New World Handicaps 2020

[CaseyC]

My mistake, it was North Butte who is said they just write down double bogey.

You will and your group will have an option. Enter hole by hole scores or not have an official HC. Which will you chose?

[LICC]

> @CaseyC said:

> My mistake, it was North Butte who is said they just write down double bogey.

> You will and your group will have an option. Enter hole by hole scores or not have an official HC. Which will you chose?

 

There is a third option- use an app that will keep a non-official handicap using the same USGA formula and not require hole-by-hole scoring, thus to avoid a senseless USGA requirement.

[CaseyC]

> @LICC said:

> > @CaseyC said:

> > My mistake, it was North Butte who is said they just write down double bogey.

> > You will and your group will have an option. Enter hole by hole scores or not have an official HC. Which will you chose?

>

> There is a third option- use an app that will keep a non-official handicap using the same USGA formula and not require hole-by-hole scoring, thus to avoid a senseless USGA requirement.

I said "not have an official HC"

You are correct, a group can have their own non-official HC. They can also choose to ignore NDB if they wish.

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

 

 

> @CaseyC said:

> My mistake, it was North Butte who is said they just write down double bogey.

> You will and your group will have an option. Enter hole by hole scores or not have an official HC. Which will you chose?

 

Thank you for acknowledging your error about ESC.

 

As for calling me arrogant earlier, claiming my group is somehow unique and asking if the USGA rules should be written for us, you still have yet to refute my claims that we are similar to most US golfers. I supported my claims with GHIN data. Still would be interested in your observations and data to refute my statements.

 

We don't know for sure if hole by hole "manual entry" will be required for sure. You can bet that if it is, golfers and clubs will let it be known that they don't like it. Some may post less, which makes the handicap system worse. Some may drop out as it's not worth the hassle. Too bad because then they wouldn't be able to participate in a periodic tournament, which isn't good for golf courses, clubs and golf in general.

[Deceptively Short]

So do you think that, in its current format, that apparently works so well for the way in which golf is played in the USA, you have a good handicap system that really does its job?

Again, with no experience of what actually goes on myself, I seem to hear a lot about ridiculous sandbagging, the proliferation of vanity handicaps and the sheer waste of time in entering net competitions. Is this the case or is this just WRX talk?

[CaseyC]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

>

 

> We don't know for sure if hole by hole "manual entry" will be required for sure. You can bet that if it is, golfers and clubs will let it be known that they don't like it. Some may post less, which makes the handicap system worse. Some may drop out as it's not worth the hassle. Too bad because then they wouldn't be able to participate in a periodic tournament, which isn't good for golf courses, clubs and golf in general.

 

And I believe most will adapt and it won't be bad for golf in general.

We might see fewer people posting a 87 when they actually shot an 79, which will be good for golf in general. We may see fewer people "blowing up" on 17 and 18 to maintain their handicap, which will be good for golf in general.

 

 

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> >

>

> > We don't know for sure if hole by hole "manual entry" will be required for sure. You can bet that if it is, golfers and clubs will let it be known that they don't like it. Some may post less, which makes the handicap system worse. Some may drop out as it's not worth the hassle. Too bad because then they wouldn't be able to participate in a periodic tournament, which isn't good for golf courses, clubs and golf in general.

>

> And I believe most will adapt and it won't be bad for golf in general.

> We might see fewer people posting a 87 when they actually shot an 79, which will be good for golf in general. We may see fewer people "blowing up" on 17 and 18 to maintain their handicap, which will be good for golf in general.

>

>

 

Not sure how you arrive with that opinion. Still waiting for facts to refute my previous points.

[North Butte]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> So do you think that, in its current format, that apparently works so well for the way in which golf is played in the USA, you have a good handicap system that really does its job?

> Again, with no experience of what actually goes on myself, I seem to hear a lot about ridiculous sandbagging, the proliferation of vanity handicaps and the sheer waste of time in entering net competitions. Is this the case or is this just WRX talk?

 

Nothing about hole-by-hole entry or any of the actual proposed changes to the USA handicap system will address sandbagging. At all. Not a bit. That's what we're on about here.

