New World Handicaps 2020

[davep043]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @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.

 

This would make sense in a lot of ways, and on a worldwide basis. For one, it maintains the "cultural differences" between the different parts of the world, we each keep most (or all) of what we're used to, so it doesn't completely alienate significant segments of the golfers. On the other hand, it introduces Americans to the stringent posting requirements that are common elsewhere, and exposes the rest of the world to our more inclusive posting. It also helps combat the sandbagging issues.

[LICC]

> @CaseyC said:

> 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"

 

If someone kept both, I would expect the "Tournament" handicap to be higher. Tougher course set-ups, increased pressure, etc.

[North Butte]

I'm pretty sure over time, the verbiage used to describe the two would boil down to something like "My real handicap is 12 but I also am a 9.7 in GHIN". Golfers would quickly distinguish player handicaps from hacker handicaps and I doubt very much the guys with a real one would also bother to have the other. There would be no honor in it.

[davep043]

> @LICC said:

> > @CaseyC said:

> > 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"

>

> If someone kept both, I would expect the "Tournament" handicap to be higher. Tougher course set-ups, increased pressure, etc.

It depends on the player, I think. You're probably right for a majority, but I know guys who concentrate better in competitions, who make smarter decisions, and score a little better.

[North Butte]

> @davep043 said:

> > @LICC said:

> > > @CaseyC said:

> > > 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"

> >

> > If someone kept both, I would expect the "Tournament" handicap to be higher. Tougher course set-ups, increased pressure, etc.

> It depends on the player, I think. You're probably right for a majority, but I know guys who concentrate better in competitions, who make smarter decisions, and score a little better.

 

Of course there's a fine line between that pattern versus simply letting a shot or two or three slip away in casual rounds, thereby gaining a bit of wiggle room in the old index ;-)

[davep043]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @davep043 said:

> > > @LICC said:

> > > > @CaseyC said:

> > > > 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"

> > >

> > > If someone kept both, I would expect the "Tournament" handicap to be higher. Tougher course set-ups, increased pressure, etc.

> > It depends on the player, I think. You're probably right for a majority, but I know guys who concentrate better in competitions, who make smarter decisions, and score a little better.

>

> Of course there's a fine line between that pattern versus simply letting a shot or two or three slip away in casual rounds, thereby gaining a bit of wiggle room in the old index ;-)

It looks almost exactly the same to a casual observer. For some guys, knowing their personalities, I can believe its honest. for others it look suspicious.

 

[LICC]

> @davep043 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > > @davep043 said:

> > > > @LICC said:

> > > > > @CaseyC said:

> > > > > 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"

> > > >

> > > > If someone kept both, I would expect the "Tournament" handicap to be higher. Tougher course set-ups, increased pressure, etc.

> > > It depends on the player, I think. You're probably right for a majority, but I know guys who concentrate better in competitions, who make smarter decisions, and score a little better.

> >

> > Of course there's a fine line between that pattern versus simply letting a shot or two or three slip away in casual rounds, thereby gaining a bit of wiggle room in the old index ;-)

> It looks almost exactly the same to a casual observer. For some guys, knowing their personalities, I can believe its honest. for others it look suspicious.

>

 

Good points. If they were to require attesting for regular rounds, I wonder how much difference it would make. When I play with friends, it's not like any of us are closely monitoring the others. Unless we notice something obvious, no one says anything. And if someone asked me to attest, I'm not going to say no because I didn't like his drop on hole 7 ...

[North Butte]

One of the guys at my club was talking about another member who happened to not be present. He said, "I know a lot of people suspect him of being a sandbagger. Not me. I've played a lot of golf with him and I KNOW he's a sandbagger".

 

Of course he was joking in that instance but the reality is, unless you know someone pretty well over a period of time the more subtle forms of sandbagging just aren't something you can "prove" with any certainty. Not talking about the ringers who play a different member/guest every year as someone's "guest" and shoot level par off their 13 handicap.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @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?

 

Some. None that I associate or know personally. Not sure how hole by hole prevents manipulation.

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @"North Butte" said:

> > @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.

 

Correct NB. The fact that comp, short for competition, has such regional differences in meaning shows how misplaced a whs is.

[davep043]

> @"North Butte" said:

> I'm pretty sure over time, the verbiage used to describe the two would boil down to something like "My real handicap is 12 but I also am a 9.7 in GHIN". Golfers would quickly distinguish player handicaps from hacker handicaps and I doubt very much the guys with a real one would also bother to have the other. There would be no honor in it.

