Unified world handicapping on it's way.

[North Butte]

In the three USA clubs to which I have belonged here's the real situation. Very, very few want to play by the rules. At the very least they want twi off the first tee, inside the leather, root rule, that kind of thing.

 

Right now USGA provide them a handicap system that works OK for handicapping their daily games with each other. They are not interested in suddenly playing it down, putting it out attesting score cards, etc. if the system were to change. They would just figure out someway to keep their own handicaps without using the computer.

 

So unless they bifurcate the system, it's hard to see how USGA can better serve tournament player handicaps without losing the larger portion of their market which is those casual-rules guys. I can't see anyway to design a system that lets guys keep and use their handicap based on the 95% of their rounds that are rules-casual but also have a useful handicap 3-4 times a year to play in events handled under the real rules.

[SNIPERBBB]

In the three USA clubs to which I have belonged here's the real situation. Very, very few want to play by the rules. At the very least they want twi off the first tee, inside the leather, root rule, that kind of thing.

 

Right now USGA provide them a handicap system that works OK for handicapping their daily games with each other. They are not interested in suddenly playing it down, putting it out attesting score cards, etc. if the system were to change. They would just figure out someway to keep their own handicaps without using the computer.

 

So unless they bifurcate the system, it's hard to see how USGA can better serve tournament player handicaps without losing the larger portion of their market which is those casual-rules guys. I can't see anyway to design a system that lets guys keep and use their handicap based on the 95% of their rounds that are rules-casual but also have a useful handicap 3-4 times a year to play in events handled under the real rules.

 

Technically, you are supposed to be posting rounds played in accordance to the RoG, games that somewhat resemble the RoG are not supposed to be posted. But they do, and that's the problem.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

As others have suggested, the easiest way to NOT alienate the majority (>80%) whom rarely if ever have T scores, is to have a casual index and an attested/Tournament index and present better historical data of both. Attestation could still be done electronically by peers with an app as well.

 

Time will tell if the usga understands the needs of the majority of golfers in the USA or not.

[ruca]

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.

 

CONGU previously published research to show that open competitions (no flighting) are fair for both low and high hcps

 

https://www.scottishgolf.org/wp-content/uploads/Myths-and-Misconceptions1.pdf

 

The same research also shows an edge for low hcps in one on one ( match play) which would require a 120% of hcp to correct

 

This is not true for the US system , which slightly favours high hcps in large field events; the 90% correction suggested by davenclee would work nicely in the US, as would 110% for one on one competition

 

This was discussed in another thread, but any hcps system which doesn't vary the hcps according to the number of players is slightly flawed

[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.

 

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...ility Table.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.

 

CONGU previously published research to show that open competitions (no flighting) are fair for both low and high hcps

 

https://www.scottish...onceptions1.pdf

 

The same research also shows an edge for low hcps in one on one ( match play) which would require a 120% of hcp to correct

 

This is not true for the US system , which slightly favours high hcps in large field events; the 90% correction suggested by davenclee would work nicely in the US, as would 110% for one on one competition

 

This was discussed in another thread, but any hcps system which doesn't vary the hcps according to the number of players is slightly flawed

 

Research by the Golf Union of Wales on behalf of CONGU examined examined 10,000 (competition) scores from players of up to 28 Handicap, mainly, but not exclusively men.

 

It found a Category 1 player (5 or better) is twice as likely to play to or below their Handicap as a Category 3 player (13-20).

[bladehunter]

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

 

 

Testify brother !!!! I'm all for flights that are 0-7 7-14 14-21 and cut it off at 21. My club is too small to flight anything so it's a free for alll. And the high handicappers rule. Kind of makes your stomach turn a bit when you see a guy get his name on the Match play trophy when you know he couldn't Win a heads up event even with people his own skill level most likely , if his life were on the line.

[Sawgrass]

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.

 

It may be your very definition, but it's not the USGA's. From the Handicap Manual:

 

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.

[ruca]

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.

 

It may be your very definition, but it's not the USGA's. From the Handicap Manual:

 

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.

 

That may be their stated intention, and yet they set up a system that slightly favours higher hcps in a full field event !

