Unified world handicapping on it's way.

[Augster]

It won't be staff. It'll be club members on the handicap committee.

 

Plus, since one will only be able to post, maybe, 3 scores a week if they don't play sanctioned tourneys on weekdays, inputting only those few cards won't take that long.

 

Assuming they keep the "1st and 15th" format.

 

It won't be the guy behind the desk or the starter or cart girl doing it.

 

That's putting a lot of faith in handicap committees Augster. I don't play at a lot of different courses, but the ones I do don't have active committees. Do you think it's viable or realistic that can or will happen?

And therein lies the crux of the matter. The handicap committees for CONGU/EGA/Australia et al are very active and responsible. The handicap committees in North America are, in general, very lax or even non-existant. All of the bi***ng about sandbagging appears to come from North America. Where is the problem and what is the solution? Seems pretty obvious to me - handicap committees need to do their job.

 

Agreed.

 

It'll be quite an easy job without anonymous internet posting. Only taking scores in comps with signed attested scores would make their job much, much easier. It'll also weed out the baggers as they will win less and less.

 

As it is now, players can just post whatever score they'd like with nearly no oversight. I know in my club, once a player is put under suspicion by the handicap chair, then they only tank in their casual play. Yes, they lose some cash during the weekday games, $10 or less in most cases, but then they can still play the more lucrative weekend comps and tournies with their inflated caps.

 

It's hard to curb bagging while still allowing non-comp scores. Or allowing 5 EDS scores (m-f) where the player "doesn't try as hard" to dilute, at most, his 2 weekend comp scores.

 

1 EDS with weekend comp and sanctioned tourney scores, I'm hoping, will be the only scores allowed. It'll make the handicap committee's job way easier and nearly curb bagging for good.

[Augster]

It won't be staff. It'll be club members on the handicap committee.

 

Plus, since one will only be able to post, maybe, 3 scores a week if they don't play sanctioned tourneys on weekdays, inputting only those few cards won't take that long.

 

Assuming they keep the "1st and 15th" format.

 

It won't be the guy behind the desk or the starter or cart girl doing it.

 

That's putting a lot of faith in handicap committees Augster. I don't play at a lot of different courses, but the ones I do don't have active committees. Do you think it's viable or realistic that can or will happen?

 

Every single course I know of in MN has a men's club one can join. I don't know about 9 hole courses, but every 18 hole course, public and private, has a men's club you can join to get an official handicap. It's within those clubs that have handicap committees. Not the course itself.

 

Also, one can "join" the club and get an official cap, but not be able to play any club events, for a smaller fee. With that official cap though, they can play Minnesota Golf Association statewide events and USGA events. Technically, I believe our handicap chair is supposed to oversee these handicaps, but since they don't play in our club events, they don't.

 

If the USGA goes to the ROTW system, I imagine they will do away with this. You're either in the club, with an official cap made up of events, or you can't keep a cap through the club. These caps aren't a large percentage. Like 2 or 3 people per year compared to the 90-100 that are in our men's club.

 

Not to you directly, but to other posters, it won't be "just T-scores". The cap will never go there. There is a huge difference between comps and tournies. Comps are competitions the club puts on. In our club we have 10 events scheduled during the summer. Only ONE event will give us T-scores. That's the club championship. In ROTW, with the lower amount of scores being put in, the clubs have comps/events both days every weekend. Basically play days with a prize structure.

 

All events would be posted for caps. Only the most important events get T-scores.

 

In our state qualifiers, when you go to a qualifier, that is not a T-score. It's just another round. If you advance in the qualifier to the actual tourney, that tourney would be a T-score.

 

Tourneys, higher profile and more prestigious events, generate T-scores. All other events do not.

 

One way to think of it, if after you win the competition you get your name on a plaque or a trophy, it's likely a T-score. If you don't, it likely isn't a T-score.

