The new handicap system

[Oldplayer]

Is that a problem with the handicapping system, or the slope rating your course has been given?

The whole system is one package I guess so it is hard to say what part of it is at fault. All I'm saying is the whole thing ends up with players given an unrealistic handicap. Some have said it dosen't matter or it's only a number but I have been conditioned as a club player to work on my cap and shoot the best scores I can. It is demoralising that if you are not stripping it you can't get out of the 20's playing stableford.

[3Puttpete]

Is that a problem with the handicapping system, or the slope rating your course has been given?

That's a problem with the perception of the handicapping system, not the system itself

[3Puttpete]

I agree with the op. I play at 13th Beach in Victoria which has a lot of good golfers as members. I have not found one lowcapper who likes the new system. The higher cappers seem to like it because as our slopes are quite high they get 3 or four shots more than their GA.

Neither group understanding it doesn't make it good or bad.

The former mid-low singles at our club now are all scratch or better. The low cap is good for bragging rights but that's about it.

Why would you brag about a low handicap then whinge about it in the next breath?

I got down to 1 this winter because our DSR's were so high. I was shooting the course rating pretty much, well at least 7 out of 20 times. My normal score when the form is reasonably decent is between 75 and 79, about a 5-6 marker in the old language.

Who cares about course rating? What were you shooting relative to DSR?Your handicap is not a reflection of how you play against the course, it's a reflection of how you play relative to other golfers.

Being off 1 or 2 when you are standing on the first tee on medal day, playing par off the back tees with the cold wind blowing is just no fun.Give me the old system any-day.

If you shoot a nett 10 over and a bloke of 20 shoots a nett 10 over your actual handicaps are irrelevant but are both correct.Again, not understanding it doesn't make it wrong. It's not the same as the old one and isn't supposed to do the same thing. It's not that hard to understand once you lose the everything was better in the old days mentality.

[LeftyHoges]

Holy shit, what an absolute whingey wankfest!

The real problem here is that you expect to go out and play to your handicap every time. That's not the way the new handicapping system is designed to work. But here's the kicker, IT's NOT THE WAY THE OLD SYSTEM WORKED EITHER!

To jumbuck:
1) "So what?" Great attitude to have. Very helpful that you want the handicap system to fix what you think is wrong with your club but no-one elses. (I was a member at a small country club and the CCR was a nightmare, I had to shoot no worse than 73 to "play to my handicap"). 80 off the stick quite often meant I went out 0.2!
2) This happened under the old system as well. Don't get your point.
3) There were numerous complaints. The groan around the clubhouse was very audible when you'd announce "for the 58th time in a row, the CCR is 69". I'll admit that the current DSR system isn't perfect either, but at least the days of me having to shoot under par to break my 'cap are gone.
4) the 10/20 and 0.96 does favour the higher handicapper and the change to 8/20 and 0.93 created a more even playing field. Yes, most clubs do have individual grades, but what about; Ambrose events, 4B / pinehurst events, Handicap matchplay events? It's all well and good to play in individual grades on a Saturday, but anything else can pit you against a C grader who you're now giving 5 shots more to than you should be. Then there are the clubs who don't do grades or have fields too small to do them. I believe that all clubs SHOULD do grades, but that's only MY opinion, doesn't mean that it's law for them to do it.

And as for your insinuation that "Aussies are too slack, lazy and generally can't be bothered on mass to get off their collective "you know whats" to complain", what an absolute crock of shit. The pure fact of the matter is that if the system was as bad as you claim it to be then the masses would be complaining. But it's not, so they don't.

P.S. If the reason you're playing golf is to win prizes (which is the only reason why you'd need a higher handicap), then good luck to you. Maybe you should quit your job so you can practice more and win some $$$ out on tour.

[AndyP]

1) "So what?" Great attitude to have. Very helpful that you want the handicap system to fix what you think is wrong with your club but no-one elses. (I was a member at a small country club and the CCR was a nightmare, I had to shoot no worse than 73 to "play to my handicap"). 80 off the stick quite often meant I went out 0.2!

My home course handicap is 6 and occasionally the DSR comes in at 64 (par 67), which means that to play to my handicap I need to shoot 70, which is one better than my best ever score there.

That sort of thing makes it pretty easy for me to forget about the idea of needing to play to handicap to get satisfaction out of the game.

[3oneday]

I don't like paying taxes, who do I write to?

[AndyP]

I don't like paying taxes, who do I write to?

Clive Palmer.

[benno_r]

Pretty controversial way to make a welcome around here - good on ya Jumbuck! Welcome aboard.

What's your stance on belly putters?

[LarryLong]

My home course handicap is 6 and occasionally the DSR comes in at 64 (par 67), which means that to play to my handicap I need to shoot 70, which is one better than my best ever score there.

That sort of thing makes it pretty easy for me to forget about the idea of needing to play to handicap to get satisfaction out of the game.

I have purposefully remained ignorant of DSR, how it is calculated and what it means when the value varies. That way, when I'm on the course I have no idea if I'm likely to be sitting on a winning score, and I don't really care. I know if I'm playing well or not though - that's a completely different thing.