 

Anyone will be able to continue to post whatever number they like. Changing to "8-of-20 with no 0.96" or even the (unlikely) imposition of hole-by-hole score entry won't matter. You can enter a fake/sandbag score one hole at a time just like you enter a single fake/sandbag score for the round. Nobody is going to be checking behind you either way. And same for vanity 'capping. Those guys out there taking free drops from OB, hitting two off the first tee, rolling them everywhere and giving themselves 3' putts can type in the exact hole-by-hole "scores" they achieved playing this way.

 

And the 16-handicap guys picking up after 5 strokes without even reaching the green on a Par 4 and writing down "6" can just type that 6 into the hole-by-hole system.

 

GHIN is garbage in, garbage out. Or if a golfer chooses to do things strictly by the book it becomes "peer reviewed strictly by the Rules scores in, valid handicaps out". The problem is, you can't tell which scores in GHIN are garbage and which ones or real. Nothing about any change that 's been mooted (for USA) in the 2020 so-called "World Handicap System" will address that at all.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> So do you think that, in its current format, that apparently works so well for the way in which golf is played in the USA, you have a good handicap system that really does its job?

> Again, with no experience of what actually goes on myself, I seem to hear a lot about ridiculous sandbagging, the proliferation of vanity handicaps and the sheer waste of time in entering net competitions. Is this the case or is this just WRX talk?

 

Absolutely room for improvement. Better oversight, attestation will all be good but has nothing to do with hole by hole entry or ESC changes.

 

As for sandbagging I think it's generally grossly overstated and most is bar banter anytime a guy has a great day. You only hear about the worse on wrx and not the vast majority it works well for. I know pros that run tournaments and the good ones keep an eye out for patterns. Seen them tell people if they want to play then they will with their lowest T score. Also seen them track guys down from other clubs and alert staff that they failed to post a good score or post it for them etc. There are systemic ways to make this better but it still requires others to pay attention and call out shenanigans.

[CaseyC]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

 

> Not sure how you arrive with that opinion. Still waiting for facts to refute my previous points.

 

Do you not believe some people artificially inflate their scores to maintain a higher HC?

[CaseyC]

> @"North Butte" said:

 

>

> And the 16-handicap guys picking up after 5 strokes without even reaching the green on a Par 4 and writing down "6" can just type that 6 into the hole-by-hole system.

And if he does, when the 7 was NDB, he will have a vanity HC.

And if he tries to inflate his HC by writing an 8, the computer will reduce the score to a 7 for calculating his HC

 

[CaseyC]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

 

> As for sandbagging I think it's generally grossly overstated and most is bar banter anytime a guy has a great day.

 

And I would suggest the "horror" of having to post hole by hole is grossly overstated.

 

[LICC]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @"Deceptively Short" said:

> > So do you think that, in its current format, that apparently works so well for the way in which golf is played in the USA, you have a good handicap system that really does its job?

> > Again, with no experience of what actually goes on myself, I seem to hear a lot about ridiculous sandbagging, the proliferation of vanity handicaps and the sheer waste of time in entering net competitions. Is this the case or is this just WRX talk?

>

> Nothing about hole-by-hole entry or any of the actual proposed changes to the USA handicap system will address sandbagging. At all. Not a bit. That's what we're on about here.

>

> Anyone will be able to continue to post whatever number they like. Changing to "8-of-20 with no 0.96" or even the (unlikely) imposition of hole-by-hole score entry won't matter. You can enter a fake/sandbag score one hole at a time just like you enter a single fake/sandbag score for the round. Nobody is going to be checking behind you either way. And same for vanity 'capping. Those guys out there taking free drops from OB, hitting two off the first tee, rolling them everywhere and giving themselves 3' putts can type in the exact hole-by-hole "scores" they achieved playing this way.

>

> And the 16-handicap guys picking up after 5 strokes without even reaching the green on a Par 4 and writing down "6" can just type that 6 into the hole-by-hole system.

>

> GHIN is garbage in, garbage out. Or if a golfer chooses to do things strictly by the book it becomes "peer reviewed strictly by the Rules scores in, valid handicaps out". The problem is, you can't tell which scores in GHIN are garbage and which ones or real. Nothing about any change that 's been mooted (for USA) in the 2020 so-called "World Handicap System" will address that at all.

