Is It Time To End The Failed Handicap System.

GreeBo

finally someone else who understand the point of handicaps.
they are not a device to let you win when you play well.
the number of people complaining that their initial handicap was too low on another thread was frankly scary.think of your handicap as your potential, not your average and you will understand it better.

the reason the current system doesn't properly allow for rapid reductions is that you are supposed to be playing regular qualifying competitions, ensuring regular cuts if you somehow radically improve.
going on a 3 month regime of practice and lessons but not playing competitions is of course going to break the system; you are operating outside of it, how do you expect it to account for that?

Rikand

Bandits will always be bandits. Cheats will always be cheats. The only thing you can be is true to yourself and as long as you are, the handicap system works perfectly

Handicap isnt just a measure of your playing ability, but it's also a measure of how you deal with the pressure in a qualifying competition.

Ye folks with handicaps that you say dont match your games or who say the system is wrong because in a casual round of golf you regularly shoot half your handicap, it's a different ball game when you have a scorecard in your back pocket.

I play off 5. In casual rounds of golf, I can shoot under par on a regular basis without even thinking about it, but as soon as the card goes in the back pocket, shooting 5 over is every bit as tough as it should be.

Play in competitions, play as often as you can, if you feel you should be 9 instead of 18, in time your handicap will come down to where it should be and vice versa

Dublin Spur

Almaviva wrote: »

Of course they do. 80% of golfers are in the range 10-20, so winners are most likely to be from this category.

I accept your point but are you sure that's the only reason ?

I don't think so in my experience.

there's a high amount of players < 10 and > 20 in my club, players in these ranges very rarely feature in the honours.

There's something fishy going on between 10 and 18.

MP62

Dublin Spur wrote: »

I accept your point but are you sure that's the only reason ?

I don't think so in my experience.

there's a high amount of players < 10 and > 20 in my club, players in these ranges very rarely feature in the honours.

There's something fishy going on between 10 and 18.

Have a read here and you'll find alot of the stuff being bandied about these days is just nonsense.

Freemount09

I think the non-returning of cards must be cut out. If someone signs into the comp then why can they not submit their results ?

Maybe, each person in a group should be assigned as a marker to another person, so if someone doesn't submit their card maybe the marker should be penialised in some form ?

Also, it'd never happen but, I'd like to see a stop to the same 4 guys going out together every week in competitions.

GreeBo

Freemount09 wrote: »

I think the non-returning of cards must be cut out. If someone signs into the comp then why can they not submit their results ?

Maybe, each person in a group should be assigned as a marker to another person, so if someone doesn't submit their card maybe the marker should be penialised in some form ?

Also, it'd never happen but, I'd like to see a stop to the same 4 guys going out together every week in competitions.

In my club once you enter the comp you get 0.1 back if you dont enter results.

Also, the ladies club only allow each person to enter 2 names on the timesheet so there is always at least one "new" person on the line. Helps people to mix too.

Mr. Larson

Freemount09 wrote: »

I think the non-returning of cards must be cut out. If someone signs into the comp then why can they not submit their results ?

Clubs need to be more consistent & in sync on this one. Some clubs give out 0.1's for non returns of a card/score input (assuming the player has signed in already) and others don't. Now I'm not sure exacly how the competition system works when I say this but competition secretaries that don't insist on doling out 0.1's for non returns of cards seem lazy to me.

diarmuid05

I've been doing a bit of thinking about this recently.
I think one of the problems is consistency.

Higher handicap players are high handicap players because they are inconsistent.
I played with a guy off 21 on Sunday. He had 22 Points on the front 9 with a scratch. 22 points for 8 holes just under 3 per hole

He duly went on to blow up and went on to scratch another 3 holes.

So his handicap was right at the end of the day.
But his ability does not match his handicap. He was well capable of getting pars(had 1 Birdie).

his only problem is he threw away some holes.
All he has to do is have 1 day where he doesn't scratch any hole and he'll easily have 45+.

