Current Handicap System

[Herbie]

hnj, i can see your point, but, he would be cut 4 strokes, may be 5 depends on sss. there may be circumstances that could account for this. may has not played a comp for a while, yet has practised a lot. may have been c/f, may have a new putter. unless you know he is a deliberate bandit, perhaps he needs congratulating. i went from 16 to 9 in just over 16 months, yet, if i do not play for a couple of weeks, the clubs feel alien to me. if a high handicapper keeps winning, then the system is not working.

That is exactly the point, it is not working at many clubs, but personally I think it should be more severe even when it does work.

 

[EchtLoon]

We actually play against the course not par - par is an arbitary figure attached to various holes based on length...
The problem with SSS and Par is the level of difficulty - take Royal St George's (Par 70) and St Andrews Old (Par 72) - both Open Championship Courses, both links courses but RSG is by far and away harder than the Old, hence why the SSS at RSG is 75 and it always goes up in competitions, the Old is 73....so in effect a 73 at RSG is a much better score than a 73 round the Old....

I quite agree with yr comment about Old/RSG but I do feel that more should be done to take in to account bad weather conditions which affect low cappers more.

I disagree with you there. In my experience I've found the opposite. I was a member for a number of years at Castletown in the IoM. For those that don't know it, Castltown is on the peninsula that sticks right out into the Irish sea on the south-eastern most tip of the island. It is wholly exposed as it sits up on top of the peninsula.

As you can imagine, it gets the odd puff of wind

On medal day the filed was invariably full (130) and played as one section with one set of prizes + a best gross; and yet despite this, whenever the wind took hold, or even worse the Atlantic storms rolled in, you'd find that the 5 or better handicappers were picking up the lions share of the spoils.

Reverse that for a great sunny day with little or no wind, and we had no chance, as the rabbits started galloping in with their nett 60-somethings.

Of course in the first example, nett scores in the low to mid 70s were winning, but the CSS would be up from its standard 73, often to 76 or becoming non-counting, in the latter, it stayed put or came down one.

I would argue the fairly straightforward reason for this - higher handicappers are much more affected, as their slices become exagerated, and have less ability to work the ball low or high as needed (or don't even try, but just play their usual shots). I feel they tend to see bad weather as a hindrance, whereas lower guys see it as an added challenge, and indeed (I can only speak for myself here) know that many have given up before they even hit off the first, so I'm effectively playing a smaller field, and if anything try harder in the knowledge my odds have improved dramatically.

 

[EchtLoon]

hnj, i can see your point, but, he would be cut 4 strokes, may be 5 depends on sss. there may be circumstances that could account for this. may has not played a comp for a while, yet has practised a lot. may have been c/f, may have a new putter. unless you know he is a deliberate bandit, perhaps he needs congratulating. i went from 16 to 9 in just over 16 months, yet, if i do not play for a couple of weeks, the clubs feel alien to me. if a high handicapper keeps winning, then the system is not working.

Doesn't matter if he's been a bandit deliberatley or not though, I totally agree with HNJ that cuts for big discrepancies need to be higher.

At the end of the day, it should be everyone's target to come down to a lower handicap surely (yes in practice some value winning far higher than a low handicap).

IMO, if you are more than 3 shots (or whatever, just an example figure) under CSS, then the reductions should double, so for a high handicapper (who loses 0.4 per shot now) I would start deducting 0.8. Say he shoots 7 under CSS off 24.0, that would be a reduction of 4.4 (3*0.4) + (4*0.8) instead of the 2.8 he would come down now.

 

[USER1999]

But that would be very discouraging. To get a huge cut in h/cap in one go, after one flash round, followed by 2 years of not being able to get near it, of +0.1s every time, and then getting bumped up a couple of shots in the review at xmas would be pointless.

If enough cards are put in, I don't have a problem with the current system. The last thing you need is to be going up and down like a yoyo.
And for those who say getting a big cut is motivating to inspire you to get better and play to it. Try halving your h/cap for the next ten games (including swindles, side bets, etc) and see how you get on. I bet it ceases to be such a good idea.

I do think the calculating of css can be a bit odd. If only 3 people shoot better than h/cap, and 247 shoot over, how can css be one under?
I do know how it is calculated, but it just doesn't seem right.

 

[Herbie]

I have had my h/c halved in comps before murph and it motivates me, also I almost always (when I play friendly or on my own)play the course as a scratch player to see what my round looks like from that point of view.

The current method of h/c workings has created non-stop complaints about its unfairness from all h/c groups, so it isnt really doing anyone any good in that respect. making severe cuts to all players who come in under, would in time make it a more level playing field, I for one would be happy to have 5 strokes taken away should I come in with a 76 gross, so long as the same penalty differential was awarded to everyone respectively, I do think the minimum increase or decrease should be point5, that way in this scenario I would be back at 9h/c after 10 comps, I think anyone could live with that. Once anyone finds themselves with a lower h/c I would argue that they would like to keep it not lose it and would work hard to ensure this. If not, what would be such peoples objectives in golf?

