Worldwide Handicap System

Just following up on a few posts recently on the San Diego thread. I should say that overall I think there is more good than bad in the outlined proposed new system, but there are some wrinkles I reckon UK golfers might struggle with.
There has been quite a bit of ink devoted to the am winner of the Pebble Beach event last week. Winner, an American footballer, and avid golfer eventually won (with his pro partner) by 7 shots. Ams handicap (round numbers) was 11, plus an extra 2 shots based on course, but irrespective of conditions etc which turned out to be excellent. Apparently over a period of a few months his handicap has moved from a High of 12, through a low of 6 and subsequently back to 11.
My question is, what standard of golfer is he? I don’t see a real clue from his reported scores, recognising that many of them are probably casual rounds with a few mates. I am struggling to think of a competitive handicap swinging quite so far, without a special review for injury illness etc.
I’m not suggesting he’s a bandit, but rather this type of fluctuating handicap is a real possibility, furthering muddying the waters rather than adding any clarity.
Any views?

I'm surprised anyone could move from 6 to 11 in the space of a few months, but then I don't understand the American handicap system very well.

I can only say that having played with a lot of Americans at St.Andrews the UK and American handicaps do not represent the same number from what I can tell.

You'd really have to thrash it around to slide five strokes using the USGA system, especially from that level. Almost impossible I'd say.
You'd pretty much have to have twenty rounds, the great majority of which were considerably higher than he'd shot for the previous 20.
He's a bandit - great receiver though he clearly is!

From what I saw he was one heck of an amateur golfer. Maybe they only showed the good stuff, but that was on par with what the pros did.

He’d gone from 12 to 6 and then back to 11 in approx 3 months according to reports. 18 rounds recorded in January, but many of those must have been bounce games? Just makes me wonder how relevant those are to assessing standard?
In some earlier correspondence I had with a US journalist - around the time the most recent changes were made in US, Canada etc - he reckoned US system was geared to an assessment based on potential, where UK was geared to performance, and hence the focus on competition rounds.
Super - it’s a more simple mathematical formula - in essence average score of your best 10 rounds from last 20, on a rolling basis. Lots more detail, but that’s the guts. Handicap for any round is adjusted by course rating of the track you are playing.

puligny wrote:He’d gone from 12 to 6 and then back to 11 in approx 3 months according to reports. 18 rounds recorded in January, but many of those must have been bounce games? Just makes me wonder how relevant those are to assessing standard?
In some earlier correspondence I had with a US journalist - around the time the most recent changes were made in US, Canada etc - he reckoned US system was geared to an assessment based on potential, where UK was geared to performance, and hence the focus on competition rounds.
Super - it’s a more simple mathematical formula - in essence average score of your best 10 rounds from last 20, on a rolling basis. Lots more detail, but that’s the guts. Handicap for any round is adjusted by course rating of the track you are playing.

I think the word "potential" is a good description, but it's kind of a good leveller, and difficult to do extreme variants from (altho' Larry Fitz seems to have run an alternative route). Contrarian to super, I've played several rounds with blokes with (apocryphal?) GB handicaps and they've not been within a prayer. Having a handicap as "exacting" is, I think, a sound aspiration. It's certainly difficult to graduate from.

I think any handicap system where you can go from 12 to 6 and back to 11 in 3 months is too reactionary and wide open to abuse. Even 6.4 to 10.5 would be 41 bad rounds. Even with the new (7 in a row) introduction to the rules it would 21 rounds at least to get back up. Easily the thick end of a whole season not 3months minus the time period required to come down.

If a handicap is to somehow be a more accurate assessment of scoring ability then it’s further complicated by golfers who play different courses as different courses suit different styles of play and can exacerbate certain weaknesses. PB ain’t exactly tight off the tee but unless you have an excellent short game and know where/where not to miss you ain’t going to get near your handicap.

There is a simpler way to work out what your score is.

Just count up how many shots you have taken.

super_realist wrote:
I can only say that having played with a lot of Americans at St.Andrews the UK and American handicaps do not represent the same number from what I can tell.

From what I've seen, the US and European handicap is based on a "standard" (aka easy) course, and then you add the course rating to arrive at your playing handicap for that course. This can mean adding several shots. This concept makes a lot of sense because your handicap is standard and comparable from course to course, but it also means people quote their standard handicap which may be several shots lower than their playing handicap when they take on a championship course.

TOC has a slope rating of 132 off the whites and a SSS of 73. Let's assume on a normal day CSS = SSS, so a UK 18 handicapper gets an extra shot, but a US 18 handicapper gets THREE extra shots. All things being equal, the American would be the equivalent of a 20 handicapper in the UK.

