New World Handicaps 2020

[DaveLeeNC]

I had a round to post yesterday so I fired up my Ghin Android app (Carolinas Golf Assoc) and could not find a way to post hole scores. What have I missed (if anything)?.

 

dave

[davep043]

> @Roadking2003 said:

 

> 3. Therefore, the number of golfers who actually need a WHS is so minuscule that it isn't worth calculating. It is beyond ridiculous to think that a WHS is a benefit to golfers. It's a benefit to a minuscule number of golfers but will impact 50 million golfers all over the world.

>

> If there are shortcomings in GHIN or CONGU, then change these systems. We can do that without WHS.

>

In the US, only about 2 million golfers keep official handicaps, something like 10% of the total. I don't know how many there are worldwide, but I don't bet its anywhere close to 50 million.

Each system around the world has different strengths and weaknesses. It makes perfect sense for these systems to work together, to pool expertise and experience, to learn from each other, and work towards a system that uses the best parts of each system. You may want to look inward, to assume that we somehow have the best system, and that everyone else should compromise and accept our system. I am certain that the USGA system can be improved by learning from outside systems. And changes that improve the system affect everyone who chooses to keep a handicap, not just the small group who do play in different jurisdictions.

And for those who say "THIS is how we do it now, anything other than THIS just won't work", you're just wrong. People change all the time, people react to changing situations, changing regulations, and often they react in ways that could not have been anticipated before the changes. Has anyone considered that a system that allows less chance of manipulation might bring more people in than it pushes out? Before anyone says it, I'm thinking of future changes, not the 2020 set.

The bottom line, this change is coming. In the US, we're going to have to adapt to the Net Double rule, and everyone who cares about it will figure it out. Down the road, who knows what will happen, I hope we see further changes, in particular to tighten up attestation in the US. Some of us will adapt to that with glee, some will go kicking and screaming, and we'll all keep playing golf.

[Newby]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @Newby said:

> > It does make me wonder if player is prepared to breach one rule of golf, how many others is he prepared to breach. The regional culture appears to a problem of golf not handicapping per se.

>

> What do you mean by "regional culture"?

 

Much the same as BDP5's post #291

[North Butte]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> I had a round to post yesterday so I fired up my Ghin Android app (Carolinas Golf Assoc) and could not find a way to post hole scores. What have I missed (if anything)?.

>

> dave

 

You apparently have to sign up for an account on the GHIN web page (a separate username/password deal, not your GHIN number) and post hole-by-hole from a web browser. Or so I was told.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > I had a round to post yesterday so I fired up my Ghin Android app (Carolinas Golf Assoc) and could not find a way to post hole scores. What have I missed (if anything)?.

> >

> > dave

>

> You apparently have to sign up for an account on the GHIN web page (a separate username/password deal, not your GHIN number) and post hole-by-hole from a web browser. Or so I was told.

 

I do have a Ghin account and I logged onto that account in a browser. And I did find a hole by hole option, but the first course I tried had no course data so I would have had to enter hole par's, hole handicaps, etc. I assume that if you have done this once then it will be saved. Further I assume that if hole by hole is actually required, this data will show up without user intervention. And I assume that the Ghin app will support this functionality.

 

So I will keep assuming but will have no way to try it out in the interim.

 

dave

[HatsForBats]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > I had a round to post yesterday so I fired up my Ghin Android app (Carolinas Golf Assoc) and could not find a way to post hole scores. What have I missed (if anything)?.

> >

> > dave

>

> You apparently have to sign up for an account on the GHIN web page (a separate username/password deal, not your GHIN number) and post hole-by-hole from a web browser. Or so I was told.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PZMht6Zl7Q

 

[Deceptively Short]

I think it terms of score cards as Roadking says culture is very much the same. In comps done they are kept completely by the book otherwise it’s a DQ. However in casual golf in some sort of team format just one card per group not signed , also if we are keeping individual scores. Sometimes if it is just two groups 2 out of three stableford we might just keep it in our head (as there is no need to keep individual scores as we are not posting for handicap ). For any casual match play we wouldn’t dream of keeping a card.

It is the handicap posting card that is the culture difference as for us these are all ‘important or serious ‘ rounds and therefore need to be done by the book . For all other golf who cares? (In our terms)

[North Butte]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> I think it terms of score cards as Roadking says culture is very much the same. In comps done they are kept completely by the book otherwise it’s a DQ. However in casual golf in some sort of team format just one card per group not signed , also if we are keeping individual scores. Sometimes if it is just two groups 2 out of three stableford we might just keep it in our head (as there is no need to keep individual scores as we are not posting for handicap ). For any casual match play we wouldn’t dream of keeping a card.

> It is the handicap posting card that is the culture difference as for us these are all ‘important or serious ‘ rounds and therefore need to be done by the book . For all other golf who cares? (In our terms)

 

Which brings us full circle to the eternal truth that can't be avoided in these discussions. The vast majority of golfers in the USA never, ever play "important or serious" rounds. And for the ones who do occasionally play formal tournaments (the sort of rounds that can be posted via CONGU) those rounds typically represent maybe one or two of their 100+ rounds each year.

