Hi All,

The governing body of golf in Australia has decided we are to adopt the USGA handicap system which is radically different to our current handicap system.

Just a couple of questions for you guys who are used to it please.

What happens if you play in a club competition play terribly, and don't hand your card in (currently here your handicap goes out 0.1). Often in stoke rounds here if someone is playing badly and they lose ball rather than go all the way back and hit a provisional they just DQ, the result is the same currently. Bad round, (miss hcp by 2 or more) = hcp out by .1, DQ = hcp out by .1

I assume with the new rulings people won't be doing that any more. Or people will stop handing cards in after bad rounds.

I believe any card can be handed in (even in social play) if marked by someone else with a current handicap. Won't this lead to some serious vanity / cheat handicaps? People will go out and only hand their card in if they have a good round, bad round = card goes in the trash? Or the handicap club champs are coming soon and people go out playing off 16 or so and hand in 5 or 6 cards with gross 100 to blow the hcp right out.

There seems some pretty serious room for manipulation both ways from what I can see.

I would love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks in advance!

Well, you are right about the room for..errr.....ummm...creative card keeping.
I don't know the system that you currently use, so some of this may be the same.

in no particular order...

Your best 10 out of your last 20 scores are used to calculate your index.
It is an index..not a handicap. Your handicap is calculated from the index, based on the rated
difficulty of the course played. (before you play)
The index is calculated from your differentials of those rounds.
(broad example: a 75 on a 72.0 rated course nets you a differential of 3.0
a 77 on a 74.5 rated course nets you a differential of 2.5
the 77 was a better round...and there is a formula that gets involved that you can find at the
link below. If you can't find it, just post, and I, or someone, will post the calculation details.)

The USGA system gives a handicap index based on your POTENTIAL...it is not an
AVERAGE of what you do. Example: If you are a 3 HDCP, you are not expected to score
3 strokes over the rating...you will more often than not score HIGHER than that.
(and that's the 10 scores that count...those that don't will definitely be higher).

Yes, casual rounds count. Depending on how your handicap committee sets the rules,
this *may* be different for you...but, no, the USGA does not require countersigned scorecards.
I can, and do, post scores in rounds that I have played alone. The USGA does require *peer review*.
Don't ask me, I play in amateur tournament events as well, with a competitive marker, and
have no idea how they implement said review in an informal environment. (My review,
so to speak, comes from my tournament play).
All rounds following the rules of golf must be posted (no, that doesn't mean everyone honors the
rule.) There are rules for most how to post scores based on different scenarios...
including incomplete rounds.

Vanity HDCP...keeping your handicap artificially lower than it should be.
Yes, it happens. (not posting those bad rounds)
In my opinion, and I'm not alone, this only cheats the golfer guilty of keeping the low handicap.
S/he's the one who has to play net event with fewer strokes than s/he should get.
If it gets him into a lower flight, in a flighted event, he is at a decided disadvantage.
Vanity handicappers, to me, are not a problem.

Sandbaggers. Artificially inflating one's handicap. This IS a problem.
This is where peer review *should* help...for example: other players going to the handicap committee
asking why this guy shot 75, 78, with us this weekend, and neither of those scores is posted.
I can give other examples, but I don't think I need to explain the problem.
The USGA solutions, basically...or at least the primary from my viewpoint...

ESC: equitable stroke control. The maximum score a golfer can take for handicap purposes
on any given hole. ESC is handicap based. 0-9, double bogey. 10-19, *7*. 20-29, *8*,
30-39, *9*.
This is to stop our 3 handicapper in the above examples, from being even after 16, and going 10,10
to finish 12 over 84, and with enough of these, raising his handicap. Under ESC, his
score is 4 over 76...enough of these *might* get him a stroke.

My favorite however is the PENALTY handicap. I don't remember all the details off the
top of my head, but....if a player, enough times (not many) scores *substantially* (again,
I don't remember the definition of substantially) lower in TOURNAMENT rounds....
his handicap will be immediately lowered to correspond with the tournament scores.
The committee has the authority to impose this penalty, as well (I believe).

I have no idea if there is a better system, as the USGA is the only one I've ever played under.
Yes, it has some issues, all systems do. Yes, sandbagging remains a problem.

Hope this helps. More answers should be available at the link below.
Rich


the official word:
http://www.usga.org/aboutus/handicap_depar...department.html

The USGA manual (referenced previously) has pretty specific rules regarding how to handle incomplete rounds and incomplete holes. It is in section 4.

