Unified world handicapping on it's 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 !!

Great post!

 

It seems crazy that you become competitive with a handicap 4 shots lower in the US than UK. Is that because all the rest of the field have much reduced handicaps too?

 

If the US system was introduced to the UK, my handicap would be around 18, based on 10 out of 20. My handicap here was 6.5, until a recent revision which moved it up to 8.5 due to poor play ( had an injury from an accident and stopped playing for 5 months or so).

 

Now, when i get my game back, I'll be able to play to 7. Imagine if my US handicap was being used?

[mjtoal]

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 !!

 

I reject the idea that CONGU/IGU handicaps are the subject of mass abuse. I am Irish and played plenty of golf there and now play in England. Sandbagging occurs when players play below their best in order to fluff their handicaps. To a certain extent it is unavoidable, but the committee can reduce the handicap of players winning four ball or matchplay comps. Non qualifying rounds for betting are a different matter and to be honest, I couldn't care less about those. They weren't a big thing at my previous or current club, even though there are plenty of well moneyed people around. Under CONGU or IGU there is a limit to how fast your handicap can rise. The USGA index can rise a lot faster because it effectively resets each 20 scores.

 

As for cheating, I have played rounds on vacation in the US with guys who took mulligans, used preferred lies all the way round and conceded short putts, then said the score would help their index.

 

As for scores being published, well that varies. My course publishes all competition scores online and you can examine any player's handicaps and hole by hole scores, including away scores, going back years, as well as how they have placed in competitions and how their handicap has tracked. Many Irish clubs do the same. Yours may not, that is their choice. Howdidido and the central database of handicaps are commonly used tools.

 

But if your allegation is that these guys protect their handicaps for betting, then they shouldn't be scoring well in the comps that you could compete in and you should get nett prizes and get your handicap cut.

 

So we can understand better, what are the lengths. course rating/SSS of the Irish and US courses you play at? If you want to name the Irish course, that would be helpful too.

[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.

 

Not sure what the numerous errors you are referring to are.

 

Maybe in your club you can look up you own club's members' score posting, but this is not a requirement of your Golfing Union.There are other ways of accessing a guys scores eg. Howdidido.com, provided the club keeps the systems updated. Each club is only obliged to display an up to date handicap list and details of any adjustments to a member's playing handicap (not every exact handicap alteration). A lot of clubs only do this. This thread relates to the possibility of a unification of all handicaps. In the US one can access the scores of all USGA handicaps, no matter what club you are affiliated to. In Ireland (and I'm sure UK too) one can only access one's own club handicaps and even that is when the system allowed permits.

 

 

Where one plays all of his golf at his home club, his performances in fourballs, foursomes (and even society & team events) should of course be taken into account by the club handicap committee. I was referring to non qualifying competitions at away clubs, which include fourballs, societies and any form of golf where a singles card is not returned through the handicap system. In Ireland individuals are now "obliged" to volunteer this information to their home club, by returning scores from non counting competitions. We are only one month into the "point one" season and to date I have witnessed a breach of this "obligation" on no fewer than 4 occasions.

 

I was once handicap secretary of a club with 900 male handicaps to manage. Over time, one gets to know who the cheats are, but inevitably a number of them will slip through the net. There are not that many, but the ones that are cheating are the ones whose names appear in highlights.The job has become even more difficult in recent years. Since the economic downturn there has been considerable churn in golf club memberships, with a lot of guys quitting and others availing of various offers available at different clubs. More and more clubs are running open competitions and team events, making it even more difficult to track members' playing ability.

 

As for your comment "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" - everybody who plays golf should know they shouldn't cheat, but unfortunately that doesn't stop some of them from cheating in one way or another. If it did, we wouldn't be posting on this thread. By the way, although he's a friend, I am not a member of this guys club. I refused to sign his card, which is all I could really do. Not putting the ball into the hole is not breaking any rule of golf, but it is not in the spirit of the CONGU handicap system. When I realised at a later date that he did get a point one, I reported it. Had it been in the US I would've had access to his club's handicap database I would've seen it immediately and, had it been in the US, those putts would've been considered holed ! His club cancelled the point one and at annual review cut him 2 full shots (he had other notable performances). In my view, his handicap should've been immediately suspended, which is what should've happened according to CONGU.

 

If you think there are any other perceived errors in my original post, I will gladly clarify !

 

Perhaps I could have said that your experience is not imo the norm in the U.K.

To answer some of your points,

My understanding is that the vast majority of uk clubs use one of 2 or 3 databases where you can see everyone's hcps and scores at your club; perhaps if someone knows better they can chime in

You stated that sandbagging is rife, and yet also stated that when you looked after 900 players there were only a few cheats.

When you reported a player, the end result was a 2 shot cut - well isn't that what's supposed to happen?

I'm not sure where all this "big money" is; where I am the most anyone can win in am-ams fourball comps etc is maybe £100-£200, maybe it's very different in Ireland

If you play (twice) weekly qualifying comps, then you are not going a have a problem from players who only play 3 of these a year (badly) so they can cheat in corporate/ society golf ( which aren't played by CONGU rules anyway)- leave them to their own little world

I've kept a close eye on our am-Ams to see if anything dodgy going on. Almost all of ours seem to be won by very close margins or count back, by teams who regularly play qualifying comps. Our last one, the top 2 scores were in the first few in, the later starters knew what scores were already in, the weather didn't change, and nobody beat them - I just don't see anything fishy going on

 

Your main assertion is that if the US adopted a CONGU / EGA type system, this wouldn't reduce sandbagging . I disagree. Imagine a 20 hcp that wins a couple tournaments with eg -8 scores: in CONGU, the reduction would be 2x (0.3 x8) plus 2 shot exceptional reduction, so hcp drops to 13.2. If this player is a cheat and wants to get back to 20 hcp, he has to put in 68 attested bad rounds ( the annual review won't help because of his exceptional scores), because he can only go up by 0.1 each time. I know comps aren't common in the US, but all they need to do is a clause which limits how much higher your hcp can go between tournaments ( assuming they allow posting of attested casual rounds)

 

 

[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 !!

Great post!

 

It seems crazy that you become competitive with a handicap 4 shots lower in the US than UK. Is that because all the rest of the field have much reduced handicaps too?

 

If the US system was introduced to the UK, my handicap would be around 18, based on 10 out of 20. My handicap here was 6.5, until a recent revision which moved it up to 8.5 due to poor play ( had an injury from an accident and stopped playing for 5 months or so).

 

Now, when i get my game back, I'll be able to play to 7. Imagine if my US handicap was being used?

 

Sorry, I screwed up an earlier reply to your post.

 

I agree It seems crazy that there could be a 4 stroke difference in handicap between USA & CONGU, but for me, it's true. In my opinion it's partly down to the difference between SSS and Course Rating/Slope, with the balance attributable to the practice facilities, quality of greens etc.

 

A lot of posters here correctly say that the SSS and the Course Rating/Slope are linked in the main to course length and the courses I play here and in the US are of similar length (6800 yards), yet the SSS in Ireland is 72 and the CR in USA is 73.4. That's almost a stroke and a half before you start. The main difference in handicap calculation is that in the USA, the course rating is based on a players potential, measured against what a scratch golfer is expected to shoot on a particular course (in my case 73.4) and this is not confined to counting competitions or tournaments. A CONGU handicap is based on a players ability relative to the course SSS and other players on any given day in tournament play only. The Slope Rating also has an affect in the USA but for lower handicaps this is minimal.