It might be an idea to calculate handicaps without including scratches. i think it would be a more accurate refection of ability.

m r c

One thing I'd like to change about the handicap system would be some way where you could reject .1's. I am on some great form ATM but had 26 yesterday and really don't want it. I want to get lower and the .1's are a pain in the ass. Yesterday was the exception.
Why would it be a problem though, think about it for a minute. Golf is a game of honesty and honestly I think my h/c is too high(at least for my liking :-).

MP62

m r c wrote: »

One thing I'd like to change about the handicap system would be some way where you could reject .1's. I am on some great form ATM but had 26 yesterday and really don't want it. I want to get lower and the .1's are a pain in the ass. Yesterday was the exception.
Why would it be a problem though, think about it for a minute. Golf is a game of honesty and honestly I think my h/c is too high(at least for my liking :-).

Because believe it or not there is more cheating by certain category 1 players trying to avoid .1's and therefore playing off artificially low HC's and in turn keeping legitimate players out of major championships like the south and west of Ireland, than there is fellas like yourself who don't really want it but probably need it.

m r c

MP62 wrote: »

Because believe it or not there is more cheating by certain category 1 players trying to avoid .1's and therefore playing off artificially low HC's and in turn keeping legitimate players out of major championships like the south and west of Ireland, than there is fellas like yourself who don't really want it but probably need it.

Aw this game'd do yer nut wouldn't it

Goes to show though, the current system is fairly close to perfect when you take all the arguments into account.

m r c

MP62 wrote: »

Because believe it or not there is more cheating by certain category 1 players trying to avoid .1's and therefore playing off artificially low HC's and in turn keeping legitimate players out of major championships like the south and west of Ireland, than there is fellas like yourself who don't really want it but probably need it.

And ha I only read the end of yer post now, I'll have you know I'm actually single digit stuck in a hackers body.

onlyfinewine

Originally Posted by m r c View Post
One thing I'd like to change about the handicap system would be some way where you could reject .1's. I am on some great form ATM but had 26 yesterday and really don't want it. I want to get lower and the .1's are a pain in the ass. Yesterday was the exception.
Why would it be a problem though, think about it for a minute. Golf is a game of honesty and honestly I think my h/c is too high(at least for my liking :-).

MP62 wrote: »

Because believe it or not there is more cheating by certain category 1 players trying to avoid .1's and therefore playing off artificially low HC's and in turn keeping legitimate players out of major championships like the south and west of Ireland, than there is fellas like yourself who don't really want it but probably need it.

How do you make that out? Talk about jumping to conclusions? Have a re-read of the above post as he said he was on a good run of form and it was unusual for him to get a point one?

MP62

onlyfinewine wrote: »

[COLOR="RoyalBlue"] Originally Posted by m r c View Post
One thing I'd like to change about the handicap system would be some way where you could reject .1's. I am on some great form ATM but had 26 yesterday and really don't want it. I want to get lower and the .1's are a pain in the ass. Yesterday was the exception.
Why would it be a problem though, think about it for a minute. Golf is a game of honesty and honestly I think my h/c is too high(at least for my liking :-).[/COLOR]




How do you make that out? Talk about jumping to conclusions? Have a re-read of the above post as he said he was on a good run of form and it was unusual for him to get a point one?

Talk about been over sensitive.
Can you tell me in what parallel universe do you think shooting 26 points equals a good run of form.

m r c

MP62 wrote: »

Talk about been over sensitive.
Can you tell me in what parallel universe do you think shooting 26 points equals a good run of form.

Read what I wrote and the point I was making(I took yours btw) I'm on a good run of form having played at 13 less than my current h/c recently and 26 is the blip that I was using to say the .1 was a bit unwanted/unnessa sry

More is the point 26 is not the end of the world in terms of scoring a couple of lost balls and missed putts and bingo. I didn't think you needed to put that comment in at the end of your post like that and I laughed it off but now I'm thinking you are being a bit of a d**k

Almaviva

m r c wrote: »

One thing I'd like to change about the handicap system would be some way where you could reject .1's. I am on some great form ATM but had 26 yesterday and really don't want it. I want to get lower and the .1's are a pain in the ass. Yesterday was the exception.
Why would it be a problem though, think about it for a minute. Golf is a game of honesty and honestly I think my h/c is too high(at least for my liking :-).

