US style handicap slope introduction

[Crow]

Not sure if it's been covered above but, apart from arguments already made against every round counting to handicap, another downside would be the slowing of rounds in general play as players do their level best to put together the lowest score, holing out when normally they wouldn't, taking longer over shots, having to go back for lost balls when normally they wouldn't, etc, etc.

At a time when slow play is said to be killing the game, this wouldn't be a step in the right direction. All days would become competition days as far as time goes.

And what about the friendly 4BBB, will all players be expected to complete the hole so they can put their card in? Madness

 

[upsidedown]

Not sure if it's been covered above but, apart from arguments already made against every round counting to handicap, another downside would be the slowing of rounds in general play as players do their level best to put together the lowest score, holing out when normally they wouldn't, taking longer over shots, having to go back for lost balls when normally they wouldn't, etc, etc.

At a time when slow play is said to be killing the game, this wouldn't be a step in the right direction. All days would become competition days as far as time goes.

And what about the friendly 4BBB, will all players be expected to complete the hole so they can put their card in? Madness

In my experience no it doesn't as you play under a different mind set and not under the "Oh er I've a card in my hand " as you know all rounds can be counted.
Again no if you're out of the hole you record one higher than the score you would have scored one stableford point on

 

[harpo_72]

So what if your just going out for bit of fun?

 

[Foxholer]

And what about the friendly 4BBB, will all players be expected to complete the hole so they can put their card in? Madness

Amongst the bunch I play with, very often all the others use this system (or at least a version of it). It still applies the (nett) double bogey rule.

And are your Medals really that much slower than your Stableford comps?

 

[upsidedown]

So what if your just going out for bit of fun?

Have fun In practice not every card is handed in

 

[the_coach]

1. as Foxy posted very clearly way back on this thread the actual mechanics of any international handicap system have yet to be agreed; only the principles were signed up to.
2. subsequently it has been agreed that any system agreed to should take better account of the 'bogey golfer' and therefore course ratings including a bogey index will be required.

my own personal view is that we will still end up with some differences in the actual scores to be included in any calculation - which then brings into play the differences in how the systems would calculate a handicap. there isn't a quick fix to this side of things because the fundamentals (between UK golf and the rest of the world) are quite significant - basically the USGA and, to a degree, the EGU, has a much wider financial base which includes associations (metropolitan societies) rather than just 'clubs' (it's not a small difference!).

at the end of the day the USGA system works well for the vast majority of people who wish to play handicap golf at PnP courses; but the corollary is that there is little rigor in the actual handicapping of any individual on any given day. over the last few years I've run my handicap under both systems and whilst the CONGU one has varied between 7.6 and 10 my USGA one has been between 19 and 9. CONGU is of the opinion that form is temporary - USGA view is more along the lines that it doesn't matter and you go up until you start winning (very society orientated!)

Interestingly Augusta doesn't use that system; preferring the earliest one introduced where the club manager allocates and maintains members handicaps!

The system was originally looked at and eventually brought in because the existing USGA system wasn't working well enough.

Enter Dean Knuth who at the time was in post graduate school in the Naval school in, Monterey, he needed a problem for an assignment that had to entail finding a problem, collecting data, and formulating a solution to that problem.

Being an avid golfer, he contacted the Northern California Golf Association and said, Do you have any problems in golf? They said,

"Yeah, the USGA rating system doesn't work. It evaluates courses purely on length and nothing to do with the difficulty.
He experienced the problem first hand one day when he played the famed Pebble Beach Golf Links and realized the unlikelihood of playing to his handicap on such a tough course.
The seeds for Slope were planted."

It was nothing really to do with finding a way for PnP golfers to have a handicap per se at all, or to regulate their play, although many Golf Clubs have since come into existence there, they are regulated by the same main 17 regulations (and many many sub sections) that 'nearly all' private courses adhere to, save, as I said in my earlier post, Augusta National, but thats because they consider themselves separate to everyone in world golf and thats the way it always has been there, nothing to do with the efficacy of the Course Rating, Slope rating system used everywhere else.

Slope came into existence as a more rounded way other than simply yardage to mark the difficulty of the many golf courses in relation to one another and then the development of a system of a 'fairer' handicap for golfers all round from 'Scratch to Bogey' golfer.

PnP now has many golfers at the Golf Clubs started up there that do adhere to the rules of the USGA, and many who play who don't have a handicap at all, as is most likely the case in the UK. But it's a complete 'red herring' in the overall scheme of the whole regulated handicap debate either in the UK or USA.

 

[Foxholer]

Btw.

Can I just stress that while Course and Slope Rating is being carried out.

The current Congu system is not about to be replaced by US Handicap one - at least, not for a (considerable?) number of years.

It's only the Course and Slope Rating!

 

[duncan mackie]

The system was originally looked at and eventually brought in because the existing USGA system wasn't working well enough.

Enter Dean Knuth who at the time was in post graduate school in the Naval school in, Monterey, he needed a problem for an assignment that had to entail finding a problem, collecting data, and formulating a solution to that problem.

Being an avid golfer, he contacted the Northern California Golf Association and said, Do you have any problems in golf? They said,

"Yeah, the USGA rating system doesn't work. It evaluates courses purely on length and nothing to do with the difficulty.
He experienced the problem first hand one day when he played the famed Pebble Beach Golf Links and realized the unlikelihood of playing to his handicap on such a tough course.
The seeds for Slope were planted."

It was nothing really to do with finding a way for PnP golfers to have a handicap per se at all, or to regulate their play, although many Golf Clubs have since come into existence there, they are regulated by the same main 17 regulations (and many many sub sections) that 'nearly all' private courses adhere to, save, as I said in my earlier post, Augusta National, but thats because they consider themselves separate to everyone in world golf and thats the way it always has been there, nothing to do with the efficacy of the Course Rating, Slope rating system used everywhere else.

Slope came into existence as a more rounded way other than simply yardage to mark the difficulty of the many golf courses in relation to one another and then the development of a system of a 'fairer' handicap for golfers all round from 'Scratch to Bogey' golfer.

PnP now has many golfers at the Golf Clubs started up there that do adhere to the rules of the USGA, and many who play who don't have a handicap at all, as is most likely the case in the UK. But it's a complete 'red herring' in the overall scheme of the whole regulated handicap debate either in the UK or USA.

you are continuing to mix the various elements of the USGA system and 'slope'.

SSS already takes into account 'difficulty' outside pure distance; the key element of slope is the bogey index rather than taking into account elements beyond pure distance.

I completely miss your point about how the funding of a handicap system administration can be completey seperate from the inclusive, or exclusive, nature of that system? Such matters are intrinsic but there are no significant hurdles to resolving issues in this area, it's more about how and why some elements developed the way they did eg the concept of css is accepted as a CONGU advantage but the inclusion of non competitive rounds rules it out for most scores within the USGA system - that's just a reality rather than an issue.

What is an issue (for me) is that the checks and balances within the USGA system are simply 1 step removed for the majority of golfers - evidenced in part by the observations from those involved with it who have contributed to this thread ie returns become optional in the eyes of many players. the net result is that in the cat 2-3 band there are a higher proportion of players with a wider divergence of handicap and capability than will be found under CONGU.

Both will have an element of manipulation - that can't be competely ruled out.

 

[rickg]

The Trilby Tour, Volvo/ Nike Matchplay, Race to Dubai, etc etc etc would be full of 7 handicappers playing off 13, and 12 handicappers playing off 18.......50 point scores would replace the current 43-45 points that are currently often seen....... It's already bad enough....the last thing we need is to make it even easier for the "manipulators".