Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture => Topic started by: Tom Bacsanyi on July 20, 2022, 08:08:51 PM
-
We've all played with "them."
Pickup Peter posts a 69 while picking up five 6 footers that were given to him as part of a match. "Those were good" he says, but his make percentage from 6 feet? 45%? No time for argument, he's off to play a US Am qualifier at Camargo where he'll post a tidy 84.
Meanwhile Big Money Boris's eyes grow as large as saucers on the range when a big money game is dicussed, closely eye-humping every dollar that goes in the pot. Guess what, he comes in with a 73 at a 12 index after shooting a 91 in a more casual setting the round previous. "I just got hot I guess." Sure ya did bub.
The 9 hole score posting thread got me thinking: Which is the worse problem in today's game? Vanity-capping or sandbagging? Can we blame the LIV tour for this?
"This topic is OTTTTTT!!!" you shriek. Just a second now wildman, I'm getting to that. How does architecture support handicap chicanery? Does a player that plays a hazard-laden home course have an inherent advantage building up a handicap premium and applying that premium to an easier course in competition? Does playing a course with an easy wide-open front 9 and constantly skipping a more difficult back 9 allow the vanity-capper to keep an index that stokes his ego?
-
Pretty simple, the sand-bagger is cheating his opponent whereas, as annoying as he is, the Hollywood Handicap guy is just cheating himself.
-
Pretty simple, the sand-bagger is cheating his opponent whereas, as annoying as he is, the Hollywood Handicap guy is just cheating himself.
Agreed, with one significant exception; vanity handicaps can really screw up flighted tournaments, both which golfers go into which flights, and, in turn, the results. For instance, if each flight has 8 players, vanity caps push legit guys down a flight, which skews the results.
I’ll add this. In my experience, a lot of the complaints from low indexes who lost to a higher index were vanity caps who aren’t very good when they have to play fully under the Rules. Most of the guys who consistently do well in net comps are just guys who play every round fully under the Rules, and usually for a few dollars. They don’t panic when their ball is in a divot, or they have to take stroke and distance, Orr they have to actually putt out, etc, and they can handle their nerves. Vanity guys can’t do any of that, but they sure can bitch later.
-
Hollywood Handicap guy is just cheating himself.
And his partner
-
Vanity handicappers are far greater in number.
-
Vanity handicappers are far greater in number.
I feel like the system, with a net double as a max score, inherently creates vanity caps. Net double is better than the old system that was max double for 0-9 hcp.
-
Vanity handicappers are far greater in number.
I feel like the system, with a net double as a max score, inherently creates vanity caps. Net double is better than the old system that was max double for 0-9 hcp.
Agree with this, many ESC doubles in casual play would end up as triples, quads, and "others" in tournament play, making the player look way better in terms of index.
-
Pretty simple, the sand-bagger is cheating his opponent whereas, as annoying as he is, the Hollywood Handicap guy is just cheating himself.
It's not so much the case in the US, but in the UK, tournament fields are frequently determined by handicap, so vanity caps play in those events when better players with higher handicaps do not. Other than that I agree entirely.
-
Vanity handicappers are far greater in number.
How do you know this?
-
I don’t know how vanity handicapping even exists. On our side of the world, posting a score when you’ve picked up even a 6-incher is a serious no-no. Ball goes in the hole unless you scratch that hole in Stableford comps.
If this is now happening in casual rounds, it’s a US disease that has spread over here with the advent of the WHS.
-
Vanity handicappers are far greater in number.
Agreed. I'm one of 'em. ;D
-
I don’t know how vanity handicapping even exists. On our side of the world, posting a score when you’ve picked up even a 6-incher is a serious no-no. Ball goes in the hole unless you scratch that hole in Stableford comps.
It defies logic. I knew a guy that was guilty of this and he had a hell of a time at Member Guests. I'm talking a legit 20 handicap calling himself a 10. The problem was the putting. He couldn't putt, and as a result, would just kind of do a one-handed slap at anything inside 8 feet (counting it as a one-putt). People finally stopped inviting him because they got tired of getting destroyed.
The whole idea of it is completely asinine. ::)
-
Warm agreement with Ally. With any card that you have to sign for ('Casual Round' or otherwise) and is then submitted for handicap, over here in the UK the ball must be putted out. Or do I just play at old-fashioned clubs?
-
I don’t know how vanity handicapping even exists. On our side of the world, posting a score when you’ve picked up even a 6-incher is a serious no-no. Ball goes in the hole unless you scratch that hole in Stableford comps.
If this is now happening in casual rounds, it’s a US disease that has spread over here with the advent of the WHS.
Ally, in the U.S. putts are given all the time to help with pace of play. Anywhere I've played 3' putts or shorter are commonly given - especially in non-competitive rounds. Thus, handicaps tend to be lower because of it (my own included). That said, this can work against you in a competitive situation or tournaments where everything has to be putted out. Unlike some of our U.K. brethren, we don't see it as a major issue or problem in the U.S. It kind of is what it is and we don't dwell on the ethics of it too much.
-
Warm agreement with Ally. With any card that you have to sign for ('Casual Round' or otherwise) and is then submitted for handicap, over here in the UK the ball must be putted out. Or do I just play at old-fashioned clubs?
I'm confused. EVERY round you play unless you are alone is supposed to be posted regardless of it being a tournament or a casual round?
-
Warm agreement with Ally. With any card that you have to sign for ('Casual Round' or otherwise) and is then submitted for handicap, over here in the UK the ball must be putted out. Or do I just play at old-fashioned clubs?
I'm confused. EVERY round you play unless you are alone is supposed to be posted regardless of it being a tournament or a casual round?
People post rounds played alone in the U.S. all the time. I've done it this for several years without issue. Scores are accepted based on the honor system. I can go on the USGA's GHIN app right now and post a score for a course I didn't even play if I wanted. There's nothing that prevents someone from doing so. Thus, you can only hope people are being honest about the score they shot on a particular course and day.
-
Warm agreement with Ally. With any card that you have to sign for ('Casual Round' or otherwise) and is then submitted for handicap, over here in the UK the ball must be putted out. Or do I just play at old-fashioned clubs?
I'm confused. EVERY round you play unless you are alone is supposed to be posted regardless of it being a tournament or a casual round?
People post rounds played alone in the U.S. all the time. I've done it this for several years without issue. Scores are accepted based on the honor system. I can go on the USGA's GHIN app right now and post a score for a course I didn't even play if I wanted. There's nothing that prevents someone from doing so. Thus, you can only hope people are being honest about the score they shot on a particular course and day.
Of course the whole thing is based on the honor system. That's why it makes no sense that you can't post a round that you play alone. You could be on vacation and play with 3 strangers and post whatever you want.
My statement was based on what Richard said. I got the impression they are only posting tournament rounds.
-
Although sand-bagging may be worse, both are at their core, simply dishonest.
-
The guys that have the truest handicaps are those that play a lot of competitive rounds. This is not limited to low digit players but anyone who competes in a fair number of medal play events whether at the club, state or national level. It is instinctive for these guys to putt out regardless of length. I pray that I don’t get a vanity guy as a partner because they never putt out anything inside of five feet unless required. When I see someone drag a couple of five footers early in the round because his partner is already in the hole and take par it’s a pretty good indication that their handicap is too low.
-
Pretty simple, the sand-bagger is cheating his opponent whereas, as annoying as he is, the Hollywood Handicap guy is just cheating himself.
It's not so much the case in the US, but in the UK, tournament fields are frequently determined by handicap, so vanity caps play in those events when better players with higher handicaps do not.
I thought stopping this situation occurring was one of the reasons why the WHS was introduced!
Atb
-
When the WHS was announced I was saddened that it meant the rest of the world using the US system instead of the US moving to the CONGU system of medal days and only tournament rounds counting.
The idea of grinding over every 2-5 footer when playing a match in order to post a score is ludicrous from a fun or a pace of play standpoint. I would be surprised if 5% of posted rounds in the US are 100% legit on any given day. There is a reason that shooting your handicap in most events is more than enough to get in the money in most serious events. Even at my club, I rarely play in net events as the whole conversation of sandbagging vs vanity handicaps takes a lot of the fun out of it for me. We all know that anyone that beats you net is a sandbagger and any partner that you lose with is a vanity guy.
-
Pretty simple, the sand-bagger is cheating his opponent whereas, as annoying as he is, the Hollywood Handicap guy is just cheating himself.
It's not so much the case in the US, but in the UK, tournament fields are frequently determined by handicap, so vanity caps play in those events when better players with higher handicaps do not.
I thought stopping this situation occurring was one of the reasons why the WHS was introduced!