I'd probably keep both. My "real" handicap would be the one that is used in official competitions in my home area. The other might just be fun to have. And if I were to go to Scotland again, as an example, I could enter an open competition and have a handicap that is pretty consistent with the posting requirements used there.

 

[North Butte]

> @davep043 said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > I'm pretty sure over time, the verbiage used to describe the two would boil down to something like "My real handicap is 12 but I also am a 9.7 in GHIN". Golfers would quickly distinguish player handicaps from hacker handicaps and I doubt very much the guys with a real one would also bother to have the other. There would be no honor in it.

> I'd probably keep both. My "real" handicap would be the one that is used in official competitions in my home area. The other might just be fun to have. And if I were to go to Scotland again, as an example, I could enter an open competition and have a handicap that is pretty consistent with the posting requirements used there.

>

 

The last trip I made (or next to last?) I asked the pro if I could enter his weekly Stableford open comp using my USGA handicap from my home course. He said that was fine but added, "Just don't come back with 48 points on your card". I laughed and told him I'd be happy to get 30 points. I knew that USA 'caps and UK ones don't come close to translating one-for-one.

 

Can't remember the exact tally but it was something like 22 or 23 points for the day. Didn't come within 10 shots of playing to my handicap. I thought I might be in the running for their Crap Golfer Of The Week trophy but I think somebody turned in a card with a single digit number of (net) points.

[Colin L]

> @scott_Donald said:

> 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.

 

I guess that isn't Houston in Renfrewshire?

 

Seriously, you seem to me to exemplify the gain through WHS of your being able to play golf in the USA and post your scores to your home club in Scotland. (I used to be a member at Murcar by the way.)

 

I remain totally bemused at the fuss being made in this thread.

[North Butte]

Yes there must be dozens and dozens of people out there who regularly play in both USA and UK and don't want to keep separate handicaps in both systems.

[scott_Donald]

> @"North Butte" said:

> Yes there must be dozens and dozens of people out there who regularly play in both USA and UK and don't want to keep separate handicaps in both systems.

 

me me me. only have uk one at 10, US unofficially in an app Comes out at 2.3.

[North Butte]

> @scott_Donald said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > Yes there must be dozens and dozens of people out there who regularly play in both USA and UK and don't want to keep separate handicaps in both systems.

>

> me me me. only have uk one at 10, US unofficially in an app Comes out at 2.3.

 

So you have to give yourself seven strokes when playing yourself back home!

[scott_Donald]

> @"North Butte" said:

> So you have to give yourself seven strokes when playing yourself back home!

 

Exactly. Texas courses are far easier with way less wind and far more wide open.

[Roadking2003]

> @BlackDiamondPar5 said:

> > @CaseyC said:

> > > @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?

>

> Some. None that I associate or know personally. Not sure how hole by hole prevents manipulation.

 

Hole by hole posting will have no impact on sandbagging.

[Roadking2003]

> @"Colin L" said:

>

> Seriously, you seem to me to exemplify the gain through WHS of your being able to play golf in the USA and post your scores to your home club in Scotland. (I used to be a member at Murcar by the way.)

 

You don't need WHS to "play golf in the USA and post your scores to your home club in Scotland."

[Roadking2003]

> @scott_Donald said:

> > @"North Butte" said:

> > So you have to give yourself seven strokes when playing yourself back home!

>

> Exactly. Texas courses are far easier with way less wind and far more wide open.

 

Strange. I've played all over Ireland and Scottland and haven't noticed what you post.

[HuntsvilleGator]

Hole by hole scoring would provide a large amount of data that **_could_** be used to really analyze golfers across the handicap spectrum. It could be used to tweak the system, define the areas of the game that challenge different types and levels of golfers, and generate more accurate course and hole handicap ratings. I'm not a USGA fan and figure they would find a way to screw it up but the data could be extremely helpful.

[scott_Donald]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> You don't need WHS to "play golf in the USA and post your scores to your home club in Scotland."

 

how do you do that? you are only allowed X amount of Supplemental scores in Scotland and you have to notify before you play.

 

> @Roadking2003 said:

> Strange. I've played all over Ireland and Scotland and haven't noticed what you post.

 

to me I can hit driver and use my length to my advantage in US, Scotland I hit far more 2 irons. I played terrible at Turnberry(pull hooks and a 7 at a par 3). My home course is harder than Turnberry, its pretty wide open but sure that was just the setup to get the visitors round. I have had 6 times on the course in the last 4 weeks here in Scotland with 30mph + winds. once the 6 months in Texas.

 

Ignore the Dukes as it was a scramble, just added the scores to keep record of playing there.

