CONGU, does the system discourage golfers?

[bigslice]

do you mean gross scores are false?

 

[SGC001]

Thanks for the reply duncan mackie appreciate the input.

I seem to be in a minority of 1 in my concerns.

I'd been considering the different golf course designs and set ups that can make a course more challenging and how that may effect someones enjoyment of the day, how they'd review the course and subsequent wish to play or not that golf course again. A potential issue for those courses needing some supplementary income to members fees and golf in general where after the proliferation of courses 20 or so years ago led to a challenging supply and demand situation particularly under the pressures of the current economic climate.

I'd then tried to apply that to the handicap system which leads to failure more often than not if net par is considered to be success. It doesn't seem to translate well as an idea.

 

[Keyser Soze]

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.

So it is the best then

 

[MashieNiblick]

Interesting thread and I do see where the OP is coming and how the fear of the dreaded .1 can spoil our enjoyment of the game.

However that's not really the fault of the system, it's us, being too obsessed with handicaps and seeing them as an end in themselves rather than just a mechanism to allow players of different abilities to compete against each other in what is essentially a silly game with a stick and a ball.

I know how different I feel having a day of great ball striking but a couple of bad breaks and a lip out to miss the buffer , compared to a round where I can't hit a barn door but somehow get the rub of the green, make a few putts and get a little cut . Crazy!

 

[MadAdey]

So it is the best then

notice one word I used................ 'APPARENTLY' there is not a better one out there. I find it hard to believe that some wizkid has not has a better idea. Maybe there is and when he tried selling to the worlds governing bodies of golf they would not pay him enough for the rights to it.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

The problem you speak of is not the fault of the system, it's the fault of us for thinking about our handicaps the way we do and whatever the system, that won't change. If we assume that people think that 36 points is what they should should every time they go out, and we implement a system that means shooting 36 points is more common, then all that will happen is the winning scores in a comp will go up and eventually, people will stop looking at 36 points as the marker but 42 or 43 or whatever it turns out to be.

My own thoughts are that if I go up 0.1, I'll come down again at some point. There is no guarantee of playing well even when you are "in form" so there's not really any point worrying about it.

 

[Hobbit]

Persoanlly, I don't think you can have a system, CONGU or other, that will be a catch all for all golfers without splitting different levels of competition. By the very nature of golfer's ability across the different handicaps having such a wide spectrum of nett scores it's impossible to achieve that nirvana you seek for individuals without compromising competitive golf.

For example, a 24 handicapper might shoot 42pts one day and 25pts the next but a scratch golfer might shoot 42pts once in 'x' many years but is unlikely to drop below 30pts.

How can you provide a handicap under a version of what you seek whilst recognising and accommodating that spread of scores? Equally, its very frustrating to go out in a board comp, as opposed to a divisional comp, and shoot your best ever golf, 42pts(off 4), only to be beaten by someone who shoots 44pts off 28... scoring 2 under gross on a wet and windy day.

I think its best just to accept the system as it is and not to worry too much about the score, especially if you don't do it for a living.

 

[cookelad]

To be fair I've never heard a complaint (or someone suggesting that we should use a drastically different system) about the CONGU system anywhere except on this forum! Although I would probably make a couple of minor changes if it were up to me (introducing an amnesty period after a cut would be my number 1)!

 

[thecraw]

"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.

The current handicap system is unfair and encourages false handicaps. When your 20 becomes a double bogey then its false.

 

[CMAC]

Havent read the whole thread but I like the sloping system idea to even things out further.

 

[duncan mackie]

I'd been considering the different golf course designs and set ups that can make a course more challenging and how that may effect someones enjoyment of the day, how they'd review the course and subsequent wish to play or not that golf course again. A potential issue for those courses needing some supplementary income to members fees and golf in general where after the proliferation of courses 20 or so years ago led to a challenging supply and demand situation particularly under the pressures of the current economic climate.

I'd then tried to apply that to the handicap system which leads to failure more often than not if net par is considered to be success. It doesn't seem to translate well as an idea.

this is a much more interesting issue!

we have debated it significantly over the last 3 years and I agree that it's a theoretically simple exercise that fails because people simply don't accept the concept of using their 'shot or shots' when playing longer, more challenging, holes. the expectation of a senior 18 handicapper is that they can make most of the holes in regulation, especially par 5's (I have just played with 2) and they don't like courses where they can't - which plays back into your general premise.

again the US designers have done much better than UK (partially because they built a lot of new courses through the period of equipment development) in that they provide many more tee choices (fundamentally different angles and lengths) which maintain the appropriate hazard elements on holes - generally in the UK we just go back a bit which simply means that any given player will find one set of tees suits their game on any given course better (may not be the forward ones). they are also more active in moving them to suit prevailing conditions whilst we simply 'don't bother' - which is a real shame.

rough, in the context of having to look for balls, ruins the enjoyment of the game for all, water works but there are as many poor examples as there are great water hazards! Bunkers....are a subject in themselves! The great course designers could make a single small pot bunker protect a whole fairway driving area; whilst many of the excellent visual tricks no longer hold the value they did when they were designed with course planners and latterly DMDs.

 

[jpenno]

I can sort of understand what your saying I have been playing regularly over the last couple of months with the same group of 5 people with handicaps of 19 (me) 2x15, 1x18 and 1x 16 and 1x 12.

Over the last 7 weeks I have won our side games 4 times BUT on every occasion I have been outside of buffer so we have all had .1 back on the three times I have lost I have been beaten by someone who has finished 4 shots under handicap so gets a fairly large reduction 1.2 off the handicap.They probably wont play to that for another 10 rounds and then will get in the buffer or another large reduction.

The handicap isnt really an indication of their Average round but more what they can play to 1 in 8 or so rounds, discouraging when you beat those around you but never seem to get a cut - On the basis of todays performance though my handicap should be substantially increased - terrible round, one in a lake, and Three more out of bounds and then a 10 on a par 4 - absolute nightmare round .1 back so upto 20 for Sundays Board Comp, will have to make the most of that extra shot!

 

[MadAdey]

The current handicap system is unfair and encourages false handicaps. When your 20 becomes a double bogey then its false.

I do think that you have to have scores rounded down for handicapping purposes to get a better idea of a players ability. If you took my round in the medal a couple of weeks ago then my gross score against CSS was 15 over. But I did have a 14 on a par 5, so rounded down that would take 7 shots from my score. So a score not adjusted down would give me a 15 handicap, but an udjusted card would give me 8.

 

[SGC001]

The current handicap system is unfair and encourages false handicaps. When your 20 becomes a double bogey then its false.

I agree, I'm not a fan of SPA. It leads to lower handicaps that people can't play to and then no one wanting to play medals (lower entries) so the clubs run more stabs and less medals.

The idea of counting your shots which is what I did before I joined a club and what I think strokeplay should be (and always anyway) is seen as too difficult and probably too slow too.