Australia takes the first step in adopting USGA system

[killerduck]

Today is a historical day for Australian golf. As the title of the thread suggests, Golf Australia has taken the first step toward fully adopting the USGA handicapping system.

We now calculate handicaps based on the best 10 of the previous 20 rounds. I'm sure you all know how it works.

As our club only moved to the national system 'Golflink' only recently, I only have about 6 or 7 rounds to go on, but my handicap has gone from 14.0 on the previous incremental system, to 12.7 on the new system.

According to scorecard (which has a few more rounds in it) my handicap would be 12.6 (assuming all courses I've played rate at par, with a slope of 113)

Thoughts? Is the US system better than the incremental? Or will it all work out about the same anyway?

[Fourputt]

I think that most important is that any handicapping system has a logical formula at its base, and that all players are being rated under the same system.

That said, I don't really know anything about your incremental system, so I can't comment on it. The USGA has been studying, analyzing and revising its system for more than 2 decades, and it seems to be pretty effective when applied as the system recommends. Of course it all relies on honest input by the players. My experience of more than 20 years of play within the USGA system has shown it to work very well as long as your club or association takes an active part in managing irregularities.

My club has an active handicap committee which takes quick action when an issue such as a potential sandbagger crops up. They don't automatically accuse anyone, but they do investigate and monitor a player showing this tendency until he is either cleared or his handicap is adjusted to reflect his true scoring potential. Without oversight, any handicapping system can be a target for abuse by unscrupulous players.

[microcrayfish]

How does the current Australian system actually work?

[killerduck]

I am really struggling to find detailed info on the web, but basically it was....

After a player obtains a handicap, and plays a competition round, their handicap is adjusted in this way.
Given handicap = 18.3 (18)

First, calculate CCR (calculated course rating) this is complicated, but it's supposed to account for the difficulty of the day (weather, set up of the course etc)
Basically the CCR is determined by the top 10% of the field. ie - if 72 players competed, the CCR is set by the player finishing 7th (but there is a limited to what the score can be)

par for the course is 72
Given CCR = 71 (1 under)

SO.......

Our player (hc 18) shoots 85 OTS, for a nett score of 67 (5 under)
Their handicap is adjusted for every shot under CCR, not par. So, that is 4 under CCR.
A player of 18 will lose 0.3 strokes for every shot under par. 4 x 0.3 is 1.2 - new handicap is 17.1

If a player shoots over CCR (there is a buffer zone, depending on your hc) the player goes out 0.1

I hope that makes sense....

There are some good explanations out there on the net, but I couldn't find any tonight.

[alf174]

So now the question is does the body that judges courses for slope & rating use the same criteria as the US system. If yes, then Australian & US player's handicaps can be compared to each other, apples to apples.

[Fourputt]

So now the question is does the body that judges courses for slope & rating use the same criteria as the US system. If yes, then Australian & US player's handicaps can be compared to each other, apples to apples.

Except that according to killer, the CCR is not a fixed figure. It's adjusted by the relative difficulty of each round (including weather and course setup), while the USGA rating and slope system only factors in the features of the course itself. Course rating fora given tee set never changes unless the course is modified, then a rating team comes out and reevaluates the entire course. The 2 methods are very different from each other, so I don't see how the handicaps can possibly be matched.

[Zeph]

I hope Norway will pick it up too sometime. We got a system today based on Stableford points.

The handicap is not using the last average (with differential) of anything. You post a score and either go up or down. At handicap 36, you drop 0,5 points for every point over 36 over 18 holes. The lower you get, the less points drop for each point over 36. I have calculated my own handicap with the USGA system, and it is somewhat equal. What I don't like is the use of Stableford instead of net score. With Stableford, you can shoot 5 over par on a hole and only "lose" 2 points. If the handicap was calcuated by net shots, you would suffer 5 shots, not 2.

As a result, lots of players got some holes with 10+ shots on most of the rounds. It doesn't screw up the round too bad, since you only can lose 2 points per hole. Which is a bad thing. It means you can get a low handicap by playing some holes well, scoring 3 or 4 points, but at the same time really mess up some holes and post a bad net shots score.

