Q.1 What is the Standard Scratch Score and how is it determined?
A.1 The Standard Scratch Score (SSS) is a measure of the playing difficulty of a golf course for a scratch golfer under normal midseason course and weather conditions. It is determined in accordance with either:
• The Course Rating System of the United States Golf Association or
• The Rating System adopted by the English Golf Union.
The USGA Course Rating System takes account of the measured length of a golf course together with factors that affect both the playing length and the playing difficulty (obstacle factors).
The ten obstacle factors that determine the playing difficulty of a golf course are:
Topography Fairway Green Target Recoverability & Rough
Bunkers Out of Bounds / Extreme Rough Water Hazards
Trees Green Surface Psychological
The factors that affect the course playing length are:
Roll Wind Forced Lay-up / Dogleg Elevation
Each hole on the golf course is evaluated on a scale 0-10 for each of the ten obstacles and account taken of the effective length correction factors e.g. the effective playing length of a fast running links course is quite different from that of a moorland course with soft fairways.
The Rating System of the English Golf Union also takes account of playing difficulty and length correction factors.
Q.2 It is understood that the Standard Scratch Scores resulting from Course Rating are determined by many different rating teams. What measures are in place to assure uniformity?
A.2 It is a requirement of the two Course Rating Systems approved by CONGU® that course raters are trained and tested before being qualified to determine Course Ratings.
Training materials have been developed to assist uniformity and national associations carry out calibration seminars. In addition the USGA also conduct calibration seminars when it is expected that associations licensed to operate their system will be represented.
As a final step in the assurance and standardisation process, all Course Ratings, prior to release, are vetted by national assessors.
To take account of course changes and evolution, established courses are required to be re-rated at least every ten years and new courses every three years until they reach maturity.
Q.3 If it is accepted that Standard Scratch Scores(SSS) are accurately determined, why is it necessary to calculate a Competition Scratch Score (CSS) for each qualifying competition?
A.3 Golf in our isles is played in a wide range of weather and course conditions – some adverse, some favourable – both of which can impact on the scoring ability of golfers in all Handicap Categories.
Wind strength and direction are the factors that most frequently affect scoring but course conditions can also be influential e.g. bumpy greens, awkward pin positions or soft wet fairways.
The CSS is the mechanism employed on the day of competition to quantify the influence of weather and course conditions on the scoring ability of the field and regulate adjustments to Handicaps accordingly.
The object is to bring the improved pattern of scoring resulting from conditions more favourable than average and the inferior scoring pattern related to conditions more difficult than average, into line with the expected scoring pattern established for golfers in each of the Handicap Categories in normal midseason playing conditions.
Q.4 The Par of our golf course is two strokes higher than the SSS. Members experience difficulty in playing to the SSS. The Professionals use Par to measure comparative performance.
Why is the CONGU Handicapping system not based on Par?
A.4 CONGU does not consider that Par provides a suitable basis for a reliable and robust handicap system. Par is a very crude measure of the playing difficulty of a golf course. Two courses having the same Par may vary in length by many hundred yards. To illustrate how great this difference can be, consider two courses laid out in similar terrain:
Course A – Four Par 3 holes each 140 yards in length and Fourteen Par 4 holes each 300 yards in length. Total course length 4760 yards. Par 68
Course B – Four Par 3 holes each 220 yards in length and Fourteen Par 4 holes each 400 yards in length
Total course length 6480 yards. Par 68.
Assuming similar relative playing difficulties on each course, the scoring potential of a scratch golfer on the shorter course A would be quite different from that expected on the longer Course B.
Although each has a Par of 68 the respective Standard Scratch Scores would be of the order of 63 and 71 respectively. It is obvious therefore, that Par does not provide a viable basis for handicapping.
Q.5 How is the Competition Scratch Score (CSS) calculated?
A.5 The CSS tables as contained in Appendices F and G of the Scheme are based on the known performance of golfers of different abilities (Handicap Categories) in a range of golfing conditions. In ‘normal’ playing conditions, for example, 37-68% of participating Category 1 players are expected to return Nett scores to the SSS +2 or better.