In BRIEF summary.

1) A hole started but not completed, for any reason other than an attempt to mess around with your index, should be scored as what you would have most likely achieved had you actually finished the hole. So blast two balls OB off the tee on a par 4, and you'll be posting your ESC adjusted score (again see section 4).

2) Holes not played are scored at par plus whatever your strokes give you on that hole (not a particularly good system, IMHO, but surely is simple and that is probably why it exists). You must play 13 holes to post an 18 hole score.

I would think that a tournament round from which you have a W/D or DQ would be posted (if enough holes were played) but not as a tournament score. See section 10 for handling of tournament scores.

dave

Thanks for the info, I read the section about ESC and it seems like a really good system, only once in a blue moon reasonable golfers post 9+ scores for a hole anyway...

My other question is - say you guys play in a club competition of 1 round and don't hand the card in, is there no penalty for this under the USGA system?

Also what do you guys make of us using your system, slope rating and all. The USGA is coming to Australia to train a heap of people on how to rate courses (slope & scratch) under the USGA system starting July 1. Apparently all our courses shuld be rated by end of 2011.

I am cautiously for it, seems good and brings us into line with the rest of the golfing world.

I appreciate the insight form you all who are currently using this system.

If they don't hand in a card after a bad round, they are only hurting themselves.

I don't think there is anything in the USGA handicapping manual that would address this, although they do touch on incomplete rounds.

The USGA system is generally self-policing, and like pretty much everything else in golf, up to the honesty of the individual.

I think the course rating/slope system is very accurate. Yes, you'll hear people complain about one course or another, but they generally don't understand statistics. They also don't understand that virtually everybody has a type of game that fits one course well and not well on another course, yet the course ratings are almost identical.

Noddy...
Sorry to hear that you guys are adopting "our" system...it is dreadful
I grew up in the UK where the system is similar to yours.
A good player with a handicap of scratch or better can really play to it...here that is a joke.

I am a plus 4 according to this system..but I promise you I cannot shoot 4 under anywhere close to everuytime I play.
Back home when I was a plus 1..that is what it meant having the belief and record to shoot 1 under each time I played./

Too many social rounds count...if you want them to
Too many competitive rounds dont...if you dont want them to

It really is a hairy fairy kind of system that enables you to manipulate your handicap in whatever directio you may "choose"

Regarding the 'what do you guys make of us using your system' question - I don't know where you are coming from. But if I look at the only other system that I even vaguely understand (the one in the UK) I would observe the following.

1) The USGA system will get a whole bunch more golfers on some kind of common ground vs. the UK system. Along with this comes the inaccuracies inherent in a mostly self-regulated system

2) The UK system is much better for accurately dealing with competitive golf.

3) THe US and UK systems measure different things. The US system is meant to measure 'your best golf'. The UK system is meant to measure the kind of golf you typically play. A 2 handicap golfer in the UK is a better golfer than a 2 handicap golfer in the US. 'Correct' is in the eye of the beholder, but a competitive golfer is probably going to better relate to the UK system. I'm used to the USGA system so to me (I don't play a lot of competitive golf) it doesn't matter.

dave

Why should you shoot -4 every time you play? That's not what the handicap system measures.

It's like saying the thermometer outside isn't telling me how windy it is.

MGWP - what you said about handicaps going which ever way you want them to is my greatest fear. Damn - sounds like it's correct. I like about our current handicap system that the handicap someone plays off is a pretty true indication of their good rounds.

Rounds count if you want them too, don't if you don't. That is crap with a capital C.

It is very difficult to get away with cheating in a foursome in a competition round - don't hand you card in and it's assumed you had a bad round and are penalised by going out .1 (which is how it should be).

We all complain about our CCR (Caluclated Course Rating) depending on the field of the day - but this may not be as bad as the USGA system. Oh well we're stuck with it now regardless.

The fundamental question here comes down to do you prefer a system where only 'tightly managed scores' count as far as your handicap is concerned or do you want a system that includes a broader range of golfers.

The former is relatively restrictive regarding who has a handicap but would tend to be accurate. The latter would include many more golfers but is less accurate.

Sounds like you've got the latter.

FWIW, the system is structured so that you have to be part of an organization and the records are open so that, in theory, unreported and/or inaccurate scores can be discovered. That is the check and balance that exists in the system, but it is a long way from perfect.

