or Connect
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › US vs British Handicaps
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

US vs British Handicaps - Page 2

post #19 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wansteadimp View Post

In the US there will be an adjustment to modify the shots received based on the difficulty of the home course

So are you saying that a US player whose handicap is ten will get 11 or 12 shots if the course he is playing is more difficult than those on which the handicap was acquired? I didn't know that. And surely it would have the effect of doublng the advantage, given that the handicap is already taking account of the ratings of the courses played?
post #20 of 47

http://www.usga.org/handicapfaq/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=4

 

It is just a different way of comparing two players on the same course.  Both players would calculate the course handicap using the same calculation.  There is no advantage per se.

post #21 of 47
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by boogielicious View Post

http://www.usga.org/handicapfaq/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=4

It is just a different way of comparing two players on the same course.  Both players would calculate the course handicap using the same calculation.  There is no advantage per se.

Thanks. That's quite clear.
post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasm View Post


Shorty will have to answer for Australia, but in the UK, no, it isn't mainly stableford. I'd estimate that about two-thirds to three-quarters of my club's competitions are medal play.

 

It's the same at my club too --  with more stablefords in the winter, fewer in the summer.

 

Although, as I understand it, medal rounds are effectively stablefords for handicapping purposes anyway. Score more than a net double-bogey and it's reduced to double-bogey (stableford 0 points) when the handicap changes are assessed. I think this is to ensure than rounds with only one very bad hole are punished less than a round with many bad holes. Of course this only affects handicaps, not the competition results.

post #23 of 47

We play mainly stableford in Australia.

 

Mid week comps are  stableford 100% of the time unless there's a midweek championship for those who don't play on Saturdays.

On Saturdays it is stroke once  a month (Monthly Medal/Mug).

 

Most places would have stableford 7 times out of 8 non stroke rounds and maybe Par the other time.

There are also  best ball comps in conjunction with the individual comps a lot of the time.

post #24 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasm View Post

This got me thinking about whether there is something in the differences between the US and British systems that might account for it. As I understand it, in the States you put in cards every time you play. Over here, only competition scores (played understrict rules, obviously) count for handicap purposes. Any thoughts on whether that might give rise to different results?

 

Given the fact that the handicaps are computed under completely differently procedures and include different rounds I can't imagine why they would be comparable at all.

+1.  It's apples and oranges. 

 

However, I think counting only tournament scores is better way to go.  I said this is another thread.  There are 3 handicappers from my experience.  Those ...

 

1) who sandbags to do better at tournaments

2) who accurately record all the scores.

3) who artificially lowers his HI (opposite of sandbaggers)

 

Counting only tournament scores can be effective in reducing 1) & 3).

post #25 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkim291968 View Post
 

 There are 3 handicappers from my experience.  Those ...

 

1) who sandbags to do better at tournaments

2) who accurately record all the scores.

3) who artificially lowers his HI (opposite of sandbaggers)

 

Counting only tournament scores can be effective in reducing 1) & 3).

I generally agree, but I think some who fall into category 2 get nervous and play worse in competition while others may actually focus better.

post #26 of 47
Quote:
"Originally Posted by rkim291968 View Post
 

 There are 3 handicappers from my experience.  Those ...

 

1) who sandbags to do better at tournaments

2) who accurately record all the scores.

3) who artificially lowers his HI (opposite of sandbaggers)

 

Counting only tournament scores can be effective in reducing 1) & 3)."

The problem with this scenario is it doesn't take into consideration the many golfers who don't partake in competitions but only play with there buddies or on the weekends. I personally like the folks who do it right and just record all scores played, that way it is what is and the golfer will know when he is improving.

post #27 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Ludden View Post
 
Quote:
"Originally Posted by rkim291968 View Post
 

 There are 3 handicappers from my experience.  Those ...

 

1) who sandbags to do better at tournaments

2) who accurately record all the scores.

3) who artificially lowers his HI (opposite of sandbaggers)

 

Counting only tournament scores can be effective in reducing 1) & 3)."

The problem with this scenario is it doesn't take into consideration the many golfers who don't partake in competitions but only play with there buddies or on the weekends. I personally like the folks who do it right and just record all scores played, that way it is what is and the golfer will know when he is improving.

For those who only play with buddies and don't participate in competitions, they can use any handicap system to keep track of their HI.   Official HI exists for competition.   