 

I rarely hit range balls before playing in Ireland, whereas I rarely play in the USA without hitting at least 25/30 range balls before play. As for the quality of the greens, I find myself holing more longer (15 to 20 feet) putts in the USA. Therefore, when I stand on the 1st tee in Florida I have a fair idea where my first drive is going to end up and I am confident of making a few decent putts during the round.

 

The odd time I hit some balls before play in Ireland, I definitely play better. However, when I am playing in competitions in Ireland, it is usually on a Sat or Sun morning, meaning I don't have time to loosen out (I'm 56 !). As my handicap is only based on competition rounds, I would say that it is inaccurate by a stroke or two. Combine that with the difference between SSS and CR, there you have the 4 stroke difference ! A bit simplistic, but if all those afternoon fourballs and "friendly" matches counted, my CONGU handicap would certainly be lower.

 

As for your situation with the injury, in the USA if a player is injured he can apply to the committee for a "modified" handicap during recovery. This is viewed as temporary and reverts when you're fully fit. As you are a 6 or 7 handicap, I can't imagine that you would play 20 rounds of sh*t golf and end up with a handicap of 18. Even if you did, the first time you had a low score it would be flagged for review. On the other hand, if you improved gradually, the handicap would reduce gradually. In addition, one of the key aspects of a USGA handicap is that it's subject to peer review. In other words, your playing partners are obliged to report you if you are clearly playing better than your handicap.

 

In summary, neither system is perfect and both are open to abuse. To me, the USGA system appears to be a little more transparent in that it's not confined to counting singles competitions and you have the peer review as back up. I saw an interesting stat recently (but dated 2013) which said that the average number of counting cards submitted by CONGU members is 5 per year - hardly a good measure of someones current playing ability.

 

Hope you get back to full health soon and be careful who you play with !!

[Newby]

A lot of posters here correctly say that the SSS and the Course Rating/Slope are linked in the main to course length and the courses I play here and in the US are of similar length (6800 yards), yet the SSS in Ireland is 72 and the CR in USA is 73.4. That's almost a stroke and a half before you start. The main difference in handicap calculation is that in the USA, the course rating is based on a players potential, measured against what a scratch golfer is expected to shoot on a particular course (in my case 73.4) and this is not confined to counting competitions or tournaments. A CONGU handicap is based on a players ability relative to the course SSS and other players on any given day in tournament play only. The Slope Rating also has an affect in the USA but for lower handicaps this is minimal.

 

A course length of 6800 would probably be given a temporary Course Rating of 72.9 without doing a physical assessment. The difference in a full assessment would be down to the obstacles (ie difficulties) encountered on the individual course itself. One may have produced a figure of 72.4 and the other 73.4. The rating is always to 1 dec place.

 

Ireland has used the USGA rating system for many years (at least 10 I believe). The Course Rating is rounded to give the SSS for CONGU purposes. So a CR of 72.4 would be an SSS of 72.

 

The rating is not related to competition play specifically but simply to a 'model' scratch player.

[PJ72]

Thanks TH. Yes, I'm pretty much back to before the injury (just a lower back whiplash and a bruised bone in my wrist), however, as I didn't play for 5 months (Jan to Jun last year), I found it difficult to regain my swing.

 

Yeah, maybe I've exaggerated the 18 handicap but it feels like ive been shooting in the 90's every round! In reality it's probably been a low score of about 81/82 and high of about 94/95 with a load of 87's in the middle. So probably about 12-14 handicap.

[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 !!

 

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.

 

Not sure what the numerous errors you are referring to are.

 

Maybe in your club you can look up you own club's members' score posting, but this is not a requirement of your Golfing Union.There are other ways of accessing a guys scores eg. Howdidido.com, provided the club keeps the systems updated. Each club is only obliged to display an up to date handicap list and details of any adjustments to a member's playing handicap (not every exact handicap alteration). A lot of clubs only do this. This thread relates to the possibility of a unification of all handicaps. In the US one can access the scores of all USGA handicaps, no matter what club you are affiliated to. In Ireland (and I'm sure UK too) one can only access one's own club handicaps and even that is when the system allowed permits.

 

 

Where one plays all of his golf at his home club, his performances in fourballs, foursomes (and even society & team events) should of course be taken into account by the club handicap committee. I was referring to non qualifying competitions at away clubs, which include fourballs, societies and any form of golf where a singles card is not returned through the handicap system. In Ireland individuals are now "obliged" to volunteer this information to their home club, by returning scores from non counting competitions. We are only one month into the "point one" season and to date I have witnessed a breach of this "obligation" on no fewer than 4 occasions.

 

I was once handicap secretary of a club with 900 male handicaps to manage. Over time, one gets to know who the cheats are, but inevitably a number of them will slip through the net. There are not that many, but the ones that are cheating are the ones whose names appear in highlights.The job has become even more difficult in recent years. Since the economic downturn there has been considerable churn in golf club memberships, with a lot of guys quitting and others availing of various offers available at different clubs. More and more clubs are running open competitions and team events, making it even more difficult to track members' playing ability.

 

As for your comment "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" - everybody who plays golf should know they shouldn't cheat, but unfortunately that doesn't stop some of them from cheating in one way or another. If it did, we wouldn't be posting on this thread. By the way, although he's a friend, I am not a member of this guys club. I refused to sign his card, which is all I could really do. Not putting the ball into the hole is not breaking any rule of golf, but it is not in the spirit of the CONGU handicap system. When I realised at a later date that he did get a point one, I reported it. Had it been in the US I would've had access to his club's handicap database I would've seen it immediately and, had it been in the US, those putts would've been considered holed ! His club cancelled the point one and at annual review cut him 2 full shots (he had other notable performances). In my view, his handicap should've been immediately suspended, which is what should've happened according to CONGU.

 

If you think there are any other perceived errors in my original post, I will gladly clarify !

 

Perhaps I could have said that your experience is not imo the norm in the U.K.

To answer some of your points,

My understanding is that the vast majority of uk clubs use one of 2 or 3 databases where you can see everyone's hcps and scores at your club; perhaps if someone knows better they can chime in

You stated that sandbagging is rife, and yet also stated that when you looked after 900 players there were only a few cheats.

When you reported a player, the end result was a 2 shot cut - well isn't that what's supposed to happen?

I'm not sure where all this "big money" is; where I am the most anyone can win in am-ams fourball comps etc is maybe £100-£200, maybe it's very different in Ireland

If you play (twice) weekly qualifying comps, then you are not going a have a problem from players who only play 3 of these a year (badly) so they can cheat in corporate/ society golf ( which aren't played by CONGU rules anyway)- leave them to their own little world

I've kept a close eye on our am-Ams to see if anything dodgy going on. Almost all of ours seem to be won by very close margins or count back, by teams who regularly play qualifying comps. Our last one, the top 2 scores were in the first few in, the later starters knew what scores were already in, the weather didn't change, and nobody beat them - I just don't see anything fishy going on

 

Your main assertion is that if the US adopted a CONGU / EGA type system, this wouldn't reduce sandbagging . I disagree. Imagine a 20 hcp that wins a couple tournaments with eg -8 scores: in CONGU, the reduction would be 2x (0.3 x8) plus 2 shot exceptional reduction, so hcp drops to 13.2. If this player is a cheat and wants to get back to 20 hcp, he has to put in 68 attested bad rounds ( the annual review won't help because of his exceptional scores), because he can only go up by 0.1 each time. I know comps aren't common in the US, but all they need to do is a clause which limits how much higher your hcp can go between tournaments ( assuming they allow posting of attested casual rounds)

 

I think you've hit the nail on the head on the difference between UK and Irish experience. I have some (not a lot) of UK experience. It appears to be regulated in a more organised manner. In other words, clubs and players go by the rules laid down by CONGU and don't ignore or "twist" them to their benefit ! As for the corporate days etc. for the past few years a number of clubs in Ireland are having ongoing open team events over the winter months, culminating in a playofff for the winners of each month. In my club the overall winners get €300 each - that's a €900 team prize, second get €200 each and so on. There are also foreign holidays available in some corporate events. I was on a winning team in a US/Irish corporate day a few years ago and we each won a return flight from Dublin to New York. Don't ask - I didn't give it back !