 

So I still can't see the meet-in-the-middle to which Dave optimistically refers. The USGA is not going to limit handicaps to only the few thousand golfers (maybe a couple percent of their total handicap subscribers?) who play multiple formal tournaments a year. And it's hard to believe CONGU jurisdiction handicap holders are ever going to accept a system that treats a "two groups 2 out of 3 Stableford" rounds as equally valid for handicapping to a formal comp.

 

The whole "World" aspect of this is just ludicrous. USA clubs aren't going to start arranging weekly medals every Saturday just so USGA can reconcile its handicap system with CONGU. And UK club golfers aren't going to start posting their daily casual/friendly rounds in the USGA style. So any congruence they arrange between formulas and course ratings and scores to impute for blow-up/pickup holes is just window dressing. The stuff being used to compute handicaps in the two regimes will be fundamentally different because the way club golfers choose to play is fundamentally different.

 

P.S. Without getting too far afield from the discussion at hand, this reminds me a lot of what goes on in my Real World life. Attempts to come up with elaborate algorithms and formulas to reconcile fundamentally incompatible types of information. At best you end up with something that appears to turn apples into oranges or oranges into apples while actually just ignoring the fundamental differences.

[davep043]

> @"North Butte" said:

 

>

> Which brings us full circle to the eternal truth that can't be avoided in these discussions. The vast majority of golfers in the USA never, ever play "important or serious" rounds. And for the ones who do occasionally play formal tournaments (the sort of rounds that can be posted via CONGU) those rounds typically represent maybe one or two of their 100+ rounds each year.

>

> So I still can't see the meet-in-the-middle to which Dave optimistically refers. The USGA is not going to limit handicaps to only the few thousand golfers (maybe a couple percent of their total handicap subscribers?) who play multiple formal tournaments a year. And it's hard to believe CONGU jurisdiction handicap holders are ever going to accept a system that treats a "two groups 2 out of 3 Stableford" rounds as equally valid for handicapping to a formal comp.

>

> The whole "World" aspect of this is just ludicrous. USA clubs aren't going to start arranging weekly medals every Saturday just so USGA can reconcile its handicap system with CONGU. And UK club golfers aren't going to start posting their daily casual/friendly rounds in the USGA style. So any congruence they arrange between formulas and course ratings and scores to impute for blow-up/pickup holes is just window dressing. The stuff being used to compute handicaps in the two regimes will be fundamentally different because the way club golfers choose to play is fundamentally different.

I think you're a little off with your numbers, but I agree that most handicap holders (I don't care about the other 90% in the US who don't keep a handicap) play relatively few stroke play tournament rounds. I'm sure I'm above average, I usually have about 6 out of 70 or 80 rounds played. A few will have more, most will have fewer.

If you go back and read some of my posts, I don't think I have suggested that we go to "competition only" rounds in the US, but we CAN institute some type of increased attestation, similar to the current CONGU procedures for use of "casual" scores in handicap calculation. That WOULD be a middle ground of sorts, and would require relatively small changes to current habits.

To say that US clubs wouldn't have more regular competitions is to claim that the US clubs will not adapt at all to changes. I believe you're wrong, US clubs will adapt in whatever ways best serve their members. If that means offering additional regular competitions, it can be done without a huge hassle. Its more difficult for public course players, but if the courses want to attract players, and the players want low-level but serious competitions, they'll find a way. And CONGU players currently DO have a method for entering "casual" scores, it just requires a little more effort than a truly casual round.

You see window-dressing, I see a first step towards improvement. And to be honest, our initial views on the Ruling Bodies in general probably have a lot to do with the way we view these changes.

 

 

[North Butte]

> @davep043 said:

> To say that US clubs wouldn't have more regular competitions is to claim that the US clubs will not adapt at all to changes. I believe you're wrong, US clubs will adapt in whatever ways best serve their members. If that means offering additional regular competitions, it can be done without a huge hassle.

 

Here's where I keep seeing a lack of realism in your expectations. It sounds like you're saying if USGA changes the handicap system, then clubs will change will change their event schedules and golfers will start playing golf in formats they do not wish to play at present.

 

Seriously, that can't possibly happen. The purpose of golf is not to generate handicap data. The reason the USA has (or suffers from, you might say) a handicap system VERY different from that in the UK is because the way golfers want to play is different. You're getting cause and effect totally backwards. Nobody started having weekly comps at UK clubs because CONGU said they had to do it. And nobody plays daily points-game dogfights and weekly Nassaus with their buddies because USGA said those rounds count for handicapping. The handicap system accommodate normative playing formats, not the other way 'round.

 

With all my heart I wish I played golf somewhere with *exactly* the schedule of events and normal formats of play that I've seen at my UK friend's clubs. And while CONGU seems pretty funky to me I'd prefer to live in CONGU land than USGA land when it comes to handicaps...but only if I played golf somewhere with a UK club style of normal play. That seems to be a big part of your (to be frank) wishful thinking here. That maybe USGA can from the top down remold golfer behavior and preferences into something you'd rather see than the current status quo.