I can see no logic at all in that. The handicap system has enough problems without adding an individual's discretion to apply or not an adjustment. Enough golfers today already manipulate the syxtem illegally (to both increase the handicaps or mantain incorectly low vanity ones). You may be honest and would use your proposal to keep a more 'correct' handicap. But many are not honest. And who says what your correct handicap is? Opinions will differ.
You had a bad round. And while on a good run of form asyou say. But clearly not quite good enough to avoid that bad score. So the handicap syxtem must reflect that. You might wish to, but cannot pretend it dicnt happen. If genuinly still on a downward trend then you will recover it in the next few rounds anyway. Let us know how you get on.
The system must be the same for everyone and independent of an individuals opinion of what his handicap 'should' ne.

m r c

Almaviva wrote: »

I can see no logic at all in that. The handicap system has enough problems without adding an individual's discretion to apply or not an adjustment. Enough golfers today already manipulate the syxtem illegally (to both increase the handicaps or mantain incorectly low vanity ones). You may be honest and would use your proposal to keep a more 'correct' handicap. But many are not honest. And who says what your correct handicap is? Opinions will differ.
You had a bad round. And while on a good run of form asyou say. But clearly not quite good enough to avoid that bad score. So the handicap syxtem must reflect that. You might wish to, but cannot pretend it dicnt happen. If genuinly still on a downward trend then you will recover it in the next few rounds anyway. Let us know how you get on.
The system must be the same for everyone and independent of an individuals opinion of what his handicap 'should' ne.

I think you are right here, I wasn't aware that keeping an artificially low handicap could be an issue when I wrote that. I took the other lads point when he made it.
The only reason I didn't want my .1 is I want to get lower. I didn't recognise that as affecting anyone else. I only saw it in terms of competition where if my h/c was too low it only affected me that's all.
My logic was that I was measuring my improvement in terms of my current h/c and was mad going the wrong way. I'm Sure I'm not the first to be mad at going the wrong way.

onlyfinewine

m r c wrote: »

I think you are right here, I wasn't aware that keeping an artificially low handicap could be an issue when I wrote that. I took the other lads point when he made it.
The only reason I didn't want my .1 is I want to get lower. I didn't recognise that as affecting anyone else. I only saw it in terms of competition where if my h/c was too low it only affected me that's all.
My logic was that I was measuring my improvement in terms of my current h/c and was mad going the wrong way. I'm Sure I'm not the first to be mad at going the wrong way.

Well done that man! Heart in the right place and honorable intent. Playing to the best of your ability and your lowest handicap is what makes the handicap system work. Not doing so makes you a cheat and handicap manipulator and invalidates the system. Although Almaviva is correct in the application of the handicap system and handicaps can be artificially depressed it is not an easy thing to do in the longer term. Having all golfers think more like you would be a breath of fresh air.

GreeBo

No more personal abuse, last warning.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, if you disagree then argue; don't insult.

onlyfinewine

Almaviva wrote: »

See below for some analysis :
http://www.scottishgolf.org/files/Myths___Misconceptions_Report_1_June_2005.pdf

I do consider it a failure of CONGU that they do not communicate the aim of the handicap system better to players : you should average 4 or 5 shots worse than yor handicap, and beat it once in a blue moon. If your handicap is correct that is. It doesnt even try to cater for the improver as described above. Let alone a handicap managing bandit.

Note that the analysis is for Scottish Golfers seven years ago and that The Irish contingent are not directly comparable. I would enjoy the same stats and conceptions to be applied to the Irish results, because the analysis would be quite different.

GreeBo

onlyfinewine wrote: »

Note that the analysis is for Scottish Golfers seven years ago and that The Irish contingent are not directly comparable. I would enjoy the same stats and conceptions to be applied to the Irish results, because the analysis would be quite different.