 

[SammmeBee]

I have had my h/c halved in comps before murph and it motivates me, also I almost always (when I play friendly or on my own)play the course as a scratch player to see what my round looks like from that point of view.

The current method of h/c workings has created non-stop complaints about its unfairness from all h/c groups, so it isnt really doing anyone any good in that respect. making severe cuts to all players who come in under, would in time make it a more level playing field, I for one would be happy to have 5 strokes taken away should I come in with a 76 gross, so long as the same penalty differential was awarded to everyone respectively, I do think the minimum increase or decrease should be point5, that way in this scenario I would be back at 9h/c after 10 comps, I think anyone could live with that. Once anyone finds themselves with a lower h/c I would argue that they would like to keep it not lose it and would work hard to ensure this. If not, what would be such peoples objectives in golf?

increase/decrease by .5? So does that mean I could go from 5 to 8 in 5/6 rounds then? I'll have some of that....

 

[Herbie]

Good point sammebee, but is it better to move towards something than away from it? Doesnt matter how quickly your h/c increases as the first comp you come in 4 or 5 under you get hammered. H/c increases are a difficult one no matter how you look at it, the basis of the big chop is simply that if a golfer can make the score once they are capable of doing it again so their h/c should be relevant to that potential, not something they do every week with their eyes shut.

 

[SammmeBee]

Good point sammebee, but is it better to move towards something than away from it? Doesnt matter how quickly your h/c increases as the first comp you come in 4 or 5 under you get hammered. H/c increases are a difficult one no matter how you look at it, the basis of the big chop is simply that if a golfer can make the score once they are capable of doing it again so their h/c should be relevant to that potential, not something they do every week with their eyes shut.

Remember not every format of competition leads to a handicap cut but a handicap increase is very handy.....

 

[fastmover2]

We actually play against the course not par - par is an arbitary figure attached to various holes based on length...
The problem with SSS and Par is the level of difficulty - take Royal St George's (Par 70) and St Andrews Old (Par 72) - both Open Championship Courses, both links courses but RSG is by far and away harder than the Old, hence why the SSS at RSG is 75 and it always goes up in competitions, the Old is 73....so in effect a 73 at RSG is a much better score than a 73 round the Old....

I quite agree with yr comment about Old/RSG but I do feel that more should be done to take in to account bad weather conditions which affect low cappers more.

I disagree with you there. In my experience I've found the opposite. I was a member for a number of years at Castletown in the IoM. For those that don't know it, Castltown is on the peninsula that sticks right out into the Irish sea on the south-eastern most tip of the island. It is wholly exposed as it sits up on top of the peninsula.

As you can imagine, it gets the odd puff of wind

On medal day the filed was invariably full (130) and played as one section with one set of prizes + a best gross; and yet despite this, whenever the wind took hold, or even worse the Atlantic storms rolled in, you'd find that the 5 or better handicappers were picking up the lions share of the spoils.

Reverse that for a great sunny day with little or no wind, and we had no chance, as the rabbits started galloping in with their nett 60-somethings.

Of course in the first example, nett scores in the low to mid 70s were winning, but the CSS would be up from its standard 73, often to 76 or becoming non-counting, in the latter, it stayed put or came down one.

I would argue the fairly straightforward reason for this - higher handicappers are much more affected, as their slices become exagerated, and have less ability to work the ball low or high as needed (or don't even try, but just play their usual shots). I feel they tend to see bad weather as a hindrance, whereas lower guys see it as an added challenge, and indeed (I can only speak for myself here) know that many have given up before they even hit off the first, so I'm effectively playing a smaller field, and if anything try harder in the knowledge my odds have improved dramatically.

Maybe I should have phrased that better. Looking at the sums, or my understanding of them:

Consider Par 72 CSS 72

24Hcapper shoots 99, so nett diff would be 27, nett score would be 99-24 = 75 but he does not go up because he is inside his buffer

1 handicapper shoots 74, nett diff =2,nett score 74 -1 =73

The 1 handicapper goes up and the 24 handicapper does not even tho his nett score is worse. Whether you play against the course or par a nett 75 is worse than a nett 73 so the
guy with the better score is penalised.

Of course this only appears to a person as a negative if they are trying to improve their 'cap.

What I have noticed,maybe it is just a feeling here,that some people would like their 'caps to go up to give them a
better chance of winning rather than working at their games to give them a better chance of winning.

