The NCGA wants your assistance in providing more information on the USGA Handicap System.

Put the NCGA’s handicap experts to the test. Submit your question/situation below or by e-mail and receive an almost immediate answer. The NCGA offers an online handicap certification seminar as well as a couple live seminars each year.

More information on handicapping can be found in the USGA Handicap System manual.

While this is good victory, it is important that golfers remain vigilant on this and other issues facing the game.  More battles in the future should be anticipated.

The golf tax was a near certainty at one point during the budget discussions in the beginning of the year; and was successfully stopped with the power the golf industry and individual golfers working together to protect our great game.

Such a proposal was not included in this year’s budget agreement and for good reason: It would impose a risky and inequitable burden on a golf industry in California that has been particularly hard hit by the economic downturn. An additional tax on playing golf and golf-related activities would cause significant harm–reducing play, slashing golf and service economy jobs, and shutting down courses that are already operating on slim margins.

California’s broken budget system will not be repaired by breaking the state’s golf industry. As the Governor’s Executive Order creating the commission rightly said, “California’s long term prosperity requires that employers and entrepreneurs invest, remain and grow in the state…” A tax on golf will do just the opposite, reducing jobs at golf courses and in the hotel, restaurant and service industry.

The California Alliance for Golf (CAG), whose office is headquatered at the NCGA in Pebble Beach, was instrumental in its leadership of the opposition to the tax. 

January 28 article in the Sacramento Bee regarding the tax

Below are examples of the fervent opinions and passion the proposal generated over the last month.

In many instances, those asking the questions did not like the answers I gave. They had preconceived, popular notions about handicapping and thought they had the situation all figured out. I had to inform them that they were wrong.

Unfortunately, these preconceived notions resulted in a significant handicap advantage tilted toward the caller’s favor. They did not want to hear what I had to say, because my answers eliminated their advantage and evened the playing field.

The solution to handicap questions for instances where golfers are competing against each other while playing different tees is really quite simple. Section 9-3c of the USGA Handicap System Manual states: “Different tees usually have different USGA Course Ratings. Since course ratings reflect the probable scores of scratch golfers, the higher-rated course is more difficult, and the player playing from the set of tees with the higher USGA Course Rating receives additional strokes equal to the difference between course ratings, with .5 rounded upward.”

This Section goes on to state that the same would be true for men and women competing from the same set of tees since the USGA Course Ratings will be different for each sex.

Many golfers get confused over this handicap adjustment for one of two reasons: They think Slope is designed to take care of the situation, or they relate net scores to par rather than to the course ratings.

Slope does serve as the perfect equalizer for golfers of the same sex competing from the same set of tees. It adjusts a golfer’s USGA/NCGA Handicap Index proportionally based upon the difficulty of those set of tees as measured by the Slope rating. Slope does not equalize the handicaps in instances where golfers are competing against each other from different rated tees.

Net scores should always be viewed in relation to the course rating of the tees being played, not the par of the course. Two golf courses can have the exact same par and yet be separated by several strokes in course ratings. If you record a net score of 74 from a set of tees with a USGA/NCGA Course Rating of 75.0, you played about one stroke better than your handicap, regardless of the par of the course. If you record a net score of 66 from a set of tees with a USGA/NCGA Course Rating of 65.0, you played about one stroke over your handicap, regardless of the par of the course. In this instance, the net score of 74 actually represents a better playing performance than the net score of 66.

This concept is vitally important when different rated sets of tees are involved. Consider a scenario in which a man is playing from the White tees with a USGA/NCGA Course Rating of 70.0 versus a woman playing from the Red tees with a rating of 74.0. If the man plays perfectly to his handicap that round, he will shoot a gross score that results in a net score of around 70, the course rating from those tees. Likewise, if the woman were to play perfectly to her handicap that day, she would shoot a gross score that results in a net score of 74, the course rating from her tees. They both play exactly to their handicaps, and yet the man’s net score defeats the woman’s net score by four strokes. As you can see, something is wrong!

In short, she is playing a golf course that has been deemed four strokes more difficult than the course the man is playing. After both golfers have adjusted their USGA Handicap Indexes for the Slope ratings of their tees, she needs to add four additional strokes to her course handicap prior to play. This will level the playing field and promote a fair competition for all parties involved.

Why is this important to you? More and more clubs have caught onto the idea of establishing a fourth set of tees at their golf course somewhere in yardage between the existing White and Red tees. Many clubs label these new tees as Gold tees and have established them primarily for, senior men golfers who find the White tees too long or for exceptional women golfers who want more of a challenge than the Red tees present. In each instance, the golf course is providing its golfers with an opportunity to maximize their enjoyment by permitting them to select a set of tees that best matches their game.

Why not provide your tournament entrants with the same options?