Why is a sample of golfers from Scotland not comparable?
Why are you so confident the results would be different?

Almaviva

Why different indeed. Both are running the same Congu syxtem.

onlyfinewine

Almaviva wrote: »

See below for some analysis :
http://www.scottishgolf.org/files/Myths___Misconceptions_Report_1_June_2005.pdf

I do consider it a failure of CONGU that they do not communicate the aim of the handicap system better to players : you should average 4 or 5 shots worse than yor handicap, and beat it once in a blue moon. If your handicap is correct that is. It doesnt even try to cater for the improver as described above. Let alone a handicap managing bandit.

Almaviva wrote: »

Why different indeed. Both are running the same Congu syxtem.

Short answer is that they are not running the same system and Ireland has asked on more than one occasion to run with differences which have not been approved in the other three countries. If you compare the handicap instructions you will see where Ireland is now given a number of areas which they control differently.

Sorry for the short answer, but am going away for a few days and will not be near a computer(hopefully).

BigChap1759

onlyfinewine wrote: »

Note that the analysis is for Scottish Golfers seven years ago and that The Irish contingent are not directly comparable. I would enjoy the same stats and conceptions to be applied to the Irish results, because the analysis would be quite different.

Sorry, I also think this is a nonsense statement.....based on what?

cornerboy

Almaviva wrote: »

Why different indeed. Both are running the same Congu syxtem.

Not exactly......if you read the Congu handbook you will notice that under about 50% of the clauses reads in Bold Type "Does not apply in Ireland"

Paulusmaximus

Ok, read most of this thread and i'm going to give my tuppence worth on the topic.

Firstly i believe the handicap system is fair and equitable and the best way to manage handicaps.

1. for every competition there should be a winner, and then class prizes(1st, 2nd, 3rd). Everyone then is competing against similar handicaps and obviously the overall prize. Prize values should be dropped significantly.

2. If a 5 handicapper plays 20% better than he can he shoots 37 points. if a 20 handicapper plays 20% better he shoots 40 points. this is the way it is, it is impossibile to make this fairer. however, over 10 rounds, i would nearly guarantee that the 5 handicapper's average will be better than the 20 handicapper.

3. Handicap secretaries and the GUI need to up their games massively. Every open singles should have a CSS for home players and away players. This has been done in our club and usually the away CSS is 2-4 points lower than the CSS for home players. If this is regularly done, less visiting players will receive .1's. Only recently i played in an open singles as a visitor, 37 points won the visitors prize. i had 35 points and the CSS was 37 points. i got a .1. this i find very hard to believe.

4. There should be more handicap reviews done during the year. I believe there is only an annual review allowed to be done now. i think there should be at least 3 between April and October.

5. Included in this should be all "significant scores" in fourballs, teams and scrambles. If in a set period 2/3 months you have 3/4/5 "significant scores" you should be liable to a cut. for this to work you have to agree on a definition of a significant score and you also need every handicap secretary to report back to other clubs the significant scores of the visitors.

for me a significant score would be if you finished in the top 7.5% of the teams in scrambles/fourball/ team events.
I'm sure golfnet and CONGU could be set up for handicap secretaries to tick record a significant score and " an away score" and when there are 3 there is an initial cut of .5, and an increased cut for any significant scores within 3-4 weeks.

5. Also, as another thought, how about then after a GP cut based on significant scores, you are not liable to receive any .1's for 4 weeks proceeding the cut. Players then cannot just go out and play 3/4 competitions and return their handicap back to their previous playing handicap.

BigChap1759

I think the thing a lot of people are forgetting is that, in 99% of clubs, handicap secretaries are volunteers - where on earth are they going to get the time to perform quarterly reviews in a club with 1000 odd members covering all team events!!

I'm afraid that is pie in the sky

Paulusmaximus

BigChap1759 wrote: »

I think the thing a lot of people are forgetting is that, in 99% of clubs, handicap secretaries are volunteers - where on earth are they going to get the time to perform quarterly reviews in a club with 1000 odd members covering all team events!!

