Handicap Systems

[balaclava]

Hi,

My very first contribution to this forum was a post suggesting that the CONGU handicap system is ruining a good game (and one year later I am more convinced that is the correct).

I came across the below on the EGU website, it appears to be saying that clubs may opt for a non CONGU system, a system where handicaps are based upon every game played (or am I misreading it)?

http://www.englishgolfunion.org/amp/showpage.asp?code=0001000400050002

 

[DCB]

Has the EGU not done away with the Associate scheme ?

Its not a "Real" handicap so is no use for competition play is it ?

 

[birdieman]

The golf unions have spent aeons developing handicapping to be as fair as possible using every gathered golfing statistic possible. Although the system is not perfect unless you can come up with a better one then I wouldn't moan about it.

I have been a Match and Handicap Secretary for several years and find the CLUB2000 software a godsend. Overall in my opinion the current handicapping works very well.

The whole concept of getting any golfer of any ability on an equal footing with any other player is a fairly bizarre thing to try and do but give them their dues the current system pretty much achieves that.

Sorry Balaclava can't agree.

 

[bobmac]

DON'T GET ME STARTED ON HANDICAPS

 

[Imurg]

Why - you don't have one!!

 

[bobmac]

DOH,
Neither I do, but I did for over 35 years and for 25 of that it was cat I.
Right, here goes.........stand back you asked for it lol
Nope, I wont get involved.
I could mention pot hunters
I could mention bandits
I could mention sandbaggers.........but I wont.
I will simply ask 2 questions
1. If someone called you a bandit, would you be offended?
2. If someone called you a cheat, would you be offended?
For the handicapping system to work, golfers have to be honest about their golfing ability and alas as NET prizes continue to get more attractive I'm sure some are tempted to FORGET that net 65 they had last week in a friendly.
Come back rule 19
But as I said, I'm not going to get involved

 

[HomerJSimpson]

1) Bandit - yes I would get upset (depending on the tone used) as I put cards in religiously even when I'm hacking (came last in the club championship but didn't NR even with a 9 down the last int he morning - would have been easy to pull out of the PM round but still played and put almost 3 figures onto the card) and so think my handicap is a true reflection of my game

2) Cheat - definitely irrespective of tone. If someone thinks I have broken the rules then I'm happy to listen to an explanation and take any punishment but to call me an out and out cheat will result in my fist making swift and firm contact with the other persons facial region. I play this game with integrity and soul and if anyone questions that they are questioning my whole ethos and that is fighting talk.

I do get fed up when the gold letter board events get won by some silly score every year or the same mid handicapper has the same hot week at the same time every season but I have to believe that a) the handicap system is fair, b) they regularly return and don't NR and c) one day my time will come

I think the problem is actually greater at open level than at clubs as pot hunters at clubs do tend to stand out and sooner or later words begin to get said. With opens as has been said before, the legality of a handicap certificate produced on the day may not always bear true scrutiny. Maybe I'm cynical but its how I see it

 

[DCB]

Although it is disapointing that there are people like that around, it doesn't detract from the fact that I personally want to get as low as I can. Been down to &.6 at lowest and want to get back down there somewhere again.

The guys who protect their handicaps are just cheating themselves really. Yes it's galling when they scoop up the prizes, but they are only cheating themselves.

Other than that, they should be shot at dawn with a blunt wooden bullet !

 

[Marko77]

I believe the current system to be working.

What I would suggest to CONGU about change though is eradicating the 0.1 increase for an NR - if a player NRs then they stay the same. It is all to easy for a player to NR when not playing that bad but then give up and not try for the stableford adjusted score.

As much as that will never come to pass - a directive from CONGU to clubs advising on how to deal with players with a suspiciously high NR rate would be an idea.

 

[viscount17]

I think they have an answer to repeated NR's as I don't think they count toward the minimum returned cards. If CONGU required requalification if you don't return the minimum might be a start as would checks being made on handicaps when comps and courses say they require them.

Some of the guys I play with don't have proper handicaps, mostly because they are just not interested in formal competition. I don't have an issue with this because I don't play for money (despite winning the one time I got caught out).

tbh, I don't really understand that attitude. Right from the start I wanted to get a handicap, play in comps, but above all get a cut.

 

[SS2]

CONGU isn't perfect but it works well and is easy-ish to understand and implement (although the calcs for working out the CSS are quite complicated).

In Europe they use a system similar to CONGU but which also accounts for Course and Slope ratings. This is a more complicated system but you could argue that it results in fairer handicaps.

I would vote for sticking with CONGU as is. The golfers understand it, the handicap secretaries understand it and the likes of Club2000 and how-did-i-do provide the IT infrastructure to support it.

 

[balaclava]

The golf unions have spent aeons developing handicapping to be as fair as possible using every gathered golfing statistic possible. Although the system is not perfect unless you can come up with a better one then I wouldn't moan about it.

I have been a Match and Handicap Secretary for several years and find the CLUB2000 software a godsend. Overall in my opinion the current handicapping works very well.

The current system works well !! I presume you have no experience of any other system?

I got my handicap based on the first three games on a course I’ve never played before. Unsurprisingly they weren’t the best scores I might have had. My handicap was consequently ‘high.’ I then went through a summer of Saturday medal ‘qualifying’ competitions of which more than 50% were deemed ‘non qualifying’ because of weather or some other factor. In the other ‘qualifying’ comps my handicap goes down 0.1%!! I also enter some ‘social’ comps and keep winning. I wrote to the HC committee offering them the opportunity to reduce my HC; they replied that there is nothing in the rules to allow that. We then hit autumn and winter and there are no ‘qualifying’ comps yet there are still other comps and I can still compete on my high HC!! I reckon, at this rate, it’ll take about 5 years for my HC to reduce to where it should be. Then there’s the two thirds of the members that never play in ‘qualifying’ comps. Please tell me what part of this system is GOOD?

