CONGU v USGA

[balaclava]

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

You have to start with the question - what is the handicap system for, what's the reason for it what do you want it do; what's the objective. You may think this is a simple question and you may think you already know the answer but I can assure you that it's not that simple. The next question is - does everybody else have the same answer / reason as you?

Having defined the objective you then have the problem of a small number of handicapped golfers playing very good and very steady golf and a large number of golfers playing average to poor golf sometimes good and sometimes bad. The problem is that the single figure golfer's game changes range between very good and good so if his/her handicap doesn't move much it doesn't matter. The double figure handicap golfer's game changes range between good and abysmal and he needs a system sufficiently dynamic to change his handicap up and down to reflect his play.

That's the problem. What's the solution?

I have set out a solution (not the solution but one possible solution) on this site in the past and every time I get shouted down. One solution would be to is to put in every 18 hole game card. Now you hear the screams - you can't so that the bandits would put in rogue cards and how would the system cope with every card going in blah blah blah.

To the first object I say this: at my club there are people already doing just that, they are going round the course with their wives or buddies and sticking a card in.
To the second objection I would say this, learn to differentiate you car and fix the computer to take in the differentiated score i.e. you enter just one number into the machine.

Five years back I wrote to CONGU and pointed out all the reasons why their system didn't work and they replied - "nobody else has complained" I wrote back and told them that nobody had complained because 99% of UK golfers don't know there is any other system, they think the whole world has the same system and 99.99% of golfers don't know how to differentiate their score and 99% don't know what differentiate means!!

 

[Simbo]

Interesting thread this, so does an American golfer have the option of entering cards for handicap whenever he plays a full round?? If so this is guff, no pressure there. Iv always though they could do this which is why I always thought a scratch uk golfer would be a better player than an American scratch.
Also the slope system thing and the difficulty of courses golfers play, isn't this reflected in the CSS of the course on the day?? For example, xx course is par 72, CSS is could be 71 because its an easy course. but Carnoustie is par 72 and CSS can be 75/76 because its a lot harder ( those numbers may not be right just an example)

 

[Imurg]

The problem is that the single figure golfer's game changes range between very good and good so if his/her handicap doesn't move much it doesn't matter. The double figure handicap golfer's game changes range between good and abysmal !

You need to put numbers to the words Good, Very Good and Abysmal.
The assumption that a SFG will only score within a few strokes is flawed. You only have to look at Pro Tour to see someone score 61 on Day 1 and 74 on Day 2. And that's professional Tour Players.... I can score anywhere between 70 and 90, I would suggest that the 15 handicapper can score anywhere between 80 and 100 - broadly similar differences....

 

[duncan mackie]

Interesting thread this, so does an American golfer have the option of entering cards for handicap whenever he plays a full round?? If so this is guff, no pressure there. Iv always though they could do this which is why I always thought a scratch uk golfer would be a better player than an American scratch.
Also the slope system thing and the difficulty of courses golfers play, isn't this reflected in the CSS of the course on the day?? For example, xx course is par 72, CSS is could be 71 because its an easy course. but Carnoustie is par 72 and CSS can be 75/76 because its a lot harder ( those numbers may not be right just an example)

pretty much

whilst the system elements of scoring/handicapping for a Scr golfer are now pretty similar across the two systems with the latest changes to buffer the CONGU one is now considered 'stronger' because it has more control over the nature of counting scores.

again, for the Scr golfer, the rating systems are now extremely similar too; they make the same assumptions regarding how Scr ability relates to distance etc etc. Where they differ is in 2 distinct areas - 1. the US system incorporates a bogey index (think SSS for an 18 handicapper based on their average distances and how the hazards etc come into play for them) in it's slope calculation which, when courses are played is used to calculate a handicap index (handicap) for that course and player. This sounds good in theory, but in terms of returning any real practical benefit it has one, huge, flaw; unlike the Scr golfer, there is a huge 'range' of 18 handicap golfer traits/capabilities/weaknesses etc Put another way, what represents a difficulty to a 25 yr old improving 18 handicapper may bear no relation to a 65 yr old experienced 18 handicapper. 2. the other difference is CSS. Now here it's really quite interesting because the US system can't incorporate one for the majority of returned scores because there are no reference points when one, or more, players head out 'for a game' - however, as the original article referenced in this thread states clearly, the conditions the round are played under can, and for higher handicaps does, deliver a very significant (many shots) impact.
So, on the one hand you have an attempt to fine tune the system for a mythical handicap player, but on the other you have no allowance for the conditions, which it's accepted can have a lot more impact.

