The USGA’s publications “How to Conduct a Competition” and “Tournaments for Your Club” both present guidelines for how a competition should be run. Neither publication, however, lists the pitfalls in applying the USGA Handicap System, nor assesses the equity of various tournament formats. Golf professionals get little training in the nuances of the handicap system and the equity of various tournament formats. If he is lucky, a young professional serves an apprenticeship under a seasoned and knowledgeable professional. Too often, however, young professionals are promoted to head professional without the requisite knowledge to run the golf program. Listed below are two prescriptions for a good professional: 1) Know the USGA Handicap System, and 2) Construct handicap competitions that are fun, simple, and equitable. Let’s look at each prescription and see what can go wrong when they are not followed.
1. Know the USGA Handicap System – There are two sections of the Handicap System (Sec. 3-5 and Sec. 9-4) that are important in running tournaments. Failure to understand and properly implement these two sections can lead to problems:
Sec. 3-5 Players Competing from Different Tees – This section details how handicaps are to be adjusted when players compete from different tees. There is little empirical evidence that Sec. 3-5 ensures equitable competition. The USGA should advise that Sec. 3-5 should be avoided wherever practical, but it doesn’t. The USGA omits this cautionary note because it would cast doubt upon the efficacy of Sec. 3.5. It is always better to organize flights by the tees players compete from. When that is not practical, the golf professional should know how to apply Sec. 3-5 correctly. Here are examples of what can go wrong when Sec. 3-5 is applied incorrectly:
- A Chapman competition was conducted where teams competed from different tees and the handicaps were adjusted in accordance with Sec. 3-5. In making the adjustment the golf professional adjusted the handicaps of individual players. This was incorrect. The adjustment should have been applied to the team handicap. This mistake put the competitors from one set of tees at a serious disadvantage (i.e., their team handicaps were two strokes lower than they should have been). None of those affected teams placed in the top half of the competition.
- In a scramble competition, the USGA recommends the 5 percent of the D player’s handicap be used in computing the team handicap. In many cases, the D player’s contribution to the team handicap would be the same whether he played the front or back tees. A team that recognized this anomaly moved their D player to the front tees (gaining 650) yards, and won handily. In this case the Sec. 3-5 adjustment was inconsequential. To correct this problem, all players of a certain type (A, B, C, and D) should be required to play from the same set of tees.
- One professional conducted closest to the pin, long drive, and skins competitions for players competing from different tees. The golf professional thought the competitions were equitable since handicaps were adjusted in compliance with Sec. 3-5. When a player competing from the shorter tee won the long drive contests, competitors from the longer tees were not amused.
- In another competition, flights were determined by a player’s handicap adjusted for Sec. 3-5. Players in a flight could be competing from different tees. The golf professional decided to award a gross prize in each flight which gave an advantage to the players competing from the tees with the lower Course Rating. It should be remembered that Sec. 3-5 is not intended for use in gross competition, but only in net competitions.
Sec. 9-4 Handicap Allowances – A handicap allowances is the percentage of a player’s handicap that is used in different forms of competition. The USGA recommends allowances in Sec. 9-4. Suggestions for scrambles, which are not played in accordance with the Rules of Golf, can be found in “Tournaments for Your Club.” Here are some examples of what can go wrong:
- Confusing the Allowances for Four-ball Stroke Play and Four-ball Match Play - In four-ball stroke play, each player is only allowed 90 percent of his handicap. Some pros, however, have mistakenly applied 90 percent allowance to four-ball match play. This is not correct. In four-ball match play, players use their Course Handicap and play off the low-handicap of the players in the match (Sec. 9-4aiii). Using the 90 percent allowance incorrectly gives the edge to the low-handicap team. Another common mistake is to apply the 90 percent allowance to women’s four-ball stroke play. Women should receive 95 percent of their handicap (Sec. 9-4bii).
