Should the Handicap system be revised?

[drdel]

I mainly play golf for pleasure, when younger I was into rugby and athletics and you either won or lost.

Now the handicap system supposedly allows golfers of mixed abilities to compete which seems to skew the idea of ‘competition’. We frequently hear that golf is in decline because of, in part, the barriers of getting into the sport. I wonder if it would be an idea to overhaul the Handicap system.

Several posts on the Forum relate to problems with handicap maintenance and recording. Personally I can’t be bothered to keep an ‘official’ handicap so even though I’ve been a Club member for over 20 years and can usually get around 18 holes in less than 90 blows many clubs I might wish to visit wouldn’t give me access to their hallowed ground !

So might we imagine different classes of handicap. Say,
a) Nomad, requires a golfer to record 3 cards at a Club, signed by the relevant professional.
b) Registered for Club members, recorded only at their local club, minimum I card per year,
c) Registered Player: valid for internal Club competitions, 3 cards per year, usable for playing as a visitor at other clubs.
d) Official Handicap: same as present CONGU system.

Just perhaps some of the younger generation who are increasingly nomadic causal players and leisure golfers like me might find a greater choice and access to Clubs who could dearly use the additional income.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Nomad - I can't see EGU looking at awarding someone floating a HC as someone needs to maintain it and they are in favour of people being assigned to golf clubs - also how would you pay the fees to have the affliation ?

Club member - your HC when it's given is still valid regardless of how many cards you put in - it just because non competitive if you don't have 3 cards

The difference between official and registered is nil - both require three cards ?

Even without a HC I don't think many clubs will turn you away - so I can't see how your access is restricted without an official HC ?

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Seems way too complicated and a nightmare to administer, especially in terms of the nomad player. What would stop them having differing handicaps at different clubs etc

 

[Green Bay Hacker]

I mainly play golf for pleasure, when younger I was into rugby and athletics and you either won or lost.

Now the handicap system supposedly allows golfers of mixed abilities to compete which seems to skew the idea of ‘competition’. We frequently hear that golf is in decline because of, in part, the barriers of getting into the sport. I wonder if it would be an idea to overhaul the Handicap system.

Several posts on the Forum relate to problems with handicap maintenance and recording. Personally I can’t be bothered to keep an ‘official’ handicap so even though I’ve been a Club member for over 20 years and can usually get around 18 holes in less than 90 blows many clubs I might wish to visit wouldn’t give me access to their hallowed ground !

So might we imagine different classes of handicap. Say,
a) Nomad, requires a golfer to record 3 cards at a Club, signed by the relevant professional.
b) Registered for Club members, recorded only at their local club, minimum I card per year,
c) Registered Player: valid for internal Club competitions, 3 cards per year, usable for playing as a visitor at other clubs.
d) Official Handicap: same as present CONGU system.

Just perhaps some of the younger generation who are increasingly nomadic causal players and leisure golfers like me might find a greater choice and access to Clubs who could dearly use the additional income.

Have you ever been refused access to any course? I know a lot of courses state that a handicap cert is required but have yet to be asked to produce one. If you look the part you will usually not have a problem.

 

[rosecott]

a) Nomad, requires a golfer to record 3 cards at a Club, signed by the relevant professional.

And what would he be signing to say?

If a club is running the handicap system as it is meant to be run, it relies on "peer review". The physical act of signing a card is absolutely meaningless unless it is a small but essential part of that review.

 

[the smiling assassin]

You want to make the hcp system more complicated?!

personally for starters I'd:
-scrap 0.1 increases (increases only given at annual review)
-increase the min number of cards submitted to about a dozen, min 3 to be competition from medal tees, other 9 fine from yellows or whatever. Utterly pointless exercise trying to review a golfers handicap at annual review with only 3 cards worth of evidence
-scrap making adjustments based on adjusted nett scores, make them on adjusted gross scores, I.e worst you can have is a gross double bogey for hcp purposes. This would help make handicaps far more transferable to match play situations in my opinion (current system favours streaky players, of which I am one).
-bring in ESRs or some equivalent in Scotland- current system is far too slow to react to a player who is consistently shooting 1 or 2 under their handicap and relies on an observant hcp sec.

 

[pbrown7582]

Thats pretty much the same as the current system?

Internet

Handicap

Competition handicap..