[tatertot]

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.

 

It may be your very definition, but it's not the USGA's. From the Handicap Manual:

 

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.

 

But that's not the definition of a handicap ... North Butte has the definition of a handicap.

[DaveLeeNC]

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.

 

It may be your very definition, but it's not the USGA's. From the Handicap Manual:

 

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.

 

That may be their stated intention, and yet they set up a system that slightly favours higher hcps in a full field event !

 

I would say the The Committee's are responsible for that, as the USGA gives them the tools to fix this if they choose (90% handicaps/etc). The manual even does the math for them.

 

dave

[mwmgolfx]

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.

 

I played in NJ for a while and now officially have an handicap in Florida. I know that a number of the clubs in Florida (mostly resort courses), don't have a handicap committee, the same as most of the Public courses in NY/NJ. Private different story. But not the public/muni's. And if you play regularly at some of these courses, they might never have a "T-score " competition. And even seldom other types of comp's. Several of the courses i know and have played at regularly have no t-score events ever and maybe 2-3 t-score events. I posted over 180 scores last year and had two or three t-scores. ANd probably the same number of comp type rounds.

 

And I actually asked at several "resort" type courses about a handicap committee and was actually asked the head pro what that was!!! Many of the muni's have zero handicap committees and certainly don't have the staff to enter scores.

 

Then we had the situation one year where I was traveling A LOT and I didn't play one round at all at the "home " course and was entirely playing on the road all over the country. Played with a ton of strangers. But I made sure thru the internet (a long time ago it was thru remote GHIN club posting as an away player) that all scores were properly posted.

 

Except for the fact that once in a while I enter a competition where its a silly season type event (scramble, regular event where max is bogey, etc, that require a real GHIN score, i probably wouldn't need a handicap. But I do play and try pretty hard and try to follow the rules for the most part where i know them.

 

Several of my friends don't play in but one "soltice" event a year (3 rounds in one day, max 8 score any hole, etc) That requires a GHIN handicap. They post their regular games and usually their results pretty much match the regular average scores.

 

To be honest, if more events were to use and look at the list of t-scores posted for ever and the persons handicap average for the last 12 months and really followed things there, sandbagging would be eliminated. How many sandbaggers do you see at the world amateur winning or even placing high? it can be eliminated easily but it requires more work than most handicap and tournament committees want to effect.

 

Last face reality. golf as played in the US is totally different from the ROTW. You have the tournament and serious club golfers and they can easily follow and play to CONGU, etc. But then you have the other 98% that play casual rounds And only uses the GHIN system as a tracker for their game. Showing whether they are improving or getting worse by the direction of their handicap over time. And sometimes using the handicap for betting purposes but changing that as needed by their own history with their friends.

 

I mean, 99% of my friends and the golfers I usually play with really could care less about a "WORLD " handicapping system. sure it might be useful for those serious club/tournament golfers but for everyone else. Who cares!. I mean really. How many of the US people will ever play in an event where having common world handicap makes any difference at all. i'd guess certainly less than 5% of all golfers and more likely less than 1%.

 

Announcing this proposal without any details, really doesn't seem to do the USGA any good. All it seems to be doing is leading to lots and lots of speculation and what ifs and generally Not making a lot of golfers happy as they dont' see any benefit and it seems to them that this is "another case where the USGA is proceeding in its ivory tower without any regard to the average golfer who is its main constituent." I've certainly heard this sentiment more than a few times. Its not good speculation.

[Sawgrass]

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.

 

It may be your very definition, but it's not the USGA's. From the Handicap Manual:

 

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.

 

But that's not the definition of a handicap ... North Butte has the definition of a handicap.

 

North Butte has his, and apparently you have yours. I don't believe the USGA actually defines the word specifically, though the math it uses clearly does not intend to make all players equal.

 

Here's what Wikipedia has to say, the underscore is mine:

 

A golf handicap is a numerical measure of a golfer's potential ability.

In stroke play, it is used to calculate a net score from the number of strokes actually played during a competition, thus allowing players of different proficiency to play against each other on somewhat equal terms.