 

As for the handicap listing, again this may be different in the UK. A number of Irish club members have access to their own members scores etc, but I was referring to all CONGU handicap holders in Ireland. The guy I was investigating was not a member of my club. I did raise the issue with the Golfing Union of Ireland and I was advised that the central database can not be made available due to data protection legislation. When I asked how the howdidido.com site can publish handicaps, I was advised that clubs are not obliged to upload the information and numerous clubs don't.

 

I don't recall saying that sandbagging is rife, I said it is a problem. No stats available for CONGU but USGA stats show that circa 10% of players have handicaps that are too high. In fact there are more (I think it's 15%) "vanity handicaps", where handicaps are too low - these idiots are only cheating themselves, but in CONGUland they are cheating others out of places in elite tournaments. I don't think we even had 10% in our club when I was involved, but we certainly weeded out 15 or 20. While stats are not available, the GUI have acknowledged that it is a problem, hence the need to introduce a Handicap Awareness Month to re-educate players and clubs on the CONGU system. Have a look at this http://www.thefairway.ie/ . The issue also prompted CONGU to limit the increase in handicap in Ireland to 1 stroke per year compared to the CONGUland 2 strokes and one is now required to return all society, team event, fourball and foursomes away cards to his home club in Ireland.

 

As for my "buddy", when a guy is caught deliberately handicap building, the CONGU rules state that the penalty should be handicap suspension as no rule of golf has been broken.

 

Unfortunately, when sandbaggers enter corporate or society events they use their CONGU handicap that their club has given them. No club wants to be associated with these cheats, but the clubs are responsible for their handicaps. It can reflect badly on those club.

 

I don't recall saying anything about the US adopting a CONGU type system or that it wouldn't reduce sandbagging. The example you gave of the 20 handicap scoring 8 strokes below handicap would be jumped upon immediately by the USGA. In addition, they have "peer review" whereby fellow golfers can contest a guys handicap. In Ireland that guy would have to wait 7 years to get back to 20 (4 years in the UK). You are correct in saying that there are not as many tournaments in clubs in the USA. In my club, I think there would only be 3 singles competitions in a year. However, within the club there are numerous groups (i don't want to call them societies as I even hate the word ! ) that run competitions every day. Entrants put $10 a head in and it's divided out over a number of categories - gross, net, skins, or whatever. Sandbaggers may win once but are rarely invited back.

 

For what it's worth, I would prefer if CONGUland adopted the USGA system, BUT limit the inputs to attested scores in ALL forms of play (except foursomes obviously).

[ruca]

Interesting perspective

I have a feeling (some) US players might welcome a system where a player who wins a couple of comps with low scores has to wait a few years for his hcp to go back up ( from eg 13 to 20) instead of the 1 month ( or 20 rounds) it currently might theoretically take

I've also read in other posts that the peer review and challenging people's hcps in the US can be problematic

For my part I hope for these reasons we retain what we have ( I realise more and more how lucky it's not broke for me), maybe with slope added, as per EGA

[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 !!

 

I reject the idea that CONGU/IGU handicaps are the subject of mass abuse. I am Irish and played plenty of golf there and now play in England. Sandbagging occurs when players play below their best in order to fluff their handicaps. To a certain extent it is unavoidable, but the committee can reduce the handicap of players winning four ball or matchplay comps. Non qualifying rounds for betting are a different matter and to be honest, I couldn't care less about those. They weren't a big thing at my previous or current club, even though there are plenty of well moneyed people around. Under CONGU or IGU there is a limit to how fast your handicap can rise. The USGA index can rise a lot faster because it effectively resets each 20 scores.

 

As for cheating, I have played rounds on vacation in the US with guys who took mulligans, used preferred lies all the way round and conceded short putts, then said the score would help their index.

 

As for scores being published, well that varies. My course publishes all competition scores online and you can examine any player's handicaps and hole by hole scores, including away scores, going back years, as well as how they have placed in competitions and how their handicap has tracked. Many Irish clubs do the same. Yours may not, that is their choice. Howdidido and the central database of handicaps are commonly used tools.

 

But if your allegation is that these guys protect their handicaps for betting, then they shouldn't be scoring well in the comps that you could compete in and you should get nett prizes and get your handicap cut.

 

So we can understand better, what are the lengths. course rating/SSS of the Irish and US courses you play at? If you want to name the Irish course, that would be helpful too.

 

Feel free to reject the idea but the facts prove otherwise. I'm not sure how long ago you moved to the UK, but compliance with the CONGU rules in Ireland is somewhat behind the UK. Have a look at http://www.thefairway.ie/ - they have had to change the wording from handicap building to handicap CHEATING. They also had to reduce the max increase in handicap to 1 stroke per year - it's 2 strokes in the rest of CONGUland. Only in Ireland do ALL away non-qualifying scores now have to be reported to your home club, including society outings, team event, fourball and foursomes.

 

The guys you played with while on vacation were cheating themselves if they want to keep their handicaps at a low level. It's a commonly known fact that approx 15% of american golfers play off handicaps below their ability (vanity handicaps). They're only cheating themselves, unless of course you played them for money. The likelihood is that none of these guys ever play tournament golf anyway.

 

The USGA system allows any player with a USGA handicap to see all scores and handicap records of all USGA handicap holders. I even have access to Donald Trump's handicap - not nice, totally fake,,,,,, ! The GUI do not allow individuals to have access to the handicap details of golfers from other clubs due to data protection regulations. The Howdidido database is only updated by some clubs and even that does not give you handicap history/movements. One of the aspects I like within the USGA system is "peer review", whereby any member can contest any players handicap and handicap inputs.

 

As for playing in home club competitions, I am competitive, but when it comes to the bigger prizes (not that I care about prizes) the sandbaggers come out of the woodwork and it's nigh on impossible to win a net prize. I don't have a problem with that provided these guys are caught. That's the whole purpose of my initial post. On the betting front I rarely play for money unless it's off scratch.

 

I'm a member in one 36 hole club in the USA and two in Ireland. In the US there are 5 sets of men's tees on each course. One set of tees on one of the courses has the same yardage as my home club in Ireland (6800 yards). The CR & SSS are close enough @ 73.4 & 72. The second course in Ireland is a nine hole par 68 (2 x 32) course of 5800 yards with no par 5's, lots of trees and small fast greens. Only one set of tees and the SSS is 67. For stableford comps SSS is 37 points for both Irish courses. I can shoot 37 to 40 points regularly on one course but on the shorter course the best score I have had in five years is 39 points. I am not the only one, as several players from the shorter course have recently won prizes in open competitions on the longer course. A +1 handicap friend of mine regularly has to play opens on the longer course to keep his handicap down. He has to shoot under par to avoid point one on the shorter course. Clearly the SSS is incorrect, but the GUI have said it's fine. In any event I do not know of any course where the SSS varies by more then a shot or two from par. Not so in the US.