 

P.S. My own pie in the sky wishful thinking would be somehow, by magic if necessary ;-) to have a USA handicapping system that bases handicaps on some subset of rounds (not tournaments, casual play) which the golfers have chosen to designate for attestation and peer review. Don't just grind formulas on 250+ numbers entered with no accountability on an app. But don't make it just Club Championship level tournament play either. Find a middle ground of what friend Short called "important and serious" rounds and then apply technology to attest those scores by something other than a committee collecting signed paper scorecards and entering them into Golf Genius.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > To say that US clubs wouldn't have more regular competitions is to claim that the US clubs will not adapt at all to changes. I believe you're wrong, US clubs will adapt in whatever ways best serve their members. If that means offering additional regular competitions, it can be done without a huge hassle.

>

> Here's where I keep seeing a lack of realism in your expectations. It sounds like you're saying if USGA changes the handicap system, then clubs will change will change their event schedules and golfers will start playing golf in formats they do not wish to play at present.

>

> Seriously, that can't possibly happen. The purpose of golf is not to generate handicap data. The reason the USA has (or suffers from, you might say) a handicap system VERY different from that in the UK is because the way golfers want to play is different. You're getting cause and effect totally backwards. Nobody started having weekly comps at UK clubs because CONGU said they had to do it. And nobody plays daily points-game dogfights and weekly Nassaus with their buddies because USGA said those rounds count for handicapping. The handicap system accommodate normative playing formats, not the other way 'round.

>

> With all my heart I wish I played golf somewhere with *exactly* the schedule of events and normal formats of play that I've seen at my UK friend's clubs. And while CONGU seems pretty funky to me I'd prefer to live in CONGU land than USGA land when it comes to handicaps...but only if I played golf somewhere with a UK club style of normal play. That seems to be a big part of your (to be frank) wishful thinking here. That maybe USGA can from the top down remold golfer behavior and preferences into something you'd rather see than the current status quo.

>

> P.S. My own pie in the sky wishful thinking would be somehow, by magic if necessary ;-) to have a USA handicapping system that bases handicaps on some subset of rounds (not tournaments, casual play) which the golfers have chosen to designate for attestation and peer review. Don't just grind formulas on 250+ numbers entered with no accountability on an app. But don't make it just Club Championship level tournament play either. Find a middle ground of what friend Short called "important and serious" rounds and then apply technology to attest those scores by something other than a committee collecting signed paper scorecards and entering them into Golf Genius.

 

Agreed so well said NB. It's the tail wagging the dog. No way US clubs start having special events just so players can have data in the system. Even if they do, then you'll get many that just play in the minimum number of events to get a number and otherwise play their own events the way they want. Handicaps will have too much old data and will likely be less accurate. That's a bad thing.

[Newby]

Simple HBH entry for whatever rounds the player wants to be taken 'seriously' would be a relative easy compromise. I'm not familiar with the details of all the games played in the US but as money seems to be involved, I guess they would be taking most of them 'seriously'.

[davep043]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > To say that US clubs wouldn't have more regular competitions is to claim that the US clubs will not adapt at all to changes. I believe you're wrong, US clubs will adapt in whatever ways best serve their members. If that means offering additional regular competitions, it can be done without a huge hassle.

>

> Here's where I keep seeing a lack of realism in your expectations. It sounds like you're saying if USGA changes the handicap system, then clubs will change will change their event schedules and golfers will start playing golf in formats they do not wish to play at present.

>. . . . .

> P.S. My own pie in the sky wishful thinking would be somehow, by magic if necessary ;-) to have a USA handicapping system that bases handicaps on some subset of rounds (not tournaments, casual play) which the golfers have chosen to designate for attestation and peer review. Don't just grind formulas on 250+ numbers entered with no accountability on an app. But don't make it just Club Championship level tournament play either. Find a middle ground of what friend Short called "important and serious" rounds and then apply technology to attest those scores by something other than a committee collecting signed paper scorecards and entering them into Golf Genius.

 

What I'm saying is that a certain percentage of players will ASK their clubs to add more competitions, and clubs will find a way to make it happen. Not Club Champ level comps, but lower level events. Those who don't care to compete can play their normal games. We do it now to a small extent at my home club, things like the optional 4th of July Flag Tournament.

 

And you and I agree, designating specific (non-tournament) scores for handicap submission, and expanding requirements to attest those scores is a relatively unobtrusive change to our current system, and would improve the reliability of the handicaps. That WOULD move us towards CONGU's current procedures for submitting "casual"scores. Of course, you WOULD have to look at each other's cards if you're going to attest, or keep a single card for all to sign, and you've said you don't do that currently.

And do you REALLY play 250+ rounds of golf in a year??

 

 

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

>

> > 3. Therefore, the number of golfers who actually need a WHS is so minuscule that it isn't worth calculating. It is beyond ridiculous to think that a WHS is a benefit to golfers. It's a benefit to a minuscule number of golfers but will impact 50 million golfers all over the world.

> >

> > If there are shortcomings in GHIN or CONGU, then change these systems. We can do that without WHS.

