a rolling 20 and far to open abuse for my liking) could result in happier golfers. The issue here is confused by the apparent contradiction with lower handicaps maybe resulting in happier golfers through the mindset of knowing you handicap won't be affected potentially helping.

duncan mackie
People may well play and compete for a lot of different reasons from self improvement (gross only maybe), winning which may lead to sandbagging, healthy competition with others, fun, social, health, stress relief. Given that I do believe that there may be a difference between coming middle of the pack on 30 pts and coming in the middle of the pack with 36pts, for some people in terms of self satisfaction.
I'm not sure how easy it is to educate people to understanding and accepting they should be playing to buffer on X% of occasions to be playing to handicap.

New system? I'd be interested in hearing about it.

But to reiterate the main question that I'd like people to think about is does a system that produces a handicap players struggle to play too, discourage the amount of golf played or golfers from continuing in the game.

 

[blackpuddinmonster]

But to reiterate the main question that I'd like people to think about is does a system that produces a handicap players struggle to play too, discourage the amount of golf played or golfers from continuing in the game.

Speaking for me-self no..
It gives me something to aim for. In my case consistency. :thup:

 

[duncan mackie]

New system? I'd be interested in hearing about it.

all the major handicap authorities are currently committed to delivering a single, international, handicap system; the overview is to take the best from the existing systems, and they have already agreed (loose) timescales and 10 key principles....

IMO they have done the easy bit; but realistically they will struggle going forwards because of the fundamental mismatch of the target audiences (USGA has a huge nomadic society - association - base) SA has a technical infrastructure that most others can't match (to enter all rounds on a terminal where ever you play) and within CONGU even the 4 unions can't agree on relatively basic elements (ESR and re-activating inactive (non-c) handicaps.......and that's before the economics!

but they have started, so they will finish

 

[bigslice]

presumably you weren't one of the 51 NRs in the Higgins Cup recently then.

nosey lol I just had to check it was one I finished. no I didn't nr in the Higgins but ahem Saturday there I did. ive a nr question for I will pm once ive worked out wot im asking

 

[SGC001]

duncan mackie: Ta, I was struggling to remember the started so i'll finish reference (had to google it), don't know if that means I've got old or just nearly there.


O.k i'll come at it from a different tack.
I'd be suprised if I'm the only one who knows golfers who are say 9.4 and don't want to play this week as they're struggling with their game, or golfers who only come out when it's a stab, or golfers who are tying themselves up in knots because they can't play to their handicap that they aren't supposed to and think they are failing.

So

A handicap is a measure, it's designed to allow players to compete with others.
I'm not interested in that portion of the handicap conundrum at this time. The relative merits of a rolling average, a SSS rating, the lack of a bogey rating, the effect of different tees on SSS's when considering differing course designs, layouts and conditions they are played in upon competitors of differing levels.

It could also be considered a measure of self, a standard to be achieved or improved. It's this self rating that concerns me and led to my initial question. Any sport that rates you can lead to issues with sandbagging, ego preservation, the selection of favourable playing conditions and avoidance of unfavourable ones.

Do you know people who avoid playing in comps, if so is it a good thing for golf, does it not matter as it's a case of each to their own or is golf losing out on players.

 

[duncan mackie]

It could also be considered a measure of self, a standard to be achieved or improved. It's this self rating that concerns me and led to my initial question. Any sport that rates you can lead to issues with sandbagging, ego preservation, the selection of favourable playing conditions and avoidance of unfavourable ones.

Do you know people who avoid playing in comps, if so is it a good thing for golf, does it not matter as it's a case of each to their own or is golf losing out on players.

these people are not golfers

of course they exist, and their approach to golf mirrors their approach to most other things in life; the psycology is both basic and complex at the same time (as usual!)

the key problems with your argument is as follows -

1. without absolutes (Bigslice illustrating the only real absolute - but we all know that even that's false!) everything is relative
2. if it's relative it doesn't matter what the absolute number is
3. these people have to actually achieve (compete) to get any handicap, and without one they won't have much of a measure of worth from it! Extending this logic, if everyone was off Scr there wouldn't be any value to it.

There's huge evidence in the US that people manufacture their handicaps to suit their wants and needs, and that this is in part related to a measure of self. These same people spend a lot of money on equipement (and balls) as well as settling bets to those you take the opposite approach! It would be silly to argue that it doesn't happen here, and 9.4 is a great example, but it's a far bigger issue on internet forums than in real life as the majority of golfers simply aren't that concerned and handicaps are what they are designed for. Exactly the same thing applies in any handicap sport with those that loose off a lower handicap grabbing the high ground of their handicap!

One minute you are arguing that there's a relevance to people being able to play to a handicap, and then you are arguing that what they get to is relevant.

Golf is definitely not loosing out on players as a result of this - competition entries possibly, but not golf as a sport. You are always going to have such issues in a sport that goes out of it's way to be inclusive; there are probably more arguments that it's gone to far in this area and should require more competition rounds and a lower minimum level to compete at all (I'm thinking EGA's limits here) to protect the integrity of competitive handicap golf as something that people would aspire to - but the reality is that club handicap golf is only a small part of the overall sport; huge choices exist (here's an example of a growing trend similar to the Associations in the US - http://scctour.co.uk/index.php)