I'm not trying to judge one against the other - but accurately highlight the real differences between the two. As raised by balaclava you can only judge them against their objectives - in both cases these are the dualities of handicapping elite golfers accurately and 'inclusion'. By inclusion I mean the inclusion of the widest possible number of golfers within the system. If you want to increase the accuracy amongst any wider group you have to introduce restrictions.
There's no right or wrong, better or worse.

 

[Simbo]

That's kinda of what I was getting at, the Americans are being judged against par when they are out for a bounce game with their mates, we are being judged against how another 150 odd golfers performed aswell as us and also against css which can have a glaring difference over par. we all know when we play with out mates and are just having a laugh without the pressure of playing a competition we are capable of shooting low. But with the pencil in the pocket the game changes.

 

[Andy808]

That's kinda of what I was getting at, the Americans are being judged against par when they are out for a bounce game with their mates, we are being judged against how another 150 odd golfers performed aswell as us and also against css which can have a glaring difference over par. we all know when we play with out mates and are just having a laugh without the pressure of playing a competition we are capable of shooting low. But with the pencil in the pocket the game changes.

Surely if you have to count every game then there is pressure from the card every time you play. Wouldn't this make you more consistent as you get used to having to hand in a card and for the score to count?

 

[duncan mackie]

Surely if you have to count every game then there is pressure from the card every time you play. Wouldn't this make you more consistent as you get used to having to hand in a card and for the score to count?

Andy

So much depends on what your real motivation is when you go and 'play golf' - the range of thoughts regarding it's possible impact on handicap is huge; just read the posts on here, or if you really want to be amused you can add in the thoughts of those for whom success in skins (money) games is everything........

"Ken Baxter writes:
I am normally about a 12-13 handicap.I got really hot for about a month (mid June-mid July)and my index got down to 8.3. Since then, I have not shot a single round in the 70's and my trend is about a 14. I am 64 years old and play about five times a week. When the new handicaps came out today (Sept. 1st) I was a 6.8R. Since I can’t break 80, I sure can’t play to a 7 handicap. What does the “R” mean and how long am I stuck with that index? I can’t even play in my usual skins games, let alone any tournaments with that index. Anyone reviewing my index history over the last 12 months would see that this “re-rate” is unfair. Their is nothing “equitable” about it. How can I get this adjusted?

Jim Cowan writes:
Ken – thank you for your comment. Several of the comments listed in this section deal with Reduced handicaps and how the System works. Please review the responses to Matt and Woody. Back in June your Handicap Index was a 14.1 and you recorded tournament scores of 79, 77 and 75 (5.5, 6.8 and 9.6 strokes under your handicap at that time) and as recently as July 31st you recorded a 74 in a tournament. Who is to say that you will not do it again? Based on such remarkable scores recorded in competition, the Handicap System is no longer going to afford you the benefit of the doubt. It is going to hold you accountable for these scores in future calculations. Thanks – Jim Cowan"

Jim chairs/chaired a very large handicap committee - one of the underlying differences in the US is that Associations (think super societies) act as handicap managers for players who don't actually have a home club. I picked this one as much because Ken represents the thought process of many regarding handicaps, but rarely set out so obviously!

Personally I just go out to enjoy the game whether it's medal, match, regional, am tour, Q or non-Q; but then again I've been playing a fair while. I've been called a bandit, and I've been (less than politely) asked how the hell I managed to get that handicap - both within a couple of months and with the same handicap! Obviously GM meets are entirely different and I have a complex, detailed, preparation to those.....

Whether you sweat over the water carry shot, the 3' putt or the card in your pocket doesn't matter - everyone does it.

 

[Simbo]

Don't think they have to count every round though, do they???? I thought they just done it when they felt like it type thing, but they had to notify the pro shop before going out so they can't just hand in the cards that suits them.

