World Handicap System

[rulefan]

Just a reminder to those who haven't registered it yet. Social score entry will not be compulsory. The process will be virtually the same as the CONGU supplementary scores and it will be optional.

 

[nickjdavis]

A new course rating system is in the process of being introduced. It is the one used everywhere else in the world except by England men.

According to a very recent post on my local unions website they completed the rating of 7 courses in 2017 and expect to complete 7 more in both 2018 and 2019....leaving 9 courses unrated at the start of 2020...doesn't fill me with much confidence that we will all be singing off the same songsheets when the new system comes into play...I wonder how many other county unions will be in a similar state at the beginning of 2020?.

 

[rulefan]

Is that going to be global? If Americans are currently required to submit all scores they won't be once the new global system is in place?

That will be at the discretion of the relevant national handicapping authority.

The premise was/is that provision would be made for 'traditional ways'.

So 'all scores' or 'comp only' or a mixture would be available. Course rating and handicap calculations would be the same.

 

[rulefan]

According to a very recent post on my local unions website they completed the rating of 7 courses in 2017 and expect to complete 7 more in both 2018 and 2019....leaving 9 courses unrated at the start of 2020...doesn't fill me with much confidence that we will all be singing off the same songsheets when the new system comes into play...I wonder how many other county unions will be in a similar state at the beginning of 2020?.

The rating figures for scratch players being produced show very little variation from the old SSS. The problem will be the slope adjustment for handicappers. EG is working on a temporary formula to fill the time gap.
The rate of new ratings is improving significantly. My county has just tripled the number of rating teams.

 

[fundy]

Mine would drop to 3.1

If added in social rounds then it would drop to 2

sounds more accurate than the current system to me

 

[rulefan]

Guys i've seen play who already use this system had vastly inaccurate handicaps compared with ability. Plus what happens at the clubs where you could in effect be on winter greens for 5 months with a vastly shorter course.

There are no guys using this system at present. All of the six systems round the world will face greater or lesser changes.

If a course (ie measured tee to green) has not been rated, scores will not count. There may be an exception for less that three temp greens as now - but not confirmed yet.

 

[rulefan]

This has all been thought up by bean counters sitting behind desks with no idea about the real world. Just ignore it. Totally unenforceable.

It is an amalgam of what is perceived to be the best parts of the six systems already in use around the world. Those that are doing all the work are all experienced golfer of all standards and ages. They are supported by professional mathematicians who advise on the calculations and statistical effects but they make no decisions.

 

[rulefan]

I was always pretty sceptical about changing, but the more I look into and read about the USPGA handicap system the more it makes sense.
.

It is the USGA who has the system used in the USA and a variant in Canada.
The USPGA has nothing to do with handicapping

 

[Cols_Ears]

Link to the USGA system that this seems to most closely resemble...

http://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14367

 

[nickjdavis]

The rating figures for scratch players being produced show very little variation from the old SSS. The problem will be the slope adjustment for handicappers. EG is working on a temporary formula to fill the time gap.
The rate of new ratings is improving significantly. My county has just tripled the number of rating teams.

Yes...I can see the Course Rating hasn't changed....66.9 v. a current SSS of 67 off the Yellows and 69 v 69 off the whites (Par 70 for both).

Be interesting to see how our Slope Rating compares to other clubs as we are often considered to be an "easy" course due to our length or perceived lack thereof.

 

[FairwayDodger]

Rulefan (since nobody else knows anything about this! )

Any gender differences in the proposed system?

 

[patricks148]

There are no guys using this system at present. All of the six systems round the world will face greater or lesser changes.

If a course (ie measured tee to green) has not been rated, scores will not count. There may be an exception for less that three temp greens as now - but not confirmed yet.

i ment people ive seen using the US system.

 

[upsidedown]

Rulefan (since nobody else knows anything about this! )

Any gender differences in the proposed system?