- Not Having a Clue - A member wanted to run a weekly game where foursomes would compete against each other using Stableford scoring. The team score would be the combined score of all four players. Teams would be drawn by the ABCD method so each team would have approximately the same handicap. There would be a simultaneous competition for individual net play. The golf professional advised the member that players should only receive 80 percent of their handicap. The best explanation for the professional’s advice is that he confused the allowance for “one-best ball of four” with “four-best balls of four.” The allowance for the former is 80 percent, while the allowance for the latter is 100 percent. That does not explain why he would recommend an 80 percent allowance for the individual competition. The best explanation there is he “didn’t have a clue.”
- Scrambles - A scramble event is often decided when the handicap allowances are adopted. For example in one event, the player with the lower course handicap was allowed 25 percent of his course handicap. The player with the higher course handicap was allowed 15 percent of his course handicap. This allocation seems inequitable on its face. A team of ten-handicap players would receive a handicap of 4. A team of scratch players would receive a handicap of 0. In essence, the ten-handicaps would have to play even with the scratch players over 14 holes and just lose by a stroke on 4 others. This seems unlikely. The tournament results confirmed the inequity. The low-handicap teams dominated the net competition. The USGA suggests an allowance of 35% for the low-handicap player and 15% for the high-handicap player. The golf professional should use these allowances as a starting point, but revise those allowances if low- or high-handicap teams do exceptionally well.
2. Construct Handicap Competitions that are Fun, Fast, Simple, and Equitable - Listed below are some examples of competitions that do not meet one or more of the four criteria and should be avoided when possible:
- Equal Gross and Net Payoffs - One of the most common prize formats is “Equal Gross and Net.” Unfortunately, putting “equal” in the title does not make it so. The low-handicap player in each flight has the edge in winning a gross prize and an equal chance of winning a net prize. This is not equitable. The argument for “equal gross and net” is the low-handicap player cannot compete against the high-handicap player in a net tournament. This argument may be valid when there a large number of players and a wide range of handicaps. Typically, a high-handicap player has a larger variance in his scoring so it is likely one of the high-handicappers has a good chance of winning—as well as finishing dead last. If the competition is flighted and the range of handicaps within each flight relatively small, the argument that a low-handicap player cannot compete on a net basis loses much if not all of its strength.
- One-Best Ball and One-Worst Ball - In this format a team of four players use the best net ball and the worst net ball on each hole for the team score. This format fails the “fast” test since the team cannot go on until the worst player is finished. It fails the “fun” test on two counts. First, the second and third players do not have an incentive to do their best if one player is in great shape and the other player faces disaster. It would not be fun, for example if the second player scored a birdie, but it did not help the team score. Second, it is not much fun for the player when his one bad hole can knock the team out of the competition.
- One Ball Gross and One Ball Net – This format gives the advantage to teams with a low handicap player and thus fails the equity test.
- Shamble – In this format, all players tee-off. The best drive is chosen and all players play from there. It can be equitable if all teams are approximately equal—i.e., teams have A, B, C and D players of comparable ability. Typically, however, the range of A players is fairly large. Consequently, the teams with the better A players have a decided advantage, and the shamble fails the equity test. (The advantage can be lessened if each player has to have a minimum number of drives selected.)
- Mystery Hole – In this format all players play the hole. After completion of the hole, the team learns whose ball is to be counted. This format fails the “fast” test as every player must complete the hole. The format is improved somewhat if it is played under Stableford rules. It still would require players to grind over short putts even though the result is probably meaningless.
Every golf professional should attempt to learn which tournament formats are equitable and which get high marks from the members for enjoyment. Too often tournament participation ebbs because the golf professional does not do the requisite market research—i.e., what format sells? This is neither in the best interest of the club or his longevity as the head professional.
 Both publications are available at the USGA’s website, www.usga.org.
 For a fuller discussion of the problems of Sec. 3-5 see Dougharty, Laurence, “The Problem with Section 3-5,” www.ongolfhandicaps.com, March 4, 2014.
 See Dougharty, Laurence, “Chapman Handicaps and Sec. 3-5: Proposed Changes to the USGA Handicap System,” www.ongolfhandicaps.com, August, 19, 2013.
 For an examination of the equity of “equal net and gross” see “Dougharty, Laurence, “Is Your Tournament Equitable,” www.ongolfhandicaps.com, October 22, 2012.
 Ibid. This article presents examples of how equity can be assessed.