Traveling Handicap

[Mickey Boland]

Reading the thread on the Bandon Trails review by the 1.6 handicapper got me to thinking.  How does your home course handicap fare when traveling?  I'm a 6 +/- at my course, but it seems I don't play to it too often when I travel to other courses, especially the first time I play them.  And, I can think of a lot of reasons why that might be.  I've come to change my expectations in that regard now, and find golf on the road a lot more fun.  Your experience?

[THuckaby2]

Mickey:

Well, the whole purpose of having a slope system is to make one's handicap work the same no matter where one goes.  So you have to keep in mind that your 6 INDEX means you get 6 or less at Podunk Muni, but as much as 9 or more at Shinnecock or some other severe test.  Then on top of that, even though Shinnecock is a very stern test, the member there with the 5.8 index SHOULD be the same ability as the 5.8 index regular at Podunk, because the Shinny member achieved this shooting 82s there, and the Podunk guy did shooting 75s at his course.  That does roughly translate, no?

Of course the truth of it is, a guy who plays nothing but easy courses doesn't tend to handle difficult ones well, since they are so out of his element.  The guy who plays nothing but difficult ones in general can play well anywhere (though it might be difficult for him to "go low" enough to make up the difference at Podunk, because that is out of his comfort level).

In any case that's all how it SHOULD work, which you likely know but I thought I'd try to make sure.  

So to answer your question, well... I'm a lot closer to Mr. Podunk than I am to Mr. Shinny.  When I play a difficult course for the first time, I don't expect to score well.  But I also make my expectations based on what handicap I get... As a 4.8, "shooting my handicap" to me means anything in the low 80s at a difficult course.  If I come anywhere close to that, I call it a very good round.

TH

[Andy Troeger]

Mickey,
  Good topic. I'm an odd sort because I think I played about 45 rounds this year and did so on about 40 courses give or take. I think my handicap ends up being fairly accurate since there's usually a mixture of good/bad/mediocre scores, however there are certainly different courses/styles that I handle better than others. I think if I played most of my rounds at my "home" course (where I've played 7 times in 2 years!) then my handicap would likely be lower by 1-2 since it tends to fit my game pretty well (nice wide fairways...although its generally a good idea to hit them). I'll be interested to see others' thoughts.

[Sean Leary]

I think that except for very low handicappers, that handicaps don't normally travel very well, particularly if you are playing courses for the first or second time.  I am a 4 to 5 handicap, and I feel that if I shoot 78-81 on a new course, then I have played pretty well.....

[THuckaby2]

So much of this has to do with expectations.  I'm with Sean - and as I say if the course is more difficult and/or severe, than anything under 85 is "good" and I'm not surprised if my trevails take me higher.  

You just have to keep in mind how US handicaps are compiled... "playing to one's handicap" should NOT really happen all that often... that would be a GOOD round, not an average one.  Low 10 out of last 20 are what it's based on, remember?

TH

[rjsimper]

Mine's pretty accurate given that there are maybe 5 courses that I regularly play more than once a year...

When I go through times where I play the same course over and over, regardless of slope and course rating differential, my handicap is probably about 3 strokes on the artificially low side.

[Sean Leary]

Huck,

I agree with you with what you said on the other thread.  I can EASILY see a 2 capper shooting low to mid 80's at the Bandon Complex even on a pretty calm day.  For some reason, it takes me a full round to get used to the greens out there, and I never seem to make a lot of putts.  Also, hitting (and particularly chipping) off the tight fairways takes a bit getting used to as well..

[Andy Troeger]

Tom,
  Good point to mention...I know for example I'm a 3.0 currently, but my average score for the year is 78-79 range. I would say I actually shoot my handicap MAYBE 20% of the time give or take. I do think my handicap travels as well as I can expect though since the 20 scores are usually tend to come from at least 15 different courses of varying difficulty. That said, I'm not especially consistant and never know what the heck I'm going to shoot any given day

[Mark_Rowlinson]

I have a feeling that in the UK those who have seriously low handicaps are required to submit scores from a number of courses of a certain standard, so they should be able to play to their handicap more or less anywhere.  And handicap is measured against standard scratch, not par.  I don't know, of course - I have never threatened to play to anything other than a mediocre handicap.

