Dan24

Thats the best post I've read in ages, well said.

Good post Dan.

Both the concept and the system of handicapping are flawed.

By all means have handicapping, but make the handicaps current, transportable, reflective of actual ability and available for all golfers derived from all their golf. The Congu system just doesnt serve the game or golfers.  It defeats its own doctrine of reflecting ones best play and potential, for example a 9 handicapper shoots a great round of 72 gross on a Par 72 course, his handicap falls by  1.8 and he could if he was 9.4 still be playing off 8, thats so ridiculous as to be laughable. The golfer has the demonstrated ability to shooot level par. This happens throughout the handicaps range.

I like handicapping for match play, and think thats its strength. With the assumptions that the handicaps are fairly accurate and regadless of 3/4 or full, it means I can play any number of golfers of differing abilitiies and have a close game, it does level things up which is the intention. But in a Medal or Stableford the problem for the low handicapper is they arent competing one on one, they are competng against 100+ others, any of which is capable of shooting in the net 60's. When I tee it up in a comp I know there will be several low net scores, and usually at least one score that I just cannot achieve, so from word go I know I cannot win, and realistically not even get close to winning. I dont see how that is fair. If handicapping is to level the playing field, then there is no doubt it disadvantages the better player.

Despite my concerns I would keep handicaps in golf, it enriches and gives more opportunity for players to compete who are at different levels. But I would drastically change the system, so that at least it was fair for all. It really is a kick in the teeth to work your nuts off to improve, and the more you do so the less competitive you are by the nature of the system. Adopt the USGA system, and have players compete in comps off a portion of their handicap index depending on the event, for example 3/4 in match-play and Stableford, 7/8 Medal. 

Creosote wrote (see)

  It defeats its own doctrine of reflecting ones best play and potential, for example a 9 handicapper shoots a great round of 72 gross on a Par 72 course, his handicap falls by  1.8 and he could if he was 9.4 still be playing off 8, thats so ridiculous as to be laughable. The golfer has the demonstrated ability to shooot level par. This happens throughout the handicaps range.

I clearly see your point Creo but all of us, no doubt, have had our 'day in the sun' and I am sure that anyone from 12 down could shoot level par if they had a day where all errors were avoided. Does this make tham a scratch handicapper?

Ok - so they get a win and what seems an insignificant cut but if they repeated that performance they would get cut again, and potentially again. Some people do make that jump in ability and win stuff and quite rightly so, as it may have been down to massive effort on their part.

On the other hand too low a handicap for a persons ability could see them take years to get back to an equitable handicap, with no chance of winning a tapper at competition level.

I am not suggesting that in the case of my example above that the person be cut to scratch! but a cut closer to their ability makes sense, this is just so true with improving golfers who are effectively almost unbeatable for lengthy periods of time because the handicap system lags behind their ability.

You say that it wouldnt be fair as that person wouldnt have any chance of winning again. Hey man, thats the world I live in! Most weeks I'd have to shoot the course record to get close to winning a handicap comp. And thats the essence of it, the system just is not fair to everyone and favours the higher handicapper.  It does not level the playing field, it gives an advantage to the lesser player, and that is intrincsically flawed. All one hears is handicappers crying about "Losing shots" about the 3/4 match play change, about how they want every advantage so they can duff it round and win the money. They are a pathetic bunch, they wont put the work in to improve but want to lift all the prizes.

Steady on Creo, I agree with most of what you say in most of your postings but the whold point of the handicap is to acknowledge that some players either due to the time they have available, their inate ablity and due to age/ physical impairment are at different levels. There are scratch comps to enter for low handicappers. I accept your point about the scores needed to win medals but if you had 100 scratch players playing rather than handicappers then you would get one or two good scores!The players you cant beat are the improving players whose improvement outstrips the handicap cuts and also the occasional entrants who produce something stunning out of the blue.

With respect to the 3/4 thing I just think that, if I play a player off a low handicap off full difference I have an advantage because I get quite a lot of pars but my handicap is as high as it is due to the two or three triple bogeys I often get in medal rounds.

It all depends on whether you treat golf as a sport i.e. what Creo is saying 2 posts above or a "game/hobby" ie high handicappers who play purely for recreation and dont intend to improve.  Both types of player will want to play in comps and this will sometimes breed contempt.

Therefore as I suggested in another thread about handicaps, as in other competitive sports, a league system should be used. 

Yes, within comps there are already leagues.

Yes, within inter club comps there are already scratch matches.

But a league system is still different.  There would be no handicaps at all.  No stroke indexes.  People could get promoted and relegated.  Like the tour there would be a minimum amount of games.  The winners of each league could have an area/county "champions league"  You could even have playoffs for the last spots.  Then you could have FA cups for everyone of the club, where there could be some giant killing.

This wouldnt appeal to people who play for recreation, only those who play for sport, but why not run them side by side?  It really wouldnt take much managing.  and this way each type of player could participate in a way to suit their skill/free time/nature/will to improve etc?

 Thoughts?

If it's for anything more than pocket money, and you don't know everyone involved, you shouldn't use handicaps.

If it's just a fun way of adding a competitive element to playing a game, handicaps are an excellent tool (and my tool is bigger than most).