 

[duncan mackie]

Don't think they have to count every round though, do they???? I thought they just done it when they felt like it type thing, but they had to notify the pro shop before going out so they can't just hand in the cards that suits them.

every card (although there's an exceptional weather clause somewhere) and there's a process to 'fill in' any missing holes, as well as one to use if you don't putt out. for example I believe that if they play 6 holes they have to submit a 9 hole score, and it's 13 for an 18 return - or something like that...

 

[upsidedown]

Interesting thread and think this link will be of interest . Basically all golf club members in NZ are being asked to take part in a survey on the handicapping system in use there and their experiences of it.

http://www.golf.co.nz/NewsMedia/Article.aspx?id=1648

taken from article about half way down
In addition to the golf club and club member surveys, New Zealand Golf will consult closely with the USGA. They will also seek advice from the R&A who after 250 years of existence are considering getting involved with a handicap system for the first time.

I did hear a whisper that R&A are looking at slope index system with great interest a while back but couldn't find anything on the net to back it up, this does suggest they are looking at handicaps and this may well be the Slope index, await with interest.

Having played under the USGA system your handicap can go up and down very quickly and I'd agree that under it you're likely to be 2-3 shots lower than a UK one

 

[Simbo]

every card (although there's an exceptional weather clause somewhere) and there's a process to 'fill in' any missing holes, as well as one to use if you don't putt out. for example I believe that if they play 6 holes they have to submit a 9 hole score, and it's 13 for an 18 return - or something like that...

If we had an exceptional weather clause it would be for sunshine!! Lol

So if they only play 6 holes where does the score for the other 3 come from??? Thin air??? Not putting out??
Really doesn't sound a very consistent system based on this thread, must be bandits galore over there! Lol

 

[upsidedown]

If we had an exceptional weather clause it would be for sunshine!! Lol

So if they only play 6 holes where does the score for the other 3 come from??? Thin air??? Not putting out??
Really doesn't sound a very consistent system based on this thread, must be bandits galore over there! Lol

Unsure with 9 holes but with 18 and you've only played 13 you then fill in rest of card as is you've played to your handicap on each hole .

 

[Crow]

Unsure with 9 holes but with 18 and you've only played 13 you then fill in rest of card as is you've played to your handicap on each hole .

So you could play great for13 holes and then decide to "par" in by not finishing?

No pressure to keep a good card going over the final holes then!

 

[Simbo]

So you could play great for13 holes and then decide to "par" in by not finishing?

No pressure to keep a good card going over the final holes then!

I rest my case!! Lol.

How many times have we seen a good card ruined by one or 2 shoddy holes!!

 

[upsidedown]

So you could play great for13 holes and then decide to "par" in by not finishing?

No pressure to keep a good card going over the final holes then!

Generally when you've handed in a card where you haven't competed the full 18 holes it's in a matchplay match where the game has finished at 13 holes. In a medal or stableford round you are required to keep going.
Not ideal but that's how it works, personally don't agree with having to keep a card for matchplay but that's how all their " county " comps are run

 

[woody69]

Some really interesting responses in this thread. I'm intrigued though as to why the world of golf cannot come up with a universal standard for amateurs.

Slope is also an interesting concept as I'm struggling at my new course, mainly due to the fact it's nearly a 1000 yards longer than my previous club so my handicap is suddenly much higher than previous.

 

[rosecott]

Slope is also an interesting concept as I'm struggling at my new course, mainly due to the fact it's nearly a 1000 yards longer than my previous club so my handicap is suddenly much higher than previous.

BUT - the SSS at your new course should be between 4 and 5 strokes higher than your previous course - your handicap shouldn't be any different but you will have a few more shots to play with (numerically).

 

[woody69]

BUT - the SSS at your new course should be between 4 and 5 strokes higher than your previous course - your handicap shouldn't be any different but you will have a few more shots to play with (numerically).

Old course was SSS of 71. New course is 73. 2 shots for 1000 yards, which for me means I struggle!

 

[rosecott]

Old course was SSS of 71. New course is 73. 2 shots for 1000 yards, which for me means I struggle!

I would be suspicious of the SSS 71 - a ballpark figure is a difference of 1 SSS stroke per 220 yard difference and distance is by far the major factor in SSS assessment.

 

[duncan mackie]

Old course was SSS of 71. New course is 73. 2 shots for 1000 yards, which for me means I struggle!

which courses Woody?