[wizard_of_oz]

The old system was easy to understand, no slope and daily handicap etc. With the new one, I've got no blooming idea, so I just rock up and have a hit and hope for the best.

[Dotty]

The old system was easy to understand, no slope and daily handicap etc. With the new one, I've got no blooming idea, so I just rock up and have a hit and hope for the best.

Ironically, when we were debating the pre-2009 system versus 2010 USGA system, someone commented 'Describe the current calculations to a lay-person (and it's complexities with 0.4 deduction per stroke, if hc>18, 0.3 per stroke if 13-18, 0.2 if ...etc.). Now describe the USGA calculations (average of best 8 of last 20 scores).'

Unfortunately, due to a years' worth of club member grumblings, the Australian system was modified to be 1. more complex and 2. no longer compatible with the rest of the world.

And same again with another batch of changes in January this year.

I hate to admit it, but Blakey was right all along.

[Ron Burgundy]

This is the best welcome thread I've ever read! Way to make an entrance...

A handicap, however it's calculated, is a meaningless number in isolation. Playing to it or not is also meaningless in isolation. It's only worth is to level the playing field across all participants in a comp (or individual match play etc) on any given day. To use it as a measure of self worth is crazy.

Carry on though...

[Daves]

This is the best welcome thread I've ever read! Way to make an entrance...

A handicap, however it's calculated, is a meaningless number in isolation. Playing to it or not is also meaningless in isolation. It's only worth is to level the playing field across all participants in a comp (or individual match play etc) on any given day. To use it as a measure of self worth is crazy.

Carry on though...

+1

Though I do like the concept of blaming the system for my crap golf!

[Oldplayer]

Neither group understanding it doesn't make it good or bad. Why would you brag about a low handicap then whinge about it in the next breath?Who cares about course rating? What were you shooting relative to DSR?Your handicap is not a reflection of how you play against the course, it's a reflection of how you play relative to other golfers.If you shoot a nett 10 over and a bloke of 20 shoots a nett 10 over your actual handicaps are irrelevant but are both correct.Again, not understanding it doesn't make it wrong. It's not the same as the old one and isn't supposed to do the same thing. It's not that hard to understand once you lose the everything was better in the old days mentality.

I think for the most part I understand how the system works but if you could enlighten me what the relevant authorities were trying to achieve with the changes I would appreciate it.
As I said it seems to me that the system artificially lowers handicaps. Maybe I don't get it but I thought handicaps were supposed to reflect what your average score was in relation to par. ie. if my course is par 72 and I average 78 shouldn't my handicap be 6? Is that just too simplistic?

[LeftyHoges]

I think for the most part I understand how the system works but if you could enlighten me what the relevant authorities were trying to achieve with the changes I would appreciate it.
As I said it seems to me that the system artificially lowers handicaps. Maybe I don't get it but I thought handicaps were supposed to reflect what your average score was in relation to par. ie. if my course is par 72 and I average 78 shouldn't my handicap be 6? Is that just too simplistic?

Way too simplistic. The old system certainly wasn't built to do that either. The problem exists in the fact that people believe that's what the old system did.

[3Puttpete]

I think for the most part I understand how the system works but if you could enlighten me what the relevant authorities were trying to achieve with the changes I would appreciate it.
As I said it seems to me that the system artificially lowers handicaps. Maybe I don't get it but I thought handicaps were supposed to reflect what your average score was in relation to par. ie. if my course is par 72 and I average 78 shouldn't my handicap be 6? Is that just too simplistic?

I don't know what they were trying to achieve so I can't help you there.

And yes, I think it is too simplistic. As I said earlier, if you think of it reflecting your ability compared to other golfers rather than par it makes more sense. The number itself doesn't matter. The actual handicap (and comparison to par) is irrelevant.

If you average 78 and somebody else averages 98, whether you play off 6 and 26, scratch and 20 or 10 and 30 the relative difference between you is 20 shots. You're not 0, 6 or 10 shots worse than par, you're 20 shots better than the other bloke. That's the point of a handicap.

[jimandr]

I blame Golflink for the misconception about the purpose of a handicap.

Before GL, almost nobody kept a record of their scores, so nobody genuinely knew what their average score was over their last 10, last 20 or further.

But, since the beginning of golfing time, people have complained about not being able to play to their handicaps. And when they do play well, they complain when they don't win the comp because of other people being such burglars (or handicap farmers in the new language).

Nowadays, because of Golflink, most people know what they need to score to maintain or lower their caps. So they set their targets a bit too high, and don't enjoy their game because they didn't achieve their target. I'm no different, but I blame my own golfing incompetence, nothing else.

As Lefty said, handicaps have never been an average score. If they were, you'd need 45 points to win the comp, because there is always someone in a field of 100 who has a 1 in 100 round. I'm sure Jumbuck will shoot at least one round under his cap in his next 100, and he'll probably have another purple patch and do it three times in row sometime. That's how golf goes for most of us.

