The ideal handicap system

[HomerJSimpson]

OK then golfing gurus.

What is the best and FAIREST way of handicapping players so a scratch and 28 handicapper can play in the same monthly medal and compete together. No right or wrong answers but I'd love to know the best way forward in a golfing utopia.

 

[RGDave]

Hmm, don't know.

I played with 2 x 20+ players the other day and whilst I was a par machine, they were making bogeys all over the place and racking up some good points. Both of them parred the S.I. 1 for 4 points (nett eagle) and even a couple of blobs didn't seem to stop the juggernaut of shots.....

The annoying thing was watching them make 9 or 10 one minute and pars the next.....both of them could easily keep up with me (no shots) if they'd just learn to use better course management. I won out in the end...but it was hard work and I only pipped them. They deserved their points and I earned mine...but I soon realised that I couldn't think for one moment about their games - I had to be far better (gross) to have a chance.

It IS annoying standing on a par 5 with no shots, and the rest of the group all get shots and can get green-side in two!
This is all irrelevant.....but does remind me that I need to not worry about what's going on around me....unless it's matchplay.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I find it more soul destroying when they are playing a par 3 with 2 shots. Birdie net zero???? How can you play against that.

 

[haplesshacker]

I find it more soul destroying when they are playing a par 3 with 2 shots. Birdie net zero???? How can you play against that.

I don't know the answer to the OP. But 2 shots on a par 3! Not in my perfect world. And I'm one that's almost a 28 h'capper! It's just not fair to the better players.

I don't mind taking points or holes when at least it's slightly fair.

Thinking about it. I'd rather have 3 shots on SI 1 to 4, than the usual 2 shots on SI 1 to 9. I think that would suit the higher h'capper and the better player playing against each other.

 

[rgs]

Simple answer----NO.

The current system IMO is probaby the best available.

The alternative is to use the "callaway handicapping system" which our society uss for visitors. The system adds the gross score max double the par and then deducts a varying number of worse scores depending on gross scores. The majority of cards return net 72 to 77.

 

[brendy]

The only way it will be fair is to classify each handicap as individual competitions, ie all 5 handicappers are against each other but not against say, 15 handicappers etc. High and low handicappers cant compete on a 100% level footing but the current system gets as close as possible I believe.

 

[Yerman]

One way in stableford is when playing off 3/4 handicap, this favours better players, in golf as in all sport you usually want to see the best win. But the handicap system does try to do what God didn't - make us all equal.

 

[RGDave]

The O.P. suggested Medal format....I'm more keen to play Medal vs. higher players...it hardly ever works out bad for either party if the h'caps are about right.

Stableford is the tricky one, especially against a par-bogey-par-quadruple-par-par-quintuple type player.

I can work out my stableford score directly from my nett if I don't make worse then a double-bogey.
Someone off 22 who's played 15 holes to 11 and 3 holes to 11...forget it.....takes me ages.
I don't even "do" the points for opponents any more, I let the computer do it and fill in/sign the card after seeing the result.

5 nett 3 for 3 points.....ought to be illegal....

 

[CrapHacker]

The only time it's unfair is when someone is 'protecting' their high handicap.

So maybe a monthly medal winner has to have played in a decent % of previous games and handing in competitive cards, before being eligible to take any competitive prizes.

I think there's a certain breed of man that will quite happily abuse any system to give them the best chance of winning. It's not the handicap that's wrong - it's the man behind the clubs.

That's the whole idea of handicap golf, creating a level playing field. If a golfer of any standard decides to put in extra effort and practise and sticks in a sub par round, they deserve the plaudits. And the cut.

 

[Society_Fan]

The max handicaps should be 18 which rule out the nett zero (unless they get a hole in one - they would deserve the net zero.)
Does anyone think that on the whole if you set up a system that allows someone 28 shots, they will take 28 shots? So if the system allows 18 shots people will take 18 shots.
The other idea would be to increase the reduction in handicap for shots under the CSS. Instead of 0.4 for high handicaps, it could be 0.8 for cat 4, 0.4 for cat 3, and keep the 0.2 and 0.1 for cat 2 and 1 golfers.

 

[haplesshacker]

The max handicaps should be 18 which rule out the nett zero

I can't help but think that you're of the better player persuasion.