 

100%. The current system works very well for recording scores and keeping handicaps, and generally making matches more competitive and close when players honestly use their handicaps. As to the accuracy of those scores and handicaps, none of the changes will do anything to make them more accurate, for all the reasons @"North Butte" stated above.

@CaseyC - more golfers than not will adapt by foregoing the WHC official system and keeping their own unofficial handicaps. Which would not be the best outcome. But it won't come to this because I can't believe the USGA would be so obtuse to require hole-by-hole scoring.

[North Butte]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

>

> >

> > And the 16-handicap guys picking up after 5 strokes without even reaching the green on a Par 4 and writing down "6" can just type that 6 into the hole-by-hole system.

> And if he does, when the 7 was NDB, he will have a vanity HC.

> And if he tries to inflate his HC by writing an 8, the computer will reduce the score to a 7 for calculating his HC

>

 

If he's a 16 right now he should be posting 7 instead of 6. But what do you know, he posts 6 anyway. Poor foolish vanity 'capper, he just cost himself a stroke.

 

Change it to Net Double Bogey and (unless it's the #17 or #18 stroke hole) he should be posting 7 instead of 6. But what do you know, he posts 6 anyway. Poor foolish vanity 'capper, he just cost himself a stroke.

 

Now change it to Net Double Bogey AND force him to enter his scores hole by hole. He should be posting 7 instead of 6. But what do you know, he posts 6 on that hole anyway. Poor foolish vanity 'capper, he just cost himself a stroke.

 

Can you not see that the results is EXACTLY THE SAME? You have not changed his handicap or anything else by implementing Net Double Bogey and/or hole-by-hole posting. So what the actual heck was the point of those changes again?

[Halebopp]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> The casual weekend **comps** we play formed by our buddies is the mainstay of golf at private and public courses across the USA. To expect that to change and not be able to post all of them, if even years down the road in order to serve a WHS, is the proverbial tail wagging the dog.

>

> And before anyone else says, hole by hole posting would only take a few seconds more, that's akin to shutting down credit card readers and expecting users to key their own card number. Then when they complain, tell them their being lazy because it's only 16 digits and they don't like change.

 

All individual stroke-play competition scores most definitely need to be posted in all current and future handicap systems. Unless, of course, the competition doesn't follow the rules of golf.

 

About entering the hole-by-hole scores, I tried it and it took me less than a minute and a half to unlock my phone, open the browser, open a new tab in the browser, open the bookmark to the website, log in, click on two links to get to entering scores, choose the course, tees and the marker and enter hole-by-hole scores. I used a random scorecard I had lying around so I didn't even remember the scores and had to actually check all the scores from the card, so it was slower than simply recalling all the scores from my memory right after the round.

 

 

 

 

[CaseyC]

> @LICC said:

 

> @CaseyC - more golfers than not will adapt by foregoing the WHC official system and keeping their own unofficial handicaps.

 

Do you not think the "alternate" HC on-line sources won't ultimately change so that they meet the WHC system?

If a group wants to keep their own spreadsheet version of HC, well, then I guess the "too much work" argument goes out the window.

 

 

[North Butte]

> @Halebopp said:

> All individual stroke-play competition scores most definitely need to be posted in all current and future handicap systems. Unless, of course, the competition doesn't follow the rules of golf.

 

Friend BDP5 is using the term "comps" loosely. I'm pretty sure he is including formats that are not stroke play, although they may be something that fall under the newer options of max-score formats (or whatever the 2019 Rules call it).

 

But don't assume he means a measured course, signed scorecards, strict medal or true Stableford play, individuals playing their own ball or any other elements of what a UK player might imply when using "comp" to describe a round.

[CaseyC]

> @"North Butte" said:

 

>

> If he's a 16 right now he should be posting 7 instead of 6. But what do you know, he posts 6 anyway. Poor foolish vanity 'capper, he just cost himself a stroke.

>

> Change it to Net Double Bogey and (unless it's the #17 or #18 stroke hole) he should be posting 7 instead of 6. But what do you know, he posts 6 anyway. Poor foolish vanity 'capper, he just cost himself a stroke.

>

> Now change it to Net Double Bogey AND force him to enter his scores hole by hole. He should be posting 7 instead of 6. But what do you know, he posts 6 on that hole anyway. Poor foolish vanity 'capper, he just cost himself a stroke.

