[Tom Huckaby]

I understand the reasoning for the flawed system so that you can use it for tournaments and adjust accordingly based on scoring.  What I just can't get through my thick skull is this idea that your handicap is not even close to your ability to shoot those types of scores regardless of your potential to shoot a low score just once during the golf season.

Whew.  So you do get it. 
What I don't get is why the final number used seems to matter to you so much?
Read Art's post - one cannot possibly sum this up better.
A handicap is just a tool to allow for fairer competition.  Whatever number it is really doesn't matter. 

TH

[Matt Bosela]

Average mean score is what it is the math doesn't lie but, you also bring up a great point about USGA handicaps.  You are 2.5 playing from the tips and a guy that is a 2.5 playing from the senior tees is not even close to the same level of player that you are on the same course.  

Actually, that's the point YOU'RE making, not I.

A 2.5 index player who plays the fronts most of the time is likely a very similar player to one who is a 2.5 index from the backs.  The handicap system takes the difference in difficulty between the two tee decks into account when coming up with the index, something your system doesn't do.

Where your theory doesn't work is the guy who averages 75 shots per round playing from the front tees and the guy who shoots the same average from the backs would have the exact same handicap in your world.

[Matt Varney]

Tom,

You guys are funny - I have degrees in Economics and Marketing I am not stupid and I get the system and the reasoning of how it is calcualted.  It is just some USGA formula that generates a number based on scoring and then some other factors thrown into the mix.  

The big problem I have is hearing people always talk about their handicaps and the perceived idea that the number is relevant to shots over par.  I have few golf buddies that I swear to God could meet a total stranger at a bar or restaurant and within 5 minutes make sure the stranger knows that he is a 4 handicap.  Then we play golf and these guys can't break 80 it is all about vanity.   Your handicap should be your consistent scoring mean average based on length of the course (tees played from) and slope rating.

I would rather tell someone I normally shoot 80-82 and then back it up shooting a score close to that range.  My analytical side will kick in soon and I will design a formula that would allow tees played, length of course, slope rating and player score to be factored into an accurate #.

If I did this I wonder how many people would use it because it is accurate and not a vanity number?  In competitions even using different tees (Tips of a guy 25 years old and Seniors for a guy 65 years old) for different age competitors the index would work and matches would be much closer, more accurate and more fun when playing friendly money games.

I am raising the white flag on this issue while I focus my efforts on creating a better formula.

[Richard Boult]

I understand the reasoning for the flawed system so that you can use it for tournaments and adjust accordingly based on scoring.  What I just can't get through my thick skull is this idea that your handicap is not even close to your ability to shoot those types of scores regardless of your potential to shoot a low score just once during the golf season.

It's just a number... don't associate it with score.  Kind of like a quarterback rating, a pitcher's ERA, etc.

And like the other Matt shared, a 2.5 who plays the front tees is as good a player as the 2.5 who plays the back tees.  In fact, the guy who plays the front tees will have a much lower "average" score to gain a 2.5 index than will the guy from the back tees.   However, a guy who averages 82 on my course is a lot better than the guy who averages 82 on an average course.

[Lou_Duran]

"A 2.5 index player who plays the fronts most of the time is likely a very similar player to one who is a 2.5 index from the backs.  The handicap system takes the difference in difficulty between the two tee decks into account when coming up with the index, something your system doesn't do."

Matt B,

It has been my experience that for most amateurs this is not the case.  I don't think that the differences in course ratings from the back tees to the next sets are sufficient in many cases.  Short hitters who establish their handicaps from the front tees typically have a much more difficult time playing to their handicaps from the back tees than the corresponding long hitter who normally plays the back tees moving up to play the short tees.

While this is totally anecdotal, I remember a few years back when my handicap put me in the first flight which played from the second set of tees (only the championship flight played the backs), several of my flight competitors complained that they had no chance.  They were right.  The only competition came from a young guy who, like me, nearly always played the back tees.      

