[Joe Bausch]

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.

Dan, ESC for folks below a 9 is a double bogey.

[Mike Golden]

this whole thing is ridiculous.  The US has a handicapping system that isn't going to change.  If you don't like it, don't abide by it, and play with whoever you like and claim your handicap is whatever the hell you think it is.  But to come to a club with an established handicapping system that uses the approved system, decide you are going to claim your 'cap is 5 strokes higher than it would be under the approved system, and then ask for strokes using that 'cap is totally, completely dishonest.  It's as bad as the guy who won the AT&T at Pebble using a handicap that was about 10 shots higher than he should have been.  The whole system is relative, not absolute, what's wrong with the concept?

And one more thing-I'm 61 and don't normally play the back tees, preferring a course that is between 6500-6700 yards.  But put me on the back tees and I will grind it out and consistently post a score that is no higher than the difference in the rating and slope, the net result of which is my handicap will stay the same.  It just isn't as much fun for me and I wind up hitting far too many fairway woods as approach shots to feel like it was an enjoyable day.  And many of the 'seniors' I have played with at a couple of private clubs would be exactly the same.  I think Matt's problem is that he hasn't played enough golf with those of us who respect the traditions and rules and have great respect for the history of the game.  Of course, if I ever considered a 'money' match against anyone for more than a few bucks walking would be a prerequisite, why don't we go off on a tangent about how much of an advantage it is for someone to play a match on a hot day riding while the opponent is walking?  I walked 18 holes on Saturday in the Atlanta heat and hit 12 greens in regulation, don't you think I might have put up a better score if I was riding on the back 9 and had a little more energy at the end?

[Matt Varney]

Take a look at this and tell me how this doesn't make sense.  I am working on a hybrid formula that would take into account your round but also slope, course rating and course length based on the tees you played.  Since golfers usaully play their home course most of the time except for outings with friends and vacations or golf trips.  You can find all the variables for my formula on your scorecard and the system could be web-based so the hell with a terminal at your club.

GHI – Golf Handicap Index

Tees Played:   Men’s
Course Slope:   140
Course Rating:   72.1
Course Length:   7185 yards
Player Scores:

82   78
88   85
84   86
81   82
80   81

827 / 10 is 82.7 average less 72.1 course rating = 10.6 GHI

Golf is all about up and down rounds some months you play great and others average or even worse.  I am not a big fan of keeping on the low and throwing out high rounds.  This takes an average based on your last 10 scores posted.   This system works and when I tell friends that I play with that I am 10 take a look the math doesn't lie and my scores are all over board. 

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

So far all you've done is use an average of differentials of score over course rating.   There's more to come, right?

I'm also having a hard time seeing how the USGA system lies.  It is what it is.  You don't like it because it doesn't give an index or handicap that relates to one's average score over par more or less - which seems to be what you want - but that means it "lies"?  I don't get it.

I am having a very hard time understanding you.  And I am trying, believe me.

TH

[Matt Varney]

Tom,

I am working on a formula and yes that is just an average right now but, it gets better.  The index get more exact when you add in scores on other courses your play with new values for the variables other than your home course.  So the index changes when you play courses that might be tougher like a place like Bandon or TPC Sawgrass for example. 

I am not saying the USGA is bad its just not accurate in my eyes as to your ability like an ERA or QB Rating as one other gentleman stated in this thread.  Even if I come up with a better formula it will not be accepted but, it will show an accurate true scoring index can exist.

[Andy Doyle]

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.

Dan - I know that, but most of the guys I play with, regardless of handicap, think their max score is a double.  Another reason I think the USGA system is a little too complicated.  It would seem to be more logical to me to have a system that predicts the score you would most likely be able to shoot, rather than what you would likely to be able to shoot 20% of the time.

Andy

[Mike Golden]

I deleted this post and will not post anything more on this subject.  I play golf for enjoyment and for the competition of myself against the golf course.   I could care less what anyone's handicaps are as long as in a friendly competition they are fair.  The rest of it is a waste of time and energy and I learned a long time ago that no arguments can be won online.

[Tom Huckaby]

Matt:

Gotcha.  But OK, so far, the problem remains simply that you don't like the results given by the USGA system.  It would be pretty simple and easy to just understand and come to accept that the number for index that it gives is NOT an indication of one's expected average score over par... as several in this thread have tried to explain to you...  But it you want to create a system where that will be the expectation, then go for it!

I just know what to expect when someone tells me he's a 5.5.  You want that that to mean you expect him to shoot 78 or so, I know it means he could shoot 78 or 88 any given day, and I'd kinda expect something in between any given round.

In the end your "system" is likely to just be different... to meet your expectations....

Fair enough.  Have at it.  But adjusting your expectations based on how things work now seems to me to be a lot easier.

TH

[Matt Varney]

Mike,

I am working on it man chill out I know you want beat me over the head with this but, my index will take into account slope, course rating and tee length differences along with scores.  I need to focus on the formula and how things are calculated.  You all battle it out I will have a index formula soon that will suprise even you how accurate it is even if you play at many different courses and from different sets of tees / length for your rounds.

 

[Mike Benham]

Tom,

I am not saying the USGA is bad its just not accurate in my eyes as to your ability like an ERA or QB Rating as one other gentleman stated in this thread.  Even if I come up with a better formula it will not be accepted but, it will show an accurate true scoring index can exist.

Not to go off on a tangent but you think that ERA is an accurate statistic for pitchers?  Only using "earned" runs is akin to taking only my best 10 round out of the last 20.