 

My point is that the math does not intend a totally equal footing, but for some reason people think equality is the purpose.

[nsxguy]

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.

 

It may be your very definition, but it's not the USGA's. From the Handicap Manual:

 

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.

 

But that's not the definition of a handicap ... North Butte has the definition of a handicap.

 

No, he doesn't.

 

From 1-1 (Handicapping Manual)

 

The purpose of the USGA Handicap System is to make the game of golf more enjoyable by enabling players of differing abilities to compete on an equitable basis

 

Equitable -: having or exhibiting equity : dealing fairly and equally with all concerned an equitable settlement of the dispute

 

Similar surely. The same ? Not exactly.

[Newby]

The purpose of the CONGU® Unified Handicapping System is to enable golfers of differing abilities, men and women alike, to compete on a fair and equitable basis.

[Vindog]

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.

 

Yeah, differently.

 

They feel like they shouldn't have to take stroke and distance, they roll the ball out of divots, they don't putt out, they play breakfast balls, and the list goes on.

[nix]

In the three USA clubs to which I have belonged here's the real situation. Very, very few want to play by the rules. At the very least they want twi off the first tee, inside the leather, root rule, that kind of thing.

 

Right now USGA provide them a handicap system that works OK for handicapping their daily games with each other. They are not interested in suddenly playing it down, putting it out attesting score cards, etc. if the system were to change. They would just figure out someway to keep their own handicaps without using the computer.

 

So unless they bifurcate the system, it's hard to see how USGA can better serve tournament player handicaps without losing the larger portion of their market which is those casual-rules guys. I can't see anyway to design a system that lets guys keep and use their handicap based on the 95% of their rounds that are rules-casual but also have a useful handicap 3-4 times a year to play in events handled under the real rules.

 

Technically, you are supposed to be posting rounds played in accordance to the RoG, games that somewhat resemble the RoG are not supposed to be posted. But they do, and that's the problem.

 

If the players are only using the handicap against each other and they are all playing the similar rules, then what's the problem? Sure they aren't getting a true handicap based on other players, but if everyone in my group only plays with each other and we all do a breakfast ball and we all post our scores to compare to each other, then it's not harming anyone, right?

[DaveLeeNC]

In the three USA clubs to which I have belonged here's the real situation. Very, very few want to play by the rules. At the very least they want twi off the first tee, inside the leather, root rule, that kind of thing.

 

Right now USGA provide them a handicap system that works OK for handicapping their daily games with each other. They are not interested in suddenly playing it down, putting it out attesting score cards, etc. if the system were to change. They would just figure out someway to keep their own handicaps without using the computer.

 

So unless they bifurcate the system, it's hard to see how USGA can better serve tournament player handicaps without losing the larger portion of their market which is those casual-rules guys. I can't see anyway to design a system that lets guys keep and use their handicap based on the 95% of their rounds that are rules-casual but also have a useful handicap 3-4 times a year to play in events handled under the real rules.

 

Technically, you are supposed to be posting rounds played in accordance to the RoG, games that somewhat resemble the RoG are not supposed to be posted. But they do, and that's the problem.

 

If the players are only using the handicap against each other and they are all playing the similar rules, then what's the problem? Sure they aren't getting a true handicap based on other players, but if everyone in my group only plays with each other and we all do a breakfast ball and we all post our scores to compare to each other, then it's not harming anyone, right?

 

I would not argue that point. But to me the real value of a 'covers all the US' (or covers all the world) handicap system, is that you can bring your cousin from North Dakota into your regular group and have a reasonable basis for fitting him/her in on an equitable basis.

 

dave

[Shilgy]

Sandbaggers of the US rejoice! Play bad in events-where your new handicap will come from-and you will be able to always win money in casual games with your buddies!

[unlucky]

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?

 

For the club i play at every time i post a score via the computer at the club or on the internet i am to turn in a score card signed, dated by me and playing partners. The committee saves the cards so if the future if someone want to fight a score i have the committee can go back. If for some reason they can not find the card the committee will delete that score from my handicap. I was the committee for 2 years and never had one person look as score cards.

