6 Steps To A Better Handicapping System

[GolfSpy Barbajo]

Lots of common sense here -- but will the USGA listen?

 

Six steps to a much better handicap system

By 

Bob Carney

 

 

 

 

The USGA Handicapping system is a marvel. It allows players of disparate skills to compete, and, if everyone is honest, to compete fairly. (Big “if,” we know.)

 

But the system produces painful side effects. It reinforces the American obsession with stroke play. It causes people to play for a medal score even when they’re playing matches. It discourages other, sometimes faster, formats by not counting those scores. Taken together, it contributes to slow play and frustration: If every player has to count every last stroke “for handicap purposes” even a match play round is a dreary marathon and the sport is far less fun than it might be.

 

So it was a huge disappointment when the USGA recently announced changes to the system (something it only does every four years or so) and did little to address these issues. The most talked-about and debated change—banning of unaccompanied rounds for handicaps—induced a yawn here. OK, so you don’t take my scores, which are perfectly accurate, because someone else is padding his. Does that really help? It’s re-painting the Titanic’s deck chairs—forget about rearranging them.

 

We hear the association is close to greater changes. We hope so. Here’s what it should look like:

 

1. Get with the rest of the world. For years the USGA has discussed with the R&A and other golf associations the desirability of a common worldwide handicap system. Makes sense, since Americans more and more often play overseas and tons of overseas golfers visit our clubs and resorts. There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of meetings about this. It’s time to act.

 

2. Adopt the Net Double Bogey limit. A stumbling block to such an agreement is the U.S. resistance to a simple, “maximum net double bogey” standard for recording scores (the USGA prefers a more complicated Equitable Stroke Control, which, which several experts on handicapping tell us, is no more accurate). No score beyond a net double bogey counts for handicap calculation. If you’re about to make a double, might as well pick it up. There’s no need to putt out your 9 “for my handicap.” Take a breather. Enjoy the outdoors. And keep the game moving. It’s a stance mathematician Dean Knuth, the architect of the Slope System, has long advocated. And he’s right.

 

3. Encourage Stableford scoring. In Europe and Australia, this net-double-bogey limit includes the use of the Stableford points scoring: One point for net bogey, two points for par, three points for birdie, zero for anything higher than bogey. It’s enjoyable because it rewards good play without letting an abysmal hole destroy your round. The European Golf Association and Australia have built handicap systems based on Stableford points. If, for example, you average 20 points (out of a maximum 36) your handicap will be about 16. At the very least the USGA could encourage “points” play at its clubs. For kids, who play other sports for positive points, Stableford makes complete sense. It is, Knuth says, “Fast and fun.” One expert on slow play agreed that it can help there, too. (For the record, we are not advocating the revised Stableford format used by the old International professional tournament. That penalized golfers for high scores; fine for pros, defeats the purpose for amateurs.) And if Stableford sounds stodgy, call it Points Scoring.

 

4. Proclaim the match or medal mandate. The USGA holds great sway with dedicated golfers—the ones who maintain handicaps (2.3 million in the U.S.) It can say: If you play match play, play match play! Recent changes almost got there. They say golfers may pick up and estimate their score on a hole they don’t finish during a match. But they still give the golfer the option to play the hole out, even when, for the purposes of the match, he or she is a non-factor. It’s a time-consuming habit that makes for bad match players. (If you’re worried about your score, is the match your first priority?) How about this? The USGA says, “In match play, pick up when you’re out of hole,” period. If you’re not sure what to record, ask your playing companion—or take net double bogey.

 

5. If it’s really necessary, ask us to attest scores. If the USGA and its mathematicians really believe there’s a big problem with padding handicaps via false, “unaccompanied” scores, then Internet scores should be addressed, too, right? We hate to think it’s necessary, but if it is, why not say that any score include an attester’s name? “I’m posting an 85 today. Will you attest?” is a simple conversation. Suspect handicaps could then be easily checked if necessary. But know that this is where peer review meets peer pressure. You say you shot 86; I think it’s more like 83. Am I really going to argue?

 

6. Take Handicapping out of the rules orbit. It’s no coincidence that handicapping and rules changes come on the same cycle, every four years. But why? It means adjustments to the system come too infrequently. Moreover, they encourage the Association to treat handicapping as another set of rules—they’ve acknowledged this-- right down to, in these latest changes, directing golfers to place an X before any number where they don’t finish a hole and estimate the score. Really?!! Must we use a No. 2 pencil as well?

 

Ultimately, handicap efficacy depends on golfers’ sense of integrity and fair play. But these changes might remove the, um, handicaps to the ultimate goal: A fast and fun game.

[PlaidJacket]

Interesting article. I'm not all that passionate regarding handicaps anymore. Yes... I keep one and post to GHIN "almost" every round I play. Sure during a year a miss a few here and there. Aside from our club championship I don't play any handicapped events/tournaments anymore. Every match I play is heads up mostly with guys I know. We know each others game. Sometimes a guy I'm playing with will ask for a stroke or two per side and I'll do the same at times. Just depends who I'm playing. I mostly use my handicap as a marker for how well I'm playing and progressing. As many of you might recall.... my 2015 goal was to lower my handicap down to about 5.5. Well, today my latest revision came out and I'm back down to 6.1 from 6.3. So... that's the handicap I'll finish 2015 with. See you in 2016. Heads up!

[Kenny B]

I'm like PJ.  Really have no need to have a handicap except to monitor progress.  I do play single rounds, but most of the time when scoring, my wife and I play, so not a problem.  However, we don't need to use GHIN for HCP, but it's handy.  I wonder how many players nationwide do the same?  Probably quite a few.

 

It was said in the other USGA thread that this rule change for posting scores may result in a decline in membership, and maybe then the rule will be rescinded.  I doubt it.  