> >

> In the US, only about 2 million golfers keep official handicaps, something like 10% of the total. I don't know how many there are worldwide, but I don't bet its anywhere close to 50 million.

> Each system around the world has different strengths and weaknesses. It makes perfect sense for these systems to work together, to pool expertise and experience, to learn from each other, and work towards a system that uses the best parts of each system. You may want to look inward, to assume that we somehow have the best system, and that everyone else should compromise and accept our system. I am certain that the USGA system can be improved by learning from outside systems. And changes that improve the system affect everyone who chooses to keep a handicap, not just the small group who do play in different jurisdictions.

> And for those who say "THIS is how we do it now, anything other than THIS just won't work", you're just wrong. People change all the time, people react to changing situations, changing regulations, and often they react in ways that could not have been anticipated before the changes. Has anyone considered that a system that allows less chance of manipulation might bring more people in than it pushes out? Before anyone says it, I'm thinking of future changes, not the 2020 set.

> The bottom line, this change is coming. In the US, we're going to have to adapt to the Net Double rule, and everyone who cares about it will figure it out. Down the road, who knows what will happen, I hope we see further changes, in particular to tighten up attestation in the US. Some of us will adapt to that with glee, some will go kicking and screaming, and we'll all keep playing golf.

 

You seem to pay no regard to the middle-income muni course golfers in the U.S. who like to keep handicaps. Any changes that cater to the private club players and makes it harder for others is a bad result. Nothing about the system needs fixing right now except possibly having a better control on sandbaggers. None of the proposed changes would affect that.

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

>

> You seem to pay no regard to the middle-income muni course golfers in the U.S. who like to keep handicaps. Any changes that cater to the private club players and makes it harder for others is a bad result. Nothing about the system needs fixing right now except possibly having a better control on sandbaggers. None of the proposed changes would affect that.

Have you paid attention to any of the suggestions that there will be further steps taken, and that those further steps might address the sandbagging issue? Have you noticed that I've said repeatedly just what you said, the current changes don't address sandbagging?

As for muni golfers who WANT to keep a handicap, their motivation matters a little. If they want to play in competitions, I'd hope that they'll understand that its worth a little effort to keep that official handicap. If that effort turns out to be pre-registration and attestation of non-tournament scores, that's not exactly a huge mountain to climb. If they want a handicap in order to track their progress, or use it when they're betting with their friends, they can certainly use one of many free services to do just what they need.

 

[North Butte]

> @davep043 said:>

> Of course, you WOULD have to look at each other's cards if you're going to attest, or keep a single card for all to sign, and you've said you don't do that currently.

 

I think if the pro shop could print out a card a couple times a month for some sort of designated handicap round, the guys I play with would be OK (once they got used to it) with keeping it tournament-style and signing it afterwards. But I think it would be a complete non-starter to ask them to do something like that every day.

 

My memory from 20+ years ago may not be accurate. And if it is accurate, I'm sure someone will come along and hurl accusations of CHEATER because we were doing it wrong. But when I got my very first USGA Handicap back in the mid-1990's here's how I had to do it...

 

I was playing at the semi-private course right down the road from my house. Just a couple years out from being a total newbie to the game. I wanted a handicap and that was touted as one of the benefit of "joining" (actually more of a monthly subscription of around 65 bucks covering all the rounds I wanted to walk) the course. Once I paid up, I was told to start carrying a card with me for the next couple months and asking someone in the group I was playing with to keep and sign it for me. I turned it in to the proshop and once I'd accumulated a certain number of scores my name started showing up on the list.

 

The guys I fell into playing with regularly tended to have one day a week (either the Saturday or Sunday game) where someone in each foursome kept an "official" scorecard. It had blanks on the bottom for us all to sign for our scores. One card, one marker, four scores, four signatures. That was turned in to the pro shop to be entered in the system. So most people's handicaps were down to about 30-40 rounds a year from those weekly cards plus any club tournaments we entered.

 

That's actually not miles from the system I've seen at UK clubs. Except hard-nosed UK cases like Newby would perhaps impugn the idea of one guy keeping everyone's score including his own. But it seemed to suffice for our handicaps to reflect the reality of our games. Everyone thought that was a mild pain in the neck but it was worth it to be able to "carry a handicap" for tournaments and such.

 

One other memory I have is that within our usual group, the strokes being given to each player did not necessarily accord with the printout on the wall of the pro shop. Memory is a bit vague but there was some distrust of those "official" rounds with the card not being a true representation of how we played in other formats. Or something like that. Ancient history, anyway.

 

> And do you REALLY play 250+ rounds of golf in a year??

 

No, about 130-140 due to my current life situation. But hopefully in about three years time I will be joining the fully or partly retired guys at my club who play 5-6 days a week, year round.

[CaseyC]

The good news is, we will find out in a couple of months what actually happens.

Will the sky fall or will it be "eh"

[rogolf]

> @LICC said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @Roadking2003 said:

> >

> > > 3. Therefore, the number of golfers who actually need a WHS is so minuscule that it isn't worth calculating. It is beyond ridiculous to think that a WHS is a benefit to golfers. It's a benefit to a minuscule number of golfers but will impact 50 million golfers all over the world.