In contrast, in the same conditions only 16-30% of Category 3 players are expected to return Nett scores to SSS +2 or better. In competition situations when course conditions are more or less favourable than ‘normal’ these percentages will increase or decrease respectively, resulting in movement of the SSS as expressed by the CSS.
The mechanics of the CSS calculation are:
• Establish the composition of the ‘field’ as a percentage of each handicap category excluding category 4 for men or category 5 for ladies.
e.g. 10% Cat.1 50% Cat.2 40% Cat3[[+ Cat. 4 for Ladies]
• Establish the percentage of the ‘field’ (Cat.1 + Cat.2 + Cat.3 [+ Cat.4]) with a Nett score of the SSS +2 or better e.g. 20%
• Refer to Appendix F, Table A (assuming 31 or more competitors)
• Using this example the CSS would be the SSS +1.
Q.6 In practice does the application of the CSS calculation bring about a sensible movement of the SSS in relation to prevailing course and weather conditions?
A.6 Yes, statistics over an extended period of time relating to a large number of club stroke play competitions revealed that on average the following changes occurred:
CSS = SSS –1 22%
CSS = SSS 59%
CSS = SSS +1 10%
CSS = SSS +2 6%
CSS = SSS +3 3%
More importantly, however, is the sensible correlation of the CSS with different times of the playing season e.g.
Month SSS -1 NC SSS +1 SSS +2 SSS +3
May 4% 56 24 9 7
July 35% 57 5 3 0
In May, the preferred lie period has ended, and in the year sampled courses were playing ‘long’ and golf swings were perhaps a little rusty. July was a month of settled weather with ideal scoring conditions.
By applying the CSS system the performance of a player who returns a Nett score 2 strokes below the SSS on a day of high wind when the CSS is calculated to be SSS +3 (Nett Differential –5) equates to that of another player returning a Nett score 6 strokes below the SSS on a day when the CSS is calculated to be SSS-1 (Nett Differential –5).
It is for this reason that players should not be deterred from entering competitions in less than ideal conditions – the CSS will take care of the more difficult scoring conditions.
Q.7 As a player what are my responsibilities to the CONGU® Handicapping System?
A.7 To comply with the requirements of the CONGU Handicapping System a player has the following obligations:
• If you are a Member of more than one golf club you must select one as your ‘home’ club and notify that club and the others of your decision. The ‘home’ club will administer your handicap. You must play from that handicap at all of the other clubs of which you are a Member and notify them of any alterations to your Playing Handicap made by your Home Club.
• Before competing in a qualifying competition you should ensure that your entry has been recorded in the competition entry list, manually or by computer if appropriate.
• You should ensure that all scorecards in Qualifying Competitions whether or not complete with a score for every hole, are returned to the organising committee and computer entries made as required.
• If you play in a qualifying competition away from your Home Club you are required to report to your Home Club, as soon as practicable, all scores recorded including ‘No Returns’ together with competition date, venue and Competition Scratch Score.
You should be aware that failure to report ‘away’ scores when so required by the System is likely to lead to suspension of handicap.
• If you return a Qualifying Score(s) below your Playing Handicap at your Home Club or away and you are unable to
- ascertain whether or not your Playing Handicap has been reduced as a result of the score(s) or
-report an away score to your Home Club
you must, before playing in another competition at your Home Club or away, for that competition make such reduction to your Playing Handicap as appropriate under the System by applying the Competition Scratch Score, if known, otherwise the Standard Scratch Score, to calculate your Nett Differential and handicap reduction.
If you do not know your Exact Handicap, such reduction should be made from your Playing Handicap less 0.5 (e.g. if your Playing Handicap is 16 then the reduction should be made from 15.5) See Clause 16.11
Q.8 I have played in a number of competitions away from home this year and have been taken to task by my Home Club for failure to report these scores to them.
It is my understanding that the club hosting the ‘open’ competition is responsible for returning the scores of all entrants to their respective Home Clubs. Am I correct?