[Brent Hutto]

My current home course isn't particularly well suited to my scoring abilities. So when I travel to courses like it (hilly, wet, big multi-tiered greens, fluffy bunkers) I'll pretty much play to my handicap. When I travel to a shorter, firm-and-fast course with smaller greens I can play a couple strokes better than my index would predict. Courses with lots of water hazards and/or very penal rough will usually cost me a couple strokes more than even their high slope rating indicates.

[Matthew MacKay]

Andy, stats indicate that your 20% estimate is bang on.  And most rounds will be about 3 strokes higher than your handicap.  Using 10 of 20, ESC, means your handicap index reflects your POTENTIAL ability.

[JohnV]

Under the US handicap system, you should only shoot your handicap or better about 25% of the time.  Also remember that this is the index which is based off the course rating and slope, not the par of the course.  Frequently traveling golfers tend to play tougher courses than the one they left back home.  The course rating might be over par on these courses.  Plus the slope might be quite a bit of 113.

Using myself as an example, my current index is 6.1.  Only 5 of my last 20 scores are a lower differential than that.  Of those, 3 are Away scores.  2 of my 7 home scores are better than my index (28.6%) while 3 of my 13 away scores (23%).  My highest score is 87 in my last 20 rounds.  I had two of those, but one of them was at a very tough away course and is actually my 11th best differential easily beating the 82s I shot at my home course.

[David Ober]

My index is +3.2, and my home course is 6,560 yards, 72.0/132. It's also fairly tight, with accessible OB or water on every single hole but one.

My handicap travels very well -- though six or seven years ago, that was not the case. Learning to have your game "travel" is something that takes time. Getting used to different green types, rough types, sand types, and especially differing green speeds and firmnesses is integral to having a game that travels, and that only comes with time.

[JESII]

David,

It sounds like it probably travels with one of those bags with your name on it.

[TEPaul]

I never thought of this before this thread but when I played a lot of golf probably way more than half my posted scores were tournament scores at some other course than my own, and tournament scores are weighted on the downside somehow. I hardly ever played handicap stuff, not even recreationally. One of the reasons for that is I played some significant member of my club one time (can't remember if it was a handicap tournament at my course or not) but I remember shooting a 67 and he beat me about five ways to Sunday. After that I said f.... playing these handicap golfers, it's basically a no win situation. So I guess in a sense my handicap, traveling or otherwise may've meant less to me than most any amateur golfer.

John VanderB makes a good point that when you go play some other course you're basically playing against that course's course rating, not necessarily that course's par.

[JESII]

Tommy,

Just like the satisfaction one of those guys would have gotten from beating you heads up in a scratch game like the club championship or something, you should want to beat him just once at full handicap.

[cary lichtenstein]

My handicap didn't travel too well at Oakmont.

[David Ober]

I sure wish we used the UK system. I do NOT think casual rounds should count for handicapping purposes. Meaning, if you and your wife go out for a casual afternoon round by yourselves, then you should not be able to post those scores. Only official club rounds or actual tournament rounds should count towards one's handicap, IMHO.

[THuckaby2]

Sean - just to clarify (since we've battled over handicap systems ad nauseam in here before, and the last thing we need is another battle now), it's part of the system that a UK 2 would be a far better player than a US 2, in damn near all instances.  Why?  Because the UK 2 gets such via MEDAL PLAY IN COMPETITION, with the high numbers thrown out, more or less.  The US 2 gets his via the average of his lowest 2 scores taken as a differential from score to course rating, with the key being ALL ROUNDS COUNT, not just competition.

In a nutshell, a guy who scores 74 in a tournament is a much better player than a guy who averages 75 or so with the lowest 10 of his last 20 rounds period.

As for what works best, it's always been my contention that ours works well for us, yours works well for you, primarily because regular medal competitions just aren't a way of life for us as they are for you.  If they were, then I'd happily adopt the UK way, even though I do think you all get stuck seemingly for life with your handicaps, and ours can and do vary from month to month.  I like our way better in that respect.  Who's the same golfer each and every month?  

So yes, perhaps a combination of the best features of both systems would work best for all.

But neither system is broken in my mind, and thus neither needs to be fixed.

