CONGU v USGA

[woody69]

I was interested to know the difference between how the US calculate the handicaps and I stumbled across this article from 2007, that I thought was quite interesting. I find it strange that with an international game we cannot come up with a set of standards globally.

The author is Dean Knuth who by all accounts was head of the USGA handicapping system once upon a time, so this might be the reason he seems to favour that system (although he does mention a few things he prefers with CONGU), but I wonder if anyone had any comments on this topic? Has anyone on here taken the time to work out their USGA handicap, does anyone have any thoughts on which is fairer? He seems to suggest USGA is fairer to the higher handicapper from what I can make out.

Unfortunately I can't post the entire article due to a limit on the number of characters allowed in my post, so I'll post the link and a few points he raises.

Any thoughts?

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

Comparing British Handicaps to USGA Handicaps
By Dean Knuth (Revised in April, 2007)

The R&A turned over control of handicapping in 1927 to CONGU (Council of National Golf Unions). They have not adopted the Slope System simply because the English GU refused to adopt it. Continental Europe got so frustrated with CONGU that they formed their own handicapping body (European Golf Association) and adopted Slope.

The biggest reason why Americans often can't compete against CONGU handicaps is because CONGU doesn't use the Slope System (even though many courses in Scotland and Wales have Slope Ratings). Without the Slope System to adjust player's differentials, UK golfers from difficult golf courses have a significant advantage over everyone-- Americans and UK golfers from average UK courses. But it gets much more complicated than that.

The CONGU Handicap System is mostly a “moving average” mathematical model where each score has a unique influence on the handicap calculation. It is an adaptation of a handicap system that originated in Australia decades ago. When a player plays in a designated tournament, his score is compared to the Competition Scratch Score for the day (CSS—See below). The categories will only be generalized here, but if a player does very well, his “Exact Handicap” (A number followed by a decimal) will go down equal to how many strokes he beat his handicap by times a decimal number like .1, .2, .3 or .4 depending on his handicap category (how good of a player he has been classed as). So, just to use a simple example—beats handicap by 3 shots, the exact handicap goes down .6. If the player scores in a buffer zone just above equaling his handicap, nothing changes. If the player scores worse than his buffer zone, he goes up a small amount—most often one-tenth of a shot.

1. It is based on T (tournament) scores only. An average golfer gets in only 3 to 5 scores a year. This makes the system very slow to respond to current ability. The time late in detecting changes in ability is often six months, which Dr. Fran Scheid found in a study years ago. It simply does not keep pace with current skill.

It can be argued that every score in the CONGU system contributes to the immediate handicap calculation and can therefore be considered to have an influence on every subsequent calculation. A CONGU player's handicap record might be impacted by scores going back 3 to 4 years. On the other hand in the USGA System the 21st oldest score has no bearing on the player's handicap.

2. It uses ranges and step functions (buffer zones and varying the effect of a good score based on handicap level). Any step function system is inaccurate around the steps.

3. The amount of bonus for excellence varies by handicap level. By design, the CONGU system gives a higher bonus for excellence to lower handicap players to the point that higher handicap players have little Competition chance against lower handicap players in the UK. Also, since Tournament scores are not singled out for comparison, as in the USGA system, and all scores in the CONGU system are Tournament scores, there is no special way of dealing with sandbaggers (known as bandits in the UK). The other point to make is that the CONGU system is slow to respond to players who are declining, since they can only go up at a rate of .1 stroke per tournament round. With, say, 5 tournament rounds per year, it could take years for a declining player's handicap to catch up with his current ability.

4. Low handicappers can stay low too easily under the CONGU system. It is hard to get the handicap to go up when a player's game is off.

5. Scotland has used the USGA Course Rating System to evaluate the Scratch (SSS) rating for its courses. However, the CONGU course rating system in England is poor at best. There is NO portability in the CONGU handicap system. A 5 and a 15 at one course do not equate to the same handicaps at another course. For example, an average player at Carnoustie, the most difficult course in Scotland will develop a higher handicap than if he played an easy “open flats” course. (It is interesting that the CSS, raises the SSS on bad weather days, but basing course rating for a day on how all the players score self-perpetuates a system that can't be compared with the USGA Handicap System. Also, the CONGU system is inaccurate to the point that more than one golf club playing the same golf course on the same day can come up with different CSS's because of sampling error).