Atb
That was a slightly different point. For the big UK amateur events, players on the US system would be lower just because of the way the system worked and so they'd get in and others on CONGU wouldn't. WHS removes that difference (or at least helps to). Vanity caps still get into those things though. In the US, virtually all events have qualifiers so handicap has little to do with it.
I suspect that most of those big amateur events are based more on WAGR position than handicap, so it's less of an impact now.
-
I completely ignore the “instruction” to post every round. I just do it the old way and post competition rounds (usually one per week)…. I like the extra pressure it puts on me… makes those rounds feel different.
Very occasionally I post a casual round. If I do that, I am required to nominate the round before I start, I am required to hole out all putts and I am required to have someone who is playing with me mark my card.
-
I completely ignore the “instruction” to post every round. I just do it the old way and post competition rounds (usually one per week)…. I like the extra pressure it puts on me… makes those rounds feel different.
Very occasionally I post a casual round. If I do that, I am required to nominate the round before I start, I am required to hole out all putts and I am required to have someone who is playing with me mark my card.
My index would be a lot higher if I could choose which rounds I posted. You are not required to hole out all putts to post a score. It's not even encouraged in match play.
-
I completely ignore the “instruction” to post every round. I just do it the old way and post competition rounds (usually one per week)…. I like the extra pressure it puts on me… makes those rounds feel different.
Very occasionally I post a casual round. If I do that, I am required to nominate the round before I start, I am required to hole out all putts and I am required to have someone who is playing with me mark my card.
My index would be a lot higher if I could choose which rounds I posted. You are not required to hole out all putts to post a score. It's not even encouraged in match play.
Why would it be higher? Do you know how you are going to play before you tee off?
My index would be a lot lower if I started to give myself a bunch of putts. I never post a score whilst playing matchplay. Kind of defeats the strategy and idea that it is a different form of the game.
-
I completely ignore the “instruction” to post every round. I just do it the old way and post competition rounds (usually one per week)…. I like the extra pressure it puts on me… makes those rounds feel different.
Very occasionally I post a casual round. If I do that, I am required to nominate the round before I start, I am required to hole out all putts and I am required to have someone who is playing with me mark my card.
My index would be a lot higher if I could choose which rounds I posted. You are not required to hole out all putts to post a score. It's not even encouraged in match play.
To add to this, with the USGA's GHIN system, you're discouraged to post a hole score more than double bogey or triple bogey depending on your existing handicap and the hole handicap. There have been holes I've gotten a triple bogey or worse and the most I could post was a double bogey. My guess is this is done to mitigate the potential for sandbagging, but then it begs the question as to what someone's real handicap should be if the actual score for a round isn't fully accounted for?
-
I completely ignore the “instruction” to post every round. I just do it the old way and post competition rounds (usually one per week)…. I like the extra pressure it puts on me… makes those rounds feel different.
Very occasionally I post a casual round. If I do that, I am required to nominate the round before I start, I am required to hole out all putts and I am required to have someone who is playing with me mark my card.
My index would be a lot higher if I could choose which rounds I posted. You are not required to hole out all putts to post a score. It's not even encouraged in match play.
Why would it be higher? Do you know how you are going to play before you tee off?
My index would be a lot lower if I started to give myself a bunch of putts. I never post a score whilst playing matchplay. Kind of defeats the strategy and idea that it is a different form of the game.
I can't speak to non-US rules if they're different, though I thought they no longer were. In the US, I am not allowed to pick which scores I post, whether I decide ahead of time or not. If I play with someone and by the rules of golf, I post. And if I couldn't or didn't post match play scores, I might post 2 or 3 rounds per year.
-
I completely ignore the “instruction” to post every round. I just do it the old way and post competition rounds (usually one per week)…. I like the extra pressure it puts on me… makes those rounds feel different.
Very occasionally I post a casual round. If I do that, I am required to nominate the round before I start, I am required to hole out all putts and I am required to have someone who is playing with me mark my card.
My index would be a lot higher if I could choose which rounds I posted. You are not required to hole out all putts to post a score. It's not even encouraged in match play.
To add to this, with the USGA's GHIN system, you're discouraged to post a hole score more than double bogey or triple bogey depending on your existing handicap and the hole handicap. There have been holes I've gotten a triple bogey or worse and the most I could post was a double bogey. My guess is this is done to mitigate the potential for sandbagging, but then it begs the question as to what someone's real handicap should be if the actual score for a round isn't fully accounted for?
Mike, you're not discouraged from doing it, you're forbidden. Someone's "real handicap" is whatever it is, so long as we're all playing by the same rules.
-
Yet Another Handicap thread, just what the DG needs! ;D
In the US its simple. The "on your honor" system will be abused, gamed, and otherwise screwed up until the end of time.
Implementing attested scores, when something is actually on the line, as the only scores that count towards your cap... is the only way they gonna fix things at this point.
P.S And yes Baggers are the worst, but I don't get how anyone is hurt by vanity cappers? In a real match they almost always end up getting destroyed by someone who carries a legit cap...what am I missing?
-
Where I play if we wish to post a non-competition score we have to nominate this on the clubs computer before we tee-off (not after). And we must at the same time nominate which colour tees were going to play from and whether it’s a 18-hole on a 9-hole round were going to play. If 9-holes we need to nominate which 9. We then input our scores on completing the round. I believe if we haven’t input the score within a certain time period of initially entering the computer to register a non-comp score then any score ultimately entered becomes void.
Is this the same for others in GB&I (and elsewhere)?
Atb
-
Vanity handicappers are far greater in number.
People say that all the time, but in 60 years of competitive golf, I'd say baggers outnumber vanity caps 10 to 1...or maybe 100 to 1.
I've personally known fewer than 5 vanity handicappers who actually carried GHIN indexes. The number of people without handicaps who vastly exaggerated their skills is another matter.
-
Vanity handicappers are far greater in number.
People say that all the time, but in 60 years of competitive golf, I'd say baggers outnumber vanity caps 10 to 1...or maybe 100 to 1.
I've personally known fewer than 5 vanity handicappers who actually carried GHIN indexes. The number of people without handicaps who vastly exaggerated their skills is another matter.
Erik put that out there like it’s a foregone conclusion. Where’s the data to back it up? I’ve come across way more baggers than vanity handicaps in my experience.
-
I completely ignore the “instruction” to post every round. I just do it the old way and post competition rounds (usually one per week)…. I like the extra pressure it puts on me… makes those rounds feel different.
Very occasionally I post a casual round. If I do that, I am required to nominate the round before I start, I am required to hole out all putts and I am required to have someone who is playing with me mark my card.
My index would be a lot higher if I could choose which rounds I posted. You are not required to hole out all putts to post a score. It's not even encouraged in match play.
Why would it be higher? Do you know how you are going to play before you tee off?
My index would be a lot lower if I started to give myself a bunch of putts. I never post a score whilst playing matchplay. Kind of defeats the strategy and idea that it is a different form of the game.
I believe that match play scores are to be posted.
-
Vanity handicappers are far greater in number.
People say that all the time, but in 60 years of competitive golf, I'd say baggers outnumber vanity caps 10 to 1...or maybe 100 to 1.
I've personally known fewer than 5 vanity handicappers who actually carried GHIN indexes. The number of people without handicaps who vastly exaggerated their skills is another matter.
Erik put that out there like it’s a foregone conclusion. Where’s the data to back it up? I’ve come across way more baggers than vanity handicaps in my experience.
I can’t provide a link, but my recollection from my days running club net comps is that the USGA estimates that vanity indexes outnumber actual sandbagger by 3 to 1.
Think about it: A mulligan on the first tee. Gimme putts of varying lengths. Lift, clean, and place. The so-called “leaf rule”. Improper relief from a penalty area. Not taking stroke and distance penalties or the new two stroke penalty option. I could go on, but you get the idea, and I just described a huge percentage of total rounds played. Small wonder so many golfers fall apart in competition, or avoid it completely. Another big one is most likely score when a hole is completed in match play, and a guy is 10’ from the hole. The vast majority of the time, I see guys add one stroke and record that score, when the the most likely score is TWO additional strokes.
This is NEVER popular when I write it, but here goes. In my personal experience, the majority of the sandbagging complaints have been guys who can’t play anywhere close their index when they have to play fully under the Rules complaining about guys who DO play every round under the Rules. They may carry a high index, but the Rules don’t faze them because they play that way ALL THE TIME!
The true sandbagger I’ve seen are guys who don’t record EVERY score the way they are supposed to. It is NOT common, but I’ll agree that it is a significant problem when it happens. We currently have a club in our senior interclub pod that is notorious for this; their handicap committee is either complicit or afraid.
-
I feel like the system, with a net double as a max score, inherently creates vanity caps. Net double is better than the old system that was max double for 0-9 hcp.
