Let's Compete Like Adults

The golf handicap system has existed in one form or another since time immemorial, and thus being long institutionalised is rarely questioned. Indeed many might argue that it is sacrosanct.

Such is an almost unique concept in sport (horse racing muddies the water) that competitors of widely differing abilities should be able to compete on equal terms.

As beautiful or as ludicrous as being allowed to play a leading snooker player in a championship and being afforded a seventy point start. Or possibly taking on a high jump champion and being allowed to take off via trampoline.

Whilst such are possibly ridiculous notions, is the golf handicap system any more easy to live with assuming one were able for a moment to put aside one’s ingrained and possibly never before questioned acceptance?

History has a habit of abandoning strange customs which originated hundreds of years ago – testing truth by fire, predicting the future from spreading a crow’s entrails etc. Yet the golf handicap system remains long beyond the days of possibly having to travel many leagues to even find any golfer of any ability to compete against.

The first record of a golf handicap system was possibly that of 21 January 1687, when a gentleman named Kincaid recorded his opinion about the best ways to allot strokes to gain an advantage during matches: “At golf, whether it is better to give a man two holes of three, laying equal strokes, or to lay three strokes to his one and play equal for so much every hole.”

I would personally never patronizingly insult a friend by giving him a head start in golf, and certainly I would be offended if anyone offered me strokes. At least on the course. Nor do I lend or give away money. I earned it. I keep it.

I prefer to take well deserved thrashings. It’s an incentive to improve, the natural healthy order of things, and an endorsement of the simple precept that a winner in any walk of life should be the better person on the day. Conversely if I win I know that I deserved it rather than having won due a socialist sporting grant of a head start.

Abandon the handicap system and compete fairly as grown ups. Not as children being given a head start in a beach race against one’s parents. You know it makes sense.

Playing socially and just for fun handicaps aren't needed but in competitions if there is no handicaps it will scare a lot of high handicappers off, I like to play in my society games but if there was no handicaps I would be rock bottom nearly every time if I haven't got as much time to practice due to work or family demands, I may aswell throw money away or my clubs

The handicap system works well because it makes you try. If a low handicapper plays with a higher handicapper he has to play well to win if he is giving away shots, but if not can just cruise to an easy win without testing his game. The higher handicapper wouldnt be competing much either as he would always be expecting a thrashing. We use it playing socially to make it more competetive, adds something to the game. If it aint broke dont fix it!

Sure I've heard of handicaps in snooker, darts, squash - well basically score head starts.

I think the R&A sum it up well with this quote

A handicap allows players of all levels of golfing ability to compete against each other equally and, consequently, is essential to the popularity and prosperity of the game.

The handicap system under Congu is a complete joke in the uk. It is open to abuse and your own handicap is not governed by the way you play in competitions but is also affected by how others play in the same competition (CSS). You play to par (net71/36pts) your handicap can increase by 0.1. Is that fair ??

In match play even if a low handicap (cat1) plays within his handicap against a higher handicapper then he will and probably be beat as the margin of error for higher handicappers is greater. The idea of full difference is at best eronious. For cat 1 golfers, should a shot be given on SI 1-5 where your handicap dictates you should have one ?? Surely the fairest way would be to have golfers get their shots where the handicap dictates and this would then make the playing field more equal.

High handicappers are quick to comment on "he's only moaning because he doesn't get many shots" but they are quick to take the shots and then say "I had a good day" when clearly their handicap dies not reflect their playing ability. This difference is common place among golfers in clubs throughout the country and will continue until this so called "fair" handicap system is changed and your handicap,is governed by your game on the day and not by how everyone else plays.

Firstly, as a 'high handicapper' I can say that I probably would not have taken this game up 3 years ago without the handicap system. I agree withthe R&A golf would simply become elitist and die without it.

Martin, I always argue that the handicap system benefits low handicappers, for two reasons:

1. Better golfers are by nature more consistent, therefore are more likely to play to their handicap, high handicappers may sometimes post 40+ points, or play a blinder in a match, but far more likely to have half a dozen bad holes and ruin the round.

2. In match play or other scenario's where you play 3/4 difference, the low handicap golfer benefits - i.e. a 24 handicap golfer loses 5 strokes agains the field, where the 4 handicap golfer effectively loses none (maybe 1).

But the long and the short of it is, as a new golfer, who took up the sport because his football days are behind him (like many I suspect) it was the handicap system and the ability to turn up at the golf club and play anyone on level 'ish' terms that atracted me.