The CONGU system has been devised by some guy with more time on his hands than his good for him; he appears to believe we all aspire to be professional golfers, that there is a qualifying comp every week, we all play in that comp, we have all played in those comps since we were born and we don’t play golf in the winter.

A better system – the American system is a better system for one and for two every other system in any other country of the world is a better system. They are systems based (largely) upon every 18 holes played not just qualifying games.

 

[Twire]

The golf unions have spent aeons developing handicapping to be as fair as possible using every gathered golfing statistic possible. Although the system is not perfect unless you can come up with a better one then I wouldn't moan about it.

I have been a Match and Handicap Secretary for several years and find the CLUB2000 software a godsend. Overall in my opinion the current handicapping works very well.

The current system works well !! I presume you have no experience of any other system?

I got my handicap based on the first three games on a course I’ve never played before. Unsurprisingly they weren’t the best scores I might have had. My handicap was consequently ‘high.’ I then went through a summer of Saturday medal ‘qualifying’ competitions of which more than 50% were deemed ‘non qualifying’ because of weather or some other factor. In the other ‘qualifying’ comps my handicap goes down 0.1%!! I also enter some ‘social’ comps and keep winning. I wrote to the HC committee offering them the opportunity to reduce my HC; they replied that there is nothing in the rules to allow that. We then hit autumn and winter and there are no ‘qualifying’ comps yet there are still other comps and I can still compete on my high HC!! I reckon, at this rate, it’ll take about 5 years for my HC to reduce to where it should be. Then there’s the two thirds of the members that never play in ‘qualifying’ comps. Please tell me what part of this system is GOOD?

The CONGU system has been devised by some guy with more time on his hands than his good for him; he appears to believe we all aspire to be professional golfers, that there is a qualifying comp every week, we all play in that comp, we have all played in those comps since we were born and we don’t play golf in the winter.

A better system – the American system is a better system for one and for two every other system in any other country of the world is a better system. They are systems based (largely) upon every 18 holes played not just qualifying games.

You say your handicap only comes down by 0.1 well that says to me that your a cat 1 player who has just shot 1 under handicap.......whats the problem?

 

[USER1999]

The only h/caps which can't be cut on general play, or by review are cat 1.

If you are cat 1, you need to play in medals or opens to get cut.

I don't see the problem.

If you play off 5 or less, your h/cap isn't stupidly high.

Why would you want to get cut playing a non qualifying course. If I shot 2 under gross playing on 18 temps off mats, I would be livid to get cut 2.8 shots. It would have no bearing on how I play the full length course off the blocks at all.

 

[viscount17]

I've just done some reading of the American system. It appears hugely complicated. It does have a couple of things going for it, the slope rating system and that all rounds are recorded.

But, to calculate handicaps based on all recorded rounds on this system demands that all courses are re-evaluated for all tees in order to establish the differentials for whites, yellows etc. Otherwise it falls down as only rounds off whites will count, which to protect them would mean only competitions so back where we started.

The slope system I can see as having an advantage, though again all courses would need to be re-evaluated. It does seem a relatively simple way of equating a handicap established on a par 72 flat park with one on a par 72 mountainside. Leaving out the overly complex US method I think that h/c x (slope for course/slope for home) could work; a harder course gives you a higher h/c, an easier course a lower.

 

[wackygolfer]

Hi All

I do not like the congu system as my golf score can alter depending on everybody elses score.

I thought the whole idea of golf was to play against the course

Secondly our ladies section has just had its annual review where anybody's handicap could be adjusted by the handicap committee. Apparently the software can flag up handicaps that need revising.

Surely this is the answer to bandits, although it is only yearly.

 

[balaclava]

As I said above, many if not most of the ‘qualifying’ comps at my club were deemed ‘non qualifying’ because of some factor or other and I’ve just had a look at the CONGU website to try to find out exactly what qualifies or not. The link is . .

http://www.congu.com/template2.asp?pid=48&parent=2&parent2=2&area=

I note for example that it states if . . . 1(e) Status of a Competition When Bunkers Are Undergoing Renovation. As it rained most of last summer and most of the bunkers were compacted I can’t see how any the comps would ‘qualify’.

 

[balaclava]

Again looking at this page . . . .

http://www.congu.com/template2.asp?pid=48&parent=2&parent2=2&area=

I can’t see that it states that qualifying comps must be medal i.e. not stabelford

 

[USER1999]

Qualifiers can be stableford, but they need to be billed as stableford, not medal. Stableford can be qualifying.

 

[Leftie]

I do not like the congu system as my golf score can alter depending on everybody elses score.

I thought the whole idea of golf was to play against the course

Secondly our ladies section has just had its annual review where anybody's handicap could be adjusted by the handicap committee. Apparently the software can flag up handicaps that need revising.

I think that the idea is that if the prevailing weather/course conditions are such that the majority of golfers in that event struggle to reach the average score (or better it) then the Competition Standard Scratch is adjusted accordingly. i.e. if the conditions are difficult and the CSS is put from (say) 71 to 73 on a par 71 course, you shoot a 76 (5 over) you are deemed to have only shot 3 over and are cut accordingly because you played better than your h/cap in those conditions.

The conditions are deemed to apply to everyone playing that day, whether or not they change during the day.

Regarding the second point, 2 of our members that I know of got a couple of shots back due to the Congu system. They both complained, as did many other members who knew them.

They then played as partners in a couple of 4BBB comps which they won by healthy margins.

After consideration, and many "discussions" with the powers that be, they were both cut 2 shots under, I think, Rule 19 - observation.