• We'd like to take this opportunity to wish you a Happy Holidays and a very Merry Christmas from all at Golf Monthly. Thank you for sharing your 2025 with us!

what would you like to see changed about the handicap system in the UK

moogie said:
Liverpoolphil said:
Calm yourself down there - never said anything about apologising for having a differing opinion.

I am calm, I'm always calm



If people getting two shots in a match doesn't seem right - what about people who clearer need the extra shots due to their ability but still just come out week in week out to play the game ?

What about those protecting handicaps getting shots that DONT need them



They have those extra shots for a reason surely ? Yet people think they shouldn't have them ?

My thinking is to cut down on the ridiculous banditry


What do you believe would be the positive effect of maxing out the amount of shots given in a KO matchplay to 18 ?

You know what........I've no idea.....??.........
It's too easy to protect your handicap in Matchplay competitions, we probably know or have seen/heard of examples.....

Happy to see anybody playing off any handicap in club comps, anything from scratch to 48 handicap juniors

So I'm not shouting out to try and cap handicaps per se , as some are

As stated it's MY opinion
Click to expand...


Fully understand the need to find away to combat the people that protect Handicaps etc and Bandits etc but is it really that widespread a problem to contemplate revamping the handicap system ?

Increasing the amount of qualifiers would help HC protection a little as would HC secs cutting people during AR for performances during matchplay

But IMO there is prob more genuine 20 plus HC's that there are people that protecting their HC so cutting their shots to max 18 punishes all those genuine ones IMO
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Payers with handicaps greater than 18 don't need 2 shots a hole
They need 19/25 whatever over a whole round, which is different
They play to below 18 for most of their holes, and worse than that over 2 or 3 holes.
On those poor holes they would lose the hole whether they have 1 or 2 shots on it.
That is why 1 shot per hole is not nonsensical on the remainder of the holes where their playing ability doesn't need it.
 
patricks148 said:
well after a few threads about max 18 and cheats etc, just wondered if anyone had any suggestions on how to improve the current system..

I would like to see more cards to keep a handicap, as i don't think 3 is enough, more like 10 maybe?

anyone any good suggestions?
Click to expand...
Where do I start?!!! Certainly more than 3 returns per year required, and a move towards the USGA and EGA handicapping systems. :)
 
FairwayDodger said:
While I think "fault" is maybe a bit harsh, I do agree that it says less about the handicap system and more about my attitude towards it.

My issue is not so much with the system itself as with the claims of evangelists such as Phil that it is all things to all people. Yes, it allows a competitive match between players of different abilities but, in my opinion, as the gap in ability (and hence handicap) increases the match becomes more contrived. You reach the point where the two players are almost playing a different game entirely.

There isn't a way to change the system to overcome that, limiting handicaps isn't the answer at all - that would be counter productive, wouldn't address the slightly subtle point I'm making and just make such matches a formality for the low handicapper.

I don't think it unreasonable for me to say, "you know what, I just don't enjoy these matches". Which is not the same thing as saying I don't enjoy playing golf with a high handicapper. Just that a matchplay tie loses its authentic competitive edge.

Fully appreciate that might not be a commonly held opinion but, I hope, some at least can understand where I'm coming from.
Click to expand...

Sorry did not mean to be harsh. More an observation.
 
Is part of the issue with large handicap differences maybe that the play of the low handicapper doesn't have the same impact on the match?

If the higher handicapper has a blob they lose the hole regardless, if they play a hole well then with a shot or 2 it's hard to stop them winning the hole. So it becomes a lot more about what they do compared to giving the lower handicap player the ability to influence the match?

Just an idea as it doesn't affect me one way or the other.
Can't wait to enter the matchplay comps next season :)
 
garyinderry said:
why would you want this?
Click to expand...

Because I know plenty of men playing off 28 that are no where near that. Perhaps it's some kind of archaic macho thing that men should only be given a handicap of 28 where as women get 36. Either way, I know players that are on 28 not because they can play to it, but because they are miles from it and that's all they get so don't even come close to being competitive a matchplay or handicap strokeplay comp.
 
Agree, men and womens handicaps should be equal - preferably at 36 if we wish to continue attracting players into this great sport.
 