[michaeljames92]

Except that according to killer, the CCR is not a fixed figure. It's adjusted by the relative difficulty of each round (including weather and course setup), while the USGA rating and slope system only factors in the features of the course itself. Course rating fora given tee set never changes unless the course is modified, then a rating team comes out and reevaluates the entire course. The 2 methods are very different from each other, so I don't see how the handicaps can possibly be matched.

The New system is removing the CCR and every course is being rated. However since it will take time(they are saying 1-2 years) to rate every course, these changes are being introduced in different stages over the next 1-2 years. So as of now a players handicap is calculated by averaging the best 10 of your last 20 by taking GROSS SCORE - COURSE RATING. However for now, this is the old course rating not the new rating under USGA guidelines. Atm, SLOPE has not been introduced and only competition rounds can be taken for handicapping. To be honest i'm pretty sure the authorities haven't yet decided on whether allowing social play for handicapping.

No one really seems to know what is going on.

[Shorty]

RE: handicaps and social/non competition rounds

This seems to be one of the major difference between Australian and U.S. golf. Here, you have a handicap if you play competition golf. Otherwise you are known as a "social golfer" and don't have a proper handicap. In the states, it seems that you can submit cards from any kind of round, and I gather that some people include gimmees and mulligans in some of these "scores". I really like the new U.S. system because it's going to be an accurate representaion of current form.
I guess we're lucky to live in a country where anyone can afford a club membership and play competition 4 or five times a week if you have the time. I played in comps this week on Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday and Saturday, all at different courses. Most people I have spoken to are very much in favour of the new system. It will be much better when the slope system is included, because as it stands, a roundof 74 at NSW would be the same as one at a flat and short country course with athe same par.
As you would guess, someone who regularly shoots high 70s at some courses could not possibly break 90 on our more difficult tracks.

[michaeljames92]

RE: handicaps and social/non competition rounds

Dead Right.

[Zeph]

Allowing social rounds to be handicap adjusted is definitely the way to go. We have a rule that says you don't have to play handicap calculating rounds all the time, but when you do, you have to state so before the round. I record every round and adjust my handicap, competition or social. Not Texas Scramble or practice rounds where I hit double balls of course, but any round where I play properly according to the rules. On a practice round by myself, 9 holes, I often hit new balls if I didn't like the first, just to get the feeling of doing it right.

For those who play 3-4 competitions a week, it may not be a problem, but the average golfer definitely does not play that many competitions. If they take mulligans and gimmies, getting a vanity handicap, so be it, they only hurt themselves when they play in competition or with people that point it out. For me, golf is more a competition with myself than everyone else. Cheating yourself is not something I would advice.

[killerduck]

For mine, the daily CCR system has got to go. Because it's not a reflection of how hard the course was, it was a reflection of how well people played!

Another interesting note is that here in Australia, the ACR (permanent course rating, can't remember exactly what the 'A' stands for) is worked out differently. For example, length rating is measured on scorecard distance, not playing distance, which is insane. At my course, there are several short holes that play MUCH longer than the scorecard indicates due to doglegs, water hazards etc. Our par is 70 but the course rating is 68.3

I also like the idea of slope rating, taking into account the hazards and set up of each particular hole. For example, our 8th hole is 402m (440y) straight away par 4. On paper it doesn't seem like much. But the fairway is NARROW, and narrows incredibly at the 150m out zone. About 2 metres off the left hand side of the fairway is OOB all the way down the hole! There's no space between fairway and trees on the right... the green is raised and significantly undulated. I think the slope rating would be somewhere around 145 for this hole!! (It should be, anyway)

But whilst Australia has started calculating handicaps on the best 10 of the last 20 scores, we haven't yet adopted ESC (equitable stroke control). This exists ONLY in obtaining a handicap, but not when adjusting one, so all your 8's 9's and 10's still count.

Personally, I like the idea of slope ratings and your handicap changing depending on the course. I am interested to see how course ratings will turn out under the American system, and also looking forward to seeing nett scores go up as a result of the seemingly more challenging handicap system.

[michaeljames92]

Another interesting note is that here in Australia, the ACR (permanent course rating, can't remember exactly what the 'A' stands for)

'A' stands for Australian

[killerduck]

'A' stands for Australian

Yeah, cool. Couldn't remember if it was Australian, or Accredited. Judged on measured length, not playing length, which would alter it at MOST courses... Bring on the slope system