The final say on the handicap system

IT must be fate. The very day that I finished writing my column to say that I didn’t care about the handicap system any more, and that they can do their worst because I just wash my hands of it all, the editor contacted me asking me to do a piece on the handicap system! There are obviously higher forces at work here.

He did remind me this was the subject which had “brought us together” originally – a time when I recall describing CONGU as an acronym for Completely Odious New system making Golf Unenjoyable, and an opinion, I have to confess, which hasn’t wavered one iota in the intervening years. I loathe the system just as much now, if not more so.

For those of you who seem to have convinced yourselves the new system is fairer than the old one because it is a truer reflection of your current handicap, I can only think that we are not living in the same world. I will use three consecutive weeks last November to illustrate my point.

I won the Stableford in the first week with 37 points, thus playing one under my handicap, and subsequently brought my handicap down 0.1. That made sense to me. The following week, someone won with 36 points, i.e. playing to her handicap – not under it – and came down 0.4. That made little sense to me. Then, in the week after that, someone won with a nett 77 – i.e. four shots over her handicap – but still managed to bring her handicap down! That made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

I have no problem with them winning – they returned the best scores on the day and deserved it – but how can bringing your handicap down be so inconsistent and illogical? All it proves is that your handicap is a total lottery now. It has no bearing whatsoever on how you have played, it is just pot luck based on who else happens to turn up to play that day.

Not only have I not gone down on days when I should have done after playing below my handicap, because the CSS has also gone down on that day as someone off something like 27 has had a blinding flash of inspiration and returned a nett 61, but I have also gone up when I have played within the ridiculously tight limit of my one-shot buffer zone, because someone else with a million shots found the equivalent of religion that day.

If I have knocked it round within my one-shot buffer zone, I don’t care who made the new rules, I do not deserve to go up, and I challenge anyone to tell me that I do. I’m not generally a violent person, but I could be persuaded! The whole thing is just nonsense. The idea of a variable standard scratch is fine in theory if it really does reflect how easily or hard the course is playing, but it doesn’t.

For that to happen, you would have to do something sensible, like take an average of a certain number of scores to see how the course was playing. No, this system looks at a certain number of people who have played within two shots of their buffer zone, not their handicap, note, but several shots over it, so it has no bearing at all on things. It is fantasy golf, pure and simple.

I know that opinions are divided, but to be perfectly honest, a huge number of people still don’t understand how the system works, and no two clubs do the same thing. Some clubs only hold the minimum number of qualifying competitions a year (four) whereas others hold nearly 40. The whole thing is a mess.

That doesn’t need to be my opinion, the facts, and the lack of standardisation across the clubs speak for themselves. What we really need is the authorities to have the courage to hold a referendum. There are huge numbers of people who have taken up golf since the system was changed, so this is all they know, and they won’t be able to understand what all the fuss is about. But letters pages of magazines continue to be filled by people complaining about the new system, even after all this time, so I know I am not an isolated voice.

I see it as a very simple exercise. Every club can hold its own vote and then send the results to their county. The counties can then forward their totals on, so there would be minimal work for anyone. That way, we can put an end to the debate once and for all. After all, it’s got to be worth the risk just to watch me eat humble pie if I’m wrong!

It’s simple, a piece of paper on the desk of every locker room with two columns – Stick with the new system / Return to the old system. But there has to be one very important proviso with returning to the old system. More cards have to be taken into consideration to make the average number of scores meaningful. The average of only two scores for higher handicappers over two years was in no way reflective of their current play. That is where the old system went awry.

The average of 10 scores for the lower handicappers certainly was. Make it a minimum number of five scores, and increase it to 10 working down the scale. The gauntlet has been thrown down. But have you got the courage to meet the challenge?