 

In bowling, only the scores recorded in league plays are counted to your official average.    Why can't USA golf system follow similar?  

 

I can look up my club members' GHIN reported scores and I've seen a lot of strange things happening.   One guy I know plays 2 - 3 times a week but his GHIN scores consist of  handful of scores reported in the last 4 years.  He had 8 HI.   I was paired with him in a club tournament and he scored 92 and played like typical bogey golfer.   Perhaps, he was 8 HI 4 years ago but I can't see how he still is.  Perhaps, his ego does not allow him to carry a double digit HI.  Another guy's HI is 10.   All his reported scores are in narrow range from 80 - 84 except for two scores (mid 90s) entered just before tournament. Unless he played with his eyes closed, I can't see how he can post those numbers just before tournament time.   Of course in match play against me, he brought his low 80 game and beat me 2&1 (and I played better than my HI that day).   All the while, he complained how he was giving me so many strokes.  

post #28 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by rkim291968 View Post
 

For those who only play with buddies and don't participate in competitions, they can use any handicap system to keep track of their HI.   Official HI exists for competition.   

 

In bowling, only the scores recorded in league plays are counted to your official average.    Why can't USA golf system follow similar?  

 

I can look up my club members' GHIN reported scores and I've seen a lot of strange things happening.   One guy I know plays 2 - 3 times a week but his GHIN scores consist of  handful of scores reported in the last 4 years.  He had 8 HI.   I was paired with him in a club tournament and he scored 92 and played like typical bogey golfer.   Perhaps, he was 8 HI 4 years ago but I can't see how he still is.  Perhaps, his ego does not allow him to carry a double digit HI.  Another guy's HI is 10.   All his reported scores are in narrow range from 80 - 84 except for two scores (mid 90s) entered just before tournament. Unless he played with his eyes closed, I can't see how he can post those numbers just before tournament time.   Of course in match play against me, he brought his low 80 game and beat me 2&1 (and I played better than my HI that day).   All the while, he complained how he was giving me so many strokes.  

 

Te USGA handicap system depends on an active and serious Handicap Committee to police the handicaps.  If you do not have that kind of Handicap Committee (and from the incidents you cite that sounds possible) then abuses are going to occur.

 

As to your first sentence, lots of guys maintain handicaps for purposes of playing matches against their friends, not just playing in formal competitions.

post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by chasm View Post


So are you saying that a US player whose handicap is ten will get 11 or 12 shots if the course he is playing is more difficult than those on which the handicap was acquired? I didn't know that. And surely it would have the effect of doublng the advantage, given that the handicap is already taking account of the ratings of the courses played?

 

If I have understood correctly, CONGU is also sloping courses in UK, i.e. getting Course Rating and Slope. I think this would mean that SSS/CSS would be gone and CBA would enter ála EGA in continent Europe.

 

As a side note, I have used an application to collect my statistics and my EGA HC is 15,5 and USGA about 20. So I have much more potential according to EGA than USGA. Both of them have this potentiality built in, either by Stableford or by 10 out of 20 average times 0.96%.

post #30 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by luu5 View Post
 

 

If I have understood correctly, CONGU is also sloping courses in UK, i.e. getting Course Rating and Slope. I think this would mean that SSS/CSS would be gone and CBA would enter ála EGA in continent Europe.

 

As a side note, I have used an application to collect my statistics and my EGA HC is 15,5 and USGA about 20. So I have much more potential according to EGA than USGA. Both of them have this potentiality built in, either by Stableford or by 10 out of 20 average times 0.96%.

 

I assume that when you say that they are getting slopes and course ratings in the uk they have not (yet?) gotten them in Finland?  If that is the case I am curious as to how you computed your USGA handicap without rated and sloped courses.  If that is not the case (ie, if Finland courses have USGA type course ratings and slopes) then never mind.

post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by turtleback View Post
 

 

I assume that when you say that they are getting slopes and course ratings in the uk they have not (yet?) gotten them in Finland?  If that is the case I am curious as to how you computed your USGA handicap without rated and sloped courses.  If that is not the case (ie, if Finland courses have USGA type course ratings and slopes) then never mind.

 

There are two HC systems in Europe. CONGU (islands) not using CR and slope (yet) and EGA (continental Europe) using CR and slope. So we (EGA) could use full USGA HC system but we are using Stableford like CONGU to calculate changes in HC.