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

> @CaseyC said:

> 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"

 

Let me see if I understand here. Golfer A has a competition only index based on the only 6 comp rounds he has played in the past several years. And he has a 'casual index' based on the last 20 rounds of the 250 rounds that he has played in the past several years. They are different and therefore he is either a sandbagger or a vanity capper. Did I get that right?

 

dave

[BlackDiamondPar5]

> @HuntsvilleGator said:

> Hole by hole scoring would provide a large amount of data that **_could_** be used to really analyze golfers across the handicap spectrum. It could be used to tweak the system, define the areas of the game that challenge different types and levels of golfers, and generate more accurate course and hole handicap ratings. I'm not a USGA fan and figure they would find a way to screw it up but the data could be extremely helpful.

 

Absolutely no disputing that. During a re-rating period only allowing hole by hole posting for a defined period I would find acceptable. I bet most would as well as they want to help their golf courses. However no need to collect that data all the time.

 

> @CaseyC said:

> > @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?

 

Those that do just need to add a stroke on a few extra holes. Either way they can post inflated scores. Seriously what am I missing?

 

> @scott_Donald said:

>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.

 

I'm glad it's good for someone. But it doesn't make sense that we develop a system that's good for 1 in 100,000 and the other 99,999 have to change to a system of compromises. Globally there are already vast differences in how people use their handicaps to compete and what scores can be used to calculate a handicap... neither group is wrong but they don't mix well. Nor should one region be forced to adopt another when it changes or restricts the way they play or post. If the USGA ultimately decides to restrict the type of rounds that can be posted the system will just become less accurate.

[CaseyC]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

 

> Let me see if I understand here. Golfer A has a competition only index based on the only 6 comp rounds he has played in the past several years. And he has a 'casual index' based on the last 20 rounds of the 250 rounds that he has played in the past several years. They are different and therefore he is either a sandbagger or a vanity capper. Did I get that right?

>

> dave

What is the definition of a player's HC? Is a round several years and hundreds of rounds ago relevant to their "potential"?

 

[rogolf]

There's a lot of people on the beach today.

[DaveLeeNC]

> @CaseyC said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

>

> > Let me see if I understand here. Golfer A has a competition only index based on the only 6 comp rounds he has played in the past several years. And he has a 'casual index' based on the last 20 rounds of the 250 rounds that he has played in the past several years. They are different and therefore he is either a sandbagger or a vanity capper. Did I get that right?

> >

> > dave

> What is the definition of a player's HC? Is a round several years and hundreds of rounds ago relevant to their "potential"?

>

 

The definition of a player's handicap is well defined here - https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14367 . Whether the player's index is made up of only 6 comp scores that are recent or 2 years old is irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

 

dave

 

ps. And if you don't like the limited # of comp scores then change the question to a golfer with a lot of comp scores that are all in the summer, but his 20 most recent scores are all dead of winter scores (in a state that both has winter and posts all year). Same question.

[CaseyC]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

 

> The definition of a player's handicap is well defined here - https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14367 . Whether the player's index is made up of only 6 comp scores that are recent or 2 years old is irrelevant in the context of this discussion.

>

> dave

>

> ps. And if you don't like the limited # of comp scores then change the question to a golfer with a lot of comp scores that are all in the summer, but his 20 most recent scores are all dead of winter scores (in a state that both has winter and posts all year). Same question.

 

How about 1 HC, like it is now and like it is proposed to be? I find the idea of a "Comp" handicap potentially using scores that are 2 years old and 500 rounds played since not relevant to a persons current "potential". YMMV

 

 

[Colin L]

> @Roadking2003 said:

> > @"Colin L" said:

> >

> > Seriously, you seem to me to exemplify the gain through WHS of your being able to play golf in the USA and post your scores to your home club in Scotland. (I used to be a member at Murcar by the way.)

>

> You don't need WHS to "play golf in the USA and post your scores to your home club in Scotland."

 

Currently the USGA and CONGU systems are incompatible and Scott_donald's US scores would not be acceptable for CONGU handicapping.

[LICC]

> @"Colin L" said:

> > @Roadking2003 said:

> > > @"Colin L" said:

> > >

> > > Seriously, you seem to me to exemplify the gain through WHS of your being able to play golf in the USA and post your scores to your home club in Scotland. (I used to be a member at Murcar by the way.)

> >

> > You don't need WHS to "play golf in the USA and post your scores to your home club in Scotland."

>

> Currently the USGA and CONGU systems are incompatible and Scott_donald's US scores would not be acceptable for CONGU handicapping.

 

America has, by far, the most golfers compared to any other country. Whatever world system would be put in place should be sure to work well for the American golf market.