Handicaps (CONGU system doesn't meet it's stated aims)

[balaclava]

CONGU states: The intent of the CONGU Unified Handicapping System is to enable golfers of differing abilities to compete on a fair and equitable basis.

If that's the case why doesn't it move up and down to more accurately reflect the golfers current play?

If I shoot one shot under the CSS my handicap goes down 0.3 and it goes down 0.3 for every other shot under CSS. I have to shoot 4+ shots over CSS to go up and then it goes up by 0.1.

Do you agree with me that CONGU would better meet it's stated aims if handicaps went up and down by the same amount?

 

[Ethan]

No, I don't agree. The apparently obvious reasonableness of the proposition falls when it has to deal with the data sets that are club players' scores.

The problem with golf scores is that they are pretty unstable, and therefore not reliable data to drive handicaps. Players who average a score of 90 can score anywhere between high 70s and low 100s, so if you set the handicap system at a score somewhere around the midpoint, you just get people who shoot 12 under handicap one round, and 1 above the next, and large and frequent changes in handicaps, i.e. greater instability.

The system therefore tries to deal with the highly variable nature of scores by pinning the handicap to a score closer to the upper end of the range and then using an asymmetrical adjustment, where the increase is smaller than likely decreases, which makes sense if you start with a system which swings around a better than average score.

The system you suggest would result in wildly variable handicaps and nett 57s in medals. It would also mean that inconsistent players win more medals and consistent players get routinely stuffed.

 

[anotherdouble]

I would hazard a guess that it is more common to shoot above your handicap than below, to go up .3 every time it would not take long to be on a total unreasonable handicap.

 

[balaclava]

Players who average a score of 90 can score anywhere between high 70s and low 100s, so if you set the handicap system at a score somewhere around the midpoint, i.e. greater instability.

You call it instability; we could call it a system sufficiently dynamic to meet CONGU's stated aims of providing a system that would "enable golfers of differing abilities to compete on a fair and equitable basis".

It would also mean that inconsistent players win more medals and consistent players get routinely stuffed.

I see, so your view is that a fair system that would "enable golfers of differing abilities to compete on a fair and equitable basis" is one which favours the minorities (single figure golfers)?

 

[balaclava]

Let me give you an example of the system in action. My wife joined our club 4 years back and was allotted her handicap from South Africa of 23, four years and 59 games later with an average score of 30+ over the CSS her handicap has crept up to 26. How dynamic is that?

(Please don't tell me she could have written a letter to have it reviewed or any other mechanism that is in place to correct a system that doesn't work and it's not about my wife, it's about every golfer who hopes to have a system "enable golfers of differing abilities to compete on a fair and equitable basis.")

 

[Ethan]

You call it instability; we could call it a system sufficiently dynamic to meet CONGU's stated aims of providing a system that would "enable golfers of differing abilities to compete on a fair and equitable basis".



I see, so your view is that a fair system that would "enable golfers of differing abilities to compete on a fair and equitable basis" is one which favours the minorities (single figure golfers)?

I think you misunderstand statistics - which is basically what calculating handicaps is about. Instability, variability, inconsistency - 6 of one etc. Call it what you like, the effect is the same.

Higher handicap players are more inconsistent (i.e. their scores have greater variability). You are completely wrong on the effect on lower handicaps. Your system would favour higher handicappers because their variability means the extreme lower end of their scores is likely to be lower than the same for lower handicaps.

Edit - your wife may be an exception, but we shouldn't design the system around her.

 

[balaclava]

I would hazard a guess that it is more common to shoot above your handicap than below, to go up .3 every time it would not take long to be on a total unreasonable handicap.

Indeed it would go up and then it would go down, play better it goes down, play badly it goes up - that's how you get to a system that would "enable golfers of differing abilities to compete on a fair and equitable basis"

 

[alnecosse]

I think the current system whereas it might have its faults is probably as good as you could get to keep things fair if a cat 3 golfer went up point three every time he didnt make buffer could be a good 2 or 3 shots better off quickly don't think the lower guys would be able to be competitive with your system in place.

