Handicap: New System vs Old System

[Webster]

Good for you Ferrins - but 5 these days is really just a 9 handicap under the old system.

And stick with the fade - the chicks really dig it.

[PeteyD]

Good for you Ferrins - but 5 these days is really just a 9 handicap under the old system.

And stick with the fade - the chicks really dig it.

Why do you say this?

[markTHEblake]

I agree with Jack, dunno about being that much but lower single figures is probably about a half to a shot lower in the new system.
But moreso is the relative handicaps, to a generation or two back, a scratch player is dime a dozen these days, go back to the 1980's and 1 hcap would get you in the state mens teams, and +1 meant you were a legend. Schoolboy state teams had 4/5 markers in it.

So if Ferrins is trying to get back to a relative handicap he played off say 20 years ago, then if that was 5, I think he needs to aim for 3 or even 2. But in saying that, it is still a respectable target to aim for.

[Webster]

Why do you say this?

Because its the truth.

[Ferrins]

4 years ago

[markTHEblake]

4 years agoOk. Break out the champagne when you hit 4.9 to keep us old fart traditionalists happy.

[PeteyD]

Because its the truth.

I was chasing a reason / explanation, not being a knob. you can PM if you don't want to derail Ferrets quest for 5.

[Webster]

I was chasing a reason / explanation, not being a knob. you can PM if you don't want to derail Ferrets quest for 5.

Petey, because under the new system it is much easier to get to a lower number and maintain it than under the old system. So the achievment of getting to 9 under the old system in my opinion relates to about a 5 now. It's just a different way of doing it now.

[Hatchman]

Because its the truth.

According to whom?

[PeteyD]

Petey, because under the new system it is much easier to get to a lower number and maintain it than under the old system. So the achievment of getting to 9 under the old system in my opinion relates to about a 5 now. It's just a different way of doing it now.

That's kinda depressing. More work to do!

[Hatchman]

Petey, because under the new system it is much easier to get to a lower number and maintain it than under the old system. So the achievment of getting to 9 under the old system in my opinion relates to about a 5 now. It's just a different way of doing it now.

Rubbish

[mrbluu]

Going to make a push to get back to 5 hcp. First on the agenda is to not change my bag set up and practice rather than purchase. Starting off at 11.5 and will keep posting my methology and progress. I have to agree with the guys, I think the new system is a lot softer (0.8 of a shot lower) than the old one, how else would I get down that low....however it still felt good get that low, so good luck mate.

[LeftyHoges]

Rubbish

Not rubbish at all. I was a solid 4 or 5 marker under the old system and a 2-3 marker under this one. Much, MUCH easier to get low and stay there.

[PeteyD]

Can't you also go out quicker?

[LeftyHoges]

Can't you also go out quicker?

Absolutely. I think I went from 1.5 to 4.3 in a matter of months and only played a handful or two of games at the most. Sure as hell couldn't do that going out 0.1 per game like the old system (although under that one people on 4.5 or lower went out 0.2 if the had 6 shots or more than the CCR).

[muldude]

I agree with lefty and jack on this one

[Ferrins]

I was five playing as a member at Nudgee so that would equate to 5 in the new system.

[Hatchman]

I'm no disputing lower, I'm disputing 4 shots lower.

Those that have agreed and given examples from their golfing experience are talking 1-2 shots difference not 4.

[AndyP]

4 shots difference is bullshit.

I calculated what mine would be within the last couple of months. It would be about 1 shot different.

[live4golf]

I have gone from 1 to the brink of 5 in about 10 rounds...much easier to go up and down with this new system. Shit golf means your handicap goes out, good golf means your handicap comes down...just like any handicap system. Definitely agree that lower markers are lower, guys at my club that were off consistently 1 to 3 in the old system are + to scratch in the new system.

[Daves]

The gap is probably widest at the pointy end. I have seen handicaps of up to +6 under the new system. A lot of it has to do with the new system calculation and the consistency of low markers. But there is also an element of modern equipment in that difference to the old low markers. A recent +6 handicapper, now tour pro, plays at our course regularly and I am told he holds the course record of 11 under (61). Most member courses are the same length they were 25/30 years ago.

[markTHEblake]

Not rubbish at all. I was a solid 4 or 5 marker under the old system and a 2-3 marker under this one. Much, MUCH easier to get low and stay there.
Spot on!

As soon as you got to 4 there was no buffer and go out 0.2 on a bad day, but only reduce by 0.1. Most golfers wouldnt know about that.
Anyone who could maintain 4 or better on the old system was a very fine golfers because it meant you had to play to or better than your handicap about half the time.

[PeteyD]

Spot on!