[josephs_79]

The way Aus does it is a semi-bastardised version of the US One. We do slope and such but based of a Stableford capping score.

 

As for the scores, it will become a standarised central way handled by computer within your pro shop. We in Aus use an online system controlled by Golf Australia that we play comps during the weekend then have our Marker score and sign the card to say they witnessed it. Then the card is scanned into a PC, check that the score matches the card and hit submit.

 

This is then uploaded to GA at the close of the comp and added to your cap scores and cap adjusted as necessary automatically. The manual process is only the scoring and signing of the card. Then if there is any disputes the card is retrieved and submitted for review.

 

If you want too look at what it shows and how it looks you can click on this link to see my (Ugly) cap scores.

 

http://www.golf.org....icap/3011509472

 

Heres the info on the capping and how its calculated etc:

 

http://www.golf.org....andcourserating

 

My guess is it will be similar to this by the end and the manual work that most are thinking wont be needed.

[nsxguy]

The fundamental difference between your system in the US and the systems in the UK & Ireland and in other European countries is that only scores made in competitions or under competition conditions and attested by a marker count towards handicap. To me, how that huge difference will be resolved is to me the most important matter.

 

Do you folks post your scores to a computer by yourself, or does someone who reviews the attested scores do it for you?

 

(It occurs to me that a new system could simply require the individual poster to type in the name of the attester to his score. That way the ease of use would be maintained, and one could check up on a suspected cheater. Of course this would leave open another avenue for cheating, but stopping cheating is an impossibility anyway.)

 

BTW, I like Augster's double handicap plan. Let players who rarely compete formally keep a type of handicap to use with their trusting buddies, and let serious competitors also have a comp handicap.

 

I believe it was duffer987 that mentioned the 2 tiered HC plan but I think that's what's got to happen.

 

As others have pointed out, the vast majority of golfers in the USA don't play ANY tournaments yet they will confidently keep some sort of handicap to compete with their friends on a round to round basis even if it's a $2 Nassau.

 

And a fair number of these people pay the USGA (or is it GHIN ?) an annual premium to keep their caps for them. $ down the drain ? Probably not.

 

BTW, may I assume ROTW means Rest Of The World ?

 

BTW #2, have any of you U.S. guys taken a gander at either the EGA Handicapping guide or the CONGU ?

 

Who'd a thunk the USGA would be the easiest to follow/understand ? (Or is that because it's the only one we've HAD to understand ?)

[BlackDiamondPar5]

The golf organizations are going to make a mess. Nothing good will come of this initiative.

 

It works in the rest of the world.

Round Peg, square hole. Those in the US enjoy golf and competition much differently than Row.

[finleysg]

I think US handicaps are close to meaningless since there's no way to reliably compare one to another. If every score I put is in one where the ball is played down, all putts are holed, and the game is played by the rules, that handicap can only be fairly used to compete against someone else who plays the same way.

[North Butte]

Y'all are reading a lot of wishful thinking into a vague press release with no details whatsoever.

 

If at any point during the next 3 years the USGA Handicap System becomes based ONLY on attested competition scores I will purchase a lifetime membership to USGA. There is absolutely zero chance of that happening. It would cut off their revenue stream from the million or so people who pay for a USGA Handicap Index and never, ever have an attested competition score.

 

My guess is they are coming up with fudge factors to apply to USGA and overseas handicaps, intended to make them "comparable" to each other. Since at least the heyday of Dean Knuth the USGA has an incredible faith in their ability to make everything copacetic by fiddling the denominators of a few formulas, notwithstanding the scores themselves being hogwash.

 

They'll just tweak the USGA formula, apply some correction factor to overseas handicaps and announce that a 6 handicap in all systems means exactly the same thing.

[bazinky]

Seems like it wouldn't be that hard to have the US system just calculate two handicaps, one based on the current traditional method, and another based only on T and "attested" scores like in other regions.