 

[balaclava]

don't think the lower guys would be able to be competitive with your system in place.

If a system cannot be found (and I'm not syaing I agree that it cannot) that is 100% equally fair to all should we have a system that meets the needs of the majority or the minority?

 

[Ethan]

If a system cannot be found (and I'm not syaing I agree that it cannot) that is 100% equally fair to all should we have a system that meets the needs of the majority or the minority?

This question misses the point. The current system attempts to balance the different effects that apply to lower and higher players. It isn't a choice between favouring one group or another. The problem is that not all lower or higher players score the same, and improving (and worsening) players may find the system insufficiently responsive. Can't have it both ways, though.

 

[balaclava]

I play in every weekend qualifying comp available and I played 13 last year. I would guess (and I may be wrong) that the average golfer plays in less than ten Q comps a year. If his (or her) game is deteriorating or if his initially allotted handicap was too low it will take YEARS for it to creep up to where it should be. Surely that can't be right; unless, we take the view that the current CONGU HC system is aimed primarily at a group of young men playing off single figures who aspire to become professionals?

 

[alnecosse]

If a system cannot be found (and I'm not syaing I agree that it cannot) that is 100% equally fair to all should we have a system that meets the needs of the majority or the minority?

agree that a system with 100% fairness would be the way to go but looking at my own scores i have more rounds with 0.1 than -0.3 and i think it balances better as if i went up 0.3 everytime i didnt make buffer 4 or 5 bad rounds and i could be 2 shots better off with my handicap which i think would give me an advantage if i eventually put a round together another 2 shots counting in matchplay as well personally i just think think this would tip the balance in the cat 3 or 4 players where i think when you look at comp results pretty much an even spread between low to high guys.

 

[balaclava]

If the CONGU system is agood system how come the UK is the only country in the world using that system (not counting any banana republics)

 

[Ethan]

I play in every weekend qualifying comp available and I played 13 last year. I would guess (and I may be wrong) that the average golfer plays in less than ten Q comps a year. If his (or her) game is deteriorating or if his initially allotted handicap was too low it will take YEARS for it to creep up to where it should be. Surely that can't be right; unless, we take the view that the current CONGU HC system is aimed primarily at a group of young men playing off single figures who aspire to become professionals?

That is another false premise. Even if it is true that it takes a while for a worsening player to reach equilibrium, that doesn't mean the current system is designed for future pros. It simply means it is a bit slow to respond, and has a lot of inertia. Depending on your point of view, that can be a good or bad thing.

In my opinion, the players who benefit most from the current system are newer players who get a handicap of 25 but improve fast over their first couple of years and settle out around 10. On the way down they win a few comps with scores that cause others to say "bandit" under their breath.

The CONGU system actually doesn't operate very differently from the US system, course ratings and slope part. That system also favours better scores in a different methodology but which has a somewhat similar, if slightly faster, effect. It is also arguably more open to gaming the system (i.e. cheating).

I think your concerns with the system are based on personal circumstances, and logic and statistical methodology answers won't satisfy you, so from now on I will just quietly bang my head on the wall instead of answering your every point.

 

[Leftie]

The system can't always keep up with the rapidly improving golfer nor for those who cannot now play anywhere near their handicaps through (say) ill health or ageing. In these circumstances cuts or increases are available for the h/cap secretary to apply, if desired.

For the majority of all other golfers, no matter what their handicap, it seems to work quite well.

In answer to the OP's question ....

"Do you agree with me that CONGU would better meet it's stated aims if handicaps went up and down by the same amount?"

the answer, from me. is a resounding no.​

 

[TheJezster]

I agree with Ethan.

I started playing just over 18 months ago and joined my first club in January last year. Got my first handicap by March last year, of 26 and am now down to 20. I've won a few comps on the way down and look likely to be cut again this weekend after another 43 points. I can still have a bad round from time to time, but If I went up by .4 for every shot I'm over handicap, it wouldnt be fair on the other players. I'm a new player, improving, and concede my handicap hasnt caught up with my improvements yet. If for example, I used my last 3 comp cards as my 3 handicap cards, I would probably be given a handicap of 13 now (assuming it's the best card) (last 3 cards were 40, 34 and 43 points).