[DaveLeeNC]

Interesting perspective

I have a feeling (some) US players might welcome a system where a player who wins a couple of comps with low scores has to wait a few years for his hcp to go back up ( from eg 13 to 20) instead of the 1 month ( or 20 rounds) it currently might theoretically take

I've also read in other posts that the peer review and challenging people's hcps in the US can be problematic

For my part I hope for these reasons we retain what we have ( I realise more and more how lucky it's not broke for me), maybe with slope added, as per EGA

 

Just for completeness, if a US player shoots some exceptional scores in tournament play (as defined by the USGA Handicap System - a bit more stringent that "a comp" from what I can tell), his/her handicap will be adjusted by anything from 0 to 14 strokes (depending on how many tournament scores are in the record and how (relatively) low the t scores are). And the process (for a given score) lasts one year. See Section 10-3 of the USGA Handicap System.

 

dave

[tigerheenan]

Interesting perspective

I have a feeling (some) US players might welcome a system where a player who wins a couple of comps with low scores has to wait a few years for his hcp to go back up ( from eg 13 to 20) instead of the 1 month ( or 20 rounds) it currently might theoretically take

I've also read in other posts that the peer review and challenging people's hcps in the US can be problematic

For my part I hope for these reasons we retain what we have ( I realise more and more how lucky it's not broke for meafter ), maybe with slope added, as per EGA

 

Challenging peoples handicaps, either by confronting them or using the peer review system can be problematic anywhere. It takes balls to do it and one has to be wary of litigation threats. Without intending to insult anyone, Americans can be somewhat confrontational and blunt when it comes to sandbaggers. They usually get away with a "hit" once - after that, they're told straight up that they're not welcome. I've witnessed it and it can be very embarrassing for the sandbagger because it's never just a quiet word in his ear. One could say it's the opposite to Ireland where the members will sit at the bar bitching about the sandbagger and when he walks in, they buy him a pint and congratulate him on his recent win !

 

As for the 7 strokes back in a month, unlike CONGU where a guys handicap may be reviewed upwards after 7 point ones, significant increases or decreases in USGA handicaps are flagged. I would say it's impossible, unless he turns up in a wheelchair with a guard dog by his side and gets a medical handicap modification, which in any event is also subject to review.

 

As they say, far away fields are always greener. A lot of Americans think that CONGU is a great system. If everybody went by the rules and all clubs undertook their responsibilities it is a good system. But that unfortunately is not the case. The main reason I prefer the USGA system is that it gives a more accurate reflection of a persons ability as all scores count. If there is to be a hybrid system the basis on which CR & SSS is calculated will have to be consistent.

[tigerheenan]

A lot of posters here correctly say that the SSS and the Course Rating/Slope are linked in the main to course length and the courses I play here and in the US are of similar length (6800 yards), yet the SSS in Ireland is 72 and the CR in USA is 73.4. That's almost a stroke and a half before you start. The main difference in handicap calculation is that in the USA, the course rating is based on a players potential, measured against what a scratch golfer is expected to shoot on a particular course (in my case 73.4) and this is not confined to counting competitions or tournaments. A CONGU handicap is based on a players ability relative to the course SSS and other players on any given day in tournament play only. The Slope Rating also has an affect in the USA but for lower handicaps this is minimal.

 

A course length of 6800 would probably be given a temporary Course Rating of 72.9 without doing a physical assessment. The difference in a full assessment would be down to the obstacles (ie difficulties) encountered on the individual course itself. One may have produced a figure of 72.4 and the other 73.4. The rating is always to 1 dec place.

 

Ireland has used the USGA rating system for many years (at least 10 I believe). The Course Rating is rounded to give the SSS for CONGU purposes. So a CR of 72.4 would be an SSS of 72.

 

The rating is not related to competition play specifically but simply to a 'model' scratch player.

 

Thanks. I appreciate your insight and I understand that allocation of SSS has to start somewhere with course length being the obvious one. It's the "add ons" or obstacle assessment that contribute to the inconsistencies. As far as I know, the rating of a course should be carried out by a competent golfer and that the rating should be undertaken during normal playing conditions i.e. when the rough is at standard height and green speeds are constant. This is usually during the summer season. This is also when most counting competitions are played. It's not an exact science and, while there are guidelines on fairway width at 260 yards etc. it is still very subjective. Do you think the guys assessing the ratings are being a little conservative in their views at times, not wanting to deviate from the standard SSS based on length ? The reason I ask is that 2 of courses I play regularly (or used to) are of similar length (6700/6800), have the same par and SSS of 72. Yet in scoring, there are very different. Starting at course records, one is 67 and the other is 65. Scratch cups are normally won with -4 to -7 on one course whereas it would be -2 to -5 on the other (one 36 hole scratch cup on the easier course had a winner shooting -12 and second was -11). Junior Scratch Cups are won with +1 or +2, whereas on the other course even par or better would be required. As the courses are approx 90 miles apart, there wouldn't be much interaction between the members of each. However, a few years ago four guys from the "harder" course played in an open 4ball competition on the "easier course" - they scored 45 and 46 points respectively (3/4 handicap allowance), having never seen the course before. That may have been a once off anomaly, but for me personally, one course is definitely 2 strokes harder than the other. As a consequence, members from the harder course are labelled "bandits" which is somewhat harsh, even if they do have their fair share ! The easier course always struggle in national competitions above Senior Cup/Barton Shield level.

 

Do you think a more detailed assessment of SSS is warranted, to be carried out by several assessors ? I know there would be manpower issues, but even if it took longer, surely we could get it right. Just a thought (a long winded one !).

[ruca]

A lot of posters here correctly say that the SSS and the Course Rating/Slope are linked in the main to course length and the courses I play here and in the US are of similar length (6800 yards), yet the SSS in Ireland is 72 and the CR in USA is 73.4. That's almost a stroke and a half before you start. The main difference in handicap calculation is that in the USA, the course rating is based on a players potential, measured against what a scratch golfer is expected to shoot on a particular course (in my case 73.4) and this is not confined to counting competitions or tournaments. A CONGU handicap is based on a players ability relative to the course SSS and other players on any given day in tournament play only. The Slope Rating also has an affect in the USA but for lower handicaps this is minimal.

 

A course length of 6800 would probably be given a temporary Course Rating of 72.9 without doing a physical assessment. The difference in a full assessment would be down to the obstacles (ie difficulties) encountered on the individual course itself. One may have produced a figure of 72.4 and the other 73.4. The rating is always to 1 dec place.

 

Ireland has used the USGA rating system for many years (at least 10 I believe). The Course Rating is rounded to give the SSS for CONGU purposes. So a CR of 72.4 would be an SSS of 72.

 

The rating is not related to competition play specifically but simply to a 'model' scratch player.