Net Double is used in surprisingly few counting (8 of the 20) scores. I forget the actual percentage, but it was very low. (Had you asked me while the WHS was being finalized, I was told the number then… my takeaway was "oh, that's almost entirely insignificant.")
How do you know this?
I've seen a lot of tournament scores, etc.
I completely ignore the “instruction” to post every round. I just do it the old way and post competition rounds (usually one per week)…. I like the extra pressure it puts on me… makes those rounds feel different.
It's not an "instruction" so much as a rule of the handicapping system.
My index would be a lot lower if I started to give myself a bunch of putts. I never post a score whilst playing matchplay. Kind of defeats the strategy and idea that it is a different form of the game.
You don't post the "he gave me that twenty-footer for par" score. You post your most likely score.
I can’t provide a link, but my recollection from my days running club net comps is that the USGA estimates that vanity indexes outnumber actual sandbagger by 3 to 1.
There is plenty of data out there. Some people just aren't willing to see it for what it is.
Thanks as usual AG.
This is NEVER popular when I write it, but here goes. In my personal experience, the majority of the sandbagging complaints have been guys who can’t play anywhere close their index when they have to play fully under the Rules complaining about guys who DO play every round under the Rules. They may carry a high index, but the Rules don’t faze them because they play that way ALL THE TIME!
Truth.
-
Reading what all you guys are saying, we are using a “World” Handicap Index in name only.
We are still miles apart in how we actually implement it. Majority of folks I know in GB&I haven’t changed the way they record scores at all.
-
Majority of folks I know in GB&I haven’t changed the way they record scores at all.
They've given some latitude to the various golf associations as far as how they want to run things, but… some things are semi-universal.
What's "world" is the course rating/slope stuff, the 8 of 20, and many other things. https://www.whs.com/articles/2019/acceptable-scores.html (https://www.whs.com/articles/2019/acceptable-scores.html) sheds some light, too:
Scores from 18-hole stroke play and 18-hole Stableford competitions will be mandatory, and other formats will be chosen by National Associations from a more comprehensive list. This discretion is provided so that local golfing cultures can be accommodated and to ensure that the new system does not force change on the way the game is played.
While many competitive and recreational formats of play may be acceptable, there are certain rounds that would not be eligible for handicap purposes. Examples include rounds played while being coached, playing alone or those played in scramble or alternate-shot formats.
It's not entirely standardized, but it's much closer to being so than pre-2020.
-
Okay, I have admit I was discounting folks who never play by the rules and then post scores.
I haven't really ever thought of them as being vain about their handicaps.
The "real" vanity caps I've known were low single digits who could rarely break 90.
One was a 1.something who joined my wife and me prior to US Open qualifying and never made a par. I checked his scores at qualifying and he shot mid-90s.
Another was a member at my club who'd play for money at a 2 shoot 85-90.
-
Reading what all you guys are saying, we are using a “World” Handicap Index in name only.
We are still miles apart in how we actually implement it. Majority of folks I know in GB&I haven’t changed the way they record scores at all.
Too true! The difference is posting casual rounds outside of Tournament play. The vanity handicapper neglects to post poor rounds. The sandbagger posts rounds which are not played in the spirit of the game; perhaps playing in a skins game where he never makes a putt he doesn’t need. Counting every round not played in tournament conditions is the downfall of the US system.
Here is a simple solution: lump all tournament scores into one bucket and casual scores into another. Allow the Club to decide which handicap to use. I’ll bet 99% of Clubs would use tournament handicaps if given a choice. It seems so easy as computers can churn the numbers in a microsecond. I want to know how my competitors play under the rules, holing all putts.
Several of my clubs kept Tournament handicaps before the WHS was put in place. Low and behold the same usual suspects stopped winning on a regular basis. These Clubs assumed the WHS would level the playing field but all are thinking of going back to that system.
Why can’t we lump all medal players scores from tournaments into a tournament handicap?
-
The argument for counting casual rounds I have heard repeatedly is, "Well, I don't play in competition."
Then you don't actually need a GHIN handicap.
However, I will admit that of the 20 or so guys in my winter M/W/F game, only about half regularly play in the Men's Assoc. events. And we are not only sticklers about posting scores, but as the organizer told me on my first time with them, "We play by the rules, all of them. We play the ball down and there are NO gimmees."
And he wasn't kidding. A ball overhanging the lip gets putted out EVERY time. In fact I missed one that was only about an inch from the cup last winter.
-
The argument for counting casual rounds I have heard repeatedly is, "Well, I don't play in competition."
Then you don't actually need a GHIN handicap.
However, I will admit that of the 20 or so guys in my winter M/W/F game, only about half regularly play in the Men's Assoc. events.
The points and skins games played at almost every club are played off of the course handicaps; that’s a perfectly valid reason to have a GHIN handicap even if you never play tournaments. Those games, for $3 or $6 or $10 or $20 sort of make the world go round at clubs, and they are handicap dependent.
And you’re right; most golfers absolutely do NOT want to play tournament golf fully under the Rules. Whether it’s because of stress, or fear of being exposed, or whatever, most clubs get only small fractions of the membership in club tournaments, especially championships.
The Mens Golf Association at my club has 190 members. 130 of the 190 are on rosters for the 9 hole Wednesday night better ball match play league. I think it’s a fair guess that probably half or more of both those numbers are over 55, yet we had only 24 entries in the senior club championship last weekend.
It would probably be wise to separate the ideas of handicaps and formal competitions in your mind. While there is of course crossover, neither necessarily depends completely on the other. To me, the world handicap system is an attempt to acknowledge that.
-
The argument for counting casual rounds I have heard repeatedly is, "Well, I don't play in competition."
Then you don't actually need a GHIN handicap.
However, I will admit that of the 20 or so guys in my winter M/W/F game, only about half regularly play in the Men's Assoc. events. And we are not only sticklers about posting scores, but as the organizer told me on my first time with them, "We play by the rules, all of them. We play the ball down and there are NO gimmees."
And he wasn't kidding. A ball overhanging the lip gets putted out EVERY time. In fact I missed one that was only about an inch from the cup last winter.
There are thousands of people who play regularly around here who have virtually no access to "competition". They still want to play matches with their friends and they still want to be able to say what their handicap is when asked. Why shouldn't they have a handicap with GHIN?
I think a lot of the differences between UK and US as far as whether all scores or only competition scores are included is to do with the culture. In the UK, almost everyone who plays regularly belongs to a club somewhere and plays in the club competitions. Club memberships are pretty reasonable (think $2-5k to join and then $1-3k per year subs). In the US (at least near me), if you're not very well off, then public golf is all you've got (club memberships range from $8k per year up to $1.2 million joining fee and $50k a year). Play once a week at a public course through the season and you've spent as much as a club membership in the UK, except no competitions at all for that, so if non-competition rounds don't count then you don't get a handicap.
-
All the money games I play in keep their own handicap system. They use the same formula as the WHS, but only include rounds played in that particular game. That eliminates anyone posting casual rounds not played within the rules and not observed by the other members of the group. It’s amazing how after a year or so of joining the group how each players GHIN index begins to diverge from their money game index. (GHIN is usually higher) This just reinforces why we keep a separate handicap system for the money game. It eliminates all the sandbagging arguments. I can’t remember a time when anyone ever accused anyone of having a vanity cap or sandbagging. Their index is alway correct as it reflects their last 20 rounds in the “game”.
-
Again, warm agreement with Ally and David on the Brit perspective on this - and Michael is likewise surely right when he says that the proportion of 'club-based' rounds played in the UK is much higher than in the US, which informs the handicap culture.
It's a real shame that we don't have more female golfers posting on GCA, as handicapping protocols under the old LGU were always very different from the old CONGU ones and that perspective would be vv interesting. But in all instances putts had to be holed out if a score was to count for handicap purposes - that was axiomatic and for 95% (?) of UK golfers still is.
-
The England Golf guidance says that submitting general play scores outside of competitions for handicap purposes is optional when the round is played under an “acceptable” format. That is pre-registered 9 or 18 hole individual strokeplay, stableford, bogey or maximum score rounds played under the rules of golf with at least one other person.
Individual matchplay or any form of fourball strokeplay or matchplay are “non-acceptable” formats, so general play scores are not valid for those rounds.
Personally, I’ve not submitted a single general play score or been asked to mark one for a partner since the WHS was introduced here. I’m sure I will do at some point in the future - if whoever I’m playing with wants to do it, then I’d very likely do the same - but I don’t think my handicap is any more or less “correct” whether I do or don’t.