The CSS calculation determines whether the field of players on the day have found conditions more difficult for whatever reason (and course difficulty is one of the factors), so the SSS is increased by a number depending on the variation from expected. What I found in my research over a twenty-year period is that bad weather affects higher handicap players much more than lower handicap players. For example, players of 5 handicap and less might have 5 stroke higher scores on windy days, but the 20 handicap players would have scores more than ten strokes higher.

6. I do like their ESC (Equitable Stroke Control system--Capping of extremely high hole scores) procedure. Both CONGU and the European GA adopted net double bogey as a hole score cut off, in the name of Stableford. When you are at net bogey, you might as well pick-up (except in a stroke play competition, of course), because you can't do better than net double bogey.

There can be no conversion factor that will make USGA Handicaps and CONGU handicaps comparable. The two systems are far too disparate to make that possible.

BTW, when an American plays golf in the UK, he is to use his Course Handicap from his home course---Except, where a Course Handicap table is posted.

Over the years I have had many communications with people who want a simple way to compare British handicaps to American handicaps. Some studies have shown a similarity to handicaps in specific ranges. In fact, this could be the case in many average players who play at average courses. However, this would not be true when comparing Long-wild or short-straight players who developed their handicaps at difficult or very easy course.

Taking a handicap from one golf course to another course is a real issue and that is what the USGA Slope System was designed to solve.

 

[duncan mackie]

Run mine against both over the last few years and I would be 8-10 under CONGU and 8-17 under USGA using cometition scores only, 7-23 if including everything. unfortunately I lost the data with a PC problem late last year so I have stopped now, but in one sense CONGU simply delivers the underlying capability whilst the USGA system is much faster to react to dips in performance. Note I am not this mythical average golfer who returns 3-4 Q scores a year!

"Some studies have shown a similarity to handicaps in specific ranges. In fact, this could be the case in many average players who play at average courses. However, this would not be true when comparing Long-wild or short-straight players who developed their handicaps at difficult or very easy course.

Taking a handicap from one golf course to another course is a real issue and that is what the USGA Slope System was designed to solve. "

This bit is the real problem for both systems in that different handicap players will react differently to a range of hazards and difficulties on any course (the same applies to Tour Pros and is frequently discussed in depth!) so it's actually impossible to accurately deliver any system to try and balance this - it becomes more and more difficult as the scale of the differences are increased. Both systems handles the Scr golfers the same (apart from CSS) and do v well for 6000 - 6800yd courses, but will fail to balance the whole field when comparing a 5400 tight small green course with a 7400 monster - it's that simple.

There have been changes in both systems since this was written, and they have come closer together in many elements over recent years (both have stableford adjustments, both have ESRs (trial under some CONGU unions though), both have a bonus for excellence (implicit in CONGU, explicit in USGA) and the new change in buffer for Cat 1 addresses his point 4, for example. The increased buffer for cat 3 and 4 reflects some of the thinking in note 5. CONGU rating has changed and closer to US rating, but the lack of a bogey rating remains it's weakness for cat 3/4 players.

Putting CSS aside, the real difference relates to the range of handicaps you will see for an 18 handicapper over different courses now because of the inclusion of the bogey adjustment under slope ratings which effectively calculates a seperate SSS for the 19 handicapper. On some courses the difference is negligible, on others it's significant (think about a course that has 180 yd carries to the fairway, which may include lakes etc, how do you set an SSS for that!).

Whilst the deliberate manipulation of handicaps is not something that any system can deal with, the US system enables huge manipulation on the one hand, but would see players currently focusing their attention on NQ events getting their handicaps adjusted to success - the former completely negating the latter though.

For the vast majority of golfers on the vast majority of courses both systems will reflect similar handicaps - but I've met more US handicapped players who are 'miles away' from their current handicaps than UK (both ways!)

 

[woody69]

Thanks for that Duncan. Really informative answer/post.