 

Thanks. I appreciate your insight and I understand that allocation of SSS has to start somewhere with course length being the obvious one. It's the "add ons" or obstacle assessment that contribute to the inconsistencies. As far as I know, the rating of a course should be carried out by a competent golfer and that the rating should be undertaken during normal playing conditions i.e. when the rough is at standard height and green speeds are constant. This is usually during the summer season. This is also when most counting competitions are played. It's not an exact science and, while there are guidelines on fairway width at 260 yards etc. it is still very subjective. Do you think the guys assessing the ratings are being a little conservative in their views at times, not wanting to deviate from the standard SSS based on length ? The reason I ask is that 2 of courses I play regularly (or used to) are of similar length (6700/6800), have the same par and SSS of 72. Yet in scoring, there are very different. Starting at course records, one is 67 and the other is 65. Scratch cups are normally won with -4 to -7 on one course whereas it would be -2 to -5 on the other (one 36 hole scratch cup on the easier course had a winner shooting -12 and second was -11). Junior Scratch Cups are won with +1 or +2, whereas on the other course even par or better would be required. As the courses are approx 90 miles apart, there wouldn't be much interaction between the members of each. However, a few years ago four guys from the "harder" course played in an open 4ball competition on the "easier course" - they scored 45 and 46 points respectively (3/4 handicap allowance), having never seen the course before. That may have been a once off anomaly, but for me personally, one course is definitely 2 strokes harder than the other. As a consequence, members from the harder course are labelled "bandits" which is somewhat harsh, even if they do have their fair share ! The easier course always struggle in national competitions above Senior Cup/Barton Shield level.

 

Do you think a more detailed assessment of SSS is warranted, to be carried out by several assessors ? I know there would be manpower issues, but even if it took longer, surely we could get it right. Just a thought (a long winded one !).

 

You may be asking more of course rating scales than they are capable of:

In scientific disciplines, rating scales ( e.g. In this case course rating or slope) need to undergo a peer reviewed validation process before they are widely adopted. These include measures of validity , consistency, inter and intra rater reliability and so on. I've previously looked for these, and not found anything. I suspect such validation studies may never have been done, let alone published, and so what we have is a fairly crude system, which likely works in general, but doesn't have the precision you are looking for.

[Newby]

If there is to be a hybrid system the basis on which CR & SSS is calculated will have to be consistent.

 

It is. All major handicapping authorities now use the USGA Course Rating System. However, CONGU doesn't yet use Slope.

 

Ratings are done by teams of a minimum of 3 (but may be upto 5) trained assessors. Training takes days. The teams do not always consist of the same people each time. In addition, we may do random spot checks on a couple of holes before the final assessment is published

 

It's not an exact science and, while there are guidelines on fairway width at 260 yards etc. it is still very subjective.

Not so. There is very little subjectivity in the process. Detailed measurements are taken of pretty well everything for every set of tees on every hole.

Cut length of fairway, light rough, depth of bunker, size of green, undulations, stimp, width of landing zones, proximity of water/trees/OB to landing zones, roll length, difficulty of stance (uphill, sideways), prevailing wind.....................

All of which can take 4 or 5 hours.

All this is evaluated numerically to produce the effective difficulty factors. Also taking many hours.

The manuals are updated periodically following experience gained. The latest, last year, related to the evaluation of trees.

[ruca]

Interesting perspective

I have a feeling (some) US players might welcome a system where a player who wins a couple of comps with low scores has to wait a few years for his hcp to go back up ( from eg 13 to 20) instead of the 1 month ( or 20 rounds) it currently might theoretically take

I've also read in other posts that the peer review and challenging people's hcps in the US can be problematic

For my part I hope for these reasons we retain what we have ( I realise more and more how lucky it's not broke for me), maybe with slope added, as per EGA

 

Just for completeness, if a US player shoots some exceptional scores in tournament play (as defined by the USGA Handicap System - a bit more stringent that "a comp" from what I can tell), his/her handicap will be adjusted by anything from 0 to 14 strokes (depending on how many tournament scores are in the record and how (relatively) low the t scores are). And the process (for a given score) lasts one year. See Section 10-3 of the USGA Handicap System.

 

dave

 

So in part the question becomes which system is the easier to manipulate, as both work fine if players and hcp committees follow the systems properly. If a sandbagger gets flagged after exceptional scores, a year later they can go back to where they were and repeat the process again? This basically cannot happen in the CONGU system, as it takes years to get back to the previous hcp. Also an honest US player who plays year round may see his hcp vary by several shots due to weather ( as there is no css or daily scratch component), at certain times may then appear to be a sandbagger.

[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.

 

 

Not sure what the numerous errors you are referring to are.

 

Maybe in your club you can look up you own club's members' score posting, but this is not a requirement of your Golfing Union.There are other ways of accessing a guys scores eg. Howdidido.com, provided the club keeps the systems updated. Each club is only obliged to display an up to date handicap list and details of any adjustments to a member's playing handicap (not every exact handicap alteration). A lot of clubs only do this. This thread relates to the possibility of a unification of all handicaps. In the US one can access the scores of all USGA handicaps, no matter what club you are affiliated to. In Ireland (and I'm sure UK too) one can only access one's own club handicaps and even that is when the system allowed permits.

 

 

Where one plays all of his golf at his home club, his performances in fourballs, foursomes (and even society & team events) should of course be taken into account by the club handicap committee. I was referring to non qualifying competitions at away clubs, which include fourballs, societies and any form of golf where a singles card is not returned through the handicap system. In Ireland individuals are now "obliged" to volunteer this information to their home club, by returning scores from non counting competitions. We are only one month into the "point one" season and to date I have witnessed a breach of this "obligation" on no fewer than 4 occasions.

 

I was once handicap secretary of a club with 900 male handicaps to manage. Over time, one gets to know who the cheats are, but inevitably a number of them will slip through the net. There are not that many, but the ones that are cheating are the ones whose names appear in highlights.The job has become even more difficult in recent years. Since the economic downturn there has been considerable churn in golf club memberships, with a lot of guys quitting and others availing of various offers available at different clubs. More and more clubs are running open competitions and team events, making it even more difficult to track members' playing ability.

 

As for your comment "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" - everybody who plays golf should know they shouldn't cheat, but unfortunately that doesn't stop some of them from cheating in one way or another. If it did, we wouldn't be posting on this thread. By the way, although he's a friend, I am not a member of this guys club. I refused to sign his card, which is all I could really do. Not putting the ball into the hole is not breaking any rule of golf, but it is not in the spirit of the CONGU handicap system. When I realised at a later date that he did get a point one, I reported it. Had it been in the US I would've had access to his club's handicap database I would've seen it immediately and, had it been in the US, those putts would've been considered holed ! His club cancelled the point one and at annual review cut him 2 full shots (he had other notable performances). In my view, his handicap should've been immediately suspended, which is what should've happened according to CONGU.

 

If you think there are any other perceived errors in my original post, I will gladly clarify !

 

 

 

 

 

If I understand correctly, you feel congu in principle is fine, but hcp committees in Ireland are a bit lax, and a proliferation of high prize fund non qualifying team events is undermining the system by encouraging hcp cheating.

I listened to the podcast on the link you gave, and GUI are asking for suggestions as to how to tackle the problem- so here are a few:

1. GUI could ask the other golfing unions (england , Scotland, wales) how they managed such issues

2. In congu, for a player to have a valid hcp is in part contingent on the hcp committee of his club to follow due process. I've heard stories in the U.K. where hcp committees weren't up to scratch , and the threat of every member of a club no longer having a valid hcp was sufficient to bring the committee in line. A polite letter to the clubs in question may work.

3. GUI could instruct clubs to automatically send results of larger prize fund team events to the winning players home clubs, to use in the annual review.

4. Clubs could hold more qualifying (singles) larger prize fund comps instead of non qualifying

5. GUI could impose a prize fund cap for non qualifying competitions

[Newby]

These exceptions to the CONGU regulations may be of interest

 

Ireland

 

Players must return all scores in Non-Qualifying Competitions which have been

played over a Measured Course to which the Unions have allotted a Standard Scratch

Score and where Competition Play Conditions exist. This information is to be used by

the Handicap Committee for immediate consideration/action in accordance with the

provisions of Clause 23(B) with the exception of Category 1 players.