 

We already have a "local" and trend handicaps, and the system performs calculations for reductions. Just give us two numbers on our cards, a "regional" cap, and a "World" cap.

[jmkenn0]

I'm sure the USGA has this readily available, but any guesses the percentage of "T's" posted versus all posts the prior year? Less than 5%?

[North Butte]

At my club, no way it is 5%. Less than 1% would be my guess. The vast majority of scores are from the retired guys who play 3-6 times a week in "dogfight" games with blind-draw teams. Plenty more scores from the weekend avid golfers who play a Nassau with their usual foursome every Saturday and Sunday.

 

I'd guess only a handful of the old during-the-week guys or the weekend foursomes have more than two or three T-scores a year (out of 100-250 rounds) and the majority probably have zero T-scores.

 

Even the organized competitions the club runs are predominantly social things like scrambles, round-robin partner matches and so forth that don't generate T-scores. I'd guess the club runs maybe half a dozen events a year that produce T-scores and most of those have at most 30-40 participants (out of 300+ golf members).

[Sawgrass]

I've got a radical proposal. First, let the USGA announce specific plans to change the current handicapping system. Only then discredit them, whatever they say, even if it's an improvement.

 

(Where's that sarcasm icon?)

[nix]

I imagine if there are strict rules around attestation, handicap comittees and other such things, that the number of people who pay for GHIN will drop dramatically, thus cutting a significant source of funds to the USGA. If you follow the money, I wouldn't expect dramatic changes.

[Colin L]

First, it's not true that in CONGU/ EGA only competition scores count. This year (Congu) I can go out whenever I want and have my score count for hcp as long as I declare it in advance in the shop, and the round is attested ( card scored and signed by whomever I play with). Although hardly anyone seems to use this facility ( given we have 2 or 3 comps a week), I see no reason why this can't work in the states.

 

I don't think it has been suggested that in the CONGU jurisdiction only competition scores count - certainly not by me. What ruca is referring to are called Supplementary Scores - scores returned not in competitions but by playing under competition conditions i.e. in accordance with the Rules, over a "measured course" and with the score recorded and the card signed by marker. The total number of Supplementary scores you can return in a year is limited for most of us to 10. Different restrictions apply to the lowest handicap players.

 

Sawgrass asked about how we process scores. A CONGU handicap can only be held by a member of a club affiliated to CONGU; each club will have handicap committee; and it is that committee which administers the handicaps of club members. At my club, after playing in a competition, each player enters his score in the computer which calculates any adjustment to his handicap. He then returns his card in whatever way is required - e.g. putting it in a collection box near the computer. The cards are checked to establish winners, disqualifications etc and then retained for a period of time. If there were a reason for doing so, any computer entry can be checked by the committee. Supplementary Scores are entered in the computer system by the handicap committee.

[Sawgrass]

 

Sawgrass asked about how we process scores. A CONGU handicap can only be held by a member of a club affiliated to CONGU; each club will have handicap committee; and it is that committee which administers the handicaps of club members. At my club, after playing in a competition, each player enters his score in the computer which calculates any adjustment to his handicap. He then returns his card in whatever way is required - e.g. putting it in a collection box near the computer. The cards are checked to establish winners, disqualifications etc and then retained for a period of time. If there were a reason for doing so, any computer entry can be checked by the committee. Supplementary Scores are entered in the computer system by the handicap committee.

 

So, if things are to remain consistent between us, one might be still allowed to enter one's scores in a computer via the internet.

 

At my club we have a weekly tournament. Players wishing to play simply sign their name on a handicap flighting sheet on the scoreboard, play, write their scores on the sheet, and drop their cards in a box. Then we have the choice of entering our score in the pro shop's computer or through our phones or home computer or whatever device. A few days later I know the person checking the competition makes sure the scores of the various winners were entered in the handicap system.

 

It is, and may remain, pretty easy.

