Intro Sitemap Login

• Unified Handicapping System
• Council
• About Us
• Constitution

• Latest News
• Who we are
• What we do
• Why we do it
• Major Changes 2008-2011 Edition
• Unified Handicapping System
• Overseas Organisations
• Nov 08- Revised Definition of a Member
• Nov 08 - New FAQ clarifying 'Exceptional Circumstances' in Clause 23.7
• Who are CONGU?
• Welcome
• Council
• About Us
• Handicap FAQ's
• Obtaining a CONGU® Handicap
• The Significance of a CONGU® Handicap
• Obtaining a copy of UHS Manual
• Myths & Misconceptions
• Myth 1
• Myth 2
• Myth 3
• Myth 4
• Myth 5
• Myth 6
• Myth 7
• Mixed Golf
• Handicaps for Juniors
• Handicap Allowances- See Appendix F
• History
• Licensed Software Vendors
• Other Official Handicaps
• Constitution

Myths & Misconceptions

MYTHS & MISCONCEPTIONS

(Reproduced by kind permission of W.F.Mitchell and Scottish Golf Union Limited)

All golf handicap systems have their critics. The criticisms are frequently based on 'myths and misconceptions'. This review examines the more commonly voiced concerns golfers have with the current handicapping system and offers statistical analyses to provide a more factual insight into the CONGU®  Unified Handicapping System as it operates in practice.

Much of the research information was obtained from analysis of the weekly golf returns in the Herald Newspaper. Each Wednesday the Herald publishes competition results from Scottish golf clubs and includes information on SSS, CSS, number of competitors and scores of the prizewinners and their handicaps.

Thanks are due to The Herald for the valuable service they provide for club golfers in this respect.

Click here for Myth 1 "If all club handicap competitions were 'open' i.e. no handicap classes or divisions, the single figure handicap players would stand no chance of winning"

Click here for Myth 2 "You require a nett 60 or 48 Stableford points to win a competition nowadays...."

Click here for Myth 3 "Low winning scores suggest that handicaps in general are too high....."

Click here for Myth 4 "Having to calculate a Competition Scratch Score (CSS) is more trouble than it is worth...."

Click here for Myth 5 "It would be fairer to calculate a CSS for each handicap category...."

Click here for Myth 6 "There are too may players these days with a plus (+) handicap.....and many of them cannot play to it..."

Click here for Myth 7 "It is unfair in singles matchplay to require the lower handicap player to concede full handicap difference to his opponent. Three-quarters of the difference was more equitable."

SUMMARY

 In Club stroke play competitions the System provides a fair and equitable distribution of 'winners' over all handicap categories.
· To preserve 'fair-play' in singles / foursomes match play, across all handicap categories, it is necessary to operate to full handicap difference. This is due to the 'bonus for excellence' factor biased in favour of the lower handicap player.
· Very low or 'scandalous' scores are infrequent and do not necessarily imply that the 'perpetrator' is grossly over-handicapped. In general 'winning scores' are at an acceptable level.
· To take account of variable course and weather conditions the CSS has proved to be a valuable component of the system.
· There is no compelling evidence that it would be beneficial to calculate a separate CSS for each Handicap Category.
· With handicaps extending down to +5 there is a meaningful separation reflective of ability at the 'expert' end of the handicap range. The 'logjam' of the past has been eliminated, where + handicaps were only allocated by the National Union to players of international repute

Copyright © CONGU®