>

> Can you not see that the results is EXACTLY THE SAME? You have not changed his handicap or anything else by implementing Net Double Bogey and/or hole-by-hole posting. So what the actual heck was the point of those changes again?

 

And why should the system care about those who don't follow the rules now?

 

 

[LICC]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

>

> >

> > If he's a 16 right now he should be posting 7 instead of 6. But what do you know, he posts 6 anyway. Poor foolish vanity 'capper, he just cost himself a stroke.

> >

> > Change it to Net Double Bogey and (unless it's the #17 or #18 stroke hole) he should be posting 7 instead of 6. But what do you know, he posts 6 anyway. Poor foolish vanity 'capper, he just cost himself a stroke.

> >

> > Now change it to Net Double Bogey AND force him to enter his scores hole by hole. He should be posting 7 instead of 6. But what do you know, he posts 6 on that hole anyway. Poor foolish vanity 'capper, he just cost himself a stroke.

> >

> > Can you not see that the results is EXACTLY THE SAME? You have not changed his handicap or anything else by implementing Net Double Bogey and/or hole-by-hole posting. So what the actual heck was the point of those changes again?

>

> And why should the system care about those who don't follow the rules now?

>

>

 

The USGA should care that it doesn't needlessly burden its membership.

[davep043]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> Dave, first I don't want you to think I'm picking on you. You're one of my favorite WRX posters to read. But blaming this uproar on people whom don't like change is the easy way out. I think many applaud the rule changes for 2019 (I certainly did) as soon as they saw them. However implementing a HC system that may require more work (hole by hole), more error prone, and one that may be less inclusive (limited non-comp rounds etc) is a much different animal. You mention the need for compromises for handicap authorities. Why should there be any compromise? We didn't ask for a WHS. It's clear from my participation on WRX that we treat our golf very differently depending on our nation, and that's fine. Anyone thinking we should change the way we play and compete in order to serve a global system is backward thinking. The casual weekend comps we play that are comprised of our buddies is the mainstay of golf at private and public courses across the USA. To expect that to change and not be able to post all of them, if even years down the road in order to serve a WHS, is the proverbial tail wagging the dog.

>

> And before anyone else says, hole by hole posting would only take a few seconds more, that's akin to shutting down credit card readers and expecting users to key their own card number. Then when they complain, tell them their being lazy because it's only 16 digits and they don't like change.

I appreciate your concern, we think can disagree without either of us being personally insulted.

In my opinion, the purpose of the WHS is really to IMPROVE handicap systems around the world. Unification is fine, but each current system has something that can be improved. Rather than individual systems working on random issues, it makes sense to me to put heads together, to look at what works and what doesn't work in each system. It also makes sense to make changes in increments, its more easily understood and accepted that way. That's why I support the WHS, I think (maybe its just hope) its a first step in a process.

To me, the single biggest issue facing the USGA handicap system is sandbagging, that's certainly where we hear the biggest complaints. We don't really hear the same from the CONGU folks, or most of our other international friends, so they MUST be doing something right. What's the difference? Two things, the types of rounds accepted for handicaps, and the lack of checks on the individual posting of scores in the US. Do we want to improve our system? I do. Will i cause heartache and grief if we move towards fewer casual scores and more formal attestation in the US? Of course. If you WANT to decrease sandbagging, are you WILLING to put up with the heartache and grief? I am. If you want things to improve, but only if its not too inconvenient for you, you're going to be disappointed one way or the other.

The 2020 changes, as far as they affect those of us in the US, are really trivial, and do nothing about our biggest issue. The only thing that will change for most of us is the change to Net Double. Remember, millions of golfers around the world have been playing Net Stableford forever, this is exactly the same. We can do it, at least the vast majority can, we're not that much less intelligent than the rest of the world (I hope). Yeah, its a change, but its not really a big one. But if we want to do something down the road to affect the really big issue, we better get used to change.

The last thing, I haven't read where anyone other than me has ever entered scores hole by hole. I did, for an entire season. Its a little bit more effort, but only a little bit. Until you've tried it, more than just once, please don't reject it completely. And we have no idea if it will happen, it was only suggested for those who really ARE not smart enough to cope with the Net Double.

