OK, more on handicaps.

[P_102]

The discussion started by Andy got me interested in the differences between the USGA system and that of the UK (UHS?). Anyway, I've been to the website provided in the other thread but could not find the actual equation to determine handicaps.

Anyone know what it is?

Thanx

P_102

 

[Rockford35]

P,

I came accross this. Not sure what it adds in terms of what you have for info already...

Comparing British Handicaps to USGA Handicaps
By Dean Knuth

The R&A turned over control of handicapping in 1927 to CONGU (Council of National Golf Unions). The CONGU is badly under-funded and has not based its system on much serious research. It is a political group that is known for non-action. They have not adopted the Slope System simply because the English GU refused to adopt it--Even after Ireland, Wales and Scotland had Slope rated all their courses and wanted to go forward. Continental Europe got so frustrated with CONGU that they formed their own handicapping body (European Golf Association) and adopted Slope.(Also, the Ladies Golf Union is now implementing the Slope System for women throughout the UK and continental Europe).

The biggest reason why Americans can't compete against CONGU handicaps is because the SSS's (Standard Scratch Score--or, Course Ratings) in the UK are under-rated--especially at the tough courses and they don't have Slope Ratings. As a result, handicaps are higher in the UK compared to the USA. Without the Slope System UK golfers from difficult golf courses have a significant advantage over everyone, Americans and UK golfers from average UK courses. But it gets much more complicated than that.

The CONGU Handicap System is mostly a “moving average” mathematical model that does not save scores. It is an adaptation of a handicap system that originated in Australia decades ago. When a player plays in a designated tournament, his score is compared to the Competitive Scratch Score for the day (CSS—See below). The categories will only be generalized here, but if a player does very well, his “Exact Handicap” (A number followed by a decimal) will go down equal to how many strokes he beat his handicap by times a decimal number like .1, .2, .3 or .4 depending on his handicap category (how good of a player he has been classed as). So, just to use a simple example—beats handicap by 3 shots, the exact handicap goes down .6. If the player scores in a buffer zone just above equaling his handicap, nothing changes. If the player scores worse than his buffer zone, he goes up a small amount—most often one-tenth of a shot.

Category Handicap Range Buffer Zone Reduction Per Shot Increase Per Round


1 0.1 -> 5.4 +1 -0.1 -0.1
2 5.5 -> 12.4 +2 -0.2 -0.1
3 12.5 -> 20.4 +3 -0.3 -0.1
4 20.5 -> 28.4 +4 -0.4 -0.1

The technical problems with the British system include:

1. It is based on T (tournament) scores only, an average golfer gets in only 3 to 5 scores a year. This makes the system very slow to respond to current ability. The time late in detecting changes in ability is often six months, which Dr. Fran Scheid found in a study years ago. It simply does not keep pace with current skill.

2. It uses ranges and step functions (buffer zones and varying the effect of a good score based on handicap level). Any step function system is inaccurate around the steps.

3. The amount of bonus for excellence varies by handicap level. Generally, higher handicap players have little competitive chance against lower handicap players in the UK. (And yet, it is still quite common in the UK to make players play at 3/4 handicaps, which makes the low handicappers shoe-ins to win). (Note: CONGU no longer supports the ¾ handicap allowance but this number has been around for more than a century in the UK and old procedures fade away very slowly.)

4. Low handicappers can stay low too easily. It is hard to go up. The R & A has been plagued by too many mediocre amateur entries in their championships because of this problem.

5. Their course rating system is poor at best. The Competitive Scratch Score system that Peter Wilson (former president of the EGU, a very bright man and a great friend of mine) developed is an interesting concept, but as one-dimensional, it is inadequate and typically under-rates courses using only whole numbers (from back in the days when club secretaries did not have computers and calculations had to be made easy). There is NO portability in their handicap system. A 5 and a 15 at one course do not equate to the same handicaps at another course. (It is interesting that the CSS, raises the SSS on bad weather days, but basing course rating for a day on how all the players score self-perpetuates a system that can't be compared with any other handicap system. Also, it is inaccurate to the point that more than one golf club playing the same golf course on the same day can come up with different CSS’s because of sampling error).