> > >

> > > If there are shortcomings in GHIN or CONGU, then change these systems. We can do that without WHS.

> > >

> > In the US, only about 2 million golfers keep official handicaps, something like 10% of the total. I don't know how many there are worldwide, but I don't bet its anywhere close to 50 million.

> > Each system around the world has different strengths and weaknesses. It makes perfect sense for these systems to work together, to pool expertise and experience, to learn from each other, and work towards a system that uses the best parts of each system. You may want to look inward, to assume that we somehow have the best system, and that everyone else should compromise and accept our system. I am certain that the USGA system can be improved by learning from outside systems. And changes that improve the system affect everyone who chooses to keep a handicap, not just the small group who do play in different jurisdictions.

> > And for those who say "THIS is how we do it now, anything other than THIS just won't work", you're just wrong. People change all the time, people react to changing situations, changing regulations, and often they react in ways that could not have been anticipated before the changes. Has anyone considered that a system that allows less chance of manipulation might bring more people in than it pushes out? Before anyone says it, I'm thinking of future changes, not the 2020 set.

> > The bottom line, this change is coming. In the US, we're going to have to adapt to the Net Double rule, and everyone who cares about it will figure it out. Down the road, who knows what will happen, I hope we see further changes, in particular to tighten up attestation in the US. Some of us will adapt to that with glee, some will go kicking and screaming, and we'll all keep playing golf.

>

> You seem to pay no regard to the middle-income muni course golfers in the U.S. who like to keep handicaps. Any changes that cater to the private club players and makes it harder for others is a bad result. **Nothing about the system needs fixing right now except possibly having a better control on sandbaggers. **None of the proposed changes would affect that.

The "system" currently provides all the tools required to control sandbagging. The "system" includes the club's Handicap Committee, who just need to fulfill their responsibilities. Also see Rule 1.2 about integrity.

 

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> >

> > You seem to pay no regard to the middle-income muni course golfers in the U.S. who like to keep handicaps. Any changes that cater to the private club players and makes it harder for others is a bad result. Nothing about the system needs fixing right now except possibly having a better control on sandbaggers. None of the proposed changes would affect that.

> Have you paid attention to any of the suggestions that there will be further steps taken, and that those further steps might address the sandbagging issue? Have you noticed that I've said repeatedly just what you said, the current changes don't address sandbagging?

> As for muni golfers who WANT to keep a handicap, their motivation matters a little. If they want to play in competitions, I'd hope that they'll understand that its worth a little effort to keep that official handicap. If that effort turns out to be pre-registration and attestation of non-tournament scores, that's not exactly a huge mountain to climb. If they want a handicap in order to track their progress, or use it when they're betting with their friends, they can certainly use one of many free services to do just what they need.

>

 

My comment that future changes that hinder the muni course golfer was directed at the attestation proposals you had mentioned. Most muni golfers play informal competitions with their friends. It's a great experience and enjoyment of the game. You seem to favor a system that would limit their ability to have official handicaps. That is a bad result.

[North Butte]

> @rogolf said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @Roadking2003 said:

> > >

> > > > 3. Therefore, the number of golfers who actually need a WHS is so minuscule that it isn't worth calculating. It is beyond ridiculous to think that a WHS is a benefit to golfers. It's a benefit to a minuscule number of golfers but will impact 50 million golfers all over the world.

> > > >

> > > > If there are shortcomings in GHIN or CONGU, then change these systems. We can do that without WHS.

> > > >

> > > In the US, only about 2 million golfers keep official handicaps, something like 10% of the total. I don't know how many there are worldwide, but I don't bet its anywhere close to 50 million.

> > > Each system around the world has different strengths and weaknesses. It makes perfect sense for these systems to work together, to pool expertise and experience, to learn from each other, and work towards a system that uses the best parts of each system. You may want to look inward, to assume that we somehow have the best system, and that everyone else should compromise and accept our system. I am certain that the USGA system can be improved by learning from outside systems. And changes that improve the system affect everyone who chooses to keep a handicap, not just the small group who do play in different jurisdictions.

> > > And for those who say "THIS is how we do it now, anything other than THIS just won't work", you're just wrong. People change all the time, people react to changing situations, changing regulations, and often they react in ways that could not have been anticipated before the changes. Has anyone considered that a system that allows less chance of manipulation might bring more people in than it pushes out? Before anyone says it, I'm thinking of future changes, not the 2020 set.

> > > The bottom line, this change is coming. In the US, we're going to have to adapt to the Net Double rule, and everyone who cares about it will figure it out. Down the road, who knows what will happen, I hope we see further changes, in particular to tighten up attestation in the US. Some of us will adapt to that with glee, some will go kicking and screaming, and we'll all keep playing golf.

> >

> > You seem to pay no regard to the middle-income muni course golfers in the U.S. who like to keep handicaps. Any changes that cater to the private club players and makes it harder for others is a bad result. **Nothing about the system needs fixing right now except possibly having a better control on sandbaggers. **None of the proposed changes would affect that.

> The "system" currently provides all the tools required to control sandbagging. The "system" includes the club's Handicap Committee, who just need to fulfill their responsibilities. Also see Rule 1.2 about integrity.

