CONGU Handicaps Vs USGA Handicaps

Since the announcement over 4 months ago that as of 2017 the PAGS will no longer accept CONGU handicaps I have been asked many times ……………..why?????

Well here is a more detailed explanation for those who are interested to know why CONGU and USGA handicaps can not mix

The R&A turned over control of golf handicapping in 1927 to CONGU (Council of National Golf Unions). The biggest reason why CONGU handicaps can not compete with USGA handicaps is because CONGU doesn't use the Slope System. Without the Slope System to adjust player's differentials, CONGU handicapped golfers from difficult golf courses have a significant advantage over everyone else when playing away from home.

CONGU have not adopted the Slope System simply because the English Golf Union refused to adopt it--Even after Ireland, Wales and Scotland had Slope rated most of their courses and wanted to go forward. Continental Europe got so frustrated with CONGU that they formed their own handicapping body (European Golf Association) and adopted Slope.

The CONGU Handicap System is mostly a “moving average” mathematical model where each score has a unique influence on the handicap calculation. It is an adaptation of a handicap system that originated in Australia decades ago. When a player plays in a designated tournament, his score is compared to the Competition Scratch Score (CSS) for the day. If a player does very well, his “Exact Handicap” (A number followed by a decimal) will go down equal to how many strokes he beat his handicap by, times a decimal number like .1, .2, .3 or .4 depending on his handicap category. If the player scores in a buffer zone just above equaling his handicap, nothing changes. If the player scores worse than his buffer zone, he goes up a small amount—most often one-tenth of a shot.

Now the technical problem with the CONGU system is that it is based on T (tournament) scores only. An average golfer gets in only 3 to 5  “T” scores a year. This makes the system very slow to respond to current ability. The time it takes in detecting changes in ability is often around six months. It simply does not keep pace with a player's current skill level. A CONGU player's handicap record might be impacted by scores going back 3 to 4 years. On the other hand in the USGA System the 21st oldest score has no bearing on the player's handicap. Thus effectively, a player's handicap is completely regenerated every 20 scores.

The other point to make is that the CONGU system is slow to respond to players who are declining, since they can only go up at a rate of .1 stroke per tournament round. With, say, 5 tournament rounds per year, it could take years for a declining player's handicap to catch up with his current ability.

There is NO portability in the CONGU handicap system. A handicap 5 and a handicap 15 at one course do not equate to the same handicaps at another course. For example, an average player at Carnoustie, the most difficult course in Scotland will develop a higher handicap than if he played an easy “open flats” course.

The CSS calculation determines whether the field of players on the day have found conditions more difficult for whatever reason (and course difficulty is one of the factors), so the SSS is increased by a number depending on the variation from expected. Some have argued that CSS causes the two systems to produce similar handicaps and how the CONGU system gets to Slope by a different (retrospective) approach. However extensive research have found this one dimensional table (CSS) cannot be accurately predicted for all levels of players, because bad weather affects higher handicap players much more than lower handicap players. For example, players of a 5 handicap and less might have 5 strokes higher on windy days, but the 20 handicap players would have scores more than ten strokes higher. To use a table to add one number, instead of a slope line (percentage increase times handicap) pushes too much data into one number to be accurate, or to be comparable to the USGA's two-dimensional system.

There can be no conversion factor that will make USGA Handicaps and CONGU handicaps comparable. The two systems are far too disparate to make that possible.

For those of you who want to be able to compare USGA and CONGU handicaps, I hope that this article explains the complexity in this problem and why it there is not any simple factor that can be applied to make them comparable across a range of playing ability.

As a postscript, it might interest you to know that an early remedial form of the concept of the Slope System was introduced by the Irish Golf Union before WWII. The Irish produced a table based on the length of a golf course. It allowed golfers to add additional strokes to their handicaps when they went to play a very long away course. There were subjective parts to the system and it did not last, but someone was ahead of their time in realizing that the portability problem was real in golf.

Source: www.popeofslope.com