 

CR and slope are only used to calculate playing handicap (course handicap). This is done a little bit differently than in USGA as we apply all of it in one go PLAYING HCP = EXACT HCP x (SR / 113) + (CR - PAR) as we do not count differentials in Stableford.

 

So I do not mind.

post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by luu5 View Post
 

 

There are two HC systems in Europe. CONGU (islands) not using CR and slope (yet) and EGA (continental Europe) using CR and slope. So we (EGA) could use full USGA HC system but we are using Stableford like CONGU to calculate changes in HC.

 

CR and slope are only used to calculate playing handicap (course handicap). This is done a little bit differently than in USGA as we apply all of it in one go PLAYING HCP = EXACT HCP x (SR / 113) + (CR - PAR) as we do not count differentials in Stableford.

 

So I do not mind.

If I might ask another question, do you know anything abut how they do the course rating and slope computations for the course?  Have they come up with their own methodology or do they use the USGA process?  It seems to me that even if the algorithm for computing the handicap were to be the same, if the CR and slopes are determined using a different process than the USGA process there would still be the potential for a systematic difference in the handicaps.

post #33 of 47

I was stationed in England for 7 years and we had a U.S. team that would regularly play matches against English clubs.  A few of us would try to maintain both GHIN handicaps and "English" handicaps through a website (you can't keep an official CONGU handicap on multiple courses--only your home club).  Americans who didn't keep an accurate handicap were usually weeded out or corrected pretty quickly or they were useless in the competitions.  For the most part, the difference between GHIN and "English" would be relative along the same lines as you would expect due to slope.

 

When we played at the tougher courses, we would usually have to be given a couple of courtesy strokes to make the match competitive.  At the easier tracks, we would play straight up.

 

I think the biggest difference in handicapping comes down to reason why they are maintained in the first place. In the states, very few golfers play in competitions so their handicaps are solely used for personal reasons.  In the UK, it's all about competitions and handicaps are a requirement just to play.

post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by onkey View Post

 

I think the biggest difference in handicapping comes down to reason why they are maintained in the first place. In the states, very few golfers play in competitions so their handicaps are solely used for personal reasons.  In the UK, it's all about competitions and handicaps are a requirement just to play.

 

You have to play in 3 'qualifying competitions' every year to keep your handicap active. At my club some people don't bother and just play social golf with a lapsed handicap -- they can enter some of the less serious competitions (Invitation Days, Turkey Shoots etc) but aren't eligible to win any prizes. There's a big campaign every year to remind people to 'get 3 cards in' so that their hcps don't lapse.

post #35 of 47

I really do not like how we calculate handicap in Norway. It is based on your Stableford score and any kind of round can count (which is fine). If you score better than 36 points, your handicap drops by 0.1-0.5 per point over 36, based on what your current handicap is. There is also a buffer zone, which means that scores down to 31-35 (again, based on handicap), does not negatively affect your handicap. If you shoot below the buffer zone, your handicap goes up with 0.1, regardless of how bad it was.

 

For a higher handicap player, this means he can shoot 46 Stableford points on a good day and have his handicap drop by 0.5*10 = 5 points. Two of those rounds, and he'll go from 36 to 26. The following 5 rounds can be in the 20's and his handicap goes up 0.5 total.

 

I find the US system of the average of the 10 of your last 20 far better. That way, your handicap is based on averages and includes 20 rounds. Here, you can have on exceptionally great round that drops your handicap. I've played with many in the 20's handicap that struggle with it. They shoot 2-3 good rounds and drop significantly in handicap. Then they get their bad and regular rounds, and struggle shooting 36 for months. It also takes a while to get the handicap back up, since it only goes up by 0.1 each round.

post #36 of 47

Interesting. In Australia we use a kind of hybrid system. The US system applies with best 8 from last 20 rounds and we tend to play a lot of competitions as in the UK. Personally I can play 2 or 3 stableford comps each week if I wanted to. This keeps me honest because I play with the same group of people mainly and we all know each others capabilities. We used to have the old system like in Norway where playing 10 shots below your handicap meant a 5 shot drop next time you play. But this averaging obviously gives a steadier result closer to your average than your best.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Golf Talk
TheSandTrap.com › Golf Forum › The Clubhouse › Golf Talk › US vs British Handicaps