Let your entrants individually select the tees that they want to play from and then adjust the course handicaps accordingly based upon the difference in ratings. These adjustments have even been built into TPP-2000 (NCGA/GHIN provided Tournament Pairings Program) to assist you in accomplishing this. Such a move is bound to increase everyone’s interest and enjoyment in your tournaments… and isn’t that what it’s all about?

Director of Course Rating & Handicapping Jim Cowan can be e-mailed at jcowan@ncga.org.

Is the No. 1 stroke hole the toughest hole on the course? Maybe yes… maybe no!

Despite the feelings of most golfers, the stroke hole allocation of a course is not suppose to represent a ranking of the difficulty of the holes. Instead, it represents the ranking of the holes where a high handicapped golfer most needs a stroke in order to tie a low handicapped golfer.

In many instances, this need for strokes does occur on the most difficult holes, but not always.

Consider, for example, a 225-yard par-3 with all sorts of difficulty around the green. The hole may prove to be a tough par for even the very best golfers at that club and may sport a high overall scoring average.

On the other hand, the higher handicapper may not be able to reach the green in regulation, but is easily able to pitch it on in two and two putt for a bogey. Even though this hole would have a high overall scoring average, clearly it does not represent a hole where the higher handicapped player most needs a stroke in order to tie a low handicapped player.

Typically, a stroke is most needed on difficult par fives, followed by difficult par-4s, easier par-5s, easier par-4s, difficult par-3s and easy par-3.

The best way to determine this “need” is by an analysis of scorecards. A minimum of 200 scorecards from a low handicapped group (eight or less for men; 14 or less for women) must be reviewed and hole-by-hole averages determined.

A similar breakdown must be computed for a minimum of 200 scorecards of higher handicapped golfers (20-28 for men; 26-40 for women). When the hole-by-hole stroke averages of the two groups are laid out side-by-side, the holes with the greatest need can easily be identified by the large gaps in the scoring averages.

Generally speaking, the odd-numbered stroke hole assignments are awarded to the front nine and even numbered to the back nine. In instances where the back nine holes significantly rank more difficult, the odd and even assignments can be reversed.

Special care must be given to avoid the assignment of low numbered strokes near the end of each nine. In many instances, a 9- or 18-hole match could be completed before this pivotal stroke comes into play. Likewise it is best to avoid a low-numbered stroke to the first couple of holes on a golf course. In the event of a sudden-death playoff, this crucial stroke would be awarded too soon.

The NCGA is happy to perform a stroke hole analysis for your golf course for a fee of $50 ($100 if a separate men’s and women’s analysis is made or if separate courses or tees are involved). The results will be forwarded to your club handicap committee for final review. Ultimately, it is this committee that makes the assignment, not the NCGA. When you think about it, who better than your handicap committee to determine how your golf holes play out?

Some golfers wonder why the assignments are geared for match play. They argue that most, if not all, tournaments at their club are stroke play. To a certain degree, I would beg to differ and argue that dozens upon dozens of games each day involve match play (standard Nassaus) and that the assigning of the strokes in this manner is critical.

Some clubs have taken steps to specifically address stroke-play competitions. In addition to the normal stroke hole allocations appearing on their cards, they have computed an overall ranking of the difficulty of the holes and use this for stroke-play competitions such as four-ball competitions (better balls), best-one or two-net-of-four competitions and Stableford events. Scorecards for golfers of all abilities are collected and scoring averages per hole versus par are computed to determine this alternative ranking.

So the next time you look at the stroke-hole assignments at a golf course, take a couple of minutes to appreciate the reasons for the assignments and the care that went into its preparation.

Director of Course Rating & Handicapping Jim Cowan can be e-mailed at jcowan@ncga.org.

Course A: 72.8/114
Course B: 67.8/127

Easy … at every single handicap level, the answer is Course A! Surprised? Many, if not most NCGA members probably would have guessed Course B. It just goes to illustrate the many myths and misunderstandings that still abound regarding the subject of Slope.

Myth No. 1 – Slope is the primary indicator of difficulty or, to put it another way, the higher the Slope, the more difficult the course.

Wrong! As the above example confirms, it is the Course Rating and not the Slope, which is the more dominant factor in defining course difficulty.

As each score a golfer posts is broken down into a numerical value known as a “differential,” it is the Course Rating that plays the more important role in the calculation (Adjusted Score minus Course Rating multiplied by 113 divided by Slope Rating). Slope merely bumps the number arrived at from the Course Rating up or down to arrive at a differential.

To put the Course Rating vs. Slope debate into perspective, it takes more than 20 units of Slope to have the same impact as a single stroke of Course Rating for a 5-handicapper. As a golfer’s handicap level increases, this ratio of the importance of the two values changes, but even for a 20-handicapper it takes 5 – 6 units of Slope to have the same impact as one stroke in the Course Rating.

Myth No. 1a – Two courses with the same Slope are of equal difficulty.