A.8 NO, you are incorrect in this assumption. The System clearly states that it is the responsibility of the player to report to his Home Club as soon as practicable all Qualifying Scores (including No Returns) returned away from his Home Club advising them of the date of the competition, venue, SSS and the CSS together with the following:
• After a stroke play qualifying competition the gross score returned and such further information as required by the Home Club.
• After a par qualifying competition the par of the course and the score versus par.
• After a Stableford qualifying competition the par of the course and the number of points scored.
Q.9 The club has cut a player on general play and the player thinks it unfair; can the player appeal to the Union?
A.9 The club is in the best position to judge whether or not a player should have a general play adjustment. The Union would not have the relevant information; thus an appeal is not considered appropriate.
However, the club Handicap Committee should take care to justify the reduction and should follow the guidelines laid down by their National Union/Association. The player could re-address the matter with the committee. In such circumstances the club is advised to refer the matter to Area Authority/National Organisation as appropriate.
Q.10 Q. Some clubs require the player to register their intention to enter a Medal Competition ON THE DAY of the competition. Must a player follow this procedure in entering all Qualifying Competitions?
A.10 A.YES, such a requirement is entirely consistent with Clause 13.5 of the UHS. Failure to comply with the requirement will mean that the score is ineligible for handicap purposes and should not be included in the CSS calculation.
It is only by all players demonstrating that they have taken cards out BEFORE they play that Committees can ascertain the number who have actually played in the competition. Then the Committee can reconcile the number of cards taken out with those returned, identify any players who have not complied with Clause 13.6, and make an accurate CSS calculation.
UHS Decision 17.3 also states “the R&A has ruled ‘that a Committee must lay down a procedure for entry and if a competitor fails to enter a competition in the correct manner he does not have an acceptable score’. Accordingly such a player does not have a score, either for the competition or for handicap purposes.” Clearly requiring players to register on the day of competition, before they commence play, is entirely compatible with the R&A ruling.
Q.11 Why is a separate CSS not calculated for each handicap category?
A.11 Low handicap players frequently pose this question on occasions when the CSS is SSS –1. A statistical analysis of a wide range of CSS’s calculated separately for each handicap category and compared to the overall CSS has shown that the system does not favour or discriminate against any of the Handicap Categories.
Although there are occasions when one or other of the Handicap Categories, if calculated separately, would result in a CSS that differed from the overall CSS, on average there is very close agreement between the overall CSS and the separate CSS’s calculated for each handicap category.
An additional problem in calculating a separate CSS for the Category 1 golfer is that he represents, on average, less than 10% of the field in a typical club competition. This is often a statistically meaningful figure and could result in erratic CSS values. The larger sample provides a more balanced determination of the CSS.
Q.12 The Par of our golf course is two strokes higher than the SSS. Members experience difficulty in playing to the SSS. The Professionals use Par to measure comparative performance.
Why is the CONGU Handicapping system not based on Par?
A.12 CONGU does not consider that Par provides a suitable basis for a reliable and robust handicap system. Par is a very crude measure of the playing difficulty of a golf course. Two courses having the same Par may vary in length by many hundred yards. To illustrate how great this difference can be, consider two courses laid out in similar terrain:
Course A – Four Par 3 holes each 140 yards in length and Fourteen Par 4 holes each 300 yards in length. Total course length 4760 yards. Par 68
Course B – Four Par 3 holes each 220 yards in length and Fourteen Par 4 holes each 400 yards in length
Total course length 6480 yards. Par 68.
Assuming similar relative playing difficulties on each course, the scoring potential of a scratch golfer on the shorter course A would be quite different from that expected on the longer Course B.
Although each has a Par of 68 the respective Standard Scratch Scores would be of the order of 63 and 71 respectively. It is obvious therefore, that Par does not provide a viable basis for handicapping.
Q.13 Why does CONGU® recommend full handicap difference in matchplay?
A.13 For some time, the CONGU® recommendation has been that, in singles matchplay, the full difference between the handicaps should be given to the player with the higher handicap. This is now increasingly being adopted, but the change from the traditional allowance of three-quarters has been disappointingly slow except by the men in Scotland, Ireland and Wales.