-
Not sure if the GBI handicap system works the same way as the GHIN, but the latter takes the last 10 rounds played, I believe, and throws out the low and high scores posted in that window in adjusting ones index. This year, so far, the majority of my rounds have been in the high 80's and low 90's. I've had a couple rounds in the low 100's and I've shot as low as 84. Thus, I'm all over the map. I know a lot guys lout there like me that are erratic weekend warriros. I'm currently indexed at an 11.8, which is down from a high of 14.7 two years ago. The majority of my rounds are casual with members from my club, family members or frriends (guests), but I take pride in playing my best golf regardless of the situation and do my best to post a legitimate score within the confines of the GHIN structure.
While I only play in a few club tournaments throughout the year, I do partake betting games on some of my rounds just so there is something at stake to be gained or lost. I consider those "competitive rounds" even though they're non-tournament. That said, even when money is on the line putts are given routinely within 3' at most. If say a 3' or 2' putt is on a slippery downhill slope, they're not given as generously and more often than not are putted out. If I'm playing by myself, I won't give myself anything outside of 3' as those putts make for good practice during events or tournaments where you're required to make them.
I'm not sure what I'm trying get at here, as there are all fairly random thoughts, but I guess I'm hoping to shed light on how things are done typically in the U.S. in establishing one's handicap index and perhaps start a debate on what consitutes a competitive round, vs. casual, as I feel it extends beyond just tournaments - especially when there's money on the line.
-
Not sure if the GBI handicap system works the same way as the GHIN, but the latter takes the last 10 rounds played, I believe, and throws out the low and high scores posted in that window in adjusting ones index. This year, so far, the majority of my rounds have been in the high 80's and low 90's. I've had a couple rounds in the low 100's and I've shot as low as 84. Thus, I'm all over the map. I know a lot guys lout there like me that are erratic weekend warriros. I'm currently indexed at an 11.8, which is down from a high of 14.7 two years ago. The majority of my rounds are casual with members from my club, family members or frriends (guests), but I take pride in playing my best golf regardless of the situation and do my best to post a legitimate score within the confines of the GHIN structure.
While I only play in a few club tournaments throughout the year, I do partake betting games on some of my rounds just so there is something at stake to be gained or lost. I consider those "competitive rounds" even though they're non-tournament. That said, even when money is on the line putts are given routinely within 3' at most. If say a 3' or 2' putt is on a slippery downhill slope, they're not given as generously and more often than not are putted out. If I'm playing by myself, I won't give myself anything outside of 3' as those putts make for good practice during events or tournaments where you're required to make them.
I'm not sure what I'm trying get at here, as there are all fairly random thoughts, but I guess I'm hoping to shed light on how things are done typically in the U.S. in establishing one's handicap index and perhaps start a debate on what consitutes a competitive round, vs. casual, as I feel it extends beyond just tournaments - especially when there's money on the line.
GHIN takes the last 20 rounds, and your index is the average of the best 8 differentials, which might not necessarily be the best 8 scores. No scores are thrown out, high or low.
I think most are referring to a “competitive” round as some form of tournament play, whether stroke play or match play, as opposed to a money game, no matter how much money is at stake. The USGA leaves this designation up to the individual club, but I don’t know of any that record scores in typical points and skins games as “competition” scores. At most clubs, the scores the club designates as competition scores, such as club championships or Member-Guest tournaments, are entered into GHIN by the club, rather than by the player. That’s always the case with tournaments run by state golf associations, of course.
There is no difference in the way scores are used in calculating handicap indexes, but the “competition” designation can be important in reviewing scores to determine sandbagging when a player consistently scores at or below his index in tournament play.
Unfortunately, the most common form of sandbagging is not recording good scores in non-competition rounds, and that’s where a club handicap committee becomes critical. Good ones monitor the tee sheets regularly to determine whether or not rounds are being posted, but this is too often not the case, and probably doesn’t happen at all at public courses.
-
The only time I see a competitive(C) designation is in a Connecticut State Golf Association event and USGA events would be the same. We have a medal event almost every weekend and they are posted by the committee as “H” for Home. Are there those out there who see the “C” designation used for club events?
-
The only time I see a competitive(C) designation is in a Connecticut State Golf Association event and USGA events would be the same. We have a medal event almost every weekend and they are posted by the committee as “H” for Home. Are there those out there who see the “C” designation used for club events?
My club uses the C designation for club championships, the Member-Guest (54 holes over three days), and interclub matches. We do not designate Member-Member scores as C because it is a series of 9 hole matches, but the club DOES enter the scores in GHIN; same for the 9 hole 2 man better ball match play league scores. The 9 hole scores are entered, then are combined when the next 9 hole score comes in, and designated with an N, rather than a C.
-
At a club I belonged to for a number of years, we had a member who carried an 8-10 handicap the entire time. He only posted about 20-25 rounds/year, yet he was seen on the course by himself or with his (seemingly) only friend several times a week. Turns out that he would only play 7-8 holes most of the time, thus he wouldn't post his 9 hole scores. I guess he had a little Costanza in him.
Most of us just resigned ourselves to the fact he was a Sandbagger and we simply didn't invite him to participate in our games. He was always in the mix at handicap events. We figured that if a win at a small, private, family club in the Southeast meant so much to him that he'd go to such lengths to get an advantage, he had bigger problems to contend with.
One summer another member pulled a similar move to the one played on OJ, after he was arrested for the murders of his ex-wife and her boyfriend. The member entered several estimated scores for the aforementioned Sandbagger, which brought his handicap from the 8-10 range, to a 4. At the first event with the new handicap, the Sandbagger was almost in tears when he saw the scorecard, marked with the strokes he was receiving. The rest of us adopted a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" attitude about the infraction.
After appealing to the Head Pro, the scores were removed and his handicap went back up. And he continued to grab shop credits.
-
A.G., GHIN does not take your last eight rounds. It takes the low eight differentials.
And re. my statement that people who don't play in competition not needing a GHIN handicap, golfers made games for hundreds of years without the help of a system.
-
A.G., GHIN does not take your last eight rounds. It takes the low eight differentials.
And re. my statement that people who don't play in competition not needing a GHIN handicap, golfers made games for hundreds of years without the help of a system.
Ken,
Agreed on this point... once you play a 5-10 rounds with some buddies, you can usually just say 3 per side or something like that and get on with it.
For practical purposes, having a GHIN only matters when playing with people you don't know. I kept one for awhile a number of years back, but the 'unknown' sand-baggers in local events really turned me off to it.
-
I played with both in money games.
I would never take an individual bet with a sandbagger without an agreement to adjust his handicap, no adjustment, no bet.
The bigger problem is when you have a vanity partner. Since I was usually the low handicap, I got the highest handicap player as my partner. Those were tough rounds and we could never win low and total unless he got a bogey.
I finally gave up those games because playing against sandbaggers and with Vanity guys as a partner got to me. I think I did it for 15 years.
-
A.G., GHIN does not take your last eight rounds. It takes the low eight differentials.
And re. my statement that people who don't play in competition not needing a GHIN handicap, golfers made games for hundreds of years without the help of a system.
You’re right on both counts. It is of course the best 8 of the last 20; I’ve edited my mistake. Thanks for the good catch.
As to the second part, we lived without refrigerators or central heat or vaccines for most of human history. I don’t think that’s a good argument against any of those things, or thousands of other things that improve the human condition. Or the handicap system to make informal games more rational, either.
-
A.G., GHIN does not take your last eight rounds. It takes the low eight differentials.
And re. my statement that people who don't play in competition not needing a GHIN handicap, golfers made games for hundreds of years without the help of a system.
Ken,
Agreed on this point... once you play a 5-10 rounds with some buddies, you can usually just say 3 per side or something like that and get on with it.
For practical purposes, having a GHIN only matters when playing with people you don't know. I kept one for awhile a number of years back, but the 'unknown' sand-baggers in local events really turned me off to it.
You guys don’t get out enough.
Apparently neither of you have ever been a member at a club with regular points games of multiple foursomes; I’ve never been a member of a club that didn’t have at least one! I’m part of 4 different ones at my current club, and there a couple of other groups that I’m not part of.
All of them work pretty much the same way; weekly signups via email, and a “commissioner” makes the tee times and the pairings. Typically there are three or four foursomes, and while the exact format of the games vary, ALL of them depend on handicaps. Tomorrow morning, for instance, the game I’m in will have three foursomes, with guys playing three different sets of tees. This week, each group counts one gross and two net scores: other times it’s straight points, sometimes it’s individual low net; the commish decides that in advance.
The Sunday group I play in is straight group points; that commish puts together teams with close to equal total points quotas.
The coolest game, which I don’t happen to be playing today, is the Friday afternoon “dogfight”. That game will typically have about 20 guys; you play points with a $20 buy-in, and then there is a blind draw for teams AFTER the round in the grill over adult beverages.