SSS is nonsense for handicap golfers, because the difficulty for a scratch golfer is not relevant to an 18 handicapper. This becomes particularly true when you have forced carries over water etc which might be easy for a low handicapper but massively intimidating for a high handicapper. I played with a higher handicapper at Sunningdale and he couldn't handle the carries, there was no way he could play within 5 shots of his handicap, but the SSS is par.

Under the current British system, an 18 handicapper at Carnoustie is going to be a much better golfer than an 18 handicapper at a short easy course. Handicaps shouldn't be able to travel well, they should be the same.

McLaren wrote:There is a simpler way to work out what your score is.

Just count up how many shots you have taken.  

...and that’s exactly why scratch Opens are so much more attractive than handicap Opens. There’s an honesty there in just counting up your shots...end!!

Q. Do you know how to tell when someone is a hacker?
A. They talk in net scores.

With the greatest of respect S_R, that's typical Cat 1 snobbism. I'm sure you did exactly that once. Much as I enjoy scratch comps, I like playing with all sorts and the golf handicapping system is a great way to even things out for everyone.

Don't we all play golf for fun? Assuming no one is a closet professional. Surely thats why yhe handicap system is in place, to make it enjoyable for all to play. Its probably not perfect but still works. People that lose due to the system really should take stock of whats important.

beninho wrote:Don't we all play golf for fun? Assuming no one is a closet professional. Surely thats why yhe handicap system is in place, to make it enjoyable for all to play. Its probably not perfect but still works. People that lose due to the system really should take stock of whats important.

By and large yeah, it’s good to see people you know playing week in week out shoot a net 62, you’ve seen them buffer, 0.1 etc in previous few weeks, you know their game and you know they’ve had a great day and you can be happy for them. On the other hand you see something like the Trilby Tour and there’s some bandit on there who will have spent the best part of a Year deliberately 0.1ing or avoiding qualifyng comps when playing well...rocks up and suddenly shoots 40 odd points under pressure.

That probably happens. Though you do have to wonder what kind of ar#ehole would deliberately set out to do that. I'm no member of a club and play with pretty much the same people always at different courses, so dont see the handicap cheats(?).

JAS wrote:

beninho wrote:Don't we all play golf for fun? Assuming no one is a closet professional. Surely thats why yhe handicap system is in place, to make it enjoyable for all to play. Its probably not perfect but still works. People that lose due to the system really should take stock of whats important.

By and large yeah, it’s good to see people you know playing week in week out shoot a net 62, you’ve seen them buffer, 0.1 etc in previous few weeks, you know their game and you know they’ve had a great day and you can be happy for them. On the other hand you see something like the Trilby Tour and there’s some bandit on there who will have spent the best part of a Year deliberately  0.1ing or avoiding qualifyng comps when playing well...rocks up and suddenly shoots 40 odd points under pressure.

True, but like most things of this type, the perception in terms of the numbers doing this is almost certainly worse than the reality. Annoying, I agree, but for the most part, the handicapping is more or less a reasonable reflection of standard.

super_realist wrote:Q. Do you know how to tell when someone is a hacker?
A. They talk in net scores.

This is so true. I always get confused when you see someone in the clubhouse after the round, ask how they did, and they tell you their net score.

Is that something to do with lacrosse?

navyblueshorts wrote:With the greatest of respect S_R, that's typical Cat 1 snobbism. I'm sure you did exactly that once. Much as I enjoy scratch comps, I like playing with all sorts and the golf handicapping system is a great way to even things out for everyone.

I like playing with all handicaps too, but if you talk in Net scores, you'll not improve as quickly as you do if you talk in Gross.
Talking in Net Scores makes it sound like you're doing alright.
I could improve my Gross by taking off my handicap, but it doesn't really improve me in any way does it?

I completely agree. I’m a hacker as well but really roll my eyes when other hackers talk like that. It’s often the same ones who have the newest gear, are dress code fascists and wear their golf clothes / shoes 24/7.

I've never really heard people talking about nett score or boasting about it. Its a bit odd though, because if you have a good net score you've done well for your level with the gross score.

People shouldn't be embarrassed of their level of playing golf, likewise better players shouldn't look down on players or make them feel they have to talk of net scores instead of gross.

Last year I played over in Spain, covered by the EGA handicap rules.

My handicap at the time was 13, & as we were playing a more difficult (higher slope) course my handicap went up to 16. One of my playing partners were playing off 21 & his handicap went up 6 shots.

Not surprisingly the new 27 handicapper went on to win the competition.

He apologised about his new handicap all the way around, especially after he had won.

Perhaps he just had a very good day? Anyone off a hcp in the 20s is going to blow hot and cold w.r.t. their hcp.