>

 

Our system seems perfectly happy to gives handicaps to golfers who don’t belong to any club. Much less belong to a club with a functioning handicap committee.

 

What you say is akin to pointing out that speed limits exist to let everyone drive a safe speed on the highway. That does not imply that driving is at a safe speed, it just means the signs are erected.

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > If they want a handicap in order to track their progress, or use it when they're betting with their friends, they can certainly use one of many free services to do just what they need.

> >

>

> My comment that future changes that hinder the muni course golfer was directed at the attestation proposals you had mentioned. Most muni golfers play informal competitions with their friends. It's a great experience and enjoyment of the game. You seem to favor a system that would limit their ability to have official handicaps. That is a bad result.

As I said, and you apparently ignored, they don't need an official handicap to play informal competitions with their friends, they can use the free portion of the Grint, or one of the other free handicap services. If they want to enter more formal competitions, a little extra effort and a little extra oversight seem reasonable to require.

 

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > If they want a handicap in order to track their progress, or use it when they're betting with their friends, they can certainly use one of many free services to do just what they need.

> > >

> >

> > My comment that future changes that hinder the muni course golfer was directed at the attestation proposals you had mentioned. Most muni golfers play informal competitions with their friends. It's a great experience and enjoyment of the game. You seem to favor a system that would limit their ability to have official handicaps. That is a bad result.

> As I said, and you apparently ignored, they don't need an official handicap to play informal competitions with their friends, they can use the free portion of the Grint, or one of the other free handicap services. If they want to enter more formal competitions, a little extra effort and a little extra oversight seem reasonable to require.

>

 

But why should they be denied being able to keep official handicaps? And all because those in formal competitions are sandbagging. This goes back to an earlier point- maybe the USGA should have a formal competition handicap and an non-formal handicap. People could choose to keep one or both.

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > If they want a handicap in order to track their progress, or use it when they're betting with their friends, they can certainly use one of many free services to do just what they need.

> > > >

> > >

> > > My comment that future changes that hinder the muni course golfer was directed at the attestation proposals you had mentioned. Most muni golfers play informal competitions with their friends. It's a great experience and enjoyment of the game. You seem to favor a system that would limit their ability to have official handicaps. That is a bad result.

> > As I said, and you apparently ignored, they don't need an official handicap to play informal competitions with their friends, they can use the free portion of the Grint, or one of the other free handicap services. If they want to enter more formal competitions, a little extra effort and a little extra oversight seem reasonable to require.

> >

>

> But why should they be denied being able to keep official handicaps? And all because those in formal competitions are sandbagging. This goes back to an earlier point- maybe the USGA should have a formal competition handicap and an non-formal handicap. People could choose to keep one or both.

 

If things turn out that way, nobody is denying them anything. They'd simply be required to put in a little extra effort in order to have an official number. Most of us are accustomed to working for something we want.

 

You want an official handicaps for your local muni players, are you willing to form and chair a handicap committee at your local muni? That's what the system requires, but nobody wants to put in the work to do it right. If you don't have a committee, by rights the USGA should suspend all handicaps through your muni until you correct that. Is that the USGA denying you an official handicap? No, it wold be the USGA enforcing the current system, requiring you (as a group of golfers) to put in a little effort for the privilege of having an official handicap.

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > If they want a handicap in order to track their progress, or use it when they're betting with their friends, they can certainly use one of many free services to do just what they need.

> > > > >

> > > >

> > > > My comment that future changes that hinder the muni course golfer was directed at the attestation proposals you had mentioned. Most muni golfers play informal competitions with their friends. It's a great experience and enjoyment of the game. You seem to favor a system that would limit their ability to have official handicaps. That is a bad result.

> > > As I said, and you apparently ignored, they don't need an official handicap to play informal competitions with their friends, they can use the free portion of the Grint, or one of the other free handicap services. If they want to enter more formal competitions, a little extra effort and a little extra oversight seem reasonable to require.

> > >

> >

> > But why should they be denied being able to keep official handicaps? And all because those in formal competitions are sandbagging. This goes back to an earlier point- maybe the USGA should have a formal competition handicap and an non-formal handicap. People could choose to keep one or both.

>

> If things turn out that way, nobody is denying them anything. They'd simply be required to put in a little extra effort in order to have an official number. Most of us are accustomed to working for something we want.

>

> You want an official handicaps for your local muni players, are you willing to form and chair a handicap committee at your local muni? That's what the system requires, but nobody wants to put in the work to do it right. If you don't have a committee, by rights the USGA should suspend all handicaps through your muni until you correct that. Is that the USGA denying you an official handicap? No, it wold be the USGA enforcing the current system, requiring you (as a group of golfers) to put in a little effort for the privilege of having an official handicap.

 

Muni players aren't organized clubs. And muni employees aren't club executive officers.

 

How would you propose this to work? You play a nassau with your buddies. You finish 18 and walk off. You go to put your score in your app on your phone. Everyone is going to hand their phones to the others to attest to the scores? What about the guy who has to run and can't stick around? And he may not be able to play with the group again until next month?