I'd apologize for the long post, but I just don't think these things can be discussed very well twitter-style.

 

[North Butte]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

>

> >

> > If he's a 16 right now he should be posting 7 instead of 6. But what do you know, he posts 6 anyway. Poor foolish vanity 'capper, he just cost himself a stroke.

> >

> > Change it to Net Double Bogey and (unless it's the #17 or #18 stroke hole) he should be posting 7 instead of 6. But what do you know, he posts 6 anyway. Poor foolish vanity 'capper, he just cost himself a stroke.

> >

> > Now change it to Net Double Bogey AND force him to enter his scores hole by hole. He should be posting 7 instead of 6. But what do you know, he posts 6 on that hole anyway. Poor foolish vanity 'capper, he just cost himself a stroke.

> >

> > Can you not see that the results is EXACTLY THE SAME? You have not changed his handicap or anything else by implementing Net Double Bogey and/or hole-by-hole posting. So what the actual heck was the point of those changes again?

>

> And why should the system care about those who don't follow the rules now?

>

>

 

Exactly my point.

 

The proposed changes (and I'm including the hole-by-hole thing that as far as I can tell is only "proposed" here, not by USGA) do nothing about those who don't follow the rules. Nothing will be done about vanity 'cappers. Nothing done about sandbaggers. Nothing done about those who are confused or mistaken in their use of ESC. Nothing about nothing, basically.

 

Again I ask, so what exactly is it these changes are going to improve? Who is it that USGA "cares about"?

 

It's also obviously not about making the USA and UK systems the same since there is nothing to suggest in 2020 unattested and/or made-up scores will be eliminated on the USA side.

 

I think Dave's guess is as good as any. They are going to rearrange the deck chairs a little bit now and hope than down the road somehow, they'll have an opportunity to actually change the USA system in meaningful ways. Seems a stretch to me but it's the only explanation that fits the facts.

[davep043]

> @"North Butte" said:

> I think Dave's guess is as good as any. They are going to rearrange the deck chairs a little bit now and hope than down the road somehow, they'll have an opportunity to actually change the USA system in meaningful ways. Seems a stretch to me but it's the only explanation that fits the facts.

An analogy that I hope is applicable, consider a 20 handicapper who asks how to get to a 10 handicap. Often times the first, easiest way to save a few shots is to improve putting and chipping, that is the "low-hanging fruit". Improving the full swings is a lot tougher, it usually takes a lot more effort and time.

Well, the various governing bodies have picked off the "low-hanging fruit" in the 2020 WHS. I'm hoping they'll tackle the tougher issues in subsequent changes.

 

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > I think Dave's guess is as good as any. They are going to rearrange the deck chairs a little bit now and hope than down the road somehow, they'll have an opportunity to actually change the USA system in meaningful ways. Seems a stretch to me but it's the only explanation that fits the facts.

> An analogy that I hope is applicable, consider a 20 handicapper who asks how to get to a 10 handicap. Often times the first, easiest way to save a few shots is to improve putting and chipping, that is the "low-hanging fruit". Improving the full swings is a lot tougher, it usually takes a lot more effort and time.

> Well, the various governing bodies have picked off the "low-hanging fruit" in the 2020 WHS. I'm hoping they'll tackle the tougher issues in subsequent changes.

>

 

What is the problem that you think needs changes to the system? The only real problem is sandbagging, and the only thing that would affect it is requiring attesting. NBD, hole-by-hole scoring, 8 instead of 10, etc. will do nothing to minimize sandbagging. But an attest requirement would carve a large number of golfers out of the handicap system, so you replace one problem with a different bad result.

[rogolf]

> @davep043 said:

> > @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > Dave, first I don't want you to think I'm picking on you. You're one of my favorite WRX posters to read. But blaming this uproar on people whom don't like change is the easy way out. I think many applaud the rule changes for 2019 (I certainly did) as soon as they saw them. However implementing a HC system that may require more work (hole by hole), more error prone, and one that may be less inclusive (limited non-comp rounds etc) is a much different animal. You mention the need for compromises for handicap authorities. Why should there be any compromise? We didn't ask for a WHS. It's clear from my participation on WRX that we treat our golf very differently depending on our nation, and that's fine. Anyone thinking we should change the way we play and compete in order to serve a global system is backward thinking. The casual weekend comps we play that are comprised of our buddies is the mainstay of golf at private and public courses across the USA. To expect that to change and not be able to post all of them, if even years down the road in order to serve a WHS, is the proverbial tail wagging the dog.