Outline of the new system released this week by R&A and USGA.
Key takeaways appear to be:
Best 8 of last 20 rounds - previous suggestion was 10 of 20;
Effort to avoid volatility of handicap movements within the original proposal;
More rounds to count, particularly stroke and Stableford, but it appears some flexibility over all rounds needing to count? Also no sign of match play rounds counting, which again was in the original proposal;
Scheduled for implementation in 2020;
Anticipated that initially most (all) UK handicaps will reduce slightly;
Some means of allowing exceptional scores to be reflected over a longer period;
More details to follow.

Overall I reckon it’s an improvement, if only because it will pretty much guarantee more scores being taken into account for handicap purposes. As ever the devil will be in the detail.

So are we going to be expected to enter scores from "bounce" games? And NQ comps?

I think the answer is yes - though there is still some detail to follow about the level of flexibility available to the ‘local handicap authority’ clubs or individual players. As it’s the best 8 from 20 to count it provides a good balance, and generally handicaps here are anticipated to reduce?
While the calculation will have some complexity, and certainly not as straightforward as current, you can get a reasonable idea just by keeping a record of future scores. Interestingly I gather they are trying to establish a mechanism taking account of the weather conditions on any day to have that factored in as it would be for css! Just an example of the extent to which they are trying to reflect current practice in the various jurisdictions. It will also use the USGA course rating system, now pretty much established in the UK.

[quote="raycastleunited"]

super_realist wrote:



Under the current British system, an 18 handicapper at Carnoustie is going to be a much better golfer than an 18 handicapper at a short easy course.

That shouldn't be the case. With things the way they are, CSS and SSS should work so that an 18 handicapper anywhere is about the same standard as an 18 handicapper somewhere else.

In practice, it doesn't quite work because the CSS and SSS are always a bit too low on tougher courses, and vice versa. If the SSS at Carnoustie was (say) three higher, then everyone's handicap would be three lower. This would stop the anomaly of an 18 handicapper at Carnoustie being a better player than an 18 handicapper at Pushover GC.

Clubs tend to press to have their SSS for men between 70 and 73. Less than 70 and it is perceived as a push over, more then 73 and it's perceived as too tough.

Reduction only comps, and non qualifiers help to hold the SSS and CSS in the 70-73 range. I've played at Carnoustie on days when the stableford winner was 28 points, which you could safely assume meant nobody played within 10 of their handicap.

I would like to see CSS based on handicap splits. i.e. <10 and >10

George,

When you type "in practice, it doesn't quite work" there is a healthy amount of under statement.

An 18 handicapper at Carnoustie is likely to be significantly better than an 18 handicapper at Pushover GC, even allowing for the difference in SSS. Take them both to a neutral venue, put them in the field for the Honda Classic as an example... and I'd expect the Carnoustie member to finish 15 shots ahead over the course of 4 rounds.

Yes, you are right. I think perhaps this will change (a bit) during 2018 as club handicaps can rise higher than they have been until this year. And certainly when the new handicap system is adopted.

We'll see.

Another consideration here...I’m making the assumption that with the new system handicaps will become a bit more volatile therefore, when planning a season and planning Open events, some of which have handicap limits, one could more likely get into situations where you apply for an open and get in....only to become ineligible by the day the Open comes around.

Does that happen?

I don't know as I don't try and enter anything of note (80's gag warning - I entered a Marathon once, got peanuts all over my knob ) but I would have guessed that you only had to be low enough at the time the entry closes/at the point you submit your entry. Do they turn people away on the day for no longer being at the qualifying mark? (and wouldn't this cause issues with the day's groupings?)

Roller_Coaster wrote:Does that happen?

I don't know as I don't try and enter anything of note (80's gag warning - I entered a Marathon once, got peanuts all over my knob ) but I would have guessed that you only had to be low enough at the time the entry closes/at the point you submit your entry. Do they turn people away on the day for no longer being at the qualifying mark? (and wouldn't this cause issues with the day's groupings?)

I haven’t been in the situation yet so I don’t know. Your handicap when you enter deems whether you can enter or not, if it then shoots up your handicap at the closing date for entries may exclude you at that point (especially if it’s a ballot). Past that point i would expect if you made it in you made it in. Think it would be a bit petty and churlish to then exclude on the Day based on handicap. That’s just my personal opinion though.

Never heard of your handicap on the day counting to whether you get to play or not. Handicap at time of entry is surely all that matters. It's not like you're going to go from Scratch to 2 in the time it took you to apply.

JAS wrote:Another consideration here...I’m making the assumption that with the new system handicaps will become a bit more volatile therefore, when planning a season and planning Open events, some of which have handicap limits, one could more likely get into situations where you apply for an open and get in....only to become ineligible by the day the Open comes around.

I am sure most clubs would allow a player whose handicap had risen above the handicap limit since entry to play. They would only receive the benefit of the handicap up to the limit.