Wrong! A course with a rating of 71.5/125 is about two strokes more difficult than a course with a rating of 69.6/125 at every handicap level.

Myth No. 2 – Slope ratings can he compared between courses.

Wrong! I wish I had a dollar for every letter, E-mail or phone call I have received criticizing existing ratings on the basis of the Slope only. In short there is nothing more dangerous than trying to draw any sort of meaningful conclusions by comparing Slope Ratings from one course to another.

So what is Slope?

Slope merely tells you how “proportionately” more difficult that particular set of tees plays for the higher handicapped golfers as opposed to lower handicapped golfers. The more difficult the tees play proportionately for the higher handicappers, the greater the Slope rating that will be issued.

That’s it! Slope doesn’t tell you how the course proportionately plays from any other set of tees, let alone tell you how it compares with other courses. This proportionate difficulty is measured via a Course Rating process that evaluates each hole and each shot through the eyes of both a Scratch golfer and Bogey golfer. This process is so thorough that an actual rating for the Bogey golfer is computed and it is the gap between the Scratch and Bogey rating that determines the Slope.

For example, a set of tees may be issued a Course or Scratch rating of 70.5 and a Bogey rating of 94.3. What this means is that if a Scratch golfer were to complete 20 rounds from this set of tees, we expect his 10 best scores to average around 70.5. If a golfer with a Handicap Index of 20.0 were to complete 20 rounds, we would expect his ten best scores to average around 94.3. Based upon this gap of 23.8 strokes between the two ratings (94.3 – 70.5 = 23.8), a Men’s Slope Rating of 128 would be issued (gap times 5.381 for men).

The Scratch and Bogey ratings are both somewhat volatile and when a series of factors or obstacles on a course tend to gang up on only one of the two golfers, curious things can happen to the Slope.

For example, if a set of tees has a high number of holes in which the Bogey golfer can reach the green in “regulation,” an upward pressure on the Slope will be exerted. Think about it … on most of these holes the Bogey golfer is approaching the green with a long

iron or fairway wood, while the Scratch golfer has a wedge or less in his/her hands. Clearly the Bogey golfer is much more susceptible to any of the greenside trouble present on the holes (bunkers, difficult chips, etc.). . . the kind of trouble that can cause his/her scores to soar. Such a scenario will force the Bogey rating higher, widen the gap between the two ratings, and result in a higher Slope.

Now consider a set of tees, even on the same course, where most of the holes are unreachable in regulation for the Bogey golfer. Now it is the Scratch golfer who has the longer approach shots, perhaps with mid to long irons, while the Bogey golfer may merely be chipping/pitching to the green in one over regulation. To a certain degree, the tide of proportionate difficulty has turned. Though both ratings will be increasing due to the added length of these tees, the gap between the Scratch and Bogey rating may be staying relatively constant or may widen at a very slow rate.

These upward and downward pressures help explain why a Slope rating may increase sharply at a course from the Gold tees to the White tees (Bogey rating rising much faster than Scratch rating as the approach shots become longer), yet hardly change from White to Blue (gap increasing slowly due to shorter approach shots of Bogey golfer). It also explains how a shorter course can be issued a Slope rating that may “feel” a little high, or how a longer course may be issued a Slope rating that may “feel” a little low.

Another factor that can greatly impact the Slope is forced lay-ups. If the Scratch golfer is forced to lay up on a hole due to any one of a number of obstacles (water hazard, severe dogleg, etc.), this will increase the Scratch rating. That’s because of the extra yardage of the approach shot. It will leave the Bogey rating untouched. This higher Scratch rating narrows the gap with the Bogey rating and decreases the Slope. Conversely, if the forced lay-ups only impact the higher handicapper, the Bogey rating and Slope will increase.

As you can see, there is much, much more that goes into the development of a Slope than meets the eye and besides, the Slope rating may not be nearly as important as you thought it was.

Director of Course Rating & Handicapping Jim Cowan can be e-mailed at jcowan@ncga.org.

The most important point to remember is that an NCGA/USGA Handicap Index is supposed to represent a golfer’s “potential” ability, not his actual, current or average ability.

“Potential,” for these purposes, is identified by an examination of a golfer’s top 10 performances of their 20 most recent rounds, AND, by a comparison of this best 10 of 20 calculation with the two best T-scores recorded within the past 12 months (longer for golfers who play fewer than 20 rounds per year).

Specifically, it is the “gap” between the best 10 of 20 figure and two lowest T-scores that is examined. If the T-scores are sufficiently low, additional calculations are made which factor in the size of the gap and the total number of T-scores recorded within the past 12 months. The calculations can call for an automatic reduction of the best 10 of 20 figure.

One of the cornerstones of the reduction process is the following table. It charts the odds of a golfer teeing it up and playing to or outplaying his handicap (i.e., recording a net score equal to or lower than the Course Rating). The values in the table are the odds of shooting a net differential EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN the number in the left column.

