Handicap Allowances- See Appendix F
HANDICAP ALLOWANCES
The Council of National Golf Unions directs that the following handicap allowances be used for the undernoted forms of competition when played as handicap events and, where relevant, for the calculation of the Competition Scratch Score in scratch competitions. The reference to handicaps in all cases refers to Playing Handicaps. Strokes must be taken according to the Handicap Stroke Index.
Match Play Singles Full difference between the handicaps of the players
Foursomes 1/2 difference between aggregate handicaps of each side
Four-ball Back marker to concede strokes to the other 3 players
(better ball) based on 3/4 of the difference between the full handicaps
Stroke Play Singles Full handicap
Foursomes 1/2 aggregate handicap of partners
Four-ball Each partner receives 3/4 of full handicap
(better ball)
Par Singles Full handicap
Foursomes 1/2 aggregate handicap of partners
Four-ball Each partner receives 3/4 of full handicap
(better ball)
Stableford Singles Full handicap
Foursomes 1/2 aggregate handicap of partners
Four-ball Each partner receives 3/4 of full handicap
(better ball)
Note 1: Half Strokes. Half strokes or over to be counted as one; smaller fractions to be disregarded except in Foursomes Stroke Play when 1/2 strokes are counted as such.
Note 2: Handicap Allowances. In a handicap competition played in any of the above formats the allowances must be laid down by the Committee in the Conditions of the Competition (Rules of Golf 33-1) in accordance with the above direction.
Note 3: 36 Holes. In handicap competitions over 36 holes strokes should be given or taken on the basis of two 18 hole rounds in accordance with the 18 hole Handicap Stroke Index unless the Committee introduces a special Stroke Index.
Note 4: Hole-by-hole Play-off (sudden-death). When extra holes are played in handicap competitions, strokes should be taken in accordance with the Handicap Stroke Index.
Other Forms of Play
The Council of National Golf Unions recommends the following allowances:
Greensomes Lower handicap x 0.6 plus higher handicap x 0.4
If the handicaps of the partnerships are equal, the Greensome handicap is half the combined handicap.
The FAQ may answer many of the questions you have on why CONGU® directs the full handicap difference in singles matchplay.
Q. Why does CONGU® direct full handicap difference in matchplay?
A. All the Home Unions now recognise that giving the player with the higher handicap an allowance equivalent to the full handicap difference is the most consistent with equity. In view of this CONGU now directs that the full allowance in the difference between the handicaps be applied in singles matchplay.
It is wrong to say that there has been a debate on the question, because the argument for 'no change' has barely been presented. CONGU® has been waiting for years for a coherent document to be shown to it which finishes with the words '…. therefore the fair allowance in matchplay is three-quarters of the difference in handicap'. This has so far not been forthcoming.
There are however strong arguments to support the use of full difference, this note sets out the basic arguments.
We are confident that, for strokeplay, the present CONGU® Unified Handicap System is accurate and fair for players with a reasonably full competitive record. We further assume that the player's handicap record is fairly reflected in the handicap. All statistical investigations which have been made support this statement, and certainly it is much superior to any alternatives which have been suggested. We also assume that we want the scale of matchplay allowances to be fair, in the sense that each participant has a roughly equal chance of winning. This is not such a trivial statement as it might appear, because some golfers believe that the lower handicap player should actually be given the advantage. Suppose, nevertheless, that we have been charged with the task of devising the fair matchplay odds given our present handicapping system, based as it is on stroke-play data, and no previous assumptions. how should we proceed?
Let's think about how we would expect a match between a 6-handicapper and a 16-handicapper to go. First of all – what scores do we expect each of them to achieve if they put in an average performance? There is an annoying technical point which affects the argument. We do not actually expect a player to 'play to his handicap'. The CONGU®
But, for the moment, assume that in their match both players play exactly to their handicaps never having a birdie, nor a double bogey, and dropping their strokes consistently where the stroke index says they should. Playing level the 6-handicapper would have won ten holes, and under full handicap difference the match would have been all square. So where are we getting this 'three-quarters' from? In real life, of course, matches don't go like that. People take double or triple bogeys and even get birdies. We need to consider how strokes are likely to be converted into holes won, lost, or halved in matchplay. There are two ways in which strokes fail to be used at all. Our 16-handicapper might win a hole without needing his stroke or lose a hole in spite of having had one; so he might as well not have had a stroke at those holes! Actually, investigative work has been done on this- and there is a surprisingly consistent result. Just over 40% of a stroke entitlement, on average, is 'wasted'. Enthusiastic enquirers can check this by interrogating competitors in club handicap knock-outs. The conclusion is that our 16-handicapper, even if getting ten shots, is only likely to be able to use six of them. It's beginning to look as if even full difference is not enough.
So far this is mostly theoretical. But let us consider the real life situation. Most Clubs run a handicap matchplay knockout competition each year with a reasonably large entry. Have a look at the honours board listing past winners. Even Clubs which use full difference find that low Category players predominate. Indeed whether they have changed to full difference or not they will be pressed to produce any 3 or 4 Category winners in the last twenty years. This is even more striking when you realise that low handicap players form quite a low proportion of the total entry. You can also look at the individual results for each match in the tournament, and you will find that the low handicappers have a consistent edge. The Scottish Golf Union has done a lot of work on this. They have an excellent presentation subtitled 'Myths and misconceptions', which is on the CONGU® Website. They carried out a survey of Clubs before and after the change to full difference. Before the change, 61% of handicap singles matches were won by the lower handicap player. After the change to full difference, the low handicapper won 55% (note that he still had an edge).
A good deal of experimentation has been done with what is called simulation. Using hole-by-hole scores from strokeplay many, indeed thousands, of 'pretend' matches can be run between each potential pair in the field. An objection may be raised that such a simulation is not like the real thing. But if you think about it, simulation probably actually understates the advantage which the low handicapper has. They can control the game better, preserving their winning position at a hole when necessary. Anyway, these simulations consistently show that, even at full difference, the lower handicapper usually wins. (If you want to know the horrid truth, to make it even you would have to use nearly one-and-a-quarter times the difference. Not that this is recommended!)
Using three-quarters gives the low- handicapper a huge edge. The actual numerical results can be provided on request; but you can rest assured that, the more 'numerical' you get, the stronger is the evidence for full difference.
It is only fair to consider counter-arguments. One common complaint just now is that 'our low handicap players don't enter handicap knock-outs after the change to full difference; because the odds are against them'. This is nonsense; all that has happened is that the odds in their favour have been changed from 'enormously favourable' to 'favourable, but not actually unfair'. The problem is one of education. Another childish question is 'Do you seriously expect me to give two strokes at one hole?' The answer to that is 'yes'; and it happens even at three-quarters difference.
Finally, as a matter of interest, three-quarters of handicap for singles appears to be used nowhere else in the world.
Affiliated Clubs are encouraged to download this answer if they think it would help them put the arguments to their sceptical members