As soon as you got to 4 there was no buffer and go out 0.2 on a bad day, but only reduce by 0.1. Most golfers wouldnt know about that.
Anyone who could maintain 4 or better on the old system was a very fine golfers because it meant you had to play to or better than your handicap about half the time.

Thanks Mark, that explains it.

[live4golf]

Spot on!

As soon as you got to 4 there was no buffer and go out 0.2 on a bad day, but only reduce by 0.1. Most golfers wouldnt know about that.
Anyone who could maintain 4 or better on the old system was a very fine golfers because it meant you had to play to or better than your handicap about half the time.

you only went out .2 when you had a really bad day, something like 4 shots over handicap...just over handicap you went out .1. Just wanted to clarify that it was not every time

[Shadesy]

4 shots difference is bullshit.

I calculated what mine would be within the last couple of months. It would be about 1 shot different.

No basis for my post.

[oncewasagolfer]

No one has mentioned the ccr? My home course under the old system regularly had a rating of 68 (par 71 at the time) now it is always 71 (par 70 now). Myself and a mate used to joke about everyone at our club being on fake handicaps as if they played a longer course they wouldn't be able to play to their handicap.

[PerryGroves]

I like the new system. Low markers used to dominate our 4balls, now its much harder for them. Good result.

[markTHEblake]

No one has mentioned the ccr? My home course under the old system regularly had a rating of 68 (par 71 at the time) now it is always 71 (par 70 now). Myself and a mate used to joke about everyone at our club being on fake handicaps as if they played a longer course they wouldn't be able to play to their handicap.

ummm, how did you figure that? If they played a longer course, in other words harder, the CCR would be higher, therefore making it easier. It is more difficult to make 3 on a short par 4, than it is to make 5 on a long par 4.

[990B Luva]

When I quit golf in 2006 I was off 12. Within 3 months of picking up a club again last year I was off 8. Now playing off 9. If that says anything.

[Dingo]

I like the new system. Low markers used to dominate our 4balls, now its much harder for them. Good result.

I would have thought that A graders dominating nett scores should be the norm.

One of the interesting things about the Lexus Cup is the extent that C grade golfers are dominating the competition. Of the top 10, 7 are C graders, 2 are B graders and 1 is an A grade female. I think that is a very bad result.

The basic idea of handicapping is to enable players to compete on an equal basis. The new system saw discontent grow as winning scores grew to the point that at many clubs a scratch marker could set a course record and not even be competitive in the daily comp.

In my book low handicaps are now 2 to 3 shots too low and C grade handicaps are 4 to 5 shots too high. Scoring 36 stableford points for a C grader should be as much of an achievement as shooting par is for a scratch marker (assuming ACR=par). Scoring 45 stableford points should be a very rare event requiring a special explanation (such as a beginner improving rapidly or a scratch marker shooting 63).

[matty]

Well said.

[goughy]

I'm confused. When I finally get back into it I'll just let the handicapping system tell me what I'm off. All these anchors etc give me a headache.

I do remember years ago Onewood played in a some event with a number of pro women. When they asked him his hc, they told him it's tough over here and if he was in the US his hc would be 3 or 4 shots lower. He was off singles then.

[Ferrins]

I must admit that the guys that I played with in the old system who were off two or three were all solid players. In the last year I have played with three guys off this cap who were way below the old system players standard.

[popper81]

I must admit that the guys that I played with in the old system who were off two or three were all solid players. In the last year I have played with three guys off this cap who were way below the old system players standard.

Hahaha. I totally agree :)

[Ferrins]

Not including you;)

[muldude]

I must admit that the guys that I played with in the old system who were off two or three were all solid players. In the last year I have played with three guys off this cap who were way below the old system players standard.

have we played together ? hehehe

yes, i agree with this totally. i got to 1 recently and i'm not a 1 marker a'hole under the old system. i got to plus under the old system and there is no way in hell i'm near that level now, that was in 2001.

my mate said he went from 5 to 1 overnight when the change over occured, i wasn't playing then.

[wazandnic]

I seem to be on the other end... I played for 20 years between 4-10. Since the new system was introduced I have blown out and last 12-18 months am playing between 15-17?? :(

[Moe Norman]

old system didn't reflect form, the new system does.

I took 5 years to go from 3 to 8 - .1 at a time because I hardly play.

then you might have a holiday and play a few rounds and hit some form, have 3 or 4 decent rounds and you're back on 5-6 again, needing 20 bad ones to get back out to 8. It could take me 3 years to play 20 rounds.

At least now when I eventually play again, my 8 mark will get out to 10 reasonably quickly, and more like 12, which is probably about where I should be

[mrbluu]

As I understand the old system u went down 0.1 for every shot u shoot under your handicap. ie if you have 39 points then you would lose 0.3. So in must cases u woild have to break your handicap (depending on ccr) to drop your handicap. Under the new system you don't need to break your handicap to drop down.