> >

> > And before anyone else says, hole by hole posting would only take a few seconds more, that's akin to shutting down credit card readers and expecting users to key their own card number. Then when they complain, tell them their being lazy because it's only 16 digits and they don't like change.

> I appreciate your concern, we think can disagree without either of us being personally insulted.

> In my opinion, the purpose of the WHS is really to IMPROVE handicap systems around the world. Unification is fine, but each current system has something that can be improved. Rather than individual systems working on random issues, it makes sense to me to put heads together, to look at what works and what doesn't work in each system. It also makes sense to make changes in increments, its more easily understood and accepted that way. That's why I support the WHS, I think (maybe its just hope) its a first step in a process.

> To me, the single biggest issue facing the USGA handicap system is sandbagging, that's certainly where we hear the biggest complaints. We don't really hear the same from the CONGU folks, or most of our other international friends, so they MUST be doing something right. What's the difference? Two things, the types of rounds accepted for handicaps, and the lack of checks on the individual posting of scores in the US. Do we want to improve our system? I do. Will i cause heartache and grief if we move towards fewer casual scores and more formal attestation in the US? Of course. If you WANT to decrease sandbagging, are you WILLING to put up with the heartache and grief? I am. If you want things to improve, but only if its not too inconvenient for you, you're going to be disappointed one way or the other.

> The 2020 changes, as far as they affect those of us in the US, are really trivial, and do nothing about our biggest issue. The only thing that will change for most of us is the change to Net Double. Remember, millions of golfers around the world have been playing Net Stableford forever, this is exactly the same. We can do it, at least the vast majority can, we're not that much less intelligent than the rest of the world (I hope). Yeah, its a change, but its not really a big one. But if we want to do something down the road to affect the really big issue, we better get used to change.

> The last thing, I haven't read where anyone other than me has ever entered scores hole by hole. I did, for an entire season. Its a little bit more effort, but only a little bit. Until you've tried it, more than just once, please don't reject it completely. And we have no idea if it will happen, it was only suggested for those who really ARE not smart enough to cope with the Net Double.

> I'd apologize for the long post, but I just don't think these things can be discussed very well twitter-style.

>

 

Great post, thanks. **WE** (the players) need to recognize that only **WE** can improve how the system works in the field, the handicapping authorities provide the system.

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > I think Dave's guess is as good as any. They are going to rearrange the deck chairs a little bit now and hope than down the road somehow, they'll have an opportunity to actually change the USA system in meaningful ways. Seems a stretch to me but it's the only explanation that fits the facts.

> > An analogy that I hope is applicable, consider a 20 handicapper who asks how to get to a 10 handicap. Often times the first, easiest way to save a few shots is to improve putting and chipping, that is the "low-hanging fruit". Improving the full swings is a lot tougher, it usually takes a lot more effort and time.

> > Well, the various governing bodies have picked off the "low-hanging fruit" in the 2020 WHS. I'm hoping they'll tackle the tougher issues in subsequent changes.

> >

>

> What is the problem that you think needs changes to the system? The only real problem is sandbagging, and the only thing that would affect it is requiring attesting. NBD, hole-by-hole scoring, 8 instead of 10, etc. will do nothing to minimize sandbagging. But an attest requirement would carve a large number of golfers out of the handicap system, so you replace one problem with a different bad result.

 

I agree, in the US the biggest problem is sandbagging. I agree, increasing attesting requirements, possibly combined with reducing the types of rounds posted, would address that. If those changes cause some players to leave the system, I'd sat its an acceptable price, if handicaps are less prone to manipulation. Everyone can find a way to track their scores and compute a handicap, they only need a formal Handicap Index if they choose to play events that require one. Every privilege has its price.

[North Butte]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > I think Dave's guess is as good as any. They are going to rearrange the deck chairs a little bit now and hope than down the road somehow, they'll have an opportunity to actually change the USA system in meaningful ways. Seems a stretch to me but it's the only explanation that fits the facts.