[North Butte]

> @LICC said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > > @davep043 said:

> > > > > > If they want a handicap in order to track their progress, or use it when they're betting with their friends, they can certainly use one of many free services to do just what they need.

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > My comment that future changes that hinder the muni course golfer was directed at the attestation proposals you had mentioned. Most muni golfers play informal competitions with their friends. It's a great experience and enjoyment of the game. You seem to favor a system that would limit their ability to have official handicaps. That is a bad result.

> > > > As I said, and you apparently ignored, they don't need an official handicap to play informal competitions with their friends, they can use the free portion of the Grint, or one of the other free handicap services. If they want to enter more formal competitions, a little extra effort and a little extra oversight seem reasonable to require.

> > > >

> > >

> > > But why should they be denied being able to keep official handicaps? And all because those in formal competitions are sandbagging. This goes back to an earlier point- maybe the USGA should have a formal competition handicap and an non-formal handicap. People could choose to keep one or both.

> >

> > If things turn out that way, nobody is denying them anything. They'd simply be required to put in a little extra effort in order to have an official number. Most of us are accustomed to working for something we want.

> >

> > You want an official handicaps for your local muni players, are you willing to form and chair a handicap committee at your local muni? That's what the system requires, but nobody wants to put in the work to do it right. If you don't have a committee, by rights the USGA should suspend all handicaps through your muni until you correct that. Is that the USGA denying you an official handicap? No, it wold be the USGA enforcing the current system, requiring you (as a group of golfers) to put in a little effort for the privilege of having an official handicap.

>

> Muni players aren't organized clubs. And muni employees aren't club executive officers.

>

> How would you propose this to work? You play a nassau with your buddies. You finish 18 and walk off. You go to put your score in your app on your phone. Everyone is going to hand their phones to the others to attest to the scores? What about the guy who has to run and can't stick around? And he may not be able to play with the group again until next month?

 

The fundamental problem is this. Why would someone running a real "important and serious" tournament take at face value a string of numbers typed in to GHIN with no attestation and no way at all to confirm or deny that they represent real, honest scores?

 

There's no squaring the circle. You can not have one database like GHIN contain millions of totally un-checkable numbers mixed in with a smaller portion of rigorously peer-reviewed scores. Either you quit letting your hypothetical "muni player" type whatever number he likes into GHIN (not going to happen, too many such subscribers to the system) or else the fact that a handicap is listed on GHIN has no real meaning for formal competion.

 

Which is how we arrived at the status quo. The people running "important and serious" tournaments often limit participation to only those golfers for whom someone can go OUTSIDE OF GHIN and check behind them. At my club, if someone wants to bring a guest to the member-guest (hardly the epitome of serious tournament formats) someone from the pro shop calls and checks with that person't club to make sure they are representing themselves fairly in GHIN.

 

It's a more or less functional kludge. Your "muni player" uses GHIN as a repository of the scores he wants used to compute his handicap. People he play with can believe him or not. The guys I play with type in their more-or-less honest and correct five scores a week and GHIN dutifully computes handicaps for them to use in their daily games. And some serious players use GHIN to collect their peer-reviewed scores, knowing that when tournament time comes around someone is going to check up behind them (again, outside of GHIN) to see if they are legit.

 

GHIN is basically whatever a golf wants it to be. It's a public bulletin board down in the park where anyone can staple up a bunch of scores for the whole neighborhood to see. Or like a social media site where everyone "checks in" from where they're having coffee or eating dinner. Don't be confused by the three decimal precision of the formulas that GHIN will churn through using your posted scores. Your handicap is only what you make of it and there's nothing "Official" about seeing "6.8" written next to your name on an electronic handicap card.

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > You want an official handicaps for your local muni players, are you willing to form and chair a handicap committee at your local muni? That's what the system requires, but nobody wants to put in the work to do it right. If you don't have a committee, by rights the USGA should suspend all handicaps through your muni until you correct that. Is that the USGA denying you an official handicap? No, it wold be the USGA enforcing the current system, requiring you (as a group of golfers) to put in a little effort for the privilege of having an official handicap.

>

> Muni players aren't organized clubs. And muni employees aren't club executive officers.

>

> How would you propose this to work? You play a nassau with your buddies. You finish 18 and walk off. You go to put your score in your app on your phone. Everyone is going to hand their phones to the others to attest to the scores? What about the guy who has to run and can't stick around? And he may not be able to play with the group again until next month?

 

I suggest that if you want to have an official USGA Handicap, it would be appropriate that you read the USGA Handicap Manual and understand what is required. You must be a member of a club (as defined by the rules, look it up), and the club must have a Handicap Committee, whose chairman may not be an employee. The Committee has specific duties. It takes effort to do it right. You as an individual do not have a RIGHT to have a USGA Handicap, its a two-way street, its intended to require a certain amount of effort from the golfing community.

 

As for the mechanics of attestation, I don't know what might happen. Its a long way down the road, for sure. In CONGU, they have to preregister for "casual" rounds that they intend to post. You could do this through your phone app, and identify your playing companion(s). After the round you would post your score, and your playing companion(s) would get a message asking him to attest to your score. I'm no programmer, but that seems like it could be done.

