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

do you want to go back to the old system , if you won a competion or broke the s.s. you were cut 3 strokes and could not go back up till after the seaon was over, no matter how you scored . also if you did not break 100 you couldn't play in the next two medals unless you improved. that was in the 1980s rounds only took only 3 to 3 1/2 hours
 
Last edited:
Absolutely 100% disagree. I started the year off 9 and it's fair to say I'm not having a good year. If I went up 0.2 for every shot I played worse than my h'cap I'd have gone up 3hots in the last two comps and close to 6 shots this year so would be off 15. You can ask Homer and Sundance how they'd feel about me playing off 15.

The bottom line is your handicap is supposed to be a measure of your best play, not your current form. If everyone's h'cap reflected current form, there would be some quite ridiculous scores coming in every week.

The system isn't perfect but it's better than what you suggest
 
HawkeyeMS said:
Absolutely 100% disagree. I started the year off 9 and it's fair to say I'm not having a good year. If I went up 0.2 for every shot I played worse than my h'cap I'd have gone up 3hots in the last two comps and close to 6 shots this year so would be off 15. You can ask Homer and Sundance how they'd feel about me playing off 15.

The bottom line is your handicap is supposed to be a measure of your best play, not your current form. If everyone's h'cap reflected current form, there would be some quite ridiculous scores coming in every week.

The system isn't perfect but it's better than what you suggest
Click to expand...

P.S

I should probably add that the way I'm playing at the moment I can't compete off my current h'cap but that's cause I'm playing like a clown and I don't want my h'cap adjusted to a point I can compete when playing like this. Unfortunately, too many golfers want to be rewarded for average to bad golf and a system that rewards anything but your best golf is wrong in my book
 
balaclava said:
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?
Click to expand...

1. She should not have been automatically awarded her SA 23 handicap. She should have submitted 3 cards with her previous handicap history taken into account.
2. Her average 30+ over CSS is irrelevant. She played 59 times and clearly was not outside buffer on 59 occasions or she would have increased by 5.9.
3. She should have been considered for upward revision on each Annual Review if she failed to make buffer on a significant number of occasions in the playing year.
4. I think you will feel that opinion is against you.
 
Surely then us lower handicappers would just score a 100 in a midweek comp (23 over with my handicap off) go up 4 or 5 shots play a tie on the Thursday win that, then play the next medal win that and back to our old handicap. Just doesn't work does it. You could even have a 15 handicapper winning the club championship as a scratch golfer has scored a couple of 120's (He wasn't playing that well :whistle:) then clean up a few of the competitions on his way back to scratch.

Shark
 
Leftie said:
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.​
Click to expand...
Just this. The OP's premise, and indeed all of his further arguments in this thread show an astounding lack of knowledge on how well the CONGU system works in practice, and how fair it is for 99% of golfers.
 
Wow did I suggest that someone's wife was boiling toads and riding a broom stick or did I suggest a very slight and modest amendment to a system that is universally agreed to be lumbering slow? From the amount of venom and insults raised her towards me I must presume that those individuals are the architects of the system; it is there personal 'baby' and any suggestion that it is not a thing of beauty is an insult!!

Getting back to my modest suggestion, it was to change 0.1 to 0.3 (and by the way that isn't multiples of 0.1 to multiples of 0.3). Is there someone here who believes that anyone suggestion of change is akin to treason?
 
balaclava said:
Wow did I suggest that someone's wife was boiling toads and riding a broom stick or did I suggest a very slight and modest amendment to a system that is universally agreed to be lumbering slow? From the amount of venom and insults raised her towards me I must presume that those individuals are the architects of the system; it is there personal 'baby' and any suggestion that it is not a thing of beauty is an insult!!

Getting back to my modest suggestion, it was to change 0.1 to 0.3 (and by the way that isn't multiples of 0.1 to multiples of 0.3). Is there someone here who believes that anyone suggestion of change is akin to treason?
Click to expand...

You said...

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

sorry if I misunderstood but to me that says that you were suggesting handicaps go up or down by 0.3 per shot
 
1. It's not 'universally agreed' that the handicap system is lumbering slow, many, myself included think it's about as good as it gets.

2. You didn't suggest a 'modest change', changing to a rise of 0.3 every time you miss buffer would have massive consequences, as has already been pointed out in this very thread in response to your unworkable and unfair suggestion.
 
rosecott said:
2. Her average 30+ over CSS is irrelevant. She played 59 times and clearly was not outside buffer on 59 occasions or she would have increased by 5.9.
Click to expand...

She played in 13 medal comps in the past 12 months for some reason only 9 of those were deemed 'qualifying' comps. It could be that the reason the CONGU system is so lumering slow to move is because the criteria for a round to be a qualifier is subject to interpretation. Maybe the answer is for all competitions to be qualifying competions regardless.
 
balaclava said:
She played in 13 medal comps in the past 12 months for some reason only 9 of those were deemed 'qualifying' comps. It could be that the reason the CONGU system is so lumering slow to move is because the criteria for a round to be a qualifier is subject to interpretation. Maybe the answer is for all competitions to be qualifying competions regardless.
Click to expand...
Or maybe she could just play more than once a month on average?
 
I think the handicaping system favours high handicappers in that there is far more scope for them to shoot well under handicap. Last week I was 8 shots under CSS, what chance has a low handicapper of doing that? practically none. I do think your handicap ought to reflect your potential rather than go up a the drop of a hat.
 
Here's an interesting stat I discussed with thecraw a few weeks back, it takes less shots under CSS to get to 5 from 15 than it is from 5 to scratch.

Does that make the system wrong?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Handicaps- "Equal" Chance or Winning, Regardless of Ability?
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
20K
harpo_72
harpo_72
Old Skier
CONGU Changes 2018
2 3 4
Replies
62
Views
17K
jim8flog
jim8flog
W
CONGU v USGA
2 3
Replies
43
Views
14K
duncan mackie
D
B
Old Handicaps - How Did They Work?
Replies
8
Views
8K
Doh
Doh
W
Black or Brown Shoes
2 3
Replies
50
Views
4K
HomerJSimpson
HomerJSimpson
Top