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

I assumed you were intelligent; thus this wasn't about the formulae used.

What I don't get is why these "vanity" handicaps achieved seem to bug you so much.

Seems to me that rather than waste emotional energy on this, you either or both of these things:

a) just understand that a claim to be a 4 under the current system can mean someone that shoots a few good scores and many more that aren't that good; and
b) when facing opponents with vanity handicaps, just enjoy taking their money!

In any case I do look forward to your better formula.

TH

TH

[Richard Boult]

I am raising the white flag on this issue while I focus my efforts on creating a better formula.

You could throw out the 5 best and 5 worst scores out of your last 20 and get a number that is more to your liking .

Sounds like your biggest beef is people who tie their identity to their handicap.  If someone tells me they're a 5, I realize this means they probably shoot more rounds in the 80's than 70's.  A 5 is good, but it's not great.  For that matter, scratch isn't very good in comparison with someone who makes a living at golf.

[Tom Huckaby]

Again Art is very wise.

Matt, what you really need to do is just understand that a 5 can mean more scores in 80s than 70s, and just take it that way.  It's no sign of vanity or any exaggerated claim, it's just a reflection of the system.  As Art says, it's good but not great.

If a guy sporting a 4.0 index boasts to you that he's gonna shoot 76 any given round, well... ask him how much he wants to play for, rather than get upset.  As Art says, he's not that good.

TH
4.0 index
far more scores in 80s than 70s in last 20 posted

[Richard Boult]

Matt Bosela and I are good examples for this.... We're both 2.5's, however he plays mostly from the back tees (7200 yrds, 74/140) and averages a score of 79.  I play up one set of tees -- (6500 yds, 71/135) and average 77.  If we played against each other, it wouldn't be fair for me to have to give him 2 strokes just because I have a lower average.

[Eric Smith]

I have resisted posting on this thread but I just can't hold my tongue any longer.

Matt, handicap does not mean what score you shoot.  You can answer that you usually shoot 10 over when asked "what do you shoot".

The handicap system is not a scoring system.  It is not meant to represent what your score will be.

Yes, you shoot 10 over but that does not equate to a 10 HANDI...

If handicap just meant what score you shoot then you could just walk around being an 82.

For you to tell anyone that you are a 10 handicap is just plain old fashioned cheating and lying no matter how you want to disguise it.

Tom:

I don't think he does get it.  But he should

Bart

I received a PM regarding the subject at hand and it is rather in line with Matt's reasoning for considering himself a 10 because he normally would shoot around 82. 

Quote from:
Eric, I came from the UK where if you were a 10 handicap you could shoot 10 over par consistently. I have never seen so many false handicaps as in the States. These guys can argue all the 'potential' and 'average' they want. You tell me you're a 10 that means you can shoot 10 over par.

Tell me, IS this the case in the UK regarding handicapping?  If so why is it so different than our system?

Eric

[Michael Blake]

The big problem I have is hearing people always talk about their handicaps and the perceived idea that the number is relevant to shots over par.  I have few golf buddies that I swear to God could meet a total stranger at a bar or restaurant and within 5 minutes make sure the stranger knows that he is a 4 handicap.  Then we play golf and these guys can't break 80 it is all about vanity.  

Sounds like your real problem is with the vanity of your golf buddies, not the USGA handicapping system.

But seriously, who in their right mind with a USGA handicap perceives that handicap to be a number relevant to shots over par?  Nobody I know.  They all know that number represents their "potential."

[Tom Huckaby]

Eric:

Of course someone from the UK would look at this incredulously; they do their handicapping VERY differently from how we do!

Over there, a 10 would be expected to shoot around 82 in any given round.  That's because they base their handicaps only on scores achieved in tournament play, and use an average more or less. 

Obviously we do it WAY differently here - low 10 out of last 20, all scores used, etc.

So it's not vanity or ego when we report our handicaps being what they are - it's just a reflection of the system.  That UKer who IM'd you just doesn't know how it works.