 

 

Scores in relevant Non-Qualifying Competitions must be considered by the Handicap

Committee in accordance with the provisions of Clause 23(B), with the exception of Category 1

players.

 

 

The increase of the lowest Exact Handicap under this clause is restricted to a maximum of 1.0 stroke. England, Scotland and Wales make no direction

under this clause.

[tigerheenan]

If there is to be a hybrid system the basis on which CR & SSS is calculated will have to be consistent.

 

It is. All major handicapping authorities now use the USGA Course Rating System. However, CONGU doesn't yet use Slope.

 

Ratings are done by teams of a minimum of 3 (but may be upto 5) trained assessors. Training takes days. The teams do not always consist of the same people each time. In addition, we may do random spot checks on a couple of holes before the final assessment is published

 

It's not an exact science and, while there are guidelines on fairway width at 260 yards etc. it is still very subjective.

Not so. There is very little subjectivity in the process. Detailed measurements are taken of pretty well everything for every set of tees on every hole.

Cut length of fairway, light rough, depth of bunker, size of green, undulations, stimp, width of landing zones, proximity of water/trees/OB to landing zones, roll length, difficulty of stance (uphill, sideways), prevailing wind.....................

All of which can take 4 or 5 hours.

All this is evaluated numerically to produce the effective difficulty factors. Also taking many hours.

The manuals are updated periodically following experience gained. The latest, last year, related to the evaluation of trees.

 

My understanding was that only the team leader required training, but that's irrelevant if they do the job. Coincidentally, the "easier" course I referred to was being rated yesterday. It'll be interesting to see if anything changes. Just one observation on the timing - it is not mid season, the greens have not recovered from a recent hollow tinning and overseeding due to lack of growth/heat/water. I understood that ratings had to be carried out mid-season when rough, fairway and green grass was at it's normal playing height and firmness.

 

A group of us were together at a team trial last night and I asked for their opinion on the "easiness" of this particular course. It is par 72, SSS 72, BUT has 5 par 5's and 5 par 3's and one driveable par 4. Only one par 5 is over 500 yards and only one par three over 175 yards. The consensus amongst the guys was that it can be both physical and psychological. If one drops a shot early on, there are numerous opportunities for recovery with 4 short par 5's, a drivable par 4 and one very easy par 3 (120 yards). Even for the higher handicap golfer, only having 8 par 4's has to be an advantage. I glanced through the course rating guidelines but couldn't see any reference to par. Should the make up of the 72 par have a bearing on SSS ?

 

You mentioned before that sometimes the difference between CR & SSS may be due to rounding, which would mean that 71.5 is the same as 72.4. Assuming I shoot 72 net on a regular basis, If I have a US handicap it reduces, whereas if I have a CONGU handicap it remains the same.This is hardly consistent. Small margins I know, but, as handicap alterations are based on fractions, surely the SSS should factor in fractions.

[Newby]

My understanding was that only the team leader required training, but that's irrelevant if they do the job. Coincidentally, the "easier" course I referred to was being rated yesterday. It'll be interesting to see if anything changes. Just one observation on the timing - it is not mid season, the greens have not recovered from a recent hollow tinning and overseeding due to lack of growth/heat/water. I understood that ratings had to be carried out mid-season when rough, fairway and green grass was at it's normal playing height and firmness.

 

All members of my teams have been trained but there is no necessity. The significant difference between a leader and assistant is in ensuring all the information is collected and correctly recorded.

 

It is a bit early but I don't know the exact weather and growth conditions. However, green surface quality is not a factor. Stimp readings may be taken later but the head green keeper will be interviewed to find out the club policy on speed, cutting heights (greens, fairways, rough etc for normal club play). If a course is being rated the day before or after the club championship (say), many questions are asked.

 

Should the make up of the 72 par have a bearing on SSS ?

 

I think not. The no of strokes to reach the hole relates directly to the effective length of the hole for the scratch and bogey player. Par is a very crude measure. 18 x 280 yard par 4s and 18 x 430 par 4s produce the same 72 par for the course. But see below.

 

You mentioned before that sometimes the difference between CR & SSS may be due to rounding, which would mean that 71.5 is the same as 72.4. Assuming I shoot 72 net on a regular basis, If I have a US handicap it reduces, whereas if I have a CONGU handicap it remains the same.This is hardly consistent. Small margins I know, but, as handicap alterations are based on fractions, surely the SSS should factor in fractions.

Perhaps, but the SSS and CR were different in the detail. We have to wait until all courses have been rerated (nearly 2000 in England).

But of course CONGU handicap changes are made by reference to the CSS not the SSS. In fact par does feature in the ultimate calculations (with respect, probably too complicated to go into here for general consumption).

[tigerheenan]

I'll let you know how the new rating works out. As for the 5 par 5's and 5 par 3's it definitely makes it easier for the scratch player. Realistically there are at least 6 holes we would expect to make birdie.I can't speak for bogey golfers but. It's a few years since I was on committee there but I do recall looking at away scores one year ~ out of 900 male handicaps holders only 5 guys broke CSS on away scores and they were all cat 1 or 2.

 

I'm no longer a member there but still play it regularly. I'm merely trying to figure it out ~ you probably think at this stage that I'm a grumpy old git with too much time on his hands !!

 

On the other topic of Ireland v other CONGU nation rules. I presume you've seen this www.thefairway.ie . The GUI are doing a lot to try to eliminate handicap cheating. By calling handicap building 'cheating' I think that in itself should prompt other golfers to weed them out.

 

[tigerheenan]

My understanding was that only the team leader required training, but that's irrelevant if they do the job. Coincidentally, the "easier" course I referred to was being rated yesterday. It'll be interesting to see if anything changes. Just one observation on the timing - it is not mid season, the greens have not recovered from a recent hollow tinning and overseeding due to lack of growth/heat/water. I understood that ratings had to be carried out mid-season when rough, fairway and green grass was at it's normal playing height and firmness.

 

All members of my teams have been trained but there is no necessity. The significant difference between a leader and assistant is in ensuring all the information is collected and correctly recorded.

 

It is a bit early but I don't know the exact weather and growth conditions. However, green surface quality is not a factor. Stimp readings may be taken later but the head green keeper will be interviewed to find out the club policy on speed, cutting heights (greens, fairways, rough etc for normal club play). If a course is being rated the day before or after the club championship (say), many questions are asked.

 

Should the make up of the 72 par have a bearing on SSS ?

 

I think not. The no of strokes to reach the hole relates directly to the effective length of the hole for the scratch and bogey player. Par is a very crude measure. 18 x 280 yard par 4s and 18 x 430 par 4s produce the same 72 par for the course. But see below.

 

You mentioned before that sometimes the difference between CR & SSS may be due to rounding, which would mean that 71.5 is the same as 72.4. Assuming I shoot 72 net on a regular basis, If I have a US handicap it reduces, whereas if I have a CONGU handicap it remains the same.This is hardly consistent. Small margins I know, but, as handicap alterations are based on fractions, surely the SSS should factor in fractions.

Perhaps, but the SSS and CR were different in the detail. We have to wait until all courses have been rerated (nearly 2000 in England).

But of course CONGU handicap changes are made by reference to the CSS not the SSS. In fact par does feature in the ultimate calculations (with respect, probably too complicated to go into here for general consumption).