[BIG STU]

I'm like PJ.  Really have no need to have a handicap except to monitor progress.  I do play single rounds, but most of the time when scoring, my wife and I play, so not a problem.  However, we don't need to use GHIN for HCP, but it's handy.  I wonder how many players nationwide do the same?  Probably quite a few.

 

It was said in the other USGA thread that this rule change for posting scores may result in a decline in membership, and maybe then the rule will be rescinded.  I doubt it.  

Like I think I said in the other thread I do not play any amateur comps. I had thought about getting my Am status again and playing in some CGA events but there is too much travel involved and associated expenses. Another thing my old irons are not on the conforming list they are not illegial per say because when they were made they did not know about those funky grooves they just have not been submitted for testing so thus they are not on any list so they are "deemed" non conforming. I can still play some of these "outlaw" mini events (non sanctioned by anyone) and play with my little group where no one gives two hoots.

As far as what you said about declining membership if that happens the USGA will certainally pay attention because that will hit them in their pocketbooks and that is what they are all about. Not for betterment of the game but the betterment of their bottom line. I have a friend of mine who has the software and skills to do the handicap computer work and that is who does mine

[revkev]

All good suggestions but the end of the article is really what matters.  Any system relies on the integrity of the people using it.  This is why leagues will keep their own handicaps rather than accepting those from the outside for example. 

 

BTW I love the Stableford suggestion - lots of events down here use Stableford scoring of some sort and it works quite nicely.  The best game in town uses it and you aren't getting into that game without another regular member inviting you - so if you falsify a handicap its on the person who invited you in.  It works out great.

[Kanoito]

And while you are doing that... why not adopt the metric system as well?

[NiftyNiblick]

One of my most serious character flaws is my love of labels and how they simplify conversation.  I won't listen to music, for example, if I can't immediately identify the genre. 

 

This being the case, I think handicaps are worthwhile. Decide on the system.  That's above my pay grade.  But let's agree on one and use it.

 

That way we can all add another label to all of our others. Ethnicity. Nationality. Religion or absence of same. Sexual orientation. Political affiliation.  And most importantly, handicap.  Otherwise, would we even know how to speak?

 

I'm a 12.8 index and all of my other labels are available for the asking!  Annoying wop is my wife's favorite. 

[jaskanski]

There is a much simpler way (with fewer steps).

 

1. Book flight to UK

2. Enjoy

[sp0rtsfan86]

USGA should go with the R and A and develop a good system worldwide.

 

Double bogey is a bit meh. I like ESC. The reason: 7 is a bad score but at least it gives you a chance to have something to play for if you go OB. With a double bogey, you put one OB on a par 4 and might as well pick up 3/4 of the time. I don't see that speeding things any faster, to me it's all in the in between time where slow golfers kill pace of play.

[~^~]

I just ran into a friend who told me he played in a hc scramble and the winning score for a foursome for 18 holes was a NET 47! Yes, 47! 11 birdies and 7, count 'em, 7 eagles. He's sworn off playing in any more hc tournaments, something I did long ago. Has anyone heard of a lower score?

[~^~]

Other than organized, formal events, there is no need for any hc system. In 18 years of playing casual golf with friends and strangers, I have never competed based on hc. It's always gross vs gross scores, and usually even those are barely compared. Does anyone regularly play against others using hc to determine net scores and winner?

[jbil8802]

We have weekly Men's Opens at my club on Saturdays and Sundays where anyone can sign up and put in $10. Different team formats but the Pro Shop prints out scorecards for each team with handicaps that get utilized in the scoring.

[Kenny B]

I just ran into a friend who told me he played in a hc scramble and the winning score for a foursome for 18 holes was a NET 47! Yes, 47! 11 birdies and 7, count 'em, 7 eagles. He's sworn off playing in any more hc tournaments, something I did long ago. Has anyone heard of a lower score?

Depending on the course and how a team's hcp is determined, I don't find this score all that unusual for NET.  Early this year our 60 year old pro competed in a tournament of his college alumni with 3 members of our club.  His team consisted of his 50 year old girlfriend (about a 12), a 62 year old former baseball player who can hit it a mile (about an 18), and a 71 year old (about a 25).  His girlfriend told him that she wanted to win, but he said they had no chance so get over it!!  They were -20 for a GROSS score of 52 and won!  It really helps when the forward tees are up and you have a woman who can hit driver over 200 yards, but they won by making several long putts.

[~^~]

Depending on the course and how a team's hcp is determined, I don't find this score all that unusual for NET.  Early this year our 60 year old pro competed in a tournament of his college alumni with 3 members of our club.  His team consisted of his 50 year old girlfriend (about a 12), a 62 year old former baseball player who can hit it a mile (about an 18), and a 71 year old (about a 25).  His girlfriend told him that she wanted to win, but he said they had no chance so get over it!!  They were -20 for a GROSS score of 52 and won!  It really helps when the forward tees are up and you have a woman who can hit driver over 200 yards, but they won by making several long putts.

This proves my point: the hc system doesn't work. A score of 50 is an average score of 2.78 per hole, par 3s, par 4s and par5s. Like drive, an iron and maybe a putt, or the iron shot went in. Not realistic golf, in my opinion.

[jbil8802]

I've been on a team that has shot 53 (-19) in a non-handicapped tournament. I don't see why a score in the high 40s or low 50s would be unreasonable for a handicapped tournament.

[STUDque]

Relevant post is relevant today. I said it in the recent announcement but I really feel encouraged that the USGA/R&A were able to get together and agree on something that's good for all. Even a good handful of the changes recommended in this post were incorporated. I'm sure it was the MGS influence

 

 

Sent from #throwbackthursday