One thing's for sure - a US golfer taking his 5.5 index to the UK and playing a "6 handicap" over there straight up is just making a donation to said 6's bar fund.

TH

[Sean_A]

I have resisted posting on this thread but I just can't hold my tongue any longer.

Matt, handicap does not mean what score you shoot.  You can answer that you usually shoot 10 over when asked "what do you shoot".

The handicap system is not a scoring system.  It is not meant to represent what your score will be.

Yes, you shoot 10 over but that does not equate to a 10 HANDI...

If handicap just meant what score you shoot then you could just walk around being an 82.

For you to tell anyone that you are a 10 handicap is just plain old fashioned cheating and lying no matter how you want to disguise it.

Tom:

I don't think he does get it.  But he should

Bart

I received a PM regarding the subject at hand.  I won't disclose who sent it to me, but it is rather in line with Matt's reasoning for considering himself a 10 because he normally would shoot around 82. 

Quote from ?:
Eric, I came from the UK 10 years ago where if you were a 10 handicap you could shoot 10 over par consistently. I have never seen so many false handicaps as in the States. These guys can argue all the 'potential' and 'average' they want. You tell me you're a 10 that means you can shoot 10 over par.

Tell me, IS this the case in the UK regarding handicapping?

Eric

No.  Par has nothing to do with the handicap.  Its based off standard scratch which can fluxuate upwards depending on weather (but it doesn't go lower than stated on the card).  Which, by the way, is one reason why only competitive scores count.  There is a formula of sorts to determine the standard scratch on the day and it is important info which can effect your handicap.

I can say this about the medals I have played in from 4 separate clubs in the UK.  If you shoot your handicap, you will not likely win, but it is always a credible score.  I would say on average, at least half (and often 3/4s or more) the competitors don't play to their handicap in a medal and I have been in several where only a few people played to their cap. 

All that said, in my experience, a UK handicap is much closer to a player's average score than a USGA handicap, but even so, its not an average over par and sometimes might not be anything close to that.  If a guy is in the skids (as I currently am), playing to within 5 shots of SS is good, yet my handicap will only rise by .1 each time out.  This is the one aspect I don't like about CONGU.  I think caps should go up and down more fluently.  For guys on a upward spiral, its very tough.

Ciao   

[Ken Moum]

Tell me, IS this the case in the UK regarding handicapping?

Eric

It's pretty close to the case.

The CONGU system uses Standard Scratch Score, instead of par, and it adjusts SSS based on the scores of scratch players on the day of competition. But the simple fact is that UK handicaps are based on what people actually shoot in competition.

Our system REQUIRES us to turn in EVERY casual round, even if we don't finish all the holes, or the round.  (If 7-12 holesare played we MUST return a nine-hole score, and if 13 or more are played we MUST return an 18-hole score.)

Here's the manual if you can stand to read it http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/manual.html.

UK players not only have higher handicaps than Americans of similar ability, they are MUCH more likely to play to them in competition. This is expected, given that only competition rounds are counted.

The math alone should account for about a 3-4 stroke difference, and for most players, you'd have to add another stroke or two to account for the effect of tournament pressure.

I finished 2007 at a 12 handicap and figure that I could just barely handle someone from the UK with a 17 or 18 handicap.

RE. the talk about "vanity" handicaps, I have played in the Midwest for about 45 years and I figure that I have played in something like 300 golf tournaments.

In all that time I have seen exactly one golfer with a genuine vanity handicap. He's currently a 2 (index 1.2) and I have never seen him play better than bogey golf. (I just checked GHIN and he still has rounds listed from 2004--posted only three scores in 2007.)

Conversely, I have known DOZENS of guys who sandbagged to keep their index up. I bet close to half the people in some areas never post their good rounds.

I know a lot of guys who can't play to their index, but they all complain about their handicap being too low. In nearly every case, they are victims of a system that gives the pressure-free rounds on Sunday afternoon the same weight as a tournament round.