 

[cookelad]

Turns out the fella that deigned the USGA's course rating system prefers USGA handicapping to CONGU handicapping! quelle surprise!
It would be interesting to read the argument from CONGU about why they prefer the system we use!

 

[Doon frae Troon]

Thanks Duncan.
Regarding your last para.the boys from St Andrews, Carnoustie etc will back that up.
I have seen some very poor single figure golfers from the USA.

 

[Region3]

I prefer the CONGU way of altering handicaps. I don't want to play a friendly game with my hc on the line, I like to take silly shots on every now and then or try different clubs than I usually would.

I do like the idea of their slope system though. It seems to have more scope than SSS.

 

[woody69]

Here is another blog/article that seems pro USGA

http://gui-golf-handicaps.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/congu-v-usga-handicapping-system.html

don't want to play a friendly game with my hc on the line

I can hear what you are saying, and if you play a lot of comps, this doesn't matter, but it means some people can just play a couple of comps a year and maintain their handicap even if it's unrealistic no? Is there a minimum number of cards that must be submitted for CONGU?

 

[Region3]

I can hear what you are saying, and if you play a lot of comps, this doesn't matter, but it means some people can just play a couple of comps a year and maintain their handicap even if it's unrealistic no? Is there a minimum number of cards that must be submitted for CONGU?

It is true, only 3 cards have to be returned to maintain a CONGU handicap.

But as Duncan alluded to above, if I were that way inclined I could get an unrealistic USGA handicap much quicker than a CONGU one purely by playing garbage on purpose for a month.

 

[Stuey01]

I spend some time on GolfWRX which is a predominantly US forum. I get the impression that they play a lot fewer qualifying competitions than your typical UK club golfer.

 

[chrisd]

Great posting which explains a lot for me.

Thanks to both Woody and Duncan

 

[Ethan]

Knuth is wrong to call the CONGU system a moving average system - the USGA system is much more one of those.

The CONGU system uses incremental changes based on each qualifying round. The USGA uses 96% of the best 10 of the last 20 rounds. That is a moving average design, because every time you add a new round, one falls out the other end, and quick large changes are possible.

He is right to say that the fact that CONGU handicaps do not change regardless of the difficulty of the course is an issue, but it isn't clear if adoption of slope would improve that.

 

[balaclava]

The interesting thing about this question is what it tells us about ourselves.

We (and I mean also me as I am white Anglos Saxon English born and bred) will defend 'our' system simply because it's 'our' system. We are insular, introspective, exclusive, illusive and arrogant; we are as the world portrays us. I know this because I have lived and worked in other countries and returned here to see us for what we are. All those characteristics make up the fabulous people who fought their way across the globe forming an empire. Unfortunately it also makes us people who will defend 'our' system just because it's 'our' system.

The fact that we need to have annual reviews and inactive handicaps is some of the many reasons why the CONGU system is a 'dogs dinner'

 

[Ethan]

The interesting thing about this question is what it tells us about ourselves.

We (and I mean also me as I am white Anglos Saxon English born and bred) will defend 'our' system simply because it's 'our' system. We are insular, introspective, exclusive, illusive and arrogant; we are as the world portrays us. I know this because I have lived and worked in other countries and returned here to see us for what we are. All those characteristics make up the fabulous people who fought their way across the globe forming an empire. Unfortunately it also makes us people who will defend 'our' system just because it's 'our' system.

The fact that we need to have annual reviews and inactive handicaps is some of the many reasons why the CONGU system is a 'dogs dinner'

I guess you haven't played with many Americans when they were playing 'counting' rounds, then.

I am not Anglo-Saxon, but this is basically an issue of data interpretation. The CONGU and USGA methods are somewhat different, but as it happens, they end up turning out broadly similar handicaps. The wild card is the slope system, which adjusts scores in terms of handicap effect, based on the course rating of the course. That factor explains most of the differences between handicaps, along with a bit of inflation in some course ratings.

 

[balaclava]

I guess you haven't played with many Americans when they were playing 'counting' rounds, then.
.