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > You want an official handicaps for your local muni players, are you willing to form and chair a handicap committee at your local muni? That's what the system requires, but nobody wants to put in the work to do it right. If you don't have a committee, by rights the USGA should suspend all handicaps through your muni until you correct that. Is that the USGA denying you an official handicap? No, it wold be the USGA enforcing the current system, requiring you (as a group of golfers) to put in a little effort for the privilege of having an official handicap.

> >

> > Muni players aren't organized clubs. And muni employees aren't club executive officers.

> >

> > How would you propose this to work? You play a nassau with your buddies. You finish 18 and walk off. You go to put your score in your app on your phone. Everyone is going to hand their phones to the others to attest to the scores? What about the guy who has to run and can't stick around? And he may not be able to play with the group again until next month?

>

> I suggest that if you want to have an official USGA Handicap, it would be appropriate that you read the USGA Handicap Manual and understand what is required. You must be a member of a club (as defined by the rules, look it up), and the club must have a Handicap Committee, whose chairman may not be an employee. The Committee has specific duties. It takes effort to do it right. You as an individual do not have a RIGHT to have a USGA Handicap, its a two-way street, its intended to require a certain amount of effort from the golfing community.

>

> As for the mechanics of attestation, I don't know what might happen. Its a long way down the road, for sure. In CONGU, they have to preregister for "casual" rounds that they intend to post. You could do this through your phone app, and identify your playing companion(s). After the round you would post your score, and your playing companion(s) would get a message asking him to attest to your score. I'm no programmer, but that seems like it could be done.

 

I do have a USGA handicap, in an MGA e-club. I've never met any other member nor do I have any idea who is on the Handicap Committee. It's entirely de-centralized.

And what if you don't know your other playing partners? Or they don't keep GHIN handicaps? Why do you think it is better to set up a system for 1% of golfers that would make it more difficult for the rest?

[North Butte]

> @davep043 said:

> You want an official handicaps for your local muni players, are you willing to form and chair a handicap committee at your local muni? That's what the system requires, but nobody wants to put in the work to do it right. If you don't have a committee, by rights the USGA should suspend all handicaps through your muni until you correct that. Is that the USGA denying you an official handicap? No, it wold be the USGA enforcing the current system, requiring you (as a group of golfers) to put in a little effort for the privilege of having an official handicap.

 

Dave, you're repeating the USGA "official line" as it were. But we both know that USGA does absolutely nothing to make GHIN work in the way you just described. They don't limit handicap subscribers to those at clubs with functional Committees. And they surely don't go back and suspend handicaps based on lack of peer oversight.

 

I've been playing golf and holding a USGA handicap for decades and have never even heard of such enforcement actions. The reality is, they are perfectly happy for some people to get together, pay USGA or the local Association for handicap service, and merrily post anything they choose to GHIN. Please don't repeat the Okey Doke, that's just self-serving propaganda on USGA's part.

 

P.S. It's akin to a golf course posting an "expected pace of play" on signs and on the scorecards but then never, ever under any circumstances forcing a slow group to pick up, skip holes or leave the course.

[davep043]

> @"North Butte" said:

> GHIN is basically whatever a golf wants it to be. It's a public bulletin board down in the park where anyone can staple up a bunch of scores for the whole neighborhood to see. Or like a social media site where everyone "checks in" from where they're having coffee or eating dinner. Don't be confused by the three decimal precision of the formulas that GHIN will churn through using your posted scores. Your handicap is only what you make of it and there's nothing "Official" about seeing "6.8" written next to your name on an electronic handicap card.

A simple way to say it, GHIN (or whatever online system your state association chooses) collects and remembers the scores reported, and calculates the numbers in the way required by the USGA. The important work is done by Handicap Committees in verifying that all appropriate rounds are reported, and that scores are correctly reported. Its a difficult job, but the Committee (as said previously by someone else) is what really makes the USGA Handicap System work properly (or not work properly).

 

[North Butte]

> @davep043 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > GHIN is basically whatever a golf wants it to be. It's a public bulletin board down in the park where anyone can staple up a bunch of scores for the whole neighborhood to see. Or like a social media site where everyone "checks in" from where they're having coffee or eating dinner. Don't be confused by the three decimal precision of the formulas that GHIN will churn through using your posted scores. Your handicap is only what you make of it and there's nothing "Official" about seeing "6.8" written next to your name on an electronic handicap card.

> A simple way to say it, GHIN (or whatever online system your state association chooses) collects and remembers the scores reported, and calculates the numbers in the way required by the USGA. The important work is done by Handicap Committees in verifying that all appropriate rounds are reported, and that scores are correctly reported. Its a difficult job, but the Committee (as said previously by someone else) is what really makes the USGA Handicap System work properly (or not work properly).

 

The work done by the Committees are indeed the only thing that makes handicaps legitimate and trustworthy. But that's got nothing to do with GHIN. GHIN is simply a subscription service that treats every number the same no matter if it's legit or not. Think of GHIN as a social media site with an extremely limited focus, if you will.