 

[EchtLoon]

Consider Par 72 CSS 72

24Hcapper shoots 99, so nett diff would be 27, nett score would be 99-24 = 75 but he does not go up because he is inside his buffer

1 handicapper shoots 74, nett diff =2,nett score 74 -1 =73

The 1 handicapper goes up and the 24 handicapper does not even tho his nett score is worse. Whether you play against the course or par a nett 75 is worse than a nett 73 so the
guy with the better score is penalised.

But the one handicapper is in the buffer zone? He would have to be nett 2 over par to go up.

The reason the buffers slide however is because a 1 shot difference for a category 1 golfer is a big part of his score, to be two shots off his handciap is a poor day but for a 27 handicapper playing to within 3 shots is good golf.

CONGU has a good mythbusters page, where they've collated info on a lot of commonly held misconceptions
http://www.congu.com/template1.asp?pid=25

 

[fastmover2]

Consider Par 72 CSS 72

24Hcapper shoots 99, so nett diff would be 27, nett score would be 99-24 = 75 but he does not go up because he is inside his buffer

1 handicapper shoots 74, nett diff =2,nett score 74 -1 =73

The 1 handicapper goes up and the 24 handicapper does not even tho his nett score is worse. Whether you play against the course or par a nett 75 is worse than a nett 73 so the
guy with the better score is penalised.

But the one handicapper is in the buffer zone? He would have to be nett 2 over par to go up.

The reason the buffers slide however is because a 1 shot difference for a category 1 golfer is a big part of his score, to be two shots off his handciap is a poor day but for a 27 handicapper playing to within 3 shots is good golf.

CONGU has a good mythbusters page, where they've collated info on a lot of commonly held misconceptions
http://www.congu.com/template1.asp?pid=25

I stand corrected! Was doing the sums too late at night!

 

[Herbie]

One thing that is crystal clear from reading the posts here is that the current system is complicated, confusing to many and unfair in various respects to the majority.

One of the reasons is its complexity, simple is the way forward in order to create a quicker turnover and fairer chance for all h/c levels not complexity.

There are some people who like nothing more than number crunching, sitting at a desk working out these complex things rather than playing a game of golf, likewise there are many who enjoy the end results from the h/c guru's conclusions, but the truth is, its comlicated unnecessarily and it doesnt create a level playingfield.

Being more severe with docking h/c with full strokes and even ignoring increases completely until its repeated by the player is probably a better way than I first thought.
There would always be winners and losers but because this method or a similar method would work more rapidly to level the playing field there would be less frustration and a fairer result overall.

I still think clubs should offer divisions in all competitions and equally prizes, logistically a little more work but fairer.

In my experience there are more high h/c players with trophies and wins under their belts than lower h/cappers.
Some may argue that its due to the number who play now and how often and that may be so, but it should only be a marginal difference if everyone played to the correct h/c level and I think it is far from a marginal difference.

Good or bad days aside, generally, everyone should have a h/c that they have to work hard to play to, if it is consistantly easy to come in at or below, then its not right.The current h/c system does little to establish this or police this.

 

[EchtLoon]

In my experience there are more high h/c players with trophies and wins under their belts than lower h/cappers.
Some may argue that its due to the number who play now and how often and that may be so, but it should only be a marginal difference if everyone played to the correct h/c level and I think it is far from a marginal difference.

The stats would contradict you there, look at the second graph from CONGU, which shows wins to handicap is pretty much like for like up and down the range.

http://www.congu.com/template1.asp?pid=168

 

[EchtLoon]

One thing that is crystal clear from reading the posts here is that the current system is complicated, confusing to many and unfair in various respects to the majority.

Working out the CSS is a tricky afair that isn't the bag of a fag packet calculation. But what is difficult about the rest of it? There are different categories, and depending which you are in you get a reduction based on your score to CSS, surely it isn't confusing to more than a handful of new players? And an ynew player will always be confused by a new system.

Compare that to the American slope system, and I know I'd far rather have what we have today.

 

[Herbie]

In my experience there are more high h/c players with trophies and wins under their belts than lower h/cappers.
Some may argue that its due to the number who play now and how often and that may be so, but it should only be a marginal difference if everyone played to the correct h/c level and I think it is far from a marginal difference.

The stats would contradict you there, look at the second graph from CONGU, which shows wins to handicap is pretty much like for like up and down the range.

http://www.congu.com/template1.asp?pid=168

Oh dear, Stats!! Stats are a best guess based on information obtained, where and how that information was obtained, collated and produced can be as accurate as it can be flawed and in most cases in life any statistical production will favour the producer or end user, no one in history that I can think of ever produced stats that contradicted their argument, yet oposition always have stats that do????? So I dont believe in stats, I tend to believe in what I see in front of my eyes. I used to enter many comps in the past at different clubs and it was the same at each club, unless there were divisions a significant majority of wins went to high h/cappers.The only other records favouring lower h/c players were select comps where many high h/c players would not enter or could not enter.H/C system does not have to be so complex in order to get the same result or better.