In my experience in the US there are a lot more vanity handicappers (guys who play worse than their index) than there are sandbaggers (guys who are much better than their index). But the sandbaggers (despite much smaller numbers) are the bigger problem (based on complaints that I am aware of).

dave

DaveLeeNC you are right.

Currently we have the former - tightly managed and accurate but the Australian Golf Union has just voted to move to the latter more inclusive less accurate system.

Really why do you need a handicap if you aren't going to play tournament / competition golf anyway?

I see some real positives and neagtives in the USGA system, just like our current system.

I love the slope rating / sliding handicap system & ESC.

I just think that you should have to nominate pre round social or comeptition that you are handing that card in to be handicapped on - don't hand the card in and it is assumed you had a shocker and an instant handicap penalty of 0.1

I understand the systems are in place but it is not practical to police in real terms, besides if someone is caught out consistently not handing in cards what is the penalty (if any) under the current USGA system?

Regarding the question of why a handicap if you aren't playing 'competitive golf' (generating 'T scores' in the USGA system), I can see two issues.

1) It takes a BUNCH of competitive golf to generate an accurate handicap. There are many golfers in the US who play a couple competitive rounds/year - not a good basis for an index

2) I really like the idea of a common measure for everyone. I would sorely miss that if I were currently living Down Under.

The handicap committee of your club has fairly broad discretion in dealing with issues like members not posting scores. See section 8 in the manual.

dave

Dave,

Thanks very much for continuing to post in this thread - I am taking in a great deal from this discussion.

Reading section 8 of the USGA handicapping manual reveals the following...

"If a player fails to post an acceptable score as soon as practical after completion of the round, the Handicap Committee should post the score and/or a penalty score and ratings equal to the lowest Handicap Differential in the player's scoring record. However, if the score not returned is unusually high, the Handicap Committee should enter the score and/or a penalty score and ratings equal to the highest Handicap Differential in the player's scoring record."

Um huh, am I missing something? How on earth would the hcp committee know if the score was unusually high or not if the player didn't hand in a card???

Noddy, that information (kind of) is "available" from the person's playing partners. There is a fair amount of leeway to apply judgement in such cases regardless.

In my handicap committee experience complaints about sandbagger's typically come from "high end member-guest events" with 'serious prizes' (like a set if Titleist irons or something like that).

I think that incorrect application of the rules (either intentional or due to lack of knowledge) is the most common problem (wrong scores posted). The case of "Tom's friend in the member-guest who showed up with a 12 index and shoots a differential of 1" winning the set of irons is the most common complaint.

"Serious competitions" are generally scratch anyway.

dave

ps. There is a true story about a guy who had a 12'ish index in Florida (handy for member-guest competitions with prizes) and a 1'ish index in South Carolina (which is used when he wanted to compete in 'serious competitions'). He had two numbers, names, etc. (and he got caught). I'm guessing that he doesn't have an index anywhere right now (or at least was theoretically banished from the system - hard to implement).

One last comment about the difference between the USGA system and some other systems. THe course rating/slope guidelines for USGA rated courses are intended to make the resulting handicaps "portable" between courses. IOW, if you were to play a bunch of rounds on 'course A' and generate an index and then play a bunch of rounds in 'course B' and generate an index, assuming that you game didn't change the resulting indexes would (ideally) be the same.

What this means is that course A and course B might well generate very different average scores (relative to rating/slope) for you. What the rating/slope guidelines are intended to do is to generate the same average scores (relative to rating/slope) for the top 50% of your scores (which is how the USGA system works).

This can result in some odd-ball (comparative) rating/slope data in my experience (which does NOT include USGA course rating activities).

dave

Depending on the committee decision for no card (explained in an earlier post)...
you could very well get that penalty for not turning in the card.
If you want an accurate handicap (in this system), you are better of turning in your card
for your bad round...it probably won't hurt you... it won't count anyway, as it will, no doubt,
NOT be one of your 10 best scores, which are the scores used to calculate the index.

I say *probably* only because this score will remove your current 20th oldest score,
and if that one was a best 10, there will be a new score from your last 20 added to your
best 10 to replace the score that just *fell off*.

Uh, that sounds confusing, even to me....
Example....a 3 index...before this round, score 20 was a differential of 4.
The 11th lowest score in those 20 is a differential of 6. Index will go up (slightly)...
as what was the 11th lowest score now becomes the 10th lowest score and is now
part of the calculation.

Hope that makes sense.