[x-out]

Sawgrass asked about how we process scores. A CONGU handicap can only be held by a member of a club affiliated to CONGU; each club will have handicap committee; and it is that committee which administers the handicaps of club members. At my club, after playing in a competition, each player enters his score in the computer which calculates any adjustment to his handicap. He then returns his card in whatever way is required - e.g. putting it in a collection box near the computer. The cards are checked to establish winners, disqualifications etc and then retained for a period of time. If there were a reason for doing so, any computer entry can be checked by the committee. Supplementary Scores are entered in the computer system by the handicap committee.

 

So, if things are to remain consistent between us, one might be still allowed to enter one's scores in a computer via the internet.

 

At my club we have a weekly tournament. Players wishing to play simply sign their name on a handicap flighting sheet on the scoreboard, play, write their scores on the sheet, and drop their cards in a box. Then we have the choice of entering our score in the pro shop's computer or through our phones or home computer or whatever device. A few days later I know the person checking the competition makes sure the scores of the various winners were entered in the handicap system.

 

It is, and may remain, pretty easy.

 

Easy?

 

At least at the club I belong to in Australia, and the 3 others I have been invited to, the "comp" scorecards use (along with conventional penciling of actual strokes ) numbers for each hole which are marked (multiple test style). At the end of the round cards are passed through a reader and bingo your current place is displayed and into the national data base goes the score. All top scores are checked by the committee. By the next day the correction factors have been calculated for that days rating/slope and your hcp adjusted.

 

The USGA allows these scores to be posted to your USGA as long as only the non adjusted slope/rating is used.

 

It's nice that your club has one of these a week. In Oz there are 2-3 (actually 4-5 as there are separate sex rounds) and often the course is wide open when they are not being played. They can't imagine the way most golf is played in the USA and I agree with them!

[Augster]

It sounds like I'd like the USGA to go to the AUS system. They already have ratings and slope, just like us.

 

BUT, the real question is, do they have rampant non-checked sandbagging in their system as we do here?

 

I imagine not, but an answer would be nice.

 

As most of the "baggers" at my course actually shoot the rounds they post. But in casual rounds, m-f, they don't "try as hard". But when it's a comp, they "focus better".

 

It'd be a much better system if it will eliminate, or vastly reduce, casual rounds being input as equal to comp rounds.

 

I played a "casual round" today and can honestly say there isn't a single shot I would have chosen or hit differently if it were Sunday of our club championship. Including choking my way to the end with 4 straight bogeys.

[Hawkeye77]

It won't be staff. It'll be club members on the handicap committee.

 

Plus, since one will only be able to post, maybe, 3 scores a week if they don't play sanctioned tourneys on weekdays, inputting only those few cards won't take that long.

 

Assuming they keep the "1st and 15th" format.

 

It won't be the guy behind the desk or the starter or cart girl doing it.

 

That's putting a lot of faith in handicap committees Augster. I don't play at a lot of different courses, but the ones I do don't have active committees. Do you think it's viable or realistic that can or will happen?

 

90% of courses within 150 miles of where I live have no active committees and plenty of courses. And where I play it is the part time worker in the pro shop who enters them.

[nsxguy]

As most of the "baggers" at my course actually shoot the rounds they post. But in casual rounds, m-f, they don't "try as hard". But when it's a comp, they "focus better".

 

You sound as though you think this is unusual.

 

Personally I seldom play a "casual" round. Pretty much all my rounds are "serious" (to me anyway) so yes, I focus more. But certainly if I do play a casual round I am far more likely to try shots I otherwise wouldn't and would expect my scores to reflect that.

 

Then again, in my case, since I play far more serious games it would matter very little handicap-wise. But I guess the question is are these guys (really) "baggers" ? Or do they just play more often outside of tournaments (like most ?) ? And really aren't all that focused on a casual round ? And don't "T" scores mitigate that problem to some degree ?

 

And there are 2 sides to that coin anyway. Some guys, as you suggest, choke when the $ is on the line but when there's no pressure they play free and easy and shoot better scores. I think there are far more of these types of player.