There were in NZ and can't see any reason why they shouldn't be for the new system, know HID will be will hacked off if there aren't lol

 

[the_coach]

seen as most folks seem to think it's a ways easier to hold a lower index here ......🙄

.... will look forwards to seeing everyones handicap index tumble when whs is introduced ... 🤔

How Well Should You Play?

Does it seem to you that you play a few strokes over your Course Handicap most of the time? Well, that's normal under the USGA Handicap System.
Why? The USGA Handicap System is based upon the potential ability of a player rather than the average of all his scores. The USGA's Handicap Research Team tells us that the average player is expected to play to his Course Handicap or better only about 25 percent of the time, average three strokes higher than his Course Handicap, and have a best score in 20, which is only two strokes better than his Course Handicap.

A few words and a little arithmetic may explain. A player's Handicap Index reflects his potential because it is based upon his best scores posted for a given number of rounds, ideally the best 10 of his last 20 rounds. Since the USGA has his worst 10 scores tossed out, his Handicap Index reflects his best days.

The arithmetic comes in when the golf club calculates a player's Differential for each score he posts. The Differential is the difference between a player's adjusted gross score and the USGA Course Rating of the course on which the score was made, multiplied by 113, and then the total is divided by the USGA Slope Rating from the tees played rounded off to one decimal place.

For example, if you post an 80 on a course with a Course Rating of 68.7 and a Slope Rating of 105, your Handicap Differential is 12.2. The next step entails averaging your best Handicap Differentials, which your golf club or association then will multiply by a 96-percent "bonus for excellence" factor that slightly favors the lower-handicap player. The next step is to delete all numbers after the first decimal digit, with no rounding off to the nearest tenth. Your club Handicap Committee then reviews your record, modifies it, if necessary and then issues your USGA Handicap Index.

If you have a USGA Handicap Index of 11.6, for instance, it translates into a Course Handicap of 14 when you play from the middle tees one day at a course with a Course Rating of 72.1, with a Slope Rating of 135. So a little addition (72.1 + 14) leads you to think that you will consistently shoot around 86. In reality, your score average is normally three more strokes than that, or an 89. The USGA Handicap Research Team has determined that your best score in 20 is normally only two strokes better than your Course Handicap, or an 84; the probability of your recording an 83 twice in 20 rounds is only one in 50.

A good way to think of the range of scores upon which your USGA Handicap Index is based is the old bell curve that school teachers refer to when discussing the range of scores on an exam. The scores of most players, when plotted out, are distributed on a bell curve from the high to low end of the scale. Thus, when you drop out the worst half of your scores, the average of the remaining 10 scores on the upper part of the bell curve reflect your potential ability.

Now, once in a while you will hear about someone shooting an incredible tournament score, such as a net score of 59. What are the odds of shooting a score like that? These tables from the USGA's Handicap Research Team have figured the odds of one exceptional tournament score up to ten strokes better than the Course Handicap.

For example, the odds of our example player with a Course Handicap of 14 beating it by eight strokes (-8 net) once is 1,138 to one. Put another way, the average player posts 21 scores a year. That means that to score this well, assuming the Handicap Index is correct, would take 54 years of golf to do it once. The odds of a player beating his Course Handicap by eight strokes twice is only 14,912 to one. That's 710 years of golf for the average player -- odds far beyond the realm of reasonableness.

Since the USGA Handicap System is designed to promote fairness during competitions, what happens if a player's scores contradict the odds and he consistently plays better than his Handicap Index when some crystal or trophies are at stake? The USGA has created a Formula - we'll spare you all the complicated arithmetic - that is outlined in the USGA Handicap System manual under Section 10-3, "Reduction of a USGA Handicap Index Based on Exceptional Tournament Scores." A player's USGA Handicap Index will be automatically reduced when he records at least two tournament scores in a calendar year or in his latest 20 rounds that are a minimum of three strokes better than his USGA Handicap Index. The better the scores, the greater the reduction.