The handicap system is anti-social and reduces the enjoyment of golf. It's a psychological minefield that makes the game seem harder than it is and keeps the standard of golf lower than it should be. It's a millstone around a golfers neck. It makes people feel embarrassed and guilty for playing well and overly disappointed for playing badly. It removes the true enjoyment people get from competing fairly on a level playing field. It causes suspicion and mistrust of anyone who plays too well. And resentment by people who miss out on their rightful place on a competitive hierarchy.

Handicapping is used to equalise odds to facilitate gambling. A competition is a test of ability and gambling is a test of probability. The system equalises the probability of winning, allowing anyone, regardless of ability, to have an even bet on the outcome. It prevents everyone, regardless of ability, competing against anyone else. i.e. testing their ability against others.

Without arguing the psychological complexities or the logical niceties, the bottom line is: people with vastly different abilities will probably get most enjoyment by using a handicap. But people with similar abilities will get most enjoyment by not using a handicap.

Finally getting to the original question, the system is very good as it is to equalise the odds. (In golf we should possibly scrap the upper limit) I think we could improve golf by keeping the system but running stroke play events in divisions, off scratch.

I would make it free or a nominal fee to enter. Have 4 divisions, possibly 8 and below, 9 to17, 18 to 28 and 29 and above. I'd scrap prize money and award a small token (medal, trophy) to each division winner and the same to the most improved player. i.e. lowest nett of any division.

I think this might remind golfers that we get the most enjoyment by competing against people of a similar ability on a level playing field.

The main problem with my hypothesis is no one is actually going to introduce a solution to a problem they don't think exists.
 
Pro Zach said:
The handicap system is anti-social and reduces the enjoyment of golf. It's a psychological minefield that makes the game seem harder than it is and keeps the standard of golf lower than it should be. It's a millstone around a golfers neck. It makes people feel embarrassed and guilty for playing well and overly disappointed for playing badly. It removes the true enjoyment people get from competing fairly on a level playing field. It causes suspicion and mistrust of anyone who plays too well. And resentment by people who miss out on their rightful place on a competitive hierarchy.

Handicapping is used to equalise odds to facilitate gambling. A competition is a test of ability and gambling is a test of probability. The system equalises the probability of winning, allowing anyone, regardless of ability, to have an even bet on the outcome. It prevents everyone, regardless of ability, competing against anyone else. i.e. testing their ability against others.

Without arguing the psychological complexities or the logical niceties, the bottom line is: people with vastly different abilities will probably get most enjoyment by using a handicap. But people with similar abilities will get most enjoyment by not using a handicap.

Finally getting to the original question, the system is very good as it is to equalise the odds. (In golf we should possibly scrap the upper limit) I think we could improve golf by keeping the system but running stroke play events in divisions, off scratch.

I would make it free or a nominal fee to enter. Have 4 divisions, possibly 8 and below, 9 to17, 18 to 28 and 29 and above. I'd scrap prize money and award a small token (medal, trophy) to each division winner and the same to the most improved player. i.e. lowest nett of any division.

I think this might remind golfers that we get the most enjoyment by competing against people of a similar ability on a level playing field.

The main problem with my hypothesis is no one is actually going to introduce a solution to a problem they don't think exists.
Click to expand...


very interesting, didn't someone bring up the concept of scratch divisions before?
 
Pro Zach said:
I would make it free or a nominal fee to enter. Have 4 divisions, possibly 8 and below, 9 to17, 18 to 28 and 29 and above. I'd scrap prize money and award a small token (medal, trophy) to each division winner and the same to the most improved player. i.e. lowest nett of any division.
Click to expand...

I really like this idea and in fact would go further by making the competitions gross within each division.
 
I'm a relatively high handicapper and readings threads about limiting the maximum extent of a handicap confuse the hell out of me.

The current maximum of 28 is an arbritrary figure, some golfers are lucky enough to be capable enough to play to well below that from the very first time they swing a club, others will never get down to anywhere near to songle figures for as long as the sun continues to shine.

Reducing from 28 to 18 is simply a reduction to another arbritary number - why is it that 18 is any more valid as a maximum than 28? Is it simply that golf courses are 18 hole courses?