[nix]

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?

 

For the club i play at every time i post a score via the computer at the club or on the internet i am to turn in a score card signed, dated by me and playing partners. The committee saves the cards so if the future if someone want to fight a score i have the committee can go back. If for some reason they can not find the card the committee will delete that score from my handicap. I was the committee for 2 years and never had one person look as score cards.

 

Honest question, if nobody ever looked, then do you feel the whole process was a waste of time, or did the process work because nobody looked at a card?

[nix]

Personally, I believe sandbagging is over-estimated. Every time a higher handicap shoots a good score, the low handicaps point to sand-bagging. I imagine there are a lot more vanity handicaps than sandbagging ones.

[North Butte]

Personally, I believe sandbagging is over-estimated. Every time a higher handicap shoots a good score, the low handicaps point to sand-bagging. I imagine there are a lot more vanity handicaps than sandbagging ones.

 

When you take into account all the handicaps computed almost entirely from holes played under casual rules (two off the first tee, gimmes, rolling in the fairway, drops "near where it went out", etc.) then you are surely correct. There are *millions* of rounds posted every year based on that kind of play.

 

There are also no doubt many, may genuine sandbaggers. But if you're playing against the vanity-cap guys, then you can dot every i and cross every t and have a perfectly legitimate handicap that you'll beat them with easily.

[Newby]

Personally, I believe sandbagging is over-estimated. Every time a higher handicap shoots a good score, the low handicaps point to sand-bagging. I imagine there are a lot more vanity handicaps than sandbagging ones.

 

Some of the claims on the various gwrx forums seem to support that view.

[jmkenn0]

My experience with vanity vs sandbaggers - if you play for any amount of money that means anything, you are going to be closer to an accurate handicap/sandbagging. Otherwise, you probably lean more toward the vanity.

 

I'd say most people are vanity, even if they don't really know it.

[DaveLeeNC]

Personally, I believe sandbagging is over-estimated. Every time a higher handicap shoots a good score, the low handicaps point to sand-bagging. I imagine there are a lot more vanity handicaps than sandbagging ones.

 

Some of the claims on the various gwrx forums seem to support that view.

 

I agree. But it only takes a couple (or even one) genuine sandbagger to mess up results. You can have a field full of honest/accurate golfers, and the (maybe only) sandbagger is quite likely the winner - particularly if this golfer(s) takes his sandbagging seriously and is good at it. Makes it look like sandbagging is rampant.

 

dave

[unlucky]

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?

 

For the club i play at every time i post a score via the computer at the club or on the internet i am to turn in a score card signed, dated by me and playing partners. The committee saves the cards so if the future if someone want to fight a score i have the committee can go back. If for some reason they can not find the card the committee will delete that score from my handicap. I was the committee for 2 years and never had one person look as score cards.

 

Honest question, if nobody ever looked, then do you feel the whole process was a waste of time, or did the process work because nobody looked at a card?

 

I think it stops people from entering inflated scores because really no ones what to be called sanbagger. If you enter a high score and the score gets disputed and score cards can not be verified, kind of puts a lot of questions about your hcp. My thinking is if someone wants to sandbag, they will find a way.

[tigerheenan]

Not replying to any particular post, but i get the feeling that the US guys seem to think that the CONGU or European system will reduce the number of sandbaggers. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have a both a USGA handicap and a CONGU handicap. Both are genuine in their respective zones, but the CONGU system, particularly in Ireland, is the subject of mass abuse. Yes, scorecards are attested and competition cards only count towards handicap. Unfortunately only singles scorecards count towards handicap, whereas the big money prizes are in fourballs, foursomes, corporate/charity team events and societies. Society competitions are usually singles competitions played on away courses by groups of individuals from pubs, offices etc. Guys deliberately play poorly in counting competitions and build up their handicaps for these "non counting" competitions. In addition, over the winter months when preferred lies on the fairway and clean and drop in the rough are in play, all competitions become "non counting" for handicap purposes. The Governing Body of golf in Ireland, the GUI, have finally started to call sandbaggers "handicap cheats". Heretofore they were called "handicap builders" - progress !!