I'll let you know how the new rating works out. As for the 5 par 5's and 5 par 3's it definitely makes it easier for the scratch player. Realistically there are at least 6 holes we would expect to make birdie.I can't speak for bogey golfers. It's a few years since I was on committee there but I do recall looking at away scores one year ~ out of 900 male handicaps holders only 5 guys broke CSS on away scores and they were all cat 1 or 2.

 

I'm no longer a member there but still play it regularly. I'm merely trying to figure it out ~ you probably think at this stage that I'm a grumpy old git with too much time on his hands !!

 

On the other topic of Ireland v other CONGU nation rules. I presume you've seen this www.thefairway.ie . The GUI are doing a lot to try to eliminate handicap cheating. By calling handicap building 'cheating' I think that in itself should prompt other golfers to weed them out.

[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 !!

 

 

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.

 

 

Not sure what the numerous errors you are referring to are.

 

Maybe in your club you can look up you own club's members' score posting, but this is not a requirement of your Golfing Union.There are other ways of accessing a guys scores eg. Howdidido.com, provided the club keeps the systems updated. Each club is only obliged to display an up to date handicap list and details of any adjustments to a member's playing handicap (not every exact handicap alteration). A lot of clubs only do this. This thread relates to the possibility of a unification of all handicaps. In the US one can access the scores of all USGA handicaps, no matter what club you are affiliated to. In Ireland (and I'm sure UK too) one can only access one's own club handicaps and even that is when the system allowed permits.

 

 

Where one plays all of his golf at his home club, his performances in fourballs, foursomes (and even society & team events) should of course be taken into account by the club handicap committee. I was referring to non qualifying competitions at away clubs, which include fourballs, societies and any form of golf where a singles card is not returned through the handicap system. In Ireland individuals are now "obliged" to volunteer this information to their home club, by returning scores from non counting competitions. We are only one month into the "point one" season and to date I have witnessed a breach of this "obligation" on no fewer than 4 occasions.

 

I was once handicap secretary of a club with 900 male handicaps to manage. Over time, one gets to know who the cheats are, but inevitably a number of them will slip through the net. There are not that many, but the ones that are cheating are the ones whose names appear in highlights.The job has become even more difficult in recent years. Since the economic downturn there has been considerable churn in golf club memberships, with a lot of guys quitting and others availing of various offers available at different clubs. More and more clubs are running open competitions and team events, making it even more difficult to track members' playing ability.

 

As for your comment "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" - everybody who plays golf should know they shouldn't cheat, but unfortunately that doesn't stop some of them from cheating in one way or another. If it did, we wouldn't be posting on this thread. By the way, although he's a friend, I am not a member of this guys club. I refused to sign his card, which is all I could really do. Not putting the ball into the hole is not breaking any rule of golf, but it is not in the spirit of the CONGU handicap system. When I realised at a later date that he did get a point one, I reported it. Had it been in the US I would've had access to his club's handicap database I would've seen it immediately and, had it been in the US, those putts would've been considered holed ! His club cancelled the point one and at annual review cut him 2 full shots (he had other notable performances). In my view, his handicap should've been immediately suspended, which is what should've happened according to CONGU.

 

If you think there are any other perceived errors in my original post, I will gladly clarify !

 

 

 

 

 

If I understand correctly, you feel congu in principle is fine, but hcp committees in Ireland are a bit lax, and a proliferation of high prize fund non qualifying team events is undermining the system by encouraging hcp cheating.

I listened to the podcast on the link you gave, and GUI are asking for suggestions as to how to tackle the problem- so here are a few:

1. GUI could ask the other golfing unions (england , Scotland, wales) how they managed such issues

2. In congu, for a player to have a valid hcp is in part contingent on the hcp committee of his club to follow due process. I've heard stories in the U.K. where hcp committees weren't up to scratch , and the threat of every member of a club no longer having a valid hcp was sufficient to bring the committee in line. A polite letter to the clubs in question may work.

3. GUI could instruct clubs to automatically send results of larger prize fund team events to the winning players home clubs, to use in the annual review.

4. Clubs could hold more qualifying (singles) larger prize fund comps instead of non qualifying

5. GUI could impose a prize fund cap for non qualifying competitions

 

 

Exactly. The CONGU system itself would be fine if all clubs and players played by the rules. I admire the GUI's efforts in trying to address the situation. Each one of your suggestions is valid and, from my own knowledge, the powers that be in the GUI have already taken on board all of them:

 

1. All golfing unions within the CONGU system are in regular contact with each other and these issues are the subject of ongoing discussion

 

2. The GUI have a training program and seminars for handicap committees on how to implement the CONGU system correctly. As far as I know, the response has been positive. Of course there will be club officers who will interpret the rules differently. Awareness of the rules in itself should promote conformity and the Handicap Awareness Month (March) should have a positive effect. Players and clubs are encouraged to notify the GUI if clubs (or individual players) are in breach of the rules.

 

3. In Ireland clubs and players are now obliged to return all scores from non qualifying competitions, including societies, corporate days, team events, fourballs and foursomes. The value of prizes is irrelevant in respect of the return. If a club returns a card to a player's home club and the player himself doesn't, he may have his handicap suspended for non return.

 

4. Clubs are encouraged to run more counting competitions in the off season. Increasing the value of prizes hasn't been suggested as most clubs are struggling financially. In the past, golf clubs in Ireland were a social focal point in any community. However, a combination of changed drink driving and drinking habits, most clubhouses now close early and some don't even open midweek. A lot of clubs have had to reduce annual subscriptions to try to retain members. In many cases clubs run these 3 or 4 person open team events to increase numbers. If anything, prize values have been reducing. Even though these comps are illegal without an independent marker, they do generate badly needed income.

 

5. I agree with you but at the moment the general R & A cap of £500 applies. It would be difficult for the GUI to impose a lower level. In a lot of cases, companies pay sizable fees to enter teams in these events and smaller prizes may affect numbers playing. This in turn affects host club income (fees they charge to organisers, bar / restaurant income), income for genuine charities etc.

 

The bottom line is if the recent Handicap Awareness month generates enough interest in honest handicapping, changes will become evident. In addition to the introduction of a few simple rules on returning cards, I think the key message is that they now call it CHEATING, not just handicap building. Heretofore, a lot of golfers tolerated or just moaned about sandbaggers, but would not tolerate cheating. Now it's all just cheating.

 

Just to give you an example of what can (and did) happen. Last year a handicap secretary in a prominent city golf club re-opened a singles competition on the next day and submitted a card for point one. He hadn't even played but needed an extra point one for a playing handicap increase. He was caught (there were one or two other indiscretions with N/R's) and had his handicap suspended. Everybody was surprised but satisfied with the outcome. Then it was discovered that, while under suspension, he won a major prize in a non qualifying corporate event. His suspension wasn't even extended. I reckon if that happened in the UK, he wouldn't have a handicap for a long long time (if ever again) and rightly so. We do have some beauties !!

[Singapore Joe]

I finally read the whole thread and here's my five cents.

 

1) The Australian new system is IMHO pretty good. Clubs run their little comps and mostly the rounds played on those little comps are eligible for handicapping. Some courses run them each day, the others on some days only. I normally pay a green fee plus a little competition fee, typically between AUD5 and AUD10. Winner gets a nominal token prize such as a little voucher for the pro shop. Last time I won something was a nearest to the pin sub-competition and I won AUD10 voucher. Hardly worth cheating for. Was a bit embarrassing, though, as I had an awful round - scored something like 20 stableford points and the only good shot of the day was that tee shot.