Reducing the maximum allow handicap will, in my opinion, have only one impact and it's a negative one. It'll disuade less skilled new golfers from taking up this game, it will lead to a host of golfers no longer entering competitions and perhaps also leaving this game behind. All round that would be commercial suicide for golf courses, equipment manufacturers, sponsors and absolutely anyone who trys to make a living associted with golf (like golf journalists, golf pros for example).
 
Matty said:
I'm a relatively high handicapper and readings threads about limiting the maximum extent of a handicap confuse the hell out of me.

The current maximum of 28 is an arbritrary figure, some golfers are lucky enough to be capable enough to play to well below that from the very first time they swing a club, others will never get down to anywhere near to songle figures for as long as the sun continues to shine.

Reducing from 28 to 18 is simply a reduction to another arbritary number - why is it that 18 is any more valid as a maximum than 28? Is it simply that golf courses are 18 hole courses?

Reducing the maximum allow handicap will, in my opinion, have only one impact and it's a negative one. It'll disuade less skilled new golfers from taking up this game, it will lead to a host of golfers no longer entering competitions and perhaps also leaving this game behind. All round that would be commercial suicide for golf courses, equipment manufacturers, sponsors and absolutely anyone who trys to make a living associted with golf (like golf journalists, golf pros for example).
Click to expand...
i don't agree that not having a max handicap does discourage people from taking up the game. When i started playing, i didn't even know there was a handicap system. in fact the first game i played was a Cricket club Jolly and no one was any good so we all played off scratch, didn't spoil my enjoyment one bit. One of the down sides of the whole handicap system IMO that encourages people not to improve as they can still be competitive without any effort.
 
when I was a kid I didn't even know people played in comps. I didn't know about stableford until I played in a society in 2008.

before that I would play a handful of games in the summer and counted every shot.


I have never come across a "skilled new player". these don't really exist. some take to it quicker than others.

people very rarely stay at 28 handicap forever! with a little practice and better course management most 20 handicaps could play to 18 even if they believe it or not!
 
Matty said:
I'm a relatively high handicapper and readings threads about limiting the maximum extent of a handicap confuse the hell out of me.

The current maximum of 28 is an arbritrary figure, some golfers are lucky enough to be capable enough to play to well below that from the very first time they swing a club, others will never get down to anywhere near to songle figures for as long as the sun continues to shine.

Reducing from 28 to 18 is simply a reduction to another arbritary number - why is it that 18 is any more valid as a maximum than 28? Is it simply that golf courses are 18 hole courses?

Reducing the maximum allow handicap will, in my opinion, have only one impact and it's a negative one. It'll disuade less skilled new golfers from taking up this game, it will lead to a host of golfers no longer entering competitions and perhaps also leaving this game behind. All round that would be commercial suicide for golf courses, equipment manufacturers, sponsors and absolutely anyone who trys to make a living associted with golf (like golf journalists, golf pros for example).
Click to expand...

Absolutely! We have a couple of senior male golfers at our club who will probably never get down to even 28 standard. In the EGA system players can have official handicaps up to 36 (men and women) and 'club' handicaps up to 45. I have to say that most of the matches I have played this year have been pretty close, whatever the handicap differences, so the system appears to work reasonably well. Where the CONGU system seems to fall down is in dealing with young rapid improvers and old golfers whose ability is declining faster than their handicaps can go up (at the rate of only 0.1 per Q comp). :mmm:
 
Gross on each division would again narrow the field in each division with people in the higher levels of each division having small chance of winning

Gross prizes will automatically narrow down a field to a certain percentage who can win

Net prizes mean everyone has the same equal chance of winning

I get most enjoyment out of playing with a mixture of ability regardless of ability
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
How does the handicap system work in the UK - rough cut podcast comments
Replies
16
Views
2K
Springveldt
S
P
Getting a handicap for someone likely to be at max hcp
Replies
2
Views
752
Petercool
P
N
What Would You Change About the WHS?
8 9 10
Replies
183
Views
15K
Deleted member 36483
D
sjw
Belek in September course recommendations
Replies
4
Views
623
mister v
mister v
B
Membership Quandary
Replies
13
Views
644
Golf is fun
G
Top