You UK chaps just need to understand that although my index says 4.8, I need at least 7 in a match against you.

 

[THuckaby2]

I sure wish we used the UK system. I do NOT think casual rounds should count for handicapping purposes. Meaning, if you and your wife go out for a casual afternoon round by yourselves, then you should not be able to post those scores. Only official club rounds or actual tournament rounds should count towards one's handicap, IMHO.

David - yes, in a perfect world that is true.  It works in the UK.

BUT - please understand two things:

a) the USGA system is geared to take this into account; and
b) more importantly, how many people here really play enough medal events to allow for such to determine a realistic assessment of their ability?  I know YOU likely do but keep the rest of us in mind... I personally play a LOT of tournament golf relative to my buddies, but under the UK system even I would have my handicap determined by less than 10 rounds a year.  Is that REALLY for the best?  Do you really want to base things on such a small sample?

Oh god, I fear Rich Goodale seeing this... here we go again....

 

[David Ober]

The rounds wouldn't have to be medal play. They just have to be official rounds through your club where something is at stake and more than just your group is playing -- it's simply too easy to cheat that way.

I'm sympathetic to those that say they don't play enough "tournament" golf, but I think that the pros outweigh the cons in changing the system. Since handicaps are really only for competitive purposes to begin with, I think only competitive rounds should count.

And people can come up with whatever alternate system they want to keep a handicap for play among friends, but OFFICIAL handicaps should be derived from competition, not friendly rounds with your buddies.

[JohnV]

My handicap didn't travel too well at Oakmont.

Cary,

Mine did.  My index is 6.1 and my differential for my round there in September was 9.3 and I had 40 putts.  So, given any kind of normal putting day (perhaps I should realize that 40 putts is normal for Oakmont.)

Perhaps if you posted more than 3 scores this year your scores would match your handicap a bit better.

[THuckaby2]

David:

How are you going to define these "official rounds through your club where something is at stake and more than just your group is playing" - sounds like tournament play to me, just by another name.  And what about guys who belong to no particular golf course affiliated club?  Do you really want only their official club gatherings to count?  Look, I am sympathetic to the fact that it is very much too easy to cheat in casual rounds - but if people do that, they are just giving themselves an artifcially low index.  Tell me, how does that hurt you, as one who does this properly?  Why do you care?  Seems to me you should seek these types out and play them for big stakes.  

In any case, my issue against making just these types of rounds count remains that for WAY too many golfers in the US who want a handicap, the sample size would be way too small, such number based on way too few rounds.  

Sean - the same questions go to you - why do you care if people achieve artificially low handicaps?  Seek them out, man!

The bottom line remains this:  the USGA handicap system, basing such on the low 10 out the last 20, makes for an accurate enough handicap, for those who follow the rules.  IN a perfect world we'd all play weekly medals, following the rules to the letter, and we'd base our handicaps on that.  Such is not the reality here in the US.  So we have what we have - and if the result is that some who want to cheat have indices that are truly lower than they should be, well I just don't see that as a problem.

The real problem occurs in the other direction - posting only the high scores, not posting low ones, cheating to get a HIGHER handicap.  And obviously such can be done quite easily by those with the will to do so.  However, if PEER REVIEW is handled as instructed in the handicap rules, this is taken care of.  The real issue is peer review.  Do this correctly and the baggers are taken care of to a large extent also.

TH

[ForkaB]

As I've said far too many times before, the USGA and UK handicapping systems will come up with roughly the same results, IFFFFFF!!!!! all scores represent rounds played strictly under the Rules of Golf.  I know, because I was dual-handicapped (USGA and UK) for 10+ years.

The USGA (non)system facilitates cheating for either sandbagging (HCP too high) or vanity (HCP too low) purposes.  They justify this by the misguided belief that handing out handicaps like sweeties is going to "grow" the game.  It just makes the game a bit too slezy, IMHO.

PS--anybody who plays golf for serious money based on handicaps--particularly with a stranger--deserves whatever they get.

[THuckaby2]

WHEW!  That wasn't nearly as bad as I expected.  And I concur with the last sentence completely.

The rest need not be argued yet again.  Our system works here, theirs works there, the rest matters not.

TH