The Genius of Handicaps?: Editors' Blog: Golf Digest

The Genius of Handicaps?

Monday, November 3, 2008 Comments

See the well-researched piece on handicapping by John Paul Newport in the Wall Street Journal this weekend. Newport, after a trip to Atlantic City, lauds the handicap system's power to level a Buddies trip playing field.

A few players won big, a few others lost $50 or so, but not one soul got shut out and the final team score was amazingly close. This from a group of guys, some of whom had never met before, ranging in playing ability from a plus-handicap pro to seniors who seldom break 100.

Let's hear it for the golf handicap system! In what other sport is competition like this even remotely possible?

As a loyal, turn-in-every-score member of the system, I also think everyone should have a handicap. It's easy to do, it supports the USGA or your regional golf association, it makes you a real golfer.

Now, can we talk? Here's my issue with the handicap system as most golfers use it: It's so good, so scientific (thanks in large part to the work of Dean Knuth, who comments here frequently), that it tends to point us in the wrong direction--by feeding our obsession with score. Despite the fact that most of us play match play, we're obsessed with what we shoot. We count every shank and penalty shot even when we're not a factor in the hole. We're picking clubs when we should be picking up. To say this has slowed play is an understatement. Talk to a buddy after a round and his is not a good walk spoiled; it's a good score spoiled and he'll tell you why in intricate detail. We've lost the walk.

Clearly, it's not the handicap system that creates the problem. But I wouldn't oppose an adjustment that didn't require every kind of round to be turned in. (I know, I can always do that on my own, but I'll feel like I'm committing a mortal sin when I do. The system even asks me to turn in rounds of 14 holes!) The Scots count only tournament scores and my Scottish friends say U.S. handicaps are inflated compared to theirs. I'm not sure I want to go that far, but I remain open to suggestion. What do you think?

Dean?

--Bob Carney

Latest Golf News

Rating

Rate it:

1 star 2 stars 3 stars 4 stars 5 stars

Comments

Archived Comments (1) Click to expand

Interesting discussion on handicapping and the USGA System's focus on scores.

You raise good points that there is a focus on posting total scores everytime a golfer plays (13 or more holes). Actually, a significant issue in the science of handicapping is to make the handicap reflect current ability, in both match play and stroke play. The USGA Handicap System does a pretty good job of that, if a golfer posts his or her scores every time they play.

On the Scottish system of posting only tournament rounds, this is the CONGU (Council of National Golf Unions) procedure that is used by men in Great Britain. The biggest problem with that system is that most golfers play too few tournament rounds to keep current ability equal to current handicap. Most golfers don't play enough rounds to make the handicaps track. There are other issues with their system that I laid out at http://www.popeofslope.com/scotland/usscothandicaps.html (go to the Scotland tab and click-on "British-vs-USGA Handicaps".

Also, there is a formula built into Section 10 of the USGA handicap system that identifies golfers with two or more exceptional tournament scores in the past 12 months. If someone plays much better in tournaments, many players' USGA handicaps are lowered by a different formula than the standard best 10 of 20.

I am intrigued by the European Golf Association's handicap system. The EGA was formed because the countries of continental Europe wanted to adopt the Slope System, and CONGU refused to do so (the subject of another article in the Scotland section of my website). Because most continental Europeans play Stableford when they play, the EGA system has golfers post Stableford points, not scores. Handicaps are issued as Stableford points that are added to the points that a player receives when playing. Stableford is a way to speed-up play, because when a golfer lays net bogie on a hole, he can pick-up because the best he can do is net double-bogie, which is zero points for the hole. It also is a good Equitable Stroke Control procedure, by clipping maximum scores at net double bogey, it brings both the par and the difficulty of the hole into the procedure, rather than setting a fixed maximum hole score, as used in the USGA system. It might also be argued that this system produces a handicap that better predicts strokes needed in match play.

The issue of the accuracy of a handicap system that is based on total strokes and how it translates to match play handicaps is a subject that has been discussed for more than 100 years. Walter Travis was the U S Amateur champion several times in the early 1900's. He later was a magazine editor and a highly respected writer. I love the depth of his understanding of handicapping issues that he wrote in a book in 1901. The chapter is posted at:http://www.popeofslope.com/history/Handicapping_by_Travis_1901.html

There are other interesting articles in the History of Handicapping section of my website that will give the interested reader a view of how handicaps began, and how the procedures arrived at where they are today.

In summary, I think that the USGA Handicap System is working well in most cases, but there always are exceptions.

Dean Knuth

Posted by deanknuth November 5, 2008 9:43 AM

Subscribe to Golf Digest

Equipment

Instruction

Courses and Travel

News and Tours

Players

Golf Digest Woman

Magazines