> > > An analogy that I hope is applicable, consider a 20 handicapper who asks how to get to a 10 handicap. Often times the first, easiest way to save a few shots is to improve putting and chipping, that is the "low-hanging fruit". Improving the full swings is a lot tougher, it usually takes a lot more effort and time.

> > > Well, the various governing bodies have picked off the "low-hanging fruit" in the 2020 WHS. I'm hoping they'll tackle the tougher issues in subsequent changes.

> > >

> >

> > What is the problem that you think needs changes to the system? The only real problem is sandbagging, and the only thing that would affect it is requiring attesting. NBD, hole-by-hole scoring, 8 instead of 10, etc. will do nothing to minimize sandbagging. But an attest requirement would carve a large number of golfers out of the handicap system, so you replace one problem with a different bad result.

>

> I agree, in the US the biggest problem is sandbagging. I agree, increasing attesting requirements, possibly combined with reducing the types of rounds posted, would address that. If those changes cause some players to leave the system, I'd sat its an acceptable price, if handicaps are less prone to manipulation. Everyone can find a way to track their scores and compute a handicap, they only need a formal Handicap Index if they choose to play events that require one. Every privilege has its price.

 

While I totally agree with your sentiments (and in fact I recall making similar comments nearly 20 years ago when USGA first made their system wide open) I don't think USGA is willing to pay the "price" of which you speak. Anything that results in a contraction of their subscriber base is something they are going to avoid, full stop.

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @"North Butte" said:

> > > > I think Dave's guess is as good as any. They are going to rearrange the deck chairs a little bit now and hope than down the road somehow, they'll have an opportunity to actually change the USA system in meaningful ways. Seems a stretch to me but it's the only explanation that fits the facts.

> > > An analogy that I hope is applicable, consider a 20 handicapper who asks how to get to a 10 handicap. Often times the first, easiest way to save a few shots is to improve putting and chipping, that is the "low-hanging fruit". Improving the full swings is a lot tougher, it usually takes a lot more effort and time.

> > > Well, the various governing bodies have picked off the "low-hanging fruit" in the 2020 WHS. I'm hoping they'll tackle the tougher issues in subsequent changes.

> > >

> >

> > What is the problem that you think needs changes to the system? The only real problem is sandbagging, and the only thing that would affect it is requiring attesting. NBD, hole-by-hole scoring, 8 instead of 10, etc. will do nothing to minimize sandbagging. But an attest requirement would carve a large number of golfers out of the handicap system, so you replace one problem with a different bad result.

>

> I agree, in the US the biggest problem is sandbagging. I agree, increasing attesting requirements, possibly combined with reducing the types of rounds posted, would address that. If those changes cause some players to leave the system, I'd sat its an acceptable price, if handicaps are less prone to manipulation. Everyone can find a way to track their scores and compute a handicap, they only need a formal Handicap Index if they choose to play events that require one. Every privilege has its price.

 

Maybe they should implement two separate but official handicaps- tournament and non-tournament. One requires attesting, the other doesn’t.

[North Butte]

> @LICC said:>

> Maybe they should implement two separate but official handicaps- tournament and non-tournament. One requires attesting, the other doesn’t.

 

For a while now my best guess has been that handicap bifurcation is the endgame, beyond 2020, for USGA. If there is ever going to be a system in USA that's truly comparable to Rest Of The World, it will have to be run in parallel with the one that 90% of USA golfers are used to (anything goes, no attestation).

 

Probably even solo round posting will be allowed in the "hacker handicap". It will literally be GHIN or a similar service for sticking your favorite numbers in and having it turn the crank and give you an index.

 

Then there would be a "World Handicap" or "Competition Handicap" or "Players Handicap" that is purely based on comp scores with attestation, peer review and the greatest possible congruence with Rest Of The World.

[CaseyC]

For those who care, the two handicaps would be the same. Explanations for any differences would be, "It's a vanity HC" or "I'm a sandbagger"

[scott_Donald]

Reading through here to me it seem that a lot of people in here have forgotten there are a lot more people in the world that golf than just America. It's a system for all golfers in the world.

 

I live in Houston and my membership course is in Scotland I am looking forward to the new system, it will work.