I am not advocating the American system or any other countries system as I don't know every system and I do know that every system has it's flaws. I suggest I / you / we start by asking:

1. What do you want a handicap system to achieve?
2. Should that system puts the needs of the majority before the minority i.e. working on the basis that any system catering to meet the needs to different groups must meet difficulties in conflicting needs do they focus on the majority or the minority?

 

[duncan mackie]

The fact that we need to have annual reviews and inactive handicaps is some of the many reasons why the CONGU system is a 'dogs dinner'

It would be simple to integrate the numerical elements of the AR process without the requirement for 'review', and with the move to system driven ESR this may well happen (arguably it already does because the committee have to have a good - documented - reason not to implement these changes now). Overall the AR is a completely different, process driven, element of the system relative to 10 years ago. The US does pretty much the same thing, but the Handicap Committee are required to do it between 12 and 24 times a year depending on their Handicap Index revision timing process and in addition, the handicap records are subject to an ongoing Peer Review process.

I agree that 'inactive handicaps' are a complete misnomer and are probably the best example of what happens when the need for inclusion clashes with a perceived need for some 'fresh data' to support the current handicap. It serves no good practical purpose to my mind as currently implemented. I would suggest that they won't stay long in the system as currently set.

The best part of both systems is that they continue to evolve.

 

[Ethan]

I am not advocating the American system or any other countries system as I don't know every system and I do know that every system has it's flaws. I suggest I / you / we start by asking:

1. What do you want a handicap system to achieve?
2. Should that system puts the needs of the majority before the minority i.e. working on the basis that any system catering to meet the needs to different groups must meet difficulties in conflicting needs do they focus on the majority or the minority?

We wouldn't ask the second question in those terms unless we already had a strongly negative view - care to express it more expansively?

 

[Foxholer]

I like the Slope system as a way of comparing courses, and the appropriate handicap to use, as it's a finer method than the rather clumsy (imo) SSS.

I prefer the UK system of maintaining handicaps (comps and Supplementary cards only), but that is personal. Both methods seem to have advantages and deficiencies. Neither really caters for sand-baggers, though that shouldn't be necessary! Both have an issue with lag for improvers, but the US system (actually world-wide except UK and South Africa!) handles declining abilities (eg Seniors) better imo.

 

[Ethan]

I like the Slope system as a way of comparing courses, and the appropriate handicap to use, as it's a finer method than the rather clumsy (imo) SSS.

I prefer the UK system of maintaining handicaps (comps and Supplementary cards only), but that is personal. Both methods seem to have advantages and deficiencies. Neither really caters for sand-baggers, though that shouldn't be necessary! Both have an issue with lag for improvers, but the US system (actually world-wide except UK and South Africa!) handles declining abilities (eg Seniors) better imo.

It is easier to game the US system - just play a run of bad scores and your handicap can dramatically change. This is always a complaint made at these big Pro-Am events such as Pebble Beach and Americans coming to the Dunhill.

Also, I have played with quite a few Americans who were putting in scores in which they had taken little account of the rules of golf, giving themselves mulligans, preferred lies and discounts, and these scores were crooked.

 

[Hobbit]

I checked my h'cap last summer against the US system. 2.6 against a then 5.6. A 3 shot drop at this end of the scale is huge but I guess if everyone was on the same system it should balance out.

As to whether an American 5 h'cap is the equivalent of a UK 5, the few I've played with in comps may have been having an off day but they were more like 8 or 9.

However, I do like their idea of slope ratings for courses. Seeing golfers from your average/easy course struggle a bit on more difficult courses, e.g. 150yd carries over heather and gorse to narrow fairways lined with the same and lots of fairway bunkers, soon realises the need for a course rating of some description.

 

[Foxholer]

As to whether an American 5 h'cap is the equivalent of a UK 5, the few I've played with in comps may have been having an off day but they were more like 8 or 9.

Remember that while Congu produces a handicap, the 'Slope' system produces an Index which is adjusted, almost always upwards and by 2 or more, for the difficulty of the course being played. My experience if that the 'Slope system' does indeed tend to be produce an index a couple of shots lower than UK handicaps for single figures and 3 or 4 lowrr for 10-18. However, as Duncan has posted, there can be a rather wide range as well.