In each of these games, you play the tees you wish to play, with that course handicap, so we get young bucks who are scratch or close to it playing from the tips, all the way up to old guys (like me!) in their 60’s and 70’s and even 80’s. It is an absolute blast; a ton of camaraderie, and great fun. Different guys every week, and the club pros play a lot of times.
The best of all was my previous club in GA; a golf-only club that had a club-run $20 points and skins (gross and net) game 5 days a week. The club itself made the pairings and handled the payouts; on a nice Saturday, they’ll have over 50 guys in the game.
What I’ve just described takes place at clubs all over the country all the time; it’s not only by far the most common use of the handicap system, but would pretty much be impossible without it.
-
Here is a simple solution: lump all tournament scores into one bucket and casual scores into another. Allow the Club to decide which handicap to use. I’ll bet 99% of Clubs would use tournament handicaps if given a choice. It seems so easy as computers can churn the numbers in a microsecond. I want to know how my competitors play under the rules, holing all putts.
Several of my clubs kept Tournament handicaps before the WHS was put in place. Low and behold the same usual suspects stopped winning on a regular basis. These Clubs assumed the WHS would level the playing field but all are thinking of going back to that system.
Why can’t we lump all medal players scores from tournaments into a tournament handicap?
The current system does do this. When entering a score you enter Yes/No on whether it is a tournament score. If you consistently score lower in tournaments then an adjustment is made. This has been in place in the USGA system (which we also use here in Canada - formerly with minor differences) in the 23 years that I have kept a handicap.
-
There is a reason that shooting your handicap in most events is more than enough to get in the money in most serious events.
There are good reasons for this even if every score was legitimately entered. The Handicap is calculated from the average of the best 8 of your last 20 rounds. By definition you will only beat your handicap 4 out of 20 rounds, or 20% of the time. But in a tournament you count the full score, not an ESC score, so your non-ESC score may be higher, especially for a high handicapper. Plus there is a bit more pressure playing in a tournament so that will cause scores to go up.
And that is ignoring the liberal application of the gimme in casual rounds, not playing OB/lost balls properly, etc.
-
I’m in a similar situation. We have a Club Game on Mens day which is Wednesday. It’s an individual game with a $5 buy in; 2 closest to the pins, and games like low net, stableford, best 9 holes. We field 4 groups and have a game amongst ourselves; $15 buy in, front back and overall with greenies or skins. We always use a team format with most common being 2 net balls per hole, sometimes 4 balls on 9 & 18. Because of this we don’t have any sandbaggers because you are constantly trying to contribute to the team. Occasionally we are short a player and have to invite a guy with a vanity handicap, you have very little chance of winning with him on your team!
We’ve also allowed players over the age of 65 to move up to the green tees. Unfortunately the tees are often set well ahead of the green plates which skews the game! I realize that we need to ask the Club to have the plates changed but this could only occur if the SCGA related the course?! I realize this is a first world problem!
-
Here is a simple solution: lump all tournament scores into one bucket and casual scores into another. Allow the Club to decide which handicap to use. I’ll bet 99% of Clubs would use tournament handicaps if given a choice. It seems so easy as computers can churn the numbers in a microsecond. I want to know how my competitors play under the rules, holing all putts.
Several of my clubs kept Tournament handicaps before the WHS was put in place. Low and behold the same usual suspects stopped winning on a regular basis. These Clubs assumed the WHS would level the playing field but all are thinking of going back to that system.
Why can’t we lump all medal players scores from tournaments into a tournament handicap?
The current system does do this. When entering a score you enter Yes/No on whether it is a tournament score. If you consistently score lower in tournaments then an adjustment is made. This has been in place in the USGA system (which we also use here in Canada - formerly with minor differences) in the 23 years that I have kept a handicap.
Yes but the adjustment only kicks in if you shoot a net 65 or better. Baggers know exactly when to let off the gas!
-
Here is a simple solution: lump all tournament scores into one bucket and casual scores into another. Allow the Club to decide which handicap to use. I’ll bet 99% of Clubs would use tournament handicaps if given a choice. It seems so easy as computers can churn the numbers in a microsecond. I want to know how my competitors play under the rules, holing all putts.
Several of my clubs kept Tournament handicaps before the WHS was put in place. Low and behold the same usual suspects stopped winning on a regular basis. These Clubs assumed the WHS would level the playing field but all are thinking of going back to that system.
Why can’t we lump all medal players scores from tournaments into a tournament handicap?
The current system does do this. When entering a score you enter Yes/No on whether it is a tournament score. If you consistently score lower in tournaments then an adjustment is made. This has been in place in the USGA system (which we also use here in Canada - formerly with minor differences) in the 23 years that I have kept a handicap.
Yes but the adjustment only kicks in if you shoot a net 65 or better. Baggers know exactly when to let off the gas!
Ok, I just noticed that changed in North America in 2020 when we went to the world system. It used to be three shots lower than your handicap in two tournaments:
The USGA said prior to January 1, 2020... "A player's USGA Handicap Index will be automatically reduced when he records at least two tournament scores in a calendar year or in his latest 20 rounds that are a minimum of three strokes better than his USGA Handicap Index."
-
The current system drops your 8 keeper scores by 1 stroke if you shoot a net 65 or better in a tournament.
-
Our clubs invitational this year used your lowest handicap over the last 12 months. What good is the current system if you don’t use it? It changes every day but you don’t use it?
As far as vanity handicaps go, what you think is a vanity handicap can be far from it. As of today I’m a + .4. I play most of my golf at a par 71 which I think is over rated at 71.3. My average score in 2022 (36 rounds) is 74.8. ~3.8 over par and my course handicap is 0. I know handicap is “potential” but you would tell me I have a vanity handicap. On average I score almost 4 over par and my handicap is 0.
-
but you would tell me I have a vanity handicap.
I wouldn't. If you entered tournaments and couldn't break 80, we might. But not if you shoot 75.
-
The England Golf guidance says that submitting general play scores outside of competitions for handicap purposes is optional when the round is played under an “acceptable” format. That is pre-registered 9 or 18 hole individual strokeplay, stableford, bogey or maximum score rounds played under the rules of golf with at least one other person.
Individual matchplay or any form of fourball strokeplay or matchplay are “non-acceptable” formats, so general play scores are not valid for those rounds.
Personally, I’ve not submitted a single general play score or been asked to mark one for a partner since the WHS was introduced here. I’m sure I will do at some point in the future - if whoever I’m playing with wants to do it, then I’d very likely do the same - but I don’t think my handicap is any more or less “correct” whether I do or don’t.
The culture is changing, at least in the short term. Many of the younger guys I know post casual rounds and I have attested a few scores.
I don't intend to post casual rounds unless forced to do so by my club because I post so few comp scores.
We shouldn't forget that the healthy majority of US golfers don't have valid handicaps. So to a large degree the system does not work in the US. I don't know of another country with such a poor handicap to golfer ratio. That tells me this new system is 1st World bullshit for the most part.
Ciao
-
The England Golf guidance says that submitting general play scores outside of competitions for handicap purposes is optional when the round is played under an “acceptable” format. That is pre-registered 9 or 18 hole individual strokeplay, stableford, bogey or maximum score rounds played under the rules of golf with at least one other person.
Individual matchplay or any form of fourball strokeplay or matchplay are “non-acceptable” formats, so general play scores are not valid for those rounds.
Personally, I’ve not submitted a single general play score or been asked to mark one for a partner since the WHS was introduced here. I’m sure I will do at some point in the future - if whoever I’m playing with wants to do it, then I’d very likely do the same - but I don’t think my handicap is any more or less “correct” whether I do or don’t.
The culture is changing, at least in the short term. Many of the younger guys I know post casual rounds and I have attested a few scores.
I don't intend to post casual rounds unless forced to do so by my club because I post so few comp scores.
We shouldn't forget that the healthy majority of US golfers don't have valid handicaps. So to a large degree the system does not work in the US. I don't know of another country with such a poor handicap to golfer ratio. That tells me this new system is 1st World bullshit for the most part.
Ciao
Interesting post, Sean. On the one hand you say you refuse to comply unless forced to do so, while on the other you declare the system doesn’t work. You are, in essence, boasting about NOT having a valid index, and at the same time blaming others for doing the same.
I’d love to see data that shows that the US has a “poor handicap to golfer ratio”. But that’s not the point anyway, is it? In order to play in almost ANY competition in the US, either at the club level or those sponsored by a state association, you DO have to have a valid USGA handicap, and I don’t think anybody would even be allowed to play in most informal club points games with an index that they just said was correct, instead of a GHIN index.