Golf is incredibly difficult and for many people they will not be able to get to single handicap level. If the handicap system was abandoned then these people would never have an opportunity of winning a competition. They cannot compete against the single figures standard. The only solution would be to have competition in divisions. This would mean you would have to have enough entries in each division to make it sensible. We struggle to get enough ladies playing in the current world, we could never split the comps further into divisions - there would be one person in each! I cant think of one good reason to remove the handicap system. Every sport separates out different playing standards in different ways. Golf happens to do it with a handicap system. The system does work. The CSS means that if the course is playing easy or difficult then the conditions are taken into account. The only downside is those people who manipulate things to retain a higher handicap. That is nothing to do with the system and everything to do with certain individuals.

Martin

You seem happy to completely ignore the fact that, if the field of players as a whole score better than handicaps would suggest, then the blindingly obvious fact is that the course, for whatever reason, is playing easier. You, as an experienced lower handicapped player, should be taking advantage of the conditions and scoring better than par. That way, a 0.1 doesn't come your way.

The handicap system is all we've got. No matter what changes are made someone will whine 'unfair'. You don't get many low handicappers talking about the injustice (or indeed the rationale) of the 3/4 difference. If you don't like the T & C'S then don't compete.

I hope this gets to you in the way I intended it to leave me.

The current Hcp system is almost there, only needs a tweak or two.

Martin

I agree that the CCS system is unfair and Cat1 players should not have there Hcp set by what scores higher Hcp'ers score. Only needs a little tweak and it's good.

Greg.

3/4 instead of full in match-Play is only fair. A high hcp'er will have a blow up in a medal but only loses ONE hole in MP.

Judy.

With tongue in cheek. How can you put golfers into Divisions without using a system that would resemble the Hcp System?

  *      *      *      *      *      *      *

Golf is a game that us players don't do the same thing every time so our Hcp will not reflect on how we are scoring at every given hole we play. I for one, will par the S.I. 1 hole just as many times that I will drop a shot on the S.I. 18 hole. How can a Hcp regulate for that?

David: '3/4 instead of full in match-Play is only fair. A high hcp'er will have a blow up in a medal but only loses ONE hole in MP'. This doesn't sit too right with me. I don't agree 3/4 in any context. By definition it's a contradiction of what the handicap system was designed for. The logical conclusion is that it is designed solely for the benefit of the low handicappers who will lose 1 shot as opposed to a 24 h'capper who will lose 6. Your assertion that it's fair in matchplay is at best misleading or at worst disingenuous as you're comparing a medal element into a hole by hole comparison. I'm sure you'll agree that on a par 5 a 2 handicapper has a better chance of a good tee shot, fairway wood, approach and short game than his 24 handicapper opponent (you could argue a 2 handicapper will not be too pleased in getting a par) ie you're expected to execute five good shots whereas the chances of the 24 handicapper of doing the same are greatly reduced. Having said all that, it has to be said that it's a good achievemnt for a low handicapper to play th their handicap whereas no one blinks an eye when the high handicapper does the same.

Patrick, in MP a low hcp will not lose any shots because he will be giving the high hcp strokes. A 24hcp playing a 6hcp gets a shot a hole at full difference , but only 14 at 3/4 (a lose of 4shots).

I will agree that the modern version of the Hcp system (CONGU) does hold a good argument for full difference because your Hcp is based on Stableford to begin with so high handicappers have a lower hcp to start with against the old version were "every shot counts".

The real problem in an old golfers eyes (mine) is that by giving full difference may mean giving shots on par 3's where you opponent can reach just as easily as you.

I have noticed that many MP competitions in some Clubs now use full difference but also have a Max Hcp limlit. Most 18, and some 24.

Love this, nothing get's people going more than a 'conversation' about the handicap system ;-)

David, I can reach most par 3's (except the 220 yd ones, because my 5 wood has a mind of it's own) - but first I have to make solid contact with the ball, not hit it thin or fat, then what about the shank because I come in over the top, or the pull trying to compensate for the shank, because of this I reach no more than 50% of greens in 1) - you've probably forgotten what it's like to learn this game from the start, but even on full handicap difference, playing off 26 I would expect to lose a match to a 4 or 5 handicap golfer, just because they will be more consistant.

But you know what, I don't really care, because when I do reach a 420 yd par 4 in regulation then two put for a par, I know I can one day look at this from the perspective of a lower handicap and follow your arguments for the 3/4 difference :-)

David, I think we're at cross purposes. I was not referring to matchplay in that instant, more like a a stableford game where lh will lose only one stroke but a hh will lose 6. The general principle is the same though ie why should the hh lose out? They're either 24 or 18. Whether someone can get onto a par three is neither here nor there as I would have thought the SI would sorth that out.