Ken

[Tom Huckaby]

KM:

Excellent explanation - many thanks.

My experience jives with yours, and that's what has me confused about Matt's complaints; that is, I have seen many, many sandbaggers - I don't think I've ever seen a true vanity handicap.  Oh, it is vanity itself if a guy like me (4.0 usga index) goes to the UK and claims to be a 4 handicap; I'd just hope I was neither vain enough nor more importantly stupid enough to ever do that.

If I play a 4 handicap from the UK, I want at least 3 shots, maybe more.

TH

[Dan Herrmann]

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but check out http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/understanding_handicap/articles/howwell.html

for an explination of how the USGA handicap index is not even close to what the UK apparently uses.

[Tom Huckaby]

I don't know if it's been mentioned, but check out http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/understanding_handicap/articles/howwell.html

for an explination of how the USGA handicap index is not even close to what the UK apparently uses.

Perfect explanation in that article...

Now compare and contrast to R&A/CONGU system, and one will easily surmise that our USA team in the Buda Cup better darn well be getting quite a few shots!

[Rich Goodale]

For Huck and all your other CONGU groupies....

This year they've added a new twist that is probably making the Pope of Slope salivate.  For every Open competition (i.e. tournaments in which both club members and visitors can play) there are now TWO CSS scores--one for members and one for visitors.  Usually this means that the visitors CSS (i.e. "Course Rating" on the day) is higher that the members CSS.  It is good for vanity cappers like me who play in a lot of Opens.........

And Matt--vis a vis your slur on Seniors.  I'm playing a geezer tournament this week in which the average handicap is 2.  And that's a CONGU 2 which means that all scores are played under strict Rules of Golf and in competitive conditions.  If I finish in the top 100 (of 108) I'll  be "playing to my handicap" which is 7.

[Mike Benham]

My handicap is a "wife and 4 kids" ...

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich:

Salivating I am.  The US takeover continues.

Best of luck in that tournament, btw.  Your expectations and lack of delusions of grandeur are admirable.

TH
ps - did I tell you I met the Pope of Slope?  Oh yes, it was a quite fun "audience."

[Matt Varney]

Richard,

I am not knocking senior golfers at all.  All I am saying is your score is your score based on the tees you play from.  A 2 from the senior tees is not a 2 from the back tees the course is much tougher.  I have played with older guys and we balance out length by playing from the back and them from the senior tees so when the tee balls land in the fairway we are all about even.

I agree with the UK system the number is what it is, I could care less about the vanity I just think your ability to play consistently should be rated accurately from the tees you play from.

Let me work on a formula and I will send it around for comments.

[Rich Goodale]

Matt

In the UK, "Seniors" play from the tips, just like the flat bellies, and their handicaps are calculated exactly the same, under esxactly the same conditions.

These guys are old, but good!

Rich

[Dan Herrmann]

Matt - I'm looking forward to it.

I regularly lose to my wife, who gets 10 shots per round.  My home course hdcp is 12 (10.5 index), she's a 24 (20.2 index)...  24-12 = 12.  Subtract the course ratings and you end up with 10.

But I really need to focus to beat her (match play).  The handicap stroke allocation gives her a pop on a couple of holes where she has a 70 yard advantage!

Matt - Help me!  

[Andy Doyle]

I think another huge factor in the disparity of scores seen in tournaments in relation to handicap is in Lou's #1:

Equitable Stroke Control

In tournaments you have to record your actual score on the hole.  For handicap purposes, you take out all of your blow up holes in addition to taking .96 of your 10 lowest differentials of your last 20 rounds.

What I can't stand when I play with someone is when they quit a hole after they're 2 strokes over par saying "I can't get worse than double."

[Dan Herrmann]

Andy - ESC isn't double bogey or triple.  It's 6, 7, or 8.

As a 10-19 index, my max is a 7.

The double thing ended 2+ years ago.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()