So perhaps everyone who needs an index has one? Validity is a separate issue, dependent on both the individual to comply with the rules, and some sort of a peer review system. And btw, at my club, you’d likely be banned from club tournaments because the handicap committee checks posted scores against the tee sheet.
-
Our clubs invitational this year used your lowest handicap over the last 12 months. What good is the current system if you don’t use it? It changes every day but you don’t use it?
I don’t think this is uncommon. The Carolinas Golf Association uses the 12 month low index for interclub matches, which are better ball match play. It doesn’t get rid of all the possible issues, but it does make it harder to game the system in the short run. The consequence seems to be that very few strokes are typically given, which is great for tha format.
Perhaps think of it as an extreme version of the idea that your index is an expression of your potential?
-
The England Golf guidance says that submitting general play scores outside of competitions for handicap purposes is optional when the round is played under an “acceptable” format. That is pre-registered 9 or 18 hole individual strokeplay, stableford, bogey or maximum score rounds played under the rules of golf with at least one other person.
Individual matchplay or any form of fourball strokeplay or matchplay are “non-acceptable” formats, so general play scores are not valid for those rounds.
Personally, I’ve not submitted a single general play score or been asked to mark one for a partner since the WHS was introduced here. I’m sure I will do at some point in the future - if whoever I’m playing with wants to do it, then I’d very likely do the same - but I don’t think my handicap is any more or less “correct” whether I do or don’t.
The culture is changing, at least in the short term. Many of the younger guys I know post casual rounds and I have attested a few scores.
I don't intend to post casual rounds unless forced to do so by my club because I post so few comp scores.
We shouldn't forget that the healthy majority of US golfers don't have valid handicaps. So to a large degree the system does not work in the US. I don't know of another country with such a poor handicap to golfer ratio. That tells me this new system is 1st World bullshit for the most part.
Ciao
Interesting post, Sean. On the one hand you say you refuse to comply unless forced to do so, while on the other you declare the system doesn’t work. You are, in essence, boasting about NOT having a valid index, and at the same time blaming others for doing the same.
I’d love to see data that shows that the US has a “poor handicap to golfer ratio”. But that’s not the point anyway, is it? In order to play in almost ANY competition in the US, either at the club level or those sponsored by a state association, you DO have to have a valid USGA handicap, and I don’t think anybody would even be allowed to play in most informal club points games with an index that they just said was correct, instead of a GHIN index.
So perhaps everyone who needs an index has one? Validity is a separate issue, dependent on both the individual to comply with the rules, and some sort of a peer review system. And btw, at my club, you’d likely be banned from club tournaments because the handicap committee checks posted scores against the tee sheet.
The USGA's goal is (was?) for all US golfers to have a handicap. They aren't even close to achieving this.
I am not boasting. Just pointing out that the previous system worked very well and didn't ask me to post casual scores which doesn't interest me....never has. Casual scores are what caused most of the issues in the US. One problem was US golfers not willing to play enough comps to obtain an accurate handicap. So a few things happened. Their handicaps didn't normally travel well abroad (which didn't really matter as it mostly holiday golf). The real issue being elite (and hopeful elite) amateurs were taking spaces from locals in non US events then playing very badly because their handicaps were padded by casual play. So the solution is to pad everybody's handicap with casual play.
Most people in the US don't need handicaps because they basically play with mates and don't enter proper comps. So why is the system in GB&I changed because of US issues? The only reason I had a handicap in the US was because I had one as a junior and carried it on when I went public. I needed one to play in a few GAM events, city tournaments and Member-Guest events...so I posted a few scores here and there...trying to make sure my handicap was lower than how I was playing. Most people I knew never bothered, most still don't.
Yes, I expect at some point not to be able to play in club comps until I post some scores. I have posted one score this year...a comp. So if they force me to post a few casual rounds I will. But I disagree with the idea and think its a poor method for calculating handicaps. I never liked the idea of guessing the score for handicap. As I say, the old system worked quite well. The only thing I like about the new system is using 8 of 20 scores. It keeps the handicap dynamic to better reflect current play.
The nonsense about going online in advance to register a round, finding out the handicap of the day from a chart, then posting the score afterward within a time frame, then asking someone to attest the score by going online within that time frame is OTT. I missed doing this for one game because I turn my notifications off. I didn't realize I was asked to attest the score. So the score was thrown out. Its best left to comps where everything is built in for accuracy...at least it is in GB&I.
Ciao
-
As long as the system allows online posting it will be rife with both vanity and sandbagger outcomes. There is no way to police the golfer who isn’t a member of a private club or doesn’t participate in a public course association i.e. Mens or Womens Club. This pertains to U.S. score posting as I can’t speak to what goes on in GB&I.
-
When I heard we were exporting our dismal system to the world I had two reactions.
First I was dismayed, but I predicted that UK golfers would either revolt or ignore the main changes.
This thread proves I was mostly right.
One thing you can't account for is how unserious a lot of American golfers are.
I still can't believe the number of times I've seen four balls of people who paid green fees at a decent course playing a scramble because they all suck.
-
I think Sean is exactly on point with his last few posts.
I've played the vast majority of my golf on public courses, and it was fairly rare to bump into someone who actually carries one.
The masses are mostly just out having a good time on a Sunday with buddies and yucking it up. And you see it in their play, taking 5 foot gummies, foot wedges, improper drops, talking about club selection with playing partners, and on and on with unaccounted for rules violations.
If I had to put a number on it, for the average golfer who plays at least 10 rounds per year, maybe 25% if not less, have a USGA cap....
-
The USGA's goal is (was?) for all US golfers to have a handicap. They aren't even close to achieving this.
Says who? I've never heard that as a goal of the USGA. That'd be unrealistic, as there are a lot of casual golfers (and the USGA knows this).
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/get-handicap.html (https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/get-handicap.html)
https://www.usga.org/handicapping/getting-a-usga-handicap-index.html (https://www.usga.org/handicapping/getting-a-usga-handicap-index.html)
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2022/03/new-usga-aga-community-easy-way-get-handicap-index.html (https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2022/03/new-usga-aga-community-easy-way-get-handicap-index.html)
-
The USGA's goal is (was?) for all US golfers to have a handicap. They aren't even close to achieving this.
Says who? I've never heard that as a goal of the USGA. That'd be unrealistic, as there are a lot of casual golfers (and the USGA knows this).
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/get-handicap.html (https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/get-handicap.html)
https://www.usga.org/handicapping/getting-a-usga-handicap-index.html (https://www.usga.org/handicapping/getting-a-usga-handicap-index.html)
https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2022/03/new-usga-aga-community-easy-way-get-handicap-index.html (https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/articles/2022/03/new-usga-aga-community-easy-way-get-handicap-index.html)
Says me, but as suggested maybe they gave up on that. In any case, for a world system to work ya first gotta sign golfers up...no? The lack of uptake demonstrates the private/public divide in the US. I believe GB&I has had the same problem to a lesser degree. A handicap was always touted as a benefit of club membership. I think this new system allows non-club members to get a handicap, but I'm not sure.
Ciao
-
I think this new system allows non-club members to get a handicap, but I'm not sure.
Ciao
It does. England Golf just announced last week that, one year after its launch, 25,000 people have subscribed to its iGolf service, which provides access to a handicap for golfers who aren’t members of a club. There’s a similar service called OpenPlay run by Scottish Golf.
-
Says me, but as suggested maybe they gave up on that.
Pretty sure you can't "give up" on something you were never trying to do. I'd wager it was never the official position of the USGA that they wanted EVERY golfer to have a handicap index. "Every golfer who wants one should be able to get one," maybe. But that's quite different, and they've achieved that goal.
In any case, for a world system to work ya first gotta sign golfers up...no?
The ones who WANT a handicap, yes. And getting a handicap index is pretty easy. And since you can post scores and get an index without even having to play in competitions, it's easier in the U.S. than in some other areas.
The lack of uptake
Again: says who? There are over 3M golfers with a GHIN handicap. And most people don't even play in competitions that require a GHIN, or they play in a weekly league where the league plays with their own handicapping rules (and, often, their own rules, some of which may not be all that well aligned with the USGA's rules or recommendations).
You see 3M+ as a "lack of uptake". I see it as 3M+ is a lot of people, especially since about 2.5M of them will not really ever use it for much more than tracking their progress, an occasional round with some buddies, maybe a member-guest or something…
-
Imo If you only post competition scores you’re handicap is going to be higher than if you posted all of your scores. Effectively you are a sandbagger relative to someone who posts all scores. As Bobby Jones said there is golf and there is tournament golf and they are two different games. I never played higher than state level events but everyone’s scores go up in competition at that level.
-
Reading through this whole thread this morning reminded me of John Updike's quote:
"Although I could not quite regret the time...that I had spent playing the game myself, I certainly did resent the time I had devoted to watching other men play."
