Further CONGU problems?

No matter what topics are capturing the headlines in women’s golf in the media, most of Lady Golfer’s mailbag is still dominated by readers with grumbles about the handicapping system.

Since the CONGU system was introduced, there have inevitably been teething problems. But the latest adjustments and recommendations, most notably that in singles matchplay full-handicap difference is taken rather than three-quarters as previously, has brought a fresh 
batch of vitriolic complaints in our mailbag!

Whenever I encounter club golfers, invariably they raise the subject of the handicapping system.

In my random market research around the country, there does seem to be a more general acceptance of the system – or at least there was until the advent of full difference in matchplay!

Most golfers react to this according to how it affects them. In other words, ladies with lower handicaps are outraged, and higher handicappers think it’s fair!

In all of my 41 years of playing golf, nothing has produced such emotion in lady golfers as their opinions about the handicapping system!

Whenever emotion is involved, the facts often get overlooked.

Before the full-handicap allowance in singles matchplay was introduced, CONGU literally fed tens of thousands of matchplay statistics into their computer.

What the data showed was fascinating. To create a situation where the lower and higher-handicapper each win 50 per cent of the time, the proportion of shots awarded should actually be one-and-a-quarter-times the difference – and not three-quarters as it then was!

For example, if a 10-handicapper were playing a 26-handicapper, under the old three-quarters system they would have received 12 shots.

Under full difference it is 16. And under one-and-a-quarter difference a whopping 20!

I must say that I was amazed by this fact. Can you imagine the outrage if CONGU had implemented that change!

When they recommended the full-handicap change to the men’s sections (firstly to the four national bodies, who in turn recommended it to the counties) there were not many takers.

If Essex, where I live, was representative of England as a whole, not many clubs took it on board. The Warren Golf Club, where I teach, was one of only 10 clubs out of a total of 79 who implemented it immediately.

Needless to say, it was not a popular move. However, having said that, since the implementation of full-handicap difference being given in singles matchplay, the majority of singles knockout competitions have still been won by the lower handicappers.

This is no surprise to CONGU, since their recommendations and rules now being enforced were based on years of research.

A lot of change is unpopular – and to lots of people it’s unpopular just because it’s different.

I find the current system a little bit complicated, but I do think that it is generally fair and given that golfers play in a reasonable number of qualifying competitions, their handicaps are a truer 
reflection of their golf than under the previous system.

I have always maintained that I would rather play off a handicap that I can be competitive off, rather than have a low handicap that sounds impressive, but that I can’t play to.

Under the previous system ladies’ handicaps were a reflection of their best golf.

The change has resulted in ladies’ handicaps going up by four or five shots on average – this to me is the root cause of ladies’ complaints.

The annual review at the end of each season should ensure that players trying to evade the system have their handicaps increased or reduced accordingly.

I have yet to find a system anywhere in the world that is absolutely fair or foolproof, but in my opinion, the current CONGU system is as good as any that I’ve come across.