 

Just to give you an example - I played in a singles competition last year with a well known sandbagger. We were also playing a match for dinner. I only agreed to play the match as I owed him a dinner anyway !! On 2 holes I conceded putts of less than 6". After the round I said to him that he must have a good score, but he said "no" - when I checked the card, on the 2 holes i conceded putts he had entered no score as he didn't tap the ball into the hole. This had the effect of adding 5 or 6 strokes to his score as the system assumed triple bogeys. I refused to sign his card (yes, he was a friend of mine !) and he just ripped it up. I discovered a few days later that the card was counted as a no return and his handicap increased by .1 !!

 

Another problem with the CONGU system is that handicaps are personal and only the player himself can access his handicap online. Nobody knows what scores are being returned. At least in the US we have peer review and access to all posted scores.

 

I agree there should be a worldwide system to try and even things out, but a lot of work will have to go in to make any hybrid system fair to all. At the moment my handicap in Ireland is 5 and I am barely competitive at that. I rarely win nett prizes but am sometimes lucky enough to win a gross prize. In the US my index is .9 and I can compete for gross and nett. Therefore I believe the US system is more accurate. I play about 60 to 70 rounds of golf in the US each year and 40 to 50 rounds in Ireland. In the US all my scores count towards handicap, whereas in Ireland that number would be as low as 15/20.

 

All I can say is that I consider sandbaggers as cheats and they deserve to be weeded out, whichever system is used. Good luck to all involved !!

[Sawgrass]

Not replying to any particular post, but i get the feeling that the US guys seem to think that the CONGU or European system will reduce the number of sandbaggers. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have a both a USGA handicap and a CONGU handicap. Both are genuine in their respective zones, but the CONGU system, particularly in Ireland, is the subject of mass abuse. Yes, scorecards are attested and competition cards only count towards handicap. Unfortunately only singles scorecards count towards handicap, whereas the big money prizes are in fourballs, foursomes, corporate/charity team events and societies. Society competitions are usually singles competitions played on away courses by groups of individuals from pubs, offices etc. Guys deliberately play poorly in counting competitions and build up their handicaps for these "non counting" competitions. In addition, over the winter months when preferred lies on the fairway and clean and drop in the rough are in play, all competitions become "non counting" for handicap purposes. The Governing Body of golf in Ireland, the GUI, have finally started to call sandbaggers "handicap cheats". Heretofore they were called "handicap builders" - progress !!

 

Just to give you an example - I played in a singles competition last year with a well known sandbagger. We were also playing a match for dinner. I only agreed to play the match as I owed him a dinner anyway !! On 2 holes I conceded putts of less than 6". After the round I said to him that he must have a good score, but he said "no" - when I checked the card, on the 2 holes i conceded putts he had entered no score as he didn't tap the ball into the hole. This had the effect of adding 5 or 6 strokes to his score as the system assumed triple bogeys. I refused to sign his card (yes, he was a friend of mine !) and he just ripped it up. I discovered a few days later that the card was counted as a no return and his handicap increased by .1 !!

 

Another problem with the CONGU system is that handicaps are personal and only the player himself can access his handicap online. Nobody knows what scores are being returned. At least in the US we have peer review and access to all posted scores.

 

I agree there should be a worldwide system to try and even things out, but a lot of work will have to go in to make any hybrid system fair to all. At the moment my handicap in Ireland is 5 and I am barely competitive at that. I rarely win nett prizes but am sometimes lucky enough to win a gross prize. In the US my index is .9 and I can compete for gross and nett. Therefore I believe the US system is more accurate. I play about 60 to 70 rounds of golf in the US each year and 40 to 50 rounds in Ireland. In the US all my scores count towards handicap, whereas in Ireland that number would be as low as 15/20.

 

All I can say is that I consider sandbaggers as cheats and they deserve to be weeded out, whichever system is used. Good luck to all involved !!

 

You just depressed the hell out of me.

[Newby]

In addition, over the winter months when preferred lies on the fairway and clean and drop in the rough are in play, all competitions become "non counting" for handicap purposes.