A world without amateur stroke play events, GHIN's rules, and handicaps sounds like golf Nirvana. It's match play, we agree on no more than 2-3 strokes a side, and the phrase "the rest is good" is used liberally.
-
In my experience at my club vanity handicapping is more prevalent. It has a negative effect on team play -- e.g., my four ball partner is a vanity handicapper, so it hurts me. It also hurts us in interclub handicapped competitions. It's also a negative for me, because I try to play it straight, and therefore am out of synch with a number of those I normally play with. Is vanity handicapping a problem? Only if you let it get to you. The bottom line for me is that I'm satisfied with how it works at our club -- it's close enough.
-
Again, grouping all tournament scores into a separate handicap would eliminate both the sandbagger and the vanity capper. Let people who don’t play in competitions use their casual handicap. What am I missing here?
-
And you’re right; most golfers absolutely do NOT want to play tournament golf fully under the Rules. Whether it’s because of stress, or fear of being exposed, or whatever, most clubs get only small fractions of the membership in club tournaments, especially championships.
A.G.
I am not sure it’s entirely about playing under the rules that golfers find unappealing. One of my clubs does roughly 1,000 competition rounds a week under the rules of golf.
But there is a drop off on “medal days” or club championship days when the tees are all the way back and it’s a stroke competition.
-
;D
Vanity hurts the guys we play with a lot more in that we play for $ most every time. So for us the sandbagger is far more an issue but tends to get exposed pretty quickly! Tougher to control in tournaments such as member guests.
-
And you’re right; most golfers absolutely do NOT want to play tournament golf fully under the Rules. Whether it’s because of stress, or fear of being exposed, or whatever, most clubs get only small fractions of the membership in club tournaments, especially championships.
A.G.
I am not sure it’s entirely about playing under the rules that golfers find unappealing. One of my clubs does roughly 1,000 competition rounds a week under the rules of golf.
But there is a drop off on “medal days” or club championship days when the tees are all the way back and it’s a stroke competition.
A couple of questions for you.
1000 rounds a week? I’m assuming you’re talking about games such as points and skins games, right? If so, those are not scores that would typically carry the “C” designation when entered into GHIN. And in such games, even with money at stake, players typically pick up when they are out of the hole, putts are given, etc. But if [size=78%]your club is doing 150 true competition rounds a day, what in the heck is the format?[/size]
[/size]
[/size][size=78%]What do you think accounts for the drop off on “medal days”? You mentioned the tees being back, but they’re back for everyone, right? When you mention stroke play, I think we’re saying exactly the same thing; lots of players will play match play, points games, etc, that will NOT play stroke play fully under the Rules; i.e., putt everything out, finish the hole no matter how high the score, take full stroke and distance penalties, etc. Some find medal play to be a relative grind, but many others know deep down that they are simply NOT the player their index says they are.[/size]
-
There seems to be a continued misunderstanding that UK golfers are somehow sandbagging if we don't record casual rounds. The UK implementation of the WGH does not require all casual rounds to be recorded but does allow for players to choose to do so before the round in question (NOT afterwards). I don't know anyone who has an established handicap (rather than playing for a first handicap) who has recorded a casual score. I haven't and can't imagine doing so. In 3 years I have recorded 60+ competitive rounds. I'm happy that my index is a fair record of my ability.
-
There seems to be a continued misunderstanding that UK golfers are somehow sandbagging if we don't record casual rounds. The UK implementation of the WGH does not require all casual rounds to be recorded but does allow for players to choose to do so before the round in question (NOT afterwards). I don't know anyone who has an established handicap (rather than playing for a first handicap) who has recorded a casual score. I haven't and can't imagine doing so. In 3 years I have recorded 60+ competitive rounds. I'm happy that my index is a fair record of my ability.
I thought the world handicapping system was set up so that everyone was using the same system. If you just use competition scores IMO your handicap is going to be higher that if you used all your scores. This is an observation on my part. However it would be more accurate as to your ability when playing in tournaments. Which is the goal I guess. I wouldn't say you are sandbagging. You have a more tournament accurate handicap than I do because I post ever score and by far the majority are casual rounds.
Also the majority competitions that I play in are scratch so what do I care what my handicap is? I use my handicap to gauge how I'm playing. That's about it.
-
And we need to be careful with the assumption that someone playing much better or much worse than handicap is a sandbagger or vanity handicapper. I played a foursomes knockout match at The Northumberland on Friday evening and my 8.9 index and I (11.9) would have been playing off a 12 handicap. As it was matchplay, we got 6 shots from our opponents. We were level par after 10 holes and 5 up, winning 6/5. They played, approximately, to handicap. Fortunately we knew our opponents well and they have seen enough of our games to know that we just had one of those rare days but it would have been very easy to assume that we were sandbaggers.
-
There seems to be a continued misunderstanding that UK golfers are somehow sandbagging if we don't record casual rounds. The UK implementation of the WGH does not require all casual rounds to be recorded but does allow for players to choose to do so before the round in question (NOT afterwards). I don't know anyone who has an established handicap (rather than playing for a first handicap) who has recorded a casual score. I haven't and can't imagine doing so. In 3 years I have recorded 60+ competitive rounds. I'm happy that my index is a fair record of my ability.
I thought the world handicapping system was set up so that everyone was using the same system. If you just use competition scores IMO your handicap is going to be higher that if you used all your scores. This is an observation on my part. However it would be more accurate as to your ability when playing in tournaments. Which is the goal I guess. I wouldn't say you are sandbagging. You have a more tournament accurate handicap than I do because I post ever score and by far the majority are casual rounds.
What I don’t understand with this argument is why you think anyone would shoot lower scores during casual rounds than they do in competition play?… Is it because of some perceived pressure?
-
There seems to be a continued misunderstanding that UK golfers are somehow sandbagging if we don't record casual rounds. The UK implementation of the WGH does not require all casual rounds to be recorded but does allow for players to choose to do so before the round in question (NOT afterwards). I don't know anyone who has an established handicap (rather than playing for a first handicap) who has recorded a casual score. I haven't and can't imagine doing so. In 3 years I have recorded 60+ competitive rounds. I'm happy that my index is a fair record of my ability.
I thought the world handicapping system was set up so that everyone was using the same system. If you just use competition scores IMO your handicap is going to be higher that if you used all your scores. This is an observation on my part. However it would be more accurate as to your ability when playing in tournaments. Which is the goal I guess. I wouldn't say you are sandbagging. You have a more tournament accurate handicap than I do because I post ever score and by far the majority are casual rounds.
What I don’t understand with this argument is why you think anyone would shoot lower scores during casual rounds than they do in competition play?… Is it because of some perceived pressure?
Gimmies, loose rules, less pressure etc.
Ciao
-
There seems to be a continued misunderstanding that UK golfers are somehow sandbagging if we don't record casual rounds. The UK implementation of the WGH does not require all casual rounds to be recorded but does allow for players to choose to do so before the round in question (NOT afterwards). I don't know anyone who has an established handicap (rather than playing for a first handicap) who has recorded a casual score. I haven't and can't imagine doing so. In 3 years I have recorded 60+ competitive rounds. I'm happy that my index is a fair record of my ability.
I thought the world handicapping system was set up so that everyone was using the same system. If you just use competition scores IMO your handicap is going to be higher that if you used all your scores. This is an observation on my part. However it would be more accurate as to your ability when playing in tournaments. Which is the goal I guess. I wouldn't say you are sandbagging. You have a more tournament accurate handicap than I do because I post ever score and by far the majority are casual rounds.
What I don’t understand with this argument is why you think anyone would shoot lower scores during casual rounds than they do in competition play?… Is it because of some perceived pressure?
Another US/UK difference? I guess that 75% of my golf at home is "competitive" i that it is played in an official club handicap. If I get to the 15th and have a good card going, then I may feel some pressure, otherwise it's just a round of golf. If I played fewer competitive rounds I guess that might be different.
-
What I don’t understand with this argument is why you think anyone would shoot lower scores during casual rounds than they do in competition play?… Is it because of some perceived pressure?
Another US/UK difference? I guess that 75% of my golf at home is "competitive" i that it is played in an official club handicap. If I get to the 15th and have a good card going, then I may feel some pressure, otherwise it's just a round of golf. If I played fewer competitive rounds I guess that might be different.
Ally, the simple answer is that pretty much everyone who plays both "casual" golf and "tournament" golf will find that their scores are better when they are relaxed.
Why would you think that pressure to perform doesn't affect golfers. I recall that our former participant here Shivas, called it 'Calligraphy Golf,"
For someone in Scotland where it's common to do as Mark says, have 3/4 of their golf in club competition, that becomes the norm and there isn't any pressure. But step it up a level or two and see what happens.