 

[Herbie]

One thing that is crystal clear from reading the posts here is that the current system is complicated, confusing to many and unfair in various respects to the majority.

Working out the CSS is a tricky afair that isn't the bag of a fag packet calculation. But what is difficult about the rest of it? There are different categories, and depending which you are in you get a reduction based on your score to CSS, surely it isn't confusing to more than a handful of new players? And an ynew player will always be confused by a new system.

Compare that to the American slope system, and I know I'd far rather have what we have today.

Why do I need to compare to an American system that has no effect on the system in use here, do you fear America will take over Golf here? Why not look beyond being satisfied with what we have because American system is worse and look more to the possibility of a better system than the one we have?

 

[EchtLoon]

Oh dear, Stats!! Stats are a best guess based on information obtained, where and how that information was obtained, collated and produced can be as accurate as it can be flawed and in most cases in life any statistical production will favour the producer or end user, no one in history that I can think of ever produced stats that contradicted their argument, yet oposition always have stats that do????? So I dont believe in stats, I tend to believe in what I see in front of my eyes. I used to enter many comps in the past at different clubs and it was the same at each club, unless there were divisions a significant majority of wins went to high h/cappers.The only other records favouring lower h/c players were select comps where many high h/c players would not enter or could not enter.H/C system does not have to be so complex in order to get the same result or better.

I too believe what's in front of my eyes. And I don;t agree with you. I posted a long piece on the effect weather had on my old course in the IoM, and how the low boys often swept the board.

At my current course, the lowest h'capper that played this years open won it (off 2), I won the club championship h'cap and there were only about 4 players below me in the field. And yet my club is full of mid to high handicappers, and barely a dozen single digit payers, as it's a municipal.

Low handicappers win less becase there are less of them, and if the weather is glorious I agree that they are at a disadvantage, but conversly when the weather is poor, I think the odds swing massively towards the lower end of the field.

Overall I think it works.

 

[Canfordhacker]

Oh dear, Stats!! Stats are a best guess based on information obtained, where and how that information was obtained, collated and produced can be as accurate as it can be flawed and in most cases in life any statistical production will favour the producer or end user, no one in history that I can think of ever produced stats that contradicted their argument, yet oposition always have stats that do????? So I dont believe in stats, I tend to believe in what I see in front of my eyes.

So to confirm your side of the debate, you put forward an argument that relates to completely unscientifically gathered data based on a feeling from what you saw, as opposed to the the systematically gathered evidence of a body set up purely to maintain this system with no axe to grind?

I'm not sure I'm following that strand of logic.

 

[fastmover2]

One thing that is crystal clear from reading the posts here is that the current system is complicated, confusing to many and unfair in various respects to the majority.

One of the reasons is its complexity, simple is the way forward in order to create a quicker turnover and fairer chance for all h/c levels not complexity.

There are some people who like nothing more than number crunching, sitting at a desk working out these complex things rather than playing a game of golf, likewise there are many who enjoy the end results from the h/c guru's conclusions, but the truth is, its comlicated unnecessarily and it doesnt create a level playingfield.

Being more severe with docking h/c with full strokes and even ignoring increases completely until its repeated by the player is probably a better way than I first thought.
There would always be winners and losers but because this method or a similar method would work more rapidly to level the playing field there would be less frustration and a fairer result overall.

I still think clubs should offer divisions in all competitions and equally prizes, logistically a little more work but fairer.

In my experience there are more high h/c players with trophies and wins under their belts than lower h/cappers.
Some may argue that its due to the number who play now and how often and that may be so, but it should only be a marginal difference if everyone played to the correct h/c level and I think it is far from a marginal difference.

Good or bad days aside, generally, everyone should have a h/c that they have to work hard to play to, if it is consistantly easy to come in at or below, then its not right.The current h/c system does little to establish this or police this.

Great post. I totally agree with your points.

Your comment that everyone should have to work hard to play to the handicap they are given is how it should be. The handicap is supposed to reflect a player's best level of play and currently does not.

The "had a good day" excuse continually grates with me. I was at a club where some of our players were playing in a comp. on the same day,the winner had 49 points! 44 points was not even near the prizes. They all had a good day then? Yeah right!

 

[viscount17]

In my experience there are more high h/c players with trophies and wins under their belts than lower h/cappers.

but let us not forget that these low handicappers were in their day high handicappers, and presumably winning all the prizes. Changing the procedures may just be a recipe for the same names to win trophies in perpetuity?

I think it immaterial what system of handicapping you use, none are ever going to give a 100% result until the day that all cards are automatically returned, both from competition and from general play.