The end result is you've got your USGA Handicap Index for better or for worse. Don't worry if you never seem to play to it on a given day. All golfers are in the same boat because USGA Handicap Indexes are based on a player's potential ability rather than the average of his scores. You can do your part to make the USGA Handicap System work best by making sure all "great" tournament scores by all players get posted with a "T" so that they are reviewed and used under Section 10-3.

 

[rulefan]

Rulefan (since nobody else knows anything about this! )

Any gender differences in the proposed system?

Other than within the Course Rating system and how the playing handicap derives from it, no.

 

[rulefan]

Yes...I can see the Course Rating hasn't changed....66.9 v. a current SSS of 67 off the Yellows and 69 v 69 off the whites (Par 70 for both).

Be interesting to see how our Slope Rating compares to other clubs as we are often considered to be an "easy" course due to our length or perceived lack thereof.

The slope does not tell you how difficult a course is.

The Course Rating does that.

The slope tells you the relative difficulty of that particular set of tees on that particular course for a model scratch player and a handicap player. The model handicap player used as the basis is a so called 'bogey' play of about 20 handicap

 

[rulefan]

seen as most folks seem to think it's a ways easier to hold a lower index here ......

.... will look forwards to seeing everyones handicap index tumble when whs is introduced ... 樂

Note, this is not a wholesale adoption of the USGA system. Although much of what you quoted remains, a deal does not.

The principle of averaging is maintained but the detail is different. Special treatment of Tournament scores is not continued.

 

[the_coach]

Note, this is not a wholesale adoption of the USGA system. Although much of what you quoted remains, a deal does not.

The principle of averaging is maintained but the detail is different. Special treatment of Tournament scores is not continued.

yep was aware of all that

someone earlier on in the thread was asking about info on our usga handicap index

so was just posting so they could compare & contrast

 

[Nosevi]

That will be at the discretion of the relevant national handicapping authority.

The premise was/is that provision would be made for 'traditional ways'.

So 'all scores' or 'comp only' or a mixture would be available. Course rating and handicap calculations would be the same.

rulefan, doesn't that go against the whole idea of a level playing field? If it was to be "comp only" here vs "all scores" in say the US there is absolutely no reason for the change. Unless it can be argued that people generally play as well when under the 'pressure' of a comp as they do with their mates the handicaps of players of the same skill will be different in the UK vs US. Also, for all but CAT 1 you can enter lots of supplementary scores now, to make our's (or any union's) comp scores only makes zero sense and negates the idea of more cards going in to make a more accurate handicap index.

Essentially it has to be pretty much the same everywhere, if not exactly the same, or it's a pointless change. All social rounds being included by one Union but a handicap in another being calculated by reference to the odd comp round over maybe 2 or 3 years is not the same.

Personally as someone new to the sport I think it's a very good idea. The current system utterly fails to keep track of playing ability if you are rapidly improving or going in the other direction, particularly if many comps aren't at a time you can play. My Dad doesn't currently have the ability to play to his handicap due to advancing years and not playing in that many comps. I hit a 5 handicap in 2 years (lots of practice!). Under the new 2020 system my handicap would currently be hovering around scratch but under the CONGU system it'll take me about 27 comp rounds shot at scratch for my handicap to reflect that. As I can't enter Supplementary rounds as a Cat 1 golfer (as long as I do 3 comps a year, obviously) it'll take a daft amount of time for my handicap to catch up. 27 scratch rounds shot in competition I think.

Anything which helps your handicap reflect where you actually are has to be a good thing. Arguments about "We all give each other gimmees...." or "We don't play by the rules......" don't really hold water with me. Learn to putt and play by the rules. How hard can that be?

 

[Nosevi]

Special treatment of Tournament scores is not continued.

So now I'm REALLY confused

Comp scores only or no CAT 1 and Supplementary scores (social scores) allowed?