6. There is no ESC (Capping of extremely high hole scores), which is ridiculous in a country where high hole scores are common due to their high winds, severe bunkers and deep roughs. As a result, the European GA has adopted net double bogey as a hole score cut off, in the name of Stableford. (Note: All of continental Europe has adopted the Stableford counting form of ESC. CONGU has not). Scores are posted as Stableford points, then Slope is applied. (Note: I have thought for years that “Net Double Bogey” is a superior Equitable Stroke Control System to the current USGA System. Allowing a maximum hole score of double bogey, plus any handicap strokes that the player gets on that hole is much more fair than a fixed number such as a maximum of a 7 (10-19 handicaps) on both a par 3 and a par 5.

There can be no conversion factor that will make USGA Handicaps and CONGU handicaps comparable. The two systems are far too disparate to make that possible.

BTW, when an American plays golf in the UK, he is to use his Course Handicap from his home course. Except, where a Course Handicap table is posted. So many Americans complained about not having Course Handicap tables at St. Andrews that those courses now have big tables posted (A few other courses have them as well, including Carnoustie). I am proud of a photo of me standing in front of the Slope table at the first tee at the Old Course this past July (2004). This was the first year the signs were put out. An American rating team Slope rated the Links Trust courses.

Over the years I have had many communications with people who want a simple way to compare British handicaps to American handicaps. I hope that this article gives you some insights into why that is simply not possible.

As a postscript, it might interest you to know that an early remedial form of the concept of the Slope System was introduced by the Irish Golf Union before WWII. The Irish produced a table based on the length of a golf course. It allowed golfers to add additional strokes to their handicaps when they went to play a very long away course. There were a few too many subjective parts to the system and it did not last, but someone was ahead of their time in realizing that the portability problem was real in golf. Taking a handicap from one golf course to another course is a real issue and that is what the Slope System was designed to solve.


Cheers,

R35

 

[VtDivot]

I refer back to my post about Rock needing more work responsibility, or perhaps a kid, maybe another hobby...

Dude, you are the google king, I bow to thee...

 

[bdcrowe]

Already the post-of-the-day, KA....

 

[Bravo]

Hey Andy79 - still laughing at the Yanks now?

 

[P_102]

Thanks Rockford, it IS very confusing. In looking around I did find a few other differences, one of the glaring ones was how they (UK) adjust scores after a round. Here in the U.S. a player adjusts based on his hcp, ie; hcp of 10 or less can take no more than a double bogey but if you have a 36 hcp you can take as much as a 9 on a hole....in the UK men cannot take more than a double bogey and women a triple, no matter what their hcp. Also, maximum hcp in the UK is 28 (I think, I'm not at the site) and U.S. is 36.4 (for men, it's higher in both for women).

P_102

 

[bdcrowe]

Wot? Women are allowed a stroke more per hole than men? Seems femenism hasn't made it over the pond...

 

[Rockford35]

I refer back to my post about Rock needing more work responsibility, or perhaps a kid, maybe another hobby...

Dude, you are the google king, I bow to thee...

I do what I can, VT.

KA, don't you have a sand dune to roll around in?

R35

 

[Bravo]

Here's an interesting story...

http://www.popeofslope.com/sandbagging/gates.html

 

[DaveE]

Here's an interesting story...

http://www.popeofslope.com/sandbagging/gates.html

Who'd figure Gates for a cheat.

I've shot 6 under my h/c twice this year but not in a tournament. That's way better than 1 in 200 because I haven't even averaged a round a week. My last full round was 3 under so I must be a statistical marvel.

In all fairness I've been playing better and after I get a few more scores posted I expect it will be going down. I know earlier this year I kept thinking it would go up more with some of the crap scores I was posting but I guess it all works out.

 

[Andy_79]

Hey Andy79 - still laughing at the Yanks now?

See yeeeeeee.....