[Dotty]

As I understand the old system u went down 0.1 for every shot u shoot under your handicap. ie if you have 39 points then you would lose 0.3. So in must cases u woild have to break your handicap (depending on ccr) to drop your handicap. Under the new system you don't need to break your handicap to drop down.
The amount per shots below handicap/CCR varied from .1 (A grade) to .4 (C grade).
So, an A grader having 43 points would lose 0.7 from his handicap, whilst a C grader would lose 2.8.

Under the new system, they essentially both lose the same, which is why C grade handicaps have gone higher and the A grade handicaps have gone lower. (Making it easier for C graders to win better ball and unsegregated singles events.)

It gets worse, when the C grader has a good score dropping out of his last 20. ie. If he had a 39 pointer dropping out, a 43 points means that he may only lose 0.4, so his playing handicap may not move at all.

[Moe Norman]

As I understand the old system u went down 0.1 for every shot u shoot under your handicap. ie if you have 39 points then you would lose 0.3. So in must cases u woild have to break your handicap (depending on ccr) to drop your handicap. Under the new system you don't need to break your handicap to drop down.

I haven't played in 2 years, but I last played off a HCP of 10.

I shot +13 at Nudgee and my HCP dropped down to 8.

I haven't played since.

[sms316]

I was off +1 15 years back and am off 1 now. I reckon I was 100 times better 15 years back.

Any low marker can fluke 3 or 4 good rounds out of 20.

[popper81]

Any low marker can fluke 3 or 4 good rounds out of 20.

This is correct.

[Webster]

I haven't played in 2 years, but I last played off a HCP of 10.

I shot +13 at Nudgee and my HCP dropped down to 8.

I haven't played since.

Thommo, your example is a poor one because you never play.

[Shadesy]

After analysing my entire Golflink under the old System (using my played too only, taking CCR out of it) I have come to the conclusion under the old system I would be

10.1.

As off today I am 10.1 under the current system.

Amazing, perhaps I should be the poster boy the the AGU.

[Moe Norman]

Thommo, your example is a poor one because you never play.

my example was that you can go down when you don't break your hcp.

I like the new system, because if I were to play it wouldn't take me long to find my level of an appropriate HCP.

I go back and shoot 85 4 or 5 times and I'd be off around 12, which is where I should be.

Under the old system, with the amount I play it could take me 5 years to move from 8.3 to 10, probably more.

[Hatchman]

Anyone ever herd of the saying "the older they get the better they were" or "the older I get the better I was".

[muldude]

Anyone ever herd of the saying "the older they get the better they were" or "the older I get the better I was".

Gawd, i know this more than most. the point as such i'm making is i know i am heaps worse than 10-15 years ago but i have a similar h'cap.something is amiss.

[sms316]

Anyone ever herd of the saying "the older they get the better they were" or "the older I get the better I was". Sure. The 2 hours practice per day that I did for 300 days of the year were probably more effective than the half bucket I hit prior to my Saturday game. My shit golf then was a hell of a lot better than my shit golf now.

[Muscles]

Not rubbish at all. I was a solid 4 or 5 marker under the old system and a 2-3 marker under this one. Much, MUCH easier to get low and stay there.

Same here. 4.4 was as low as I got under the old system. 2.7 is my anchor under the new.

[popper81]

Lefty and I are the perfect example under the new system.

At VIC champs, we both played off a similar number. Lefty hadn't had a round over 80 in his last 20, I only had 6 (I think?) below 80... The 6 I had were good ones, I think 3 or 4 were played to 1's. Lefty is much better golfer then me, I just have the ability to go low at times, yet we were off the same number.... to me that is ridiculous.

I played off 4 in the old system, and much like SMS alluded to, I was a 10x better golfer back then. Playing 100+ holes a week, and practicing for hours every day, does that. My anchor now is 3.0. If you can go low once, or twice a year, you get pinged.

[LeftyHoges]

Lefty hadn't had a round over 80 in his last 20,

You're close. At that stage I didn't have a round IN the 80's. I still had that stinking 91 at Busselton in there. :lol: Cant wait for that to **** off! Only 5 more rounds (which should be around about WA champs time and I can have another one over there, or City of Cairns tourney time)

But thanks for the big ups BigPopper. Though I'd say there's no difference in our ability levels, maybe just a little difference in the consistency levels. ;-)

[live4golf]

Couple of years ago I had my played to +5 fall out of my 20 rounds, it was replaced by a played to 5...handicap went from 1.4 to 2.4, then went to 3.0 the next day when a played to 1 fell out. under the old system I would have been off 3.1 at the same time my +5 fell out of my top 20, then 3.3 the following week. Different ways of getting there but fairly similar results.