 

Then again, you do specifically call these guys "baggers". They should at least be questioned about it.

[x-out]

It sounds like I'd like the USGA to go to the AUS system. They already have ratings and slope, just like us.

 

BUT, the real question is, do they have rampant non-checked sandbagging in their system as we do here?

 

I imagine not, but an answer would be nice.

 

As most of the "baggers" at my course actually shoot the rounds they post. But in casual rounds, m-f, they don't "try as hard". But when it's a comp, they "focus better".

 

It'd be a much better system if it will eliminate, or vastly reduce, casual rounds being input as equal to comp rounds.

 

I played a "casual round" today and can honestly say there isn't a single shot I would have chosen or hit differently if it were Sunday of our club championship. Including choking my way to the end with 4 straight bogeys.

 

About 5 yr ago the USGA slope went into effect shortly after there was an uproar when the high hcps (some called bandits) began dominating the comps. The USGA was consulted and said something like "the system was NOT designed for large fields".

 

Given the comp only scores and country wide central data base the actuaries went to work. With USGA permission hcp was changed from 10/20 to 8/20 and the "excellence" multiplier adjusted. It seems to have solved the problem. As noted each round changes the hcp the next day.

 

With the comps serving as peer review boards the # of baggers has be far less (and certainly is my experience). Clubs can allow social round posting but given the permissions and requirements I've not met anyone who does (and for all I know most clubs might not allow them).

[Newby]

I imagine there's going to be a lot of give and take. I'm sure the USGA will push slope on everyone. That's fine and it works and doesn't really affect anything except a lot more work for course raters outside the US for a while.

 

That has already happened. The only significant part of the world where USGA Course Rating has not been applied (until 2015) was in England (for men's tees).

Slope is virtually universal except in GB & Ireland (CONGU). It was already planned to introduce it by 2020 in anticipation of the formation of the WHS working committee. England are unlikely to have completed rating all 2000 clubs by then but CONGU & the USGA are looking at a temporary formula to cope.

[Newby]

Even if you have NO sandbagging going on, if you are a low single digit handicapper and there are more than a few high (15+) handicappers in your tournament, the STATISTICS TELL YOU you're in big trouble,,,,,,,,,,,

 

If you're a low single digit handicapper and focused on winning you need to find a group of nothing BUT low handicappers.

 

I don't know the USGA stats but in CONGU and EGA, strokeplay comps are won by players in proportion to the number of entries in each handicap range

ie if 90% of the field is above 24 handicap the chances are 9 in 10 of the winner being in that group. In a field of 100 players, any individual player has a 1/100 chance of being the winner.

In matchplay played off level net, 55% are won by the lower handicapper.

[DaveLeeNC]

Even if you have NO sandbagging going on, if you are a low single digit handicapper and there are more than a few high (15+) handicappers in your tournament, the STATISTICS TELL YOU you're in big trouble,,,,,,,,,,,

 

If you're a low single digit handicapper and focused on winning you need to find a group of nothing BUT low handicappers.

 

I don't know the USGA stats but in CONGU and EGA, strokeplay comps are won by players in proportion to the number of entries in each handicap range

ie if 90% of the field is above 24 handicap the chances are 9 in 10 of the winner being in that group. In a field of 100 players, any individual player has a 1/100 chance of being the winner.

In matchplay played off level net, 55% are won by the lower handicapper.

 

According to the USGA's analysis of 'the odds of beating your handicap by index', higher handicap players are more likely to beat their index by 3 to 5 strokes vs. low handicap golfers. So in a fairly handicapped medal play round of golf with equal #'s of high and low handicap golfers (assuming that the winner is the player who beats his index by the most strokes), the odds favor that being a higher handicap golfer.

 

It isn't unusual for The Committee to choose something like "90% handicaps" to help address this situation.