The handicap system seems ok to me by and large. To make it easier to go up isnt the right way to go I wouldnt have thought.

 

[SocketRocket]

I think Ethan makes a very powerful argument here and I agree with his reasoning.

The vast majority of golfers have scores that vary quite a bit from their handicaps and more often than not the trend is that the score is worse, it would be wrong to have a roller coaster handicap that shot up and down to reflect this.

For people that play consistently below their handicaps then they should try and play in more qualifiers and talk to their Handicap Secretary with a view to their Handicap being considered for a general play adjustment.

 

[SocketRocket]

I agree with Ethan.

I started playing just over 18 months ago and joined my first club in January last year. Got my first handicap by March last year, of 26 and am now down to 20. I've won a few comps on the way down and look likely to be cut again this weekend after another 43 points. I can still have a bad round from time to time, but If I went up by .4 for every shot I'm over handicap, it wouldnt be fair on the other players. I'm a new player, improving, and concede my handicap hasnt caught up with my improvements yet. If for example, I used my last 3 comp cards as my 3 handicap cards, I would probably be given a handicap of 13 now (assuming it's the best card) (last 3 cards were 40, 34 and 43 points).

The handicap system seems ok to me by and large. To make it easier to go up isnt the right way to go I wouldnt have thought.

The CONGU system should now flag up anyone that has scored 4 or more under, more than once in a short period and evoke a review of the players handicap.

 

[duncan mackie]

If the CONGU system is agood system how come the UK is the only country in the world using that system (not counting any banana republics)

there is very little difference in the handicap mechanics of the systems today - the main ones being related to the question of which scores are included in the calculation (and Q score equivilents have a greating weighting in the other systems as well) and the inclusion of a bogey index (how the average 18 handicapper would approach the course presented off the tees in play) in the calculation of the course rating.

if you run the average golfer's scores though any of the systems you will not find a huge difference in the playing handicap they deliver over time - where they do differ is that CONGU starts from the premise that an 8 handicapper (for example) is basically an 8 handicapper even if he has 10 rounds playing to 16, and spits out 9 as a handicap at the end. If you ran it through the alternatives they would say that he has suddenly become a (say) 14 (will depend on other history etc), even if the rounds were over 2 weeks! Sorry, this isn't handicapping, it's closer to the Society approach designed to redistribute prizes rather than reflect any hard earned improvement (through relative handicapping not absolute).

All systems now include stableford adjustments, all include elements of exceptional improvement (now that CONGU is trialling it - except Scotland!) and all include implicit or explicit rewards for excellence ie they have an element of statistical bias to the better golfer. The US system uses an explicit 13% currently I believe.

Finally, you cannot have a system that perfectly enables significantly different handicaps to compete fairly in a single event; it's simply not possible because the lower handicap will be inherently more consistent regardless of the system used. What you are effectively adjusting is the relationship between the various probabilities. As an example, play a 3 against an 18 (from any system) at matchplay over a series of 4 matches - the 3 will probably win 2 reasonably comfortably, will get 'blown away' by the 18 in one and the other will be tight. That's just how it is - before you start to overlay improvers and those in decline.

As to your wife, the mechnism's you rule out are an integral part of the system - so you cannot discount them. Why was your wife allotted the handicap she was without any evidence of playing ability at that time, on that course? Why wasn't this newly alocated handicap reviewed (without any letter!!!) in light of early competition evidence? Why are the 'flags' that would be raised regarding her performance every year ignored? I may ssupect the answers to these questions but that would be conjecture on my part - the only relevant fact is that the system has not been applied by those tasked to do so (on the basis of what you present)

 

[Val]

The congu system is fair, it is based on ability rather than form and thatsnthenway it should be IMO?

People shouldn't expect to play to their handicap every time the tee it up.