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.
To help to convince the doubters, this note sets out the basic arguments.
We start with the assumption that, for strokeplay, the present CONGU® Unified Handicap System is accurate and fair for players with a reasonably full competitive record. 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 UHS, like all other handicap systems round the world, handicaps players according to the better half of their records. The high handicappers are more erratic and therefore their average score is relatively more in excess of their handicaps than is the case for the better players. So, instead of a difference of ten strokes between their scores, we expect something like eleven or twelve. Already our analysis is tilting the scales slightly against our sixteen handicapper.
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 sixteen-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 sixteen-handicapper, even if he gets 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. And 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 will soon be 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. He can control the game better, preserving his winning position at a hole when necessary. Anyway, these simulations consistently show that, even at full difference, the low 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 that is recommended!). And 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.
Q.14 There are organisations offering Golf Handicaps that are calculated in accordance with CONGU requirements. Are these Official CONGU® Handicaps?
A.14 No, not in the generally accepted understanding of the term “Official Handicaps”.
A CONGU® Handicap, awarded by a club affiliated to one of the eight National Unions/Associations that administer amateur golf in Great Britain and Ireland, is recognised by National golfing authorities and clubs throughout the world as reflecting the current golfing ability of the holder. The System is the result of many years’ development and refinement, relying on stringent checks and balances which enable scores obtained from quite widely differing courses and playing conditions to be compared on a like-for-like basis. The detail of the CONGU® System is Copyrighted and the acronym CONGU is a registered Trademark.
Only Clubs affiliated to one of the eight National Unions or Associations that govern amateur golf in Great Britain and Ireland (and other approved overseas Organisations) are allowed to issue and maintain CONGU® Handicaps. All this ensures that CONGU® Handicaps reflect, as accurately as possible, the playing standard of the individual golfer at any one time.
Q.15 As a category 1 golfer, if I return a nett differential of SSS +2 that score, on occasions, contributes to the resulting CSS being one stroke below the SSS. My Buffer Zone for handicap alteration purposes, however, is SSS +1. Can CONGU explain this anomaly?
A.15 The CSS calculation is based on the percentage of returns to the SSS +2. The reasons for this are historical. Following the introduction of the 1983 Standard Scratch Score and Handicapping Scheme, a Buffer Zone of two strokes for all handicap categories was introduced the next year. The 1989 Revision brought in the CSS to take account of weather and course conditions. The CSS Tables were based on the two stroke buffer zone. The variable Buffer Zone of one, two, three and four strokes for handicap categories 1-4 was incorporated in the 1993 Revision. At that time CONGU investigated the need to modify the CSS Tables to reflect the changed buffer zones. It was concluded that although the tables could have been amended, the resulting CSS would have been the same irrespective of method used.
Q.16 A player should know before he competes what is required of him to play to, or better, his handicap. How can, for example, CONGU justify a situation in which the CSS reduces to one stroke less than the SSS of the course? This can result in a player being denied a reduction in handicap or scoring outside the relevant buffer zone
A.16 The Course Rating system from which the SSS is derived is based on normal midseason playing conditions and includes an allowance for average wind speeds at the various golfing locations. When course or weather conditions are more or less difficult than ‘average’ the expectation is that scoring will be affected. Scoring conditions more favorable than ‘average’ include little or no wind, favorable pin positions and additional roll. In such circumstances the CSS can be one stroke less than the SSS. Conversely in unfavorable weather and course conditions the CSS can increase by up to three strokes above the SSS. In extreme circumstances the competition can become ‘SSS + 3 Reduction Only’.
The intent of the CSS system is to standardise the ‘reward’ for equal performance in different playing circumstances. For example, by applying the CSS system the performance of a player who returns a nett score 2 strokes below the SSS on a day of high wind when the CSS is calculated to be SSS +3 (Nett Differential –5) equates to that of another player returning a nett score 6 strokes below the SSS on a day when the CSS is calculated to be SSS-1 (Nett Differential –5)