For me, the measure of whether the system is working or not is the ball rundown. Every club I have played at, under every handicap system, has usually had a ball rundown cutoff of 1 or 2 over handicap (except Rosnay. There, you had to have 39, but it was an easy course, par 68 but rated 65). On hard days it might be higher. It is still the case now under this system. That tells me the system works OK.

I probably said the same thing somewhere in the 61 pages of the other thread on this topic.

[aussieashley]

After reading this thread it seems I'm in the minority. I actually like the system.
On a monthly medal day, off the blue tees, the DSR at our course will generally be one or two shots worse than par. So last Saturday was off the blues and it was windy. The DSR was 74 and I thought the course played tough.
When we play off the white markers, the DSR will generally be better than par as the course plays easier.
My GA is 5.8 at the moment & I've got flags dropping off, so I know I need to have decent rounds or I'm going to slip out.
On the flip side, there are times when I can have 4 or 5 rounds knowing if I have a good round I can get my handicap down and if I have a bad round it won't affect my handicap.

[PeteyD]

I like it. It is averages, makes a lot more sense to me than the old system did.

[jumbuck]

Clearly the answer is YES. If you are really a pro you have no (little idea what it's like to stand over the ball and wonder what the! is going to happen). For me getting an extra shot on some holes is a massive psychological relief. My last 100 rounds ave out at 13.4. Which means there were lots of 90's. Earlier this year I had 3 decent scores the best of my life and had to play off 6/7 for 3 months. That is intimidating for a 59 year old whose best sporting years where in the late 70's. My nerves have gone my chipping comes and goes - my driving which has been ex disappeared for 6 months. I have chronic back problems fell off my bike twice, gout, torn achilles and have to hide my wallet every night as my soon thinks it's his! The days I shot 76 78 79 needed a fair amount of luck. I don't often have 28 putts!!!! If it wasn't luck I would shoot 70's more often. (5 times in 25 years is not ability - it's luck). When the hacker has 43 points he starts to dream of being at Augusta playing along side the greats. He comes home in a bloody cheery mood waiting for the next round. He thinks I my go down to the range and work on my mid irons. I might have a couple of lessons I heard that X is a good teaching pro.
I'm rarely right according to my wife but I am so right here that I have the complete sh..s that only a handful of golfers care.
PS. I love my golf course and the comraderie of our guys but now am looking for excusesnot to play as shooting 32s is a waste of time.

[3Puttpete]

Clearly the answer is YES.

I forgot the question

[LeftyHoges]

I hate to be the one to break it to you Jumbuck (I lie, I love doing it) but you need to harden up, buttercup. If you need a shot on a hole to be able to play it then you need to figure out a way to play the hole without needing the shot.

Your argument about averaging 13.4 for your last 100 rounds means **** all, as EVERYONE AVERAGES ABOVE THEIR HANDICAP. The problem is that you believe your handicap should allow you to go out and shoot 36 points every single week. It never did that before, it doesn't do it now, and it never will do that in the future. My last 20 rounds has me averaging 5.8 over off a handicap of 2.4, ergo 33 points a week. So would player A's, player B's, player C's and EVERY OTHER ****ING PLAYER IN THE COUNTRY.

Listen to your wife mate, she clearly has much more of a clue than you do. And I pity poor Simon Magdulski if this truly is the shit that he has to put up with week in, week out.

[mrbluu]

Earlier this year I had 3 decent scores the best of my life and had to play off 6/7 for 3 months.

PS. I love my golf course and the comraderie of our guys but now am looking for excusesnot to play as shooting 32s is a waste of time.

Welcome JB.

Not sure how only 3 rounds out of 20 got u down to 6/7 unless u had 5 other really good rounds as well.

Also if regardless of what u shoot, if u are looking for excuses not to play the game cos u think it's a waste of time, maybe u need to look for another past time.

[Daves]

I hate to be the one to break it to you Jumbuck (I lie, I love doing it) but you need to harden up, buttercup. If you need a shot on a hole to be able to play it then you need to figure out a way to play the hole without needing the shot.

Your argument about averaging 13.4 for your last 100 rounds means **** all, as EVERYONE AVERAGES ABOVE THEIR HANDICAP. The problem is that you believe your handicap should allow you to go out and shoot 36 points every single week. It never did that before, it doesn't do it now, and it never will do that in the future. My last 20 rounds has me averaging 5.8 over off a handicap of 2.4, ergo 33 points a week. So would player A's, player B's, player C's and EVERY OTHER ****ING PLAYER IN THE COUNTRY.

Listen to your wife mate, she clearly has much more of a clue than you do. And I pity poor Simon Magdulski if this truly is the shit that he has to put up with week in, week out.

[Dotty]

In 2005, under the old system and off 16, I had freakish round of 47 points and got slugged 5 shots off my handicap.

So for one round of 76, I was expected to play to a handicap that was 5 lower than what I like to play off. (And it would take 2 years of playing once a fortnight to get back to 16).