In the winter I play in three competitions a week under the ROG, without any gimmees. (I've missed a couple of 2-inchers, FWIW) These are not pressure-packed.
But we do have 4-5 bigger club competitions and there's no doubt the pressure is slightly higher. Because I play that regular game, I do pretty well in the club comps.
I have also played in City Championships over the years, they're definitely higher pressure. And I have played in 15 or 20 State Championships, At every level, it's hard to deliver the shot making and mental stability that you know you're capable of.
Grantland Rice said, "There are three types of golf - golf, tournament golf and major championship golf."
-
Different people react differently to casual vs tournament play. There will be a certain amount of variance in strategy. Casual play people are more likely to play riskier shots, which might result in higher scores. In a tournament going through the 2 yard gap in the trees could be a dumb decision, but if you're just playing for fun then why not? Conversely some people tighten up and don't swing as freely in competition, which could result in higher scores. My scores are a little higher in tournaments than regular play. Partly that's because competition rounds are most of the time played on courses I don't know where my non-competition rounds tend to be played on courses I'm more familiar with.
-
I thought the world handicapping system was set up so that everyone was using the same system.
It's a step in the process of unifying. The rest of the world now has course ratings and slope, for example, instead of a daily calculated Standard Scratch Score… and some other things. There are still some differences in how they implement them, but the systems are much more aligned now.
-
IMHO, I am a 100% advocate for match play for all play here in the US, outside of the club championship and member/guest events.
Why?
Speed of play.
In match play putts and even holes can be conceded, drawn, etc. and the group can move along to the next hole.
I and many of my friends can walk & play 18 holes in 3:30-3:45 putting everything out, but most players here in The States can't; thus a round putting everything out can takes 5+ hours - which will not grow the game.
I recently played in my 1st 3 day member/guest. My scores in competition were in line with my handicap, so no one questioned my GHIN one way or the other.
-
I thought the world handicapping system was set up so that everyone was using the same system.
It's a step in the process of unifying. The rest of the world now has course ratings and slope, for example, instead of a daily calculated Standard Scratch Score… and some other things. There are still some differences in how they implement them, but the systems are much more aligned now.
Agreed - the two things that I think are superior under the new system vs CONGU are the two pronged rating system and the speed with which it catches up with changes in ability. Course and slope ratings are a better system than just the SSS and CSS. Both of those are applied to all systems now. The differences in how the systems are applied within countries I think are very rarely going to apply to anyone.
-
Mr. Mayhugh once said to me “If I play well I win and if I don’t I lose.” I have found that to be true in 98% of the rounds I have played.
The exceptions suck. I once played a guy in Fort Worth who hit iron off the tee and drummed me even though I played quite well. After he closed the match, he pulled out driver on the remaining holes and made big numbers on each because he had no control over the club. As we played the holes he told me he used his driver most of the time except in competition. I am not sure he knew he was a sandbagger but he was.
More common is a low handicapper who is bitter because he lost to someone he was giving a lot of strokes to. Sometimes the low capper will have no chance in such matches but if one backed the low handicap in each match, I am pretty sure she would earn a tidy profit.
-
I learned in my decade as a club pro that handicapped events are little more than a cheating contest. Before that, I wasn’t so jaded. I’m not sure why so many people are willing to use dishonesty to earn a little shop credit. If you win a handicapped event with a bunch of dots, please stop boasting as if it’s an accomplishment. And please stop complaining to the shop staff. I assure you they don’t care and your opponent has made the same complaint five minutes earlier about you. That reminds me of the other thing I learned - everyone thinks they’re getting screwed.
-
Again, grouping all tournament scores into a separate handicap would eliminate both the sandbagger and the vanity capper. Let people who don’t play in competitions use their casual handicap. What am I missing here?
This was sort of the case in the UK under the old system for handicaps 5 and less. Scores could only be entered in qualifying competitions.
So it was tough to get there but there were also many players who couldn't make the dates for competitions and only put in 1 or 2 cards a year. Often handicap at the low end would be described to represent potential rather than current form. It was tough to go up in the old system and people would often write to the committee explaining that they needed an adjustment upwards, for whatever reason.
-
Again, grouping all tournament scores into a separate handicap would eliminate both the sandbagger and the vanity capper. Let people who don’t play in competitions use their casual handicap. What am I missing here?
This was sort of the case in the UK under the old system for handicaps 5 and less. Scores could only be entered in qualifying competitions.
So it was tough to get there but there were also many players who couldn't make the dates for competitions and only put in 1 or 2 cards a year. Often handicap at the low end would be described to represent potential rather than current form. It was tough to go up in the old system and people would often write to the committee explaining that they needed an adjustment upwards, for whatever reason.
?
Under the old system in the UK scores for any handicap were only entered in qualifying competitions. Most clubs had several of those a moth. Category 1 golfers (<6 handicap) could play those. Writing to the committee asking for an increase is not something I have ever heard of but, in fact, lower handicappers went up much faster, relatively, than lower handicappers.
-
Again, grouping all tournament scores into a separate handicap would eliminate both the sandbagger and the vanity capper. Let people who don’t play in competitions use their casual handicap. What am I missing here?
This was sort of the case in the UK under the old system for handicaps 5 and less. Scores could only be entered in qualifying competitions.
So it was tough to get there but there were also many players who couldn't make the dates for competitions and only put in 1 or 2 cards a year. Often handicap at the low end would be described to represent potential rather than current form. It was tough to go up in the old system and people would often write to the committee explaining that they needed an adjustment upwards, for whatever reason.
?
Under the old system in the UK scores for any handicap were only entered in qualifying competitions. Most clubs had several of those a moth. Category 1 golfers (<6 handicap) could play those. Writing to the committee asking for an increase is not something I have ever heard of but, in fact, lower handicappers went up much faster, relatively, than lower handicappers.
Rule 19 covered additional changes. The club handicap committee could take extra cards and adjust handicaps. It would tend to be used for someone whose ability had gone down significantly to increase their handicap. People might have surgery or something which would permanently harm their ability to play. The old system would only ever go up 0.1 per round, so if you got 10 shots worse in one go, you'd have to play at least 100 tournament rounds for it to catch up to that.
Technically Rule 19 could also be applied to category 1 players (5.4 or less), but it would need to be approved by the county, not just the club. It occasionally would get used to lower someone's handicap too, but I think less often.
-
Reading through this whole thread this morning reminded me of John Updike's quote:
"Although I could not quite regret the time...that I had spent playing the game myself, I certainly did resent the time I had devoted to watching other men play."
A world without amateur stroke play events, GHIN's rules, and handicaps sounds like golf Nirvana. It's match play, we agree on no more than 2-3 strokes a side, and the phrase "the rest is good" is used liberally.
I read that Dean Martin, when he was playing someone for the first time, with a little money on the line, would ask 'If you played really good today, what do you think you'd shoot?" If the guy said, "If I play well, I'll probably shoot about a 78, 80", Dean would say, "Okay, pal, so then I'll give you 2 shots a side, 'cause if I play good I should score around 74, 75, 76"
-
Again, grouping all tournament scores into a separate handicap would eliminate both the sandbagger and the vanity capper. Let people who don’t play in competitions use their casual handicap. What am I missing here?
This was sort of the case in the UK under the old system for handicaps 5 and less. Scores could only be entered in qualifying competitions.
So it was tough to get there but there were also many players who couldn't make the dates for competitions and only put in 1 or 2 cards a year. Often handicap at the low end would be described to represent potential rather than current form. It was tough to go up in the old system and people would often write to the committee explaining that they needed an adjustment upwards, for whatever reason.
?
Under the old system in the UK scores for any handicap were only entered in qualifying competitions. Most clubs had several of those a moth. Category 1 golfers (<6 handicap) could play those. Writing to the committee asking for an increase is not something I have ever heard of but, in fact, lower handicappers went up much faster, relatively, than lower handicappers.
Golfers could enter 'supplementary scores' under CONGU. This was a pre-declared round and was for people to help keep an accurate handicap who couldn't make the comps. I was under the impression cat-1 players couldn't do this but having googled it now it seems they could but perhaps with more restrictions.
Handicap adjustments were somewhat common, but it depended on the club culture, handicap committee and in some amusing situations, the secretary! Practically, as Michael described, it was those players realisti
-
...realistically could not play to their handicap but would take more years than they had to get to an accurate one. The more amusing versions were often of a strict secreatry making on the spot adjustments after witnessing a good swing or ball strike :)
-
I have been "rule 19ed" at least 4 times (twice down, twice up from memory), so I'm very familiar with the old rule 19. I never asked to be, though, and am not aware that a player could ask to be, rather than the handicap committee deciding it was appropriate.