I'm afraid that is pie in the sky

It would be massively time consuming and i was meant to put that into my mail. It's just how i feel is the best way to get a fairer system.

also, if the computer systems where set up correctly all it would take would be at the end of a competition the people doing the scorecard recording the 12/15 players who have had significant scores onto golfnet.

After 3 scores it is flagged to the h'cap secretary or simply running a report for golfers with 2/3 significant scores. its not trawling thorugh the records of all competitions.

Almaviva

Paulusmaximus wrote: »

Ok, read most of this thread and i'm going to give my tuppence worth on the topic.

Firstly i believe the handicap system is fair and equitable and the best way to manage handicaps.

1. for every competition there should be a winner, and then class prizes(1st, 2nd, 3rd). Everyone then is competing against similar handicaps and obviously the overall prize. Prize values should be dropped significantly.

2. If a 5 handicapper plays 20% better than he can he shoots 37 points. if a 20 handicapper plays 20% better he shoots 40 points. this is the way it is, it is impossibile to make this fairer. however, over 10 rounds, i would nearly guarantee that the 5 handicapper's average will be better than the 20 handicapper.

3. Handicap secretaries and the GUI need to up their games massively. Every open singles should have a CSS for home players and away players. This has been done in our club and usually the away CSS is 2-4 points lower than the CSS for home players. If this is regularly done, less visiting players will receive .1's. Only recently i played in an open singles as a visitor, 37 points won the visitors prize. i had 35 points and the CSS was 37 points. i got a .1. this i find very hard to believe.

4. There should be more handicap reviews done during the year. I believe there is only an annual review allowed to be done now. i think there should be at least 3 between April and October.

5. Included in this should be all "significant scores" in fourballs, teams and scrambles. If in a set period 2/3 months you have 3/4/5 "significant scores" you should be liable to a cut. for this to work you have to agree on a definition of a significant score and you also need every handicap secretary to report back to other clubs the significant scores of the visitors.

for me a significant score would be if you finished in the top 7.5% of the teams in scrambles/fourball/ team events.
I'm sure golfnet and CONGU could be set up for handicap secretaries to tick record a significant score and " an away score" and when there are 3 there is an initial cut of .5, and an increased cut for any significant scores within 3-4 weeks.

5. Also, as another thought, how about then after a GP cut based on significant scores, you are not liable to receive any .1's for 4 weeks proceeding the cut. Players then cannot just go out and play 3/4 competitions and return their handicap back to their previous playing handicap.

A lot of interesting sense in the above points.
1. OK. But guessing you play in a club with a full competition time sheet. Ideal situation, but 100+ players needed to make practical. Not all clubs have tnat these days.
2. I dont think playing a '%' better tnan handicap really has any relevance and is not the way to think about it.
3. Agree very much.
4. Possibly. But only if there are very clear rules or a mathematical algorithm. Computer xystems to be improved to enable this and 3 to be implemented without over burdening volunteer hc secs as mentioned above.
5. Agree. Something really must be done to take accout of such 'non singles' comps scores. In an ideal world not needed, and you can argue you should not adjust someones handicap on the basis of how a team mate may have played. But something is required to curtail the bouny hunting team bandits.
6. Interesting idea also. Some research could be done to see how many gokfers do 'get their shot back' quickly after a cut. And after getting it back then produce another score again.

onlyfinewine

onlyfinewine wrote: »

Short answer is that they are not running the same system and Ireland has asked on more than one occasion to run with differences which have not been approved in the other three countries. If you compare the handicap instructions you will see where Ireland is now given a number of areas which they control differently.

Sorry for the short answer, but am going away for a few days and will not be near a computer(hopefully).

I had forgotten about this for a while but I have now checked the congu booklet and here is a link to download it.

http://www.gui.ie/uploads/docs/4495_congu_2012_correct.pdf

If you open it and search for Ireland it will bring up over thirty areas where Ireland differ from the other countries. A quick read will show that there are major differences in powers and duties required, and also in relation to handicap adjustments and limits. The system is not the same.