 

Regarding the World Wide System, a dual system of 'only comps' (in some form) and 'includes casual play' would seem to me to be the only thing that would fly in the US.

 

dave

[bk52]

Since we are all speculating, here are my two cents worth:

 

1. The posting of scores via the internet will continue and expand

2. As some others have speculated, there will be two handicap indexes, with one based on all scores and the other "T" scores only

3. "T" eligibility will be expanded to all organized competitions involving a tournament committee and with a certain level of participation (perhaps 50?). "Leagues" and "Dog Fights" will not be considered as "T" scores. Sufficiently large qualifiers will be counted.

 

I don't see any system that includes the USA returning to the submission of attested score cards except as part of a tournament (T). While the USGA is essentially a product of the private golf club network, they purport to represent all golfers, private and public. Any process they support will be designed to make it possible for golfers like me to maintain a handicap.

[nsxguy]

Even if you have NO sandbagging going on, if you are a low single digit handicapper and there are more than a few high (15+) handicappers in your tournament, the STATISTICS TELL YOU you're in big trouble,,,,,,,,,,,

 

If you're a low single digit handicapper and focused on winning you need to find a group of nothing BUT low handicappers.

 

I don't know the USGA stats but in CONGU and EGA, strokeplay comps are won by players in proportion to the number of entries in each handicap range

ie if 90% of the field is above 24 handicap the chances are 9 in 10 of the winner being in that group. In a field of 100 players, any individual player has a 1/100 chance of being the winner.

In matchplay played off level net, 55% are won by the lower handicapper.

 

Not sure I quite understand.

 

Your 90% of the field being 9 out of 10 probability suggests everybody has an equal chance.

 

But even in CONGU I think the USGA stats would still be at least somewhat applicable. http://oga.org/sites/default/files/Probability%20Table.pdf

 

I expect even a CONGU 20 would have a better chance of having a lower net than a CONGU 5.

 

Then again you talk about flights. If the tournament is properly(?) flighted, a "5" won't be playing against a "20" so within a specific flight, the chances are CLOSER to being equal.

[Sawgrass]

Should everyone really have an "equal" chance of winning? If so, what's the point of trying to get better?

[ThinkingPlus]

Should everyone really have an "equal" chance of winning? If so, what's the point of trying to get better?

 

Well for self satisfaction, but your point is well taken. Handicap systems should be setup to slightly favor the better player. That form of system would further encourage advancing ones game. I worry a bit about a separate "T" handicap being based on a sample size that is too small to be representative. With only a couple of "T" scores a year for most folks those caps will be all over the place. They might try to combine the two handicaps via a weighting scheme. One could even change the weighting scheme depending upon the type of tournament. Sort of like the 90% of handicap rule, but with more options.

[DaveLeeNC]

Should everyone really have an "equal" chance of winning? If so, what's the point of trying to get better?

 

SG, from my perspective that is kind of the essence of the handicap (or not) competition philosophy. For me if I am playing someone who is (for example) of similar skill to me but a couple stokes better, I would prefer to play straight up. OTOH, there are a bunch of guys that I enjoy playing with and on a given course/day our scores will probably be 10 to 15 stokes different. A straight up competition is basically no competition at all.

 

So I like to have it both ways :-)

 

dave

[North Butte]

The very definition of a handicap is something to allow players of different skill to compete on an even basis. If you want the better player to win, just play straight up or don't give the weaker player his full strokes.

[mark m]

A lower handicap player does have an advantage (on paper) against higher handicap player if both handicaps legitimately reflect their actual potential. IMO this only works if the players are competing in a series of competitions based on 18 hole net scores. (Numerous rounds.) But this is very unlikely to actually occur. A higher handicap player would see that he is losing way too often and therefore an adjustment would be negotiated. Perhaps they would go to match play, or additional strokes would be given, or the ability to add presses would be employed making the outcomes more "fair." It is also hard to achieve good participation in multiple round (3, 4, or 5+ rounds of stroke play) tournaments. People are too busy.