 

[rosecott]

-bring in ESRs or some equivalent in Scotland- current system is far too slow to react to a player who is consistently shooting 1 or 2 under their handicap and relies on an observant hcp sec.

ESR doesn't apply unless -4 or better is scored. Handicap Committees have always - and still have even with ESR - had the power to deal with players performing like that.

 

[the smiling assassin]

ESR doesn't apply unless -4 or better is scored. Handicap Committees have always - and still have even with ESR - had the power to deal with players performing like that.

I was under the impression it kicked in when a player scored a certain amount below his handicap either in a single round or aggregate from more than one card? Not sure of the details.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I was under the impression it kicked in when a player scored a certain amount below his handicap either in a single round or aggregate from more than one card? Not sure of the details.

Kicks in when a player scores 4 better than their HC twice within a short period

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Kicks in when a player scores 4 better than their HC twice within a short period

That's me safe then. Lightening doesn't strike twice. Think my old mucker Hawkeye got an ESR a few years back

 

[Simbo]

I mainly play golf for pleasure, when younger I was into rugby and athletics and you either won or lost.

Now the handicap system supposedly allows golfers of mixed abilities to compete which seems to skew the idea of ‘competition’. We frequently hear that golf is in decline because of, in part, the barriers of getting into the sport. I wonder if it would be an idea to overhaul the Handicap system.

Several posts on the Forum relate to problems with handicap maintenance and recording. Personally I can’t be bothered to keep an ‘official’ handicap so even though I’ve been a Club member for over 20 years and can usually get around 18 holes in less than 90 blows many clubs I might wish to visit wouldn’t give me access to their hallowed ground !

So might we imagine different classes of handicap. Say,
a) Nomad, requires a golfer to record 3 cards at a Club, signed by the relevant professional.
b) Registered for Club members, recorded only at their local club, minimum I card per year,
c) Registered Player: valid for internal Club competitions, 3 cards per year, usable for playing as a visitor at other clubs.
d) Official Handicap: same as present CONGU system.

Just perhaps some of the younger generation who are increasingly nomadic causal players and leisure golfers like me might find a greater choice and access to Clubs who could dearly use the additional income.

No, sounds rediculous if you ask me. I don't see anything wrong with the current system. It's complicated enough without making it even more so.

 

[Oxfordcomma]

Personally I can’t be bothered to keep an ‘official’ handicap so even though I’ve been a Club member for over 20 years and can usually get around 18 holes in less than 90 blows many clubs I might wish to visit wouldn’t give me access to their hallowed ground !

I don't quite get this bit? If you're a club member, why don't you bother with an official handicap? It only takes 3 cards per year, so it isn't much of an imposition.

The suggestion that I think is interesting though is to allow nomads to have an official CONGU handicap. You'd need some strict controls, and perhaps a higher number of qualifying cards than three, but actually I think there are a lot of people out there who would buy in to it. We all must know people who aren't members of a club (and not likely to be, due to finances or time) but who are keen golfers, I can immediately think of 2 or 3 mates whose cards I would happily sign.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

I don't quite get this bit? If you're a club member, why don't you bother with an official handicap? It only takes 3 cards per year, so it isn't much of an imposition.

The suggestion that I think is interesting though is to allow nomads to have an official CONGU handicap. You'd need some strict controls, and perhaps a higher number of qualifying cards than three, but actually I think there are a lot of people out there who would buy in to it. We all must know people who aren't members of a club (and not likely to be, due to finances or time) but who are keen golfers, I can immediately think of 2 or 3 mates whose cards I would happily sign.

Why would they need an official HC though if they aren't members of a club ?

 

[Oxfordcomma]

They don't need one, but might want one? Would also allow for more accurate handicaps on society days, work days, etc, and allow them to enter opens. Or Race to Hillside/H4H events, even

 

[garyinderry]

That's me safe then. Lightening doesn't strike twice. Think my old mucker Hawkeye got an ESR a few years back

You are about two good rounds away from singles. That's the truth.

 

[Smiffy]

You are about two good rounds away from singles. That's the truth.

Should that not read years?

 

[Hobbit]

No.

Whether its golf or any other past time there seems to be an attitude/desire in the UK to dumb it down to make it more accessible. There is still a decent/cheap route into golf and having a handicap via a municipal golf club. Even that can cause issues with whether or not a handicap is accurate.