 

[RGDave]

The other idea would be to increase the reduction in handicap for shots under the CSS. Instead of 0.4 for high handicaps, it could be 0.8 for cat 4, 0.4 for cat 3, and keep the 0.2 and 0.1 for cat 2 and 1 golfers.

Sounds a useful idea.

If I had my way, I'd go the whole hog and make it a nice round 1.0 cut per stroke for 24-28 h'cap.

If a 26 (exact) has a nett 65 (par 72 or 7 under CSS) then I'd go 2 x 1.0 and 5 x 0.4 = a cut of 4.0
A handicap is supposed to reflect what you are capable of.
Once a player has proven he can play to 19 when nowt goes wrong, I reckon a cut to 22 would be more than fair.
In fairness to the cat 2/3/4 players, I'd then probably double the 0.1 increase to 0.2 for everyone over the buffer.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Isn't that similar to how handicap cuts were done in the 80's. I can't remember the previous system(s) prior to the current one but I'm sure there were bigger cuts and you got shots back easier too

 

[viscount17]

In any 1 v 1 comp the low handicapper has a statistically better chance than a high handicapper, simply because on any hole the low handicapper is more likely to par and the high handicapper more likely to double. (on a par 4, the range of shots for each is likely to be 2 - 6 v 2 - 9)

Once you get into a comp where there is a large number of high handicappers competing the odds are in favour of a high handicapper winning, simply because with a large enough field one of them is likely to score well on enough holes.

the USGA system has less inbuilt 'bias' (for want of a better word) than does the CONGU system, but seems overly complicated. in it's favour, it does factor in the individual course difficulty (for whichever tee is used) which CONGU does not. it is also more reactive as I think all scores are counted not just qualifiers.

so all courses would have to be re-assessed for all tees and all clubs would have to have a way to ensure that all cards are recorded. is this likely to happen?

 

[GB72]

It does appear that the only fair way to calculate handicaps would be to record every round of every member. The problem is that, as well as being an administrative nightmare, it would potentially slow play as every hole would need to be putted out irrespective of it only being a friendly round between mates.

I agree with the increased cut for higher handicap levels though. The current 0.4 seems low and I would happily take a 1 point cut per shot under.

 

[viscount17]

I agree with the increased cut for higher handicap levels though. The current 0.4 seems low and I would happily take a 1 point cut per shot under.

thanks GB, that would have seen me cut by 8 for one good round and I would now be off 16 - how likely is it that I could play to that again?.
we all want, or should want, to get as low as possible but that's not the way to do it. momentarily satisfying to the ego maybe, but when you score a 10 over and get 0.1 back?

no, the cuts are fair enough, it's the increases that need looking at. as I said in another post, it takes 3 times as long to go up than to come down.

 

[SammmeBee]

it does factor in the individual course difficulty (for whichever tee is used) which CONGU does not. it is also more reactive as I think all scores are counted not just qualifiers.

so all courses would have to be re-assessed for all tees and all clubs would have to have a way to ensure that all cards are recorded. is this likely to happen?

Er.....SSS?

 

[Spoff]

The max handicaps should be 18 which rule out the nett zero

I can't help but think that you're of the better player persuasion.

Max handicap should be 36

 

[JustOne]

If I could change one thing to make it (what I consider) fairer then Category 4 handicappers should be cut according to the par of the course and not standard scratch. Simples#

(maybe category 3 too)

 

[bobmac]

Bring back clause 19. Simple.

A slight hijack if I may?

John Smith approaches a golf club about membership and finds out the following about their competition set-up.

1. 1st net prize......A sleeve of balls.
2nd net prize...there is no 2nd net prize

2. 1st gross prize...A pair of Dry-joys
2nd gross prize.....Vokey wedge
3rd gross prize....dozen proV1s
3.You cannot enter the gross competition unless your handicap is 9.4 or less.
4.They still have clause 19 in operation.

Would you
1.Join, enter the nett comps and just enjoy your golf.?
2.Join, and try your hardest to get your handicap down to 9 and then enter the gross comps?
3.Join and complain that the competition set-up is unfair and favours the better golfers?
4. Join somewhere else?