 

1') I like these little comp thingies. They add a bit of extra spark and excitment into the game. Ergo, I try to play most of my rounds in clubs that have a comp on the day when I play. Been playing pretty bad recently and my HC has jumped up four shots in a short period of time but at least I am in an equilibrium where I have a realistic chance to score around 36 stableford points [all handicapping is done in stableford points even if the comp format is different]. Isn't that more or less how handicapping is supposed to work?

 

2) USA has ten times the population of Australia and a lot more aversion to anything centrally controlled. States in the USA [and individual organizations], to my understanding, are a lot more agnostic (for the lack of better word) about the central government than Australian states and territories which, combined with the population difference, could mean that the Australian solution doesn't conveniently scale up.

 

3) A lot of foes in the US handicapping seem to come from there being $$ involved in every day rounds. I have never in my life played a round for money, haven't even been suggested to do that. That is, outside the little pro shop vouchers. Can't attest to that not happening in this neck of the woods but if there is no money at stake, the incentive to cheat on the handicapping is reduced.

 

4) If, in a game like golf, you can not trust the integrity of players to maintain an honest handical, i.e. to post honest scores, to play by the rules [and to make an effort to know them], etc. the axioms required for any handicapping system to function are not there. The impact of intentional deviations may be minimized by procedures for dealing with anomalies and for subjective judgement and alteration of the formal handicaps but that is also not without flaws.

 

4') If I was a prudent golfer with a low HC, I probably wouldn't want to play any nett games involving $$.

 

5) For the question of whether every player should have an equal chance of winning, I personally don't think so. Good players should be rewarded for being good but the hackers should also have a non-negligible possibility of punching above their weight on a good day. I don't have data on this so I may be wrong, but I would imagine that - depending on the specific player's profile for scores [e.g. consistently high numbers or lot of good numbers surrounded by bad holes resulting from shanking tee shots into the woods] - for a high capper the proportional difference between a good day and a bad day is bigger than for a scratch golfer so there should be a way or rewarding the high capper for an exceptionally good round when the stars align just right but there should not be an expectation of that happening easily.

[Newby]

I don't have data on this so I may be wrong, but I would imagine that - depending on the specific player's profile for scores [e.g. consistently high numbers or lot of good numbers surrounded by bad holes resulting from shanking tee shots into the woods] - for a high capper the proportional difference between a good day and a bad day is bigger than for a scratch golfer so there should be a way or rewarding the high capper for an exceptionally good round when the stars align just right but there should not be an expectation of that happening easily.

 

In fact the old CONGU website had some interesting stuff confirming that impression. Oddly, when they recently (ie last year) introduced the new site, the whole section of stats were no longer included.

[PJ72]

If there is to be a hybrid system the basis on which CR & SSS is calculated will have to be consistent.

 

It is. All major handicapping authorities now use the USGA Course Rating System. However, CONGU doesn't yet use Slope.

 

Ratings are done by teams of a minimum of 3 (but may be upto 5) trained assessors. Training takes days. The teams do not always consist of the same people each time. In addition, we may do random spot checks on a couple of holes before the final assessment is published

 

It's not an exact science and, while there are guidelines on fairway width at 260 yards etc. it is still very subjective.

Not so. There is very little subjectivity in the process. Detailed measurements are taken of pretty well everything for every set of tees on every hole.

Cut length of fairway, light rough, depth of bunker, size of green, undulations, stimp, width of landing zones, proximity of water/trees/OB to landing zones, roll length, difficulty of stance (uphill, sideways), prevailing wind.....................

All of which can take 4 or 5 hours.

All this is evaluated numerically to produce the effective difficulty factors. Also taking many hours.

The manuals are updated periodically following experience gained. The latest, last year, related to the evaluation of trees.

Excellent post.

 

When are we likely to see course ratings being used in England?

 

How often are the course ratings undertaken? Who pays for the assessments?

 

Will handicaps be changed automatically, or just as competitions are played?

[Singapore Joe]

I don't have data on this so I may be wrong, but I would imagine that - depending on the specific player's profile for scores [e.g. consistently high numbers or lot of good numbers surrounded by bad holes resulting from shanking tee shots into the woods] - for a high capper the proportional difference between a good day and a bad day is bigger than for a scratch golfer so there should be a way or rewarding the high capper for an exceptionally good round when the stars align just right but there should not be an expectation of that happening easily.

 

In fact the old CONGU website had some interesting stuff confirming that impression. Oddly, when they recently (ie last year) introduced the new site, the whole section of stats were no longer included.

We need a Hans Rosling for golf!

[Newby]

When are we likely to see course ratings being used in England?

 

How often are the course ratings undertaken? Who pays for the assessments?

 

Will handicaps be changed automatically, or just as competitions are played?

 

1) We are now rating under the USGA system and the resultant CR is used as the SSS. But until all courses are rated (about 200 out of 2000 have been done so far) Slope cannot be introduced. The optimistic aim is 2020. However, there has been a suggestion that in conjunction with the USGA, a temporary formula or factor may be used for slope. But that is not certain at all.

Scotland, Wales and Ireland have used the USGA rating system for some years. Slope is not used by CONGU at present.

Visitors from other countries have access to the slope figure for use in USGA, EGA or other systems.

 

2) All course must be rated every 10 years, new courses reassessed within 5 and any courses making significant changes, as necessary.

 

3) It is not yet clear. My feeling is that the CONGU exact handicap will be used as the USGA handicap index and a major review made after years one and two.

[mjtoal]

I don't have data on this so I may be wrong, but I would imagine that - depending on the specific player's profile for scores [e.g. consistently high numbers or lot of good numbers surrounded by bad holes resulting from shanking tee shots into the woods] - for a high capper the proportional difference between a good day and a bad day is bigger than for a scratch golfer so there should be a way or rewarding the high capper for an exceptionally good round when the stars align just right but there should not be an expectation of that happening easily.

 

In fact the old CONGU website had some interesting stuff confirming that impression. Oddly, when they recently (ie last year) introduced the new site, the whole section of stats were no longer included.

 

Well, higher handicaps by definition shoot both higher scores and as with most data sets in science it would therefore be expected that they also have higher variability. The variability is probably not linear either.

[Singapore Joe]

I don't have data on this so I may be wrong, but I would imagine that - depending on the specific player's profile for scores [e.g. consistently high numbers or lot of good numbers surrounded by bad holes resulting from shanking tee shots into the woods] - for a high capper the proportional difference between a good day and a bad day is bigger than for a scratch golfer so there should be a way or rewarding the high capper for an exceptionally good round when the stars align just right but there should not be an expectation of that happening easily.

 

In fact the old CONGU website had some interesting stuff confirming that impression. Oddly, when they recently (ie last year) introduced the new site, the whole section of stats were no longer included.

 

Well, higher handicaps by definition shoot both higher scores and as with most data sets in science it would therefore be expected that they also have higher variability. The variability is probably not linear either.

Yes, but also the handicap is (using Australia as an example) not playing ability, either, but some sort of an approximation of the best possible score. You take the average of the eight best of twenty most recent scores (after corrected by the course rating) and multiply by 0.93. That is after the scores have been converted to Stableford points. After all these corrections, the differences in the variances are supposed to smoothen out but it is hard to know how accurate the correction method is for low vs. high cappers.

 

Golf Australia published a statistical justification of the new system when it was introduced in 2014 but can't find it anywhere now. They also keep tweaking the handicapping system (the latest by modifying the range in which the daily scratch rate may vary relative to the static course scratch rate) so I am assuming some statistician out there is working hard on the handicapping system. Maybe one day we will get some analysis. Given that all handicaps are maintained by a central system, there is a lot of data to operate on.