Odds Table

It should come as no surprise that playing to one’s handicap is an uncommon event. After all, a golfer’s worst 10 of 20 rounds are thrown out entirely and normally only 4 of the best 10 meet or better the standard. In short, a golfer only has around a 1 in 5 chance of playing to or better than his handicap.

Depending on handicap level and frequency of play, shooting five strokes under one’s handicap can be a once-a-year or even once-a-decade kind of occurrence. It’s these types of scores that can trigger an automatic reduction.

Now let’s clear up some of those misunderstandings in the form of a Q & A.

Is the NCGA the only association calculating handicaps in this manner?

No! Every single handicap in the country is computed in this exact manner.

Should all tournament scores be posted with a T?

No. The NCGA recommends that the T not be applied to routine weekly or monthly events of little significance. Flooding a golfer’s record with such T-scores will reduce the effectiveness of the process and make it more difficult to identify those golfers who save their best play for the most important tournaments.The T should be reserved for significant events that pack the greatest prestige or prizes, such as annual events, club championships, member/guests, NCGA qualifiers, etc. This includes individual, partnership and team events. Ask yourself the following question: If you felt your club had a problem with some members who were inclined to “massage” their handicaps, which tournaments would they gear themselves up for? These are the tournaments that need the T.

Will one low T-score trigger a reduction?

No. Every golfer is entitled to their best round of the year. It’s when two odds-defying rounds occur in a 12-month period that the additional calculations are triggered.

Is a golfer’s Index “frozen” at the reduced level?

No. A fresh calculation is made each month. As the gap between the best 10 of 20 figure and two low T-scores moves and the total number of T-scores from the past 12 months changes, the Index can change.

How long will the reduction remain in place?

Normally, when one of the T-scores expires (becomes more than 12 months old), the reduction is lifted.

How come some reductions don’t take effect until months after the T-scores were recorded?

Remember, the first step in the process is the best 10 of 20 calculation. The gap between this figure and the two low T-scores will remain narrow as long as the T-scores are among the 20 most recent rounds. In many instances, it is not until they work their way out of the most recent 20 that the gap widens and a reduction kicks in.

I just seem to concentrate better in tournaments and produce lower scores. Why should I be penalized?

Baloney! The System is based on the concept that a golfer is going to attempt to score his very best on every hole of every round played. It does not contemplate a golfer who can call upon a “higher gear” at will. The problem with the logic of such a golfer is that they want their handicap based on the higher scores, which would give them a distinct advantage over the rest of the field when they call upon their “A” game. Why do such golfers object to an Index that reflects this “A” game?

My game goes bad in the winter and peaks in the summer. Why should I be penalized?

Such a golfer would have a distinct advantage over the field when his game turns around. Without a reduction, his handicap will be at its highest level just in time for the lower scores. Again, a Handicap Index is supposed to represent a golfer’s potential ability. Has such a golfer’s potential changed that much, or are they just off their game for a short period of time? The answer should be obvious.

Shouldn’t the golfer’s Index at the time the T-score was recorded be factored in?

Absolutely not! What a golfer’s Index was at the time of the round has no bearing on pegging their potential ability.

Does an R next to an Index indicate that the golfer is a sandbagger?

The System certainly catches its fair share of baggers, but the R should not be perceived as a scarlet letter. It’s merely an indication that the golfer has exhibited a greater potential ability than their best 10 of 20 figure would imply.

I recently had some major surgery, which has severely impacted my game. Some pre-surgery T-scores are causing a reduction. What can I do?

Clearly these are exceptional circumstances and a reduction is not appropriate, but the calculations don’t know this. Contact your club’s Handicap Committee. It is the one and only authority that can intervene on a golfer’s behalf. If it feels there are medical circumstances that warrant action, they can instruct the NCGA to “override” the reduction and restore the best 10 of 20 figure. Such a request must be submitted in writing to the NCGA Handicap Department.

Requests for an override for any other sort of reason requires further explanation. After all, by issuing an override a club is proclaiming that this particular golfer’s Index should be computed in a different manner than that of every other golfer in the country. That is a quite a proclamation!

I can’t tell you how many clubs I’ve seen that have put an override in place only to regret it. I’ve seen golfers secure an override from a sympathetic committee member for no valid reason only to shoot more low T-scores as soon as the reduction has been lifted. Such clubs have a lot of explaining to do to the rest of the golfing community.

In conclusion, at this point in time, less than 1 percent of NCGA members have a T-score reduction in effect. That very fact should open up a club’s eyes to how extraordinary the T-scores are. Two once-a-decade scores in a 12-month period in important tournaments are too much!

Director of Course Rating and Handicapping Jim Cowan can be e-mailed at jcowan@ncga.org.