 

But if the tournament is a one round large field event, odds are that one or more mid to high handicap players will have a good day and shoot net scores which are lower than what a low handicap player can shoot. Everyone should know this. This is why you should employ flights when possible and also provide other optional games like skins and nearies to garner participation from better players.

 

Section 10 - Handicap Formula - .96 used in calculation:

 

* Bonus for Excellence is the incentive for players to improve their golf games that is built into the USGA Handicap System. It is the term used to describe the small percentage below perfect equity that is used to calculate a Handicap Index (96 percent). As a Handicap Index improves (gets lower), the player has a slightly better chance of placing high or winning a handicap event

[mark m]

As most of the "baggers" at my course actually shoot the rounds they post. But in casual rounds, m-f, they don't "try as hard". But when it's a comp, they "focus better".

 

You sound as though you think this is unusual.

 

Personally I seldom play a "casual" round. Pretty much all my rounds are "serious" (to me anyway) so yes, I focus more. But certainly if I do play a casual round I am far more likely to try shots I otherwise wouldn't and would expect my scores to reflect that.

 

Then again, in my case, since I play far more serious games it would matter very little handicap-wise. But I guess the question is are these guys (really) "baggers" ? Or do they just play more often outside of tournaments (like most ?) ? And really aren't all that focused on a casual round ? And don't "T" scores mitigate that problem to some degree ?

 

You have identified the problem. Some guys are polluting their scoring records with scores which do not reflect their ability. (This goes for baggers and vanity caps as well.) They will often admit it. As Handicap Chair, I had numerous guys say they did not try hard in many "casual" rounds. This goes against the premise of the system and their handicaps should be adjusted. The cunning ones can often maintain an Index 2-3 above where it should be without earning an 'R.' So we informed them that would disregard those bad scores and adjust their cap. And we would continue to do so until their "casual" round scores and the 'T' scores showed a similar distribution. (Who in the world wants to do the job of HC?. Let's get good scores into the system. Not bullcrap scores.)

 

And there are 2 sides to that coin anyway. Some guys, as you suggest, choke when the $ is on the line but when there's no pressure they play free and easy and shoot better scores. I think there are far more of these types of player.

 

You are correct. Vanity caps are a larger segment. Most of these guys play free and easy with the rules in casual play. They take mulligans, disregard penalties, play preferred lies, take "gimmies", etc - all which produce a score which is lower than it should be. Then they cannot compete because their cap is way too low. Overtime they tend to stop competing as it is embarrassing/humiliating. A "golf club" should encourage proper behavior which will lead to better handicaps and better competitions - increasing enjoyment for the membership. That should be the goal.

 

Then again, you do specifically call these guys "baggers". They should at least be questioned about it.

 

Do you want to do "the questioning"? Trust me, I have done it numerous times. It's no fun. Very few want to do it.

 

The current system works when it's followed, but it takes a lot of work by the Handicap Committee. Most of it is education of the members so they can "police" each other. I get a kick out of all these threads where "you don't want to be THAT GUY." Therefore keep your head down, and don't say a word if/when you see someone cheat. "I don't want to get involved." Did you protect the field?

 

A better system would do it's best to make sure good scores go into the system. Many clubs in the US would have to make changes and provide many more opportunities to post a good score. A good score: the player tries hard all on strokes, plays by the rules, and the score is attested. The score is then adjusted properly if need be, and posted. Make no mistake however, someone who is determined to cheat will still be able to cheat this type of system. This may mean playing poorly over the course of numerous months/tournaments to achieve a comfortable handicap and then taking advantage of it in a specific tournament that they find to be prestigious or lucrative. The Dunhill has provided examples. No system is perfect. We shouldn't expect it. But it can be improved.

 

The above not directed at you nsx. It is food for thought for all in these forums. It's easy to complain. What are the solutions?