 

Not so

 

15 Preferred Lies

"The adoption of preferred lies, can allow Qualifying Competitions to be conducted under acceptable playing conditions.

Clubs should, whenever practicable, play competitions as Qualifying Competitions during the preferred lie period.

Reference should be made to Decisions 1(a) and 1(b) that have been formulated to promote and encourage Qualifying Competitions in the preferred lie period."

 

"Lift, clean and drop in the rough" is not a permitted Local Rule.

The permitted LR is "Lift, clean and replace through the green" and CONGU has no restriction on its use.

 

Another problem with the CONGU system is that handicaps are personal and only the player himself can access his handicap online. Nobody knows what scores are being returned.

 

Not so.

 

Responsibilities of the Handicap Committee

7.5 Display in a prominent position at the club all alterations to Members’ Playing Handicaps immediately they are made.

7.6 Ensure that a record of Members’ current Exact Handicaps and Playing Handicaps is available in a prominent position at the club.

 

If the club has the facilities (and most do) this may be done on line also.

[ruca]

Not replying to any particular post, but i get the feeling that the US guys seem to think that the CONGU or European system will reduce the number of sandbaggers. Nothing could be further from the truth. I have a both a USGA handicap and a CONGU handicap. Both are genuine in their respective zones, but the CONGU system, particularly in Ireland, is the subject of mass abuse. Yes, scorecards are attested and competition cards only count towards handicap. Unfortunately only singles scorecards count towards handicap, whereas the big money prizes are in fourballs, foursomes, corporate/charity team events and societies. Society competitions are usually singles competitions played on away courses by groups of individuals from pubs, offices etc. Guys deliberately play poorly in counting competitions and build up their handicaps for these "non counting" competitions. In addition, over the winter months when preferred lies on the fairway and clean and drop in the rough are in play, all competitions become "non counting" for handicap purposes. The Governing Body of golf in Ireland, the GUI, have finally started to call sandbaggers "handicap cheats". Heretofore they were called "handicap builders" - progress !!

 

Just to give you an example - I played in a singles competition last year with a well known sandbagger. We were also playing a match for dinner. I only agreed to play the match as I owed him a dinner anyway !! On 2 holes I conceded putts of less than 6". After the round I said to him that he must have a good score, but he said "no" - when I checked the card, on the 2 holes i conceded putts he had entered no score as he didn't tap the ball into the hole. This had the effect of adding 5 or 6 strokes to his score as the system assumed triple bogeys. I refused to sign his card (yes, he was a friend of mine !) and he just ripped it up. I discovered a few days later that the card was counted as a no return and his handicap increased by .1 !!

 

Another problem with the CONGU system is that handicaps are personal and only the player himself can access his handicap online. Nobody knows what scores are being returned. At least in the US we have peer review and access to all posted scores.

 

I agree there should be a worldwide system to try and even things out, but a lot of work will have to go in to make any hybrid system fair to all. At the moment my handicap in Ireland is 5 and I am barely competitive at that. I rarely win nett prizes but am sometimes lucky enough to win a gross prize. In the US my index is .9 and I can compete for gross and nett. Therefore I believe the US system is more accurate. I play about 60 to 70 rounds of golf in the US each year and 40 to 50 rounds in Ireland. In the US all my scores count towards handicap, whereas in Ireland that number would be as low as 15/20.

 

All I can say is that I consider sandbaggers as cheats and they deserve to be weeded out, whichever system is used. Good luck to all involved !!

 

You just depressed the hell out of me.

 

There are numerous errors in the above post - no need to get depressed

 

I can look up anybody's hcp at my club, all their scores in the past 6 months, and what they scored in each and every hole!

 

If you do well in our foursomes/ fourball comps, the committee should take it into account in the annual review ( and they do, where I play)

 

Anyone who plays a singles comp knows they should be finishing the hole, and not doing so should be reported to the committee - unclear why poster above didn't

 

Societies, of course have their own rules; perhaps if they adopted CONGU rules for society hcps they wouldn't have a problem;

 

If you play corporate / society golf you have to accept what comes with it; but you can play club comps all you like without a problem.