[hocko]

After analysing my entire Golflink under the old System (using my played too only, taking CCR out of it) I have come to the conclusion under the old system I would be

10.1.

As off today I am 10.1 under the current system.

Amazing, perhaps I should be the poster boy the the AGU.

I just did the same.
Current 'cap 5.6
Old system 'cap 5.8

[Lobsta]

You're close. At that stage I didn't have a round IN the 80's. I still had that stinking 91 at Busselton in there. :lol: Cant wait for that to **** off! Only 5 more rounds (which should be around about WA champs time and I can have another one over there, or City of Cairns tourney time)

But thanks for the big ups BigPopper. Though I'd say there's no difference in our ability levels, maybe just a little difference in the consistency levels. ;-)

Could the fact that your iron shafts are much newer than popper's have something to do with it too?

[LeftyHoges]

I just did the same.
Current 'cap 5.6
Old system 'cap 5.8

How long a period are we doing this test for gents?

[LeftyHoges]

Could the fact that your iron shafts are much newer than popper's have something to do with it too?

Not sure, if that had any effect I should be the best golfer on this site. Jack would play off 36. :lol:

[BrisVegas]

There was a thread done when the new system came in and like many A graders, I dropped a couple of shots. I like the new system as it's more reflective of current form and means you don't have to wait ages to drift out like Moe mentioned.

The USGA system was pretty similar I think. When I lived in the USA 10 years ago I had an AGU of 6, so I nominated to played in "A" flight for 6-10 hcaps on the local amateur circuit there. I won quite a lot and they busted me to the 0-5 flight after the first season. I started tracking my USGA and it was consistently around 3 shots lower.

[Shadesy]

How long a period are we doing this test for gents?

Since the new system came in.

[LeftyHoges]

Since the new system came in.

Wow, dedication to go back that far! I'll give it a run I suppose. When did it come in?

[markTHEblake]

Couple of years ago I had my played to +5 fall out of my 20 rounds, it was replaced by a played to 5...handicap went from 1.4 to 2.4, then went to 3.0 the next day when a played to 1 fell out. under the old system I would have been off 3.1 at the same time my +5 fell out of my top 20, then 3.3 the following week. Different ways of getting there but fairly similar results.The yanks only revise handicaps once a month so these up and down jumps you see do not occur on a weekly basis. This is another key factor in their system to negate handicap manipulation. GA has mentioned this point in their breifings and from memory they are undecided. No doubt there will be another round of whining about handicap cheats if/when similar revision schedules are introduced.

[simmsy]

Everyone play off scratch!
No pricks sandbagging then. (No ones looking at u heaf)

[Shadesy]

Wow, dedication to go back that far! I'll give it a run I suppose. When did it come in?

I played under my new cap in August 2010, however my comp round before that was April 2010. So sometime between that. I went from 18.1 to 15.8 under the new system, so it was easy to tell which round to start from.

[LeftyHoges]

Wow. Currently under the old system I should be on 4.2, not 2.2.

In September last year I should have been out to 6 for 2 games.

[simmsy]

Sweetcheeks just worked mine out.
9.0 new
9.6 old

[Shadesy]

Wow. Currently under the old system I should be on 4.2, not 2.2.

In September last year I should have been out to 6 for 2 games.

What I have noticed is its far easier to come in under the new system if you are under 4. Jack was right about scratch being tough to get to, but I think for mid cappers its about the same roughly.

Its not as easy as people think to go out, just a bigger jump when the time comes. several games are on the same cap regardless of how bad you play, sometimes for 6-8 rounds at a time and that would get you out a shot in the old system anyway.

[rubin]

i cant remember correctly
how do we work this out?

[Shadesy]

http://www.golf.org.au/site/_content/document/00005785-source.pdf

T (http://www.golf.org.au/site/_content/document/00005785-source.pdf)his is how the old system worked.

[LeftyHoges]

http://www.golf.org.au/site/_content/document/00005785-source.pdf

T (http://www.golf.org.au/site/_content/document/00005785-source.pdf)his is how the old system worked.

Ah crap, I nuffed mine up a bit. Was still working on 0.1 reductions when I was on 5. Not that it would make that much difference, I don't think.

[markTHEblake]

If you want to compare old to new you are also going to have to take into account that the CCR is no longer used. So in all likelyhood many of the CCR's will be higher than the fixed ACR more often than they are lower, and therefore your calculated result will be higher than what it would have really being.

[Veefore]

I haven't read all the posts but before the new system came in we did an analysis of about a dozen players in different handicap ranges for comparison. The difference was between 1 and 3 shots lower under the new system.

Streaky players tended to have the biggest difference while the consistent players had the smallest. In my case at the time it was exactly the same, 6.1 with both.