30yrs ago, when my children were young, I played little golf for a few years and maintained my handicap via membership to a club attached to a muni. When I returned full time to the game my handicap bore little resemblance to my ability, allowing me to scoop loads of prizes. Is that fair?

As to there being barrier to accessing golf; access is easier now than its ever been, including the relative costs. There's cheap kit and there's flexible memberships. If you want the best kit, there's a high cost. If you want access to the best courses, there's a high cost. And if you want access to the best competitions, there's a high cost both in cash terms and time.

If you want access to the "hallowed ground" of the better courses prove you are good enough by getting a recognised handicap. Saying that you are doesn't prove it to a club you might want to visit. The recognised handicap also, in the main, comes with a side benefit to the club you are visiting. It will mean you know how to behave on a course, because you've been through the learning experience at your home club.

Saying you've played for 20yrs and can knock it round in less than 90 will count for diddly when you have a bad round at an away club and the secretary is getting it in the neck from members who might perceive you as a hacker. But him being able to say you have a recognised handicap will at least allow him to say you had a bad day.

 

[drdel]

No.

Whether its golf or any other past time there seems to be an attitude/desire in the UK to dumb it down to make it more accessible. There is still a decent/cheap route into golf and having a handicap via a municipal golf club. Even that can cause issues with whether or not a handicap is accurate.

30yrs ago, when my children were young, I played little golf for a few years and maintained my handicap via membership to a club attached to a muni. When I returned full time to the game my handicap bore little resemblance to my ability, allowing me to scoop loads of prizes. Is that fair?

As to there being barrier to accessing golf; access is easier now than its ever been, including the relative costs. There's cheap kit and there's flexible memberships. If you want the best kit, there's a high cost. If you want access to the best courses, there's a high cost. And if you want access to the best competitions, there's a high cost both in cash terms and time.

If you want access to the "hallowed ground" of the better courses prove you are good enough by getting a recognised handicap. Saying that you are doesn't prove it to a club you might want to visit. The recognised handicap also, in the main, comes with a side benefit to the club you are visiting. It will mean you know how to behave on a course, because you've been through the learning experience at your home club.

Saying you've played for 20yrs and can knock it round in less than 90 will count for diddly when you have a bad round at an away club and the secretary is getting it in the neck from members who might perceive you as a hacker. But him being able to say you have a recognised handicap will at least allow him to say you had a bad day.

Nowhere have I advocated and said lower the handicap so how you read into the post its a "dumbing down" is beyond me - perhaps that's a thought already in your head !

If you read the text you will see that I said I'd been a member of my club for 20 years - I've played for over 50 years and belonged to others as work has took me to different locations ! My "usually get around in under 90" was a throw away conservative statement merely to give a context, but if you're a handicap snob that's fine by me, my score is generally just in double figures now as I've lost a bit of distance: and, at 70 I'm well versed in how to conduct myself thank you. Having a low handicap is certainly no indicator of good golfing behaviour as many posts on this Forum unfortunately demonstrate.

You mention your 30 year period, I'd respectively suggest that times are somewhat different. The pressures on many clubs to survive indicates to me that there is both a perception and a reality issue with how Golf is seen by the younger generation. My post was simply opening a debate and raising a question as to whether the Handicap system might be revised in the interests of giving wider access to the 'nomadic' and more casual player.

The fact that some contributors to the thread indicate that while many Clubs specify a minimum handicap for guest players but then do not then enforce it just goes to show the reality and stupidity of saying one thing and doing another. Either it is required or it isn't; otherwise its just daft marketing. One wonders how many courses have lost potential customers who have read a Golf Club's website with the associated 'minimum handicap' requirement only to then not bother visiting.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

1. I don't think a change in HC system will increase the numbers playing golf - we will see soon as next year there will be a change - the increase in the maximum a person can have

2. Clubs that advertise a requirement for HC certificate or minimum HC prob don't have to worry about potential customers being lost.

3. As was seen in a recent thread - phone up the club and speak to them about the requirements - you would more than likely find with most courses a human touch which would then gain the relevant information and then would say that you could play without a HC certificate or if you don't have a HC - or is it too much work to phone ?

4. There are hundreds of clubs maybe more that allow access to the nomadic or social golfer - pay and play - I could name 5 within a 15 min radius from me only