Patrick,

I haven't played a Stableford for a while now but when I last did it was Full Hcp so couldn't make your connection to a Stableford Comp..

What confuses some people is that in a Medal round every shot counts for the final score, but for Hcp purpose a score above hcp par +2 is rounded down to hcp par +2.

David

Not quite so. For handicap purposes, Stableford Adjustment reduces scores down to one more than the score which would have earned one stableford point, so the player's handicap and the Stroke Index of the hole comes into the equation.

James,

You are saying the same thing. "one more than the score which would have earned one stableford point" is the same as "hcp par +2". Would it have been easier if I had used "Nett par +2".

"As beautiful or as ludicrous as being allowed to play a leading snooker player in a championship and being afforded a seventy point start."

As amateurs we are playing at an amateur level. A cat 1 golfer is still an amateur, but if they so choose can compete in a scratch competition.

You don't rock up at your local club and get drawn against Ian Poulter (or Ronnie O'Sullivan if playing snooker) so the idea of handicaps against pro's is a moot point.

A golf clubs monthly medal or weekly stableford is hardly elite level and imo should be treated as a social, friendly occasion. If one genuinely is wound up about handicaps then they probably shouldn't be placing any value on them and be striving for a pro level.

Without a handicap system golf would sadly be dead as clubs would not attract a paying membership. The handicaps cater for growing the game - which by the vast majority is played in friendly spirit with little importance being placed on winning or losing (other than a bit of 19th hole banter)....rather bettering oneself & having fun.

Personally I just go along with what anyone else wants to do on the day, scratch, handicaps, 3/4's - doesn't bother me in the slightest. As a mid handicapper (who hardly plays) I'm as likely to shoot 79 as I am 109.

Bottom line - amateur golf is not truly competitive, nor is it designed to be. Those that wish and have the ability can seek competition at the higher levels. Two different games entirely.

Chris,

'Amateur golf is not truly competitive.' Really? I personally believe that many amateurs are just as passionate about their game as pros. and equally competitive. They may not put the time in which pros. do, or be as talented but are nevertheless ferocious competitors.

Likewise, I would argue that it's still the same game with one exception: An amateur requires two caddies - one for the bag and one for the computer.

The handicap system can result in a 36 handicapper shooting a gross 99 and driving home with his car roof off singing "I am the champion", with a large silver trophy on the back seat, whilst the runner up (a 2 handicapper) shooting a gross 75 and driving home in tears cursing "What a bad day at the office!" (Net scores subject to verification by NASA).

Anyone who thinks that's fair ....... well, hmmmm.

Passionate about their game they may be, but winning a handicap competition is never going to be regarded as a real competition......at least not by anyone I know or play Golf with.

ferocious competitors in a handicap comp? - not something I've ever experienced or would want to - they would only be deluding themselves.

Ivan

As is normal with people holding your views on handicapping, you are very prone to exaggeration. Handicaps for men in Britain do not get up to 36 and, if you care to look at the playing records in the average club, you would be very hard pressed to find anything like the spurious example on which your argument is based. Yes, the occasional bandit does get through the net, but clubs, under the current system, have all the ammunition in their armoury to either deal with such situations, or nip them in the bud. No 28 handicapper has ever won a trophy at my club.

James,

Someone else shares my views? Wow. (Mild surprise.) I tend to regard myself as alone in the world of golf.

Please explain in specific detail how I exaggerated.

I tend to regard men and women as being equal and my posts are about 'golfers' rather than 'males.' When I use the term 'him' or 'he' I never exclude females. But perhaps I'm too trendy / liberal?

(I hear the censor's footsteps again approaching. I keep him / her / it in employment so surely I'm not such a bad person)?

Ivan, what's unfair about a low handicapper shooting a great score and a higher handicapper shooting a relatively better score? If there's a subtext spit it out. As for competitiveness in the 'amateur' game ie club/society competitions, I think it is misplaced and doesn't warrant that much credence imo of course.

Patrick, There is of course nothing wrong with anyone playing well. There is no 'subtext.' In the specified context the lower gross score wins. I'm sure that Roger Bannister would have been very slightly miffed if, when breaking the four minute mile barrier, Chris. Chataway had been declared the winner.

If a golfer enters a handicap competition then they are accepting it is a nett competition so why should they feel aggrieved if a higher handicap shoots under their handicap when the lower handicapper hasn't? You know from the first tee that it is a handicap competition.

There are plenty of opportunities to play scratch golf as an amateur so those low handicappers who feel frustrated at higher handicappers winning competitions can always play in those.