[Tom Huckaby]

Mike,

I am working on it man chill out I know you want beat me over the head with this but, my index will take into account slope, course rating and tee length differences along with scores.  I need to focus on the formula and how things are calculated.  You all battle it out I will have a index formula soon that will suprise even you how accurate it is even if you play at many different courses and from different sets of tees / length for your rounds.

 

Matt:

Very cool!  If you want to do this as opposed to very simply just adjusting your expectations, then I sure can't stop you.  And again, I look forward to it.  I am skeptical that it will be an improvement - and if you incorporate all that you say, just how different it will be - but hell it will be interesting for sure.

Some things to keep in mind in case you haven't thought of this already:

1. VERY easy to sandbag using pure average - think about it - one bad round and bango you can go up as much as you want....

2. I'm not sure how much value goes into home v. away.  Most people I know play and post at many courses, not just one.  Putting too much value into home v. away could be more of a weakness than a strength.

TH

[Bart Bradley]

Matt:

You are still entirely missing the point.  It is a handicapping system.  A system designed to allow for players of different abilities to play against each other.  You are fixated with making the person's "handicap" be an accurate representation of their score.  THIS IS NOT THE POINT TO THE HANDICAP SYSTEM.  The handicap exists ENTIRELY to allow for competition that is more fair.

from Wikipedia:  "Handicapping, in sport and games, is the practice of assigning advantage through scoring compensation or other advantage given to different contestants to equalize the chances of winning".

Your handicap is just a number.  There should be no vanity to it.  If you are not using it to level the playing field (and using to represent what you shoot) you are just wasting your breath.

Good luck,

Bart

[Richard Boult]

I am working on it man chill out I know you want beat me over the head with this but, my index will take into account slope, course rating and tee length differences along with scores.  I need to focus on the formula and how things are calculated.  You all battle it out I will have a index formula soon that will suprise even you how accurate it is even if you play at many different courses and from different sets of tees / length for your rounds.

Matt, you're wasting your time... the USGA already provided us with a system that takes into account different course slopes, ratings, etc.  (btw, your original stab at this didn't calculate slope into the equation).  Course yardage is already factored into the course slope and rating for each tee. I am CERTAIN you won't improve on what we already have.  Just accept it and move on.

[Bart Bradley]

I am working on it man chill out I know you want beat me over the head with this but, my index will take into account slope, course rating and tee length differences along with scores.  I need to focus on the formula and how things are calculated.  You all battle it out I will have a index formula soon that will suprise even you how accurate it is even if you play at many different courses and from different sets of tees / length for your rounds.

Matt, you're wasting your time... the USGA already provided us with a system that takes into account different course slopes, ratings, etc.  (btw, your original stab at this didn't calculate slope into the equation).  Course yardage is already factored into the course slope and rating for each tee. I am CERTAIN you won't improve on what we already have.  Just accept it and move on.

AMEN.

Bart

[Joe Bausch]

I am working on it man chill out I know you want beat me over the head with this but, my index will take into account slope, course rating and tee length differences along with scores.  I need to focus on the formula and how things are calculated.  You all battle it out I will have a index formula soon that will suprise even you how accurate it is even if you play at many different courses and from different sets of tees / length for your rounds.

Matt, you're wasting your time... the USGA already provided us with a system that takes into account different course slopes, ratings, etc.  (btw, your original stab at this didn't calculate slope into the equation).  Course yardage is already factored into the course slope and rating for each tee. I am CERTAIN you won't improve on what we already have.  Just accept it and move on.

AMEN.

Bart

Amen squared.  I normally don't come out and say things like this, but ole Matt just doesn't get it.

[Dean Stokes]

Matt:

You are still entirely missing the point.  It is a handicapping system.  A system designed to allow for players of different abilities to play against each other.  You are fixated with making the person's "handicap" be an accurate representation of their score.  THIS IS NOT THE POINT TO THE HANDICAP SYSTEM.  The handicap exists ENTIRELY to allow for competition that is more fair.

from Wikipedia:  "Handicapping, in sport and games, is the practice of assigning advantage through scoring compensation or other advantage given to different contestants to equalize the chances of winning".

Your handicap is just a number.  There should be no vanity to it.  If you are not using it to level the playing field (and using to represent what you shoot) you are just wasting your breath.

Good luck,

Bart

Bart people may be missing the point altogether. The point of this thread was to understand why a high percentage of US golfers have handicaps that are not at all reflective of their ability.

Why the heck does the index have to reflect the 'potential' you have? Why not reflect your 'actual' ability ( the scores you HAVE shot). I have played with many golfers whose 'potential', per the USGA handicapping system was to play to a 6 or 7. In reality they will never break 90 in a stokeplay round (competition or not).

I know it is just a number and half of us jawing on this thread don't really care - so why not just have a system where when you say you are a 5, you can actually play to a 5? Wouldn't that be more sensible.?

I think the way to get handicaps more realistic is to get the slopes/ratings more in line. I have played many courses where the rating is 74 or 75. If I played the course and rated it it may be 70 or 71. Is modern day equipment, the long ball and better conditioning taken into account when rating courses? Many of the courses I play seem way too easy to get around in level par than the ratings would suggest.

[Richard Boult]

Matt, if you want to solve a "real" handicap problem, Dr. Reid Sheftall - author of "Striking it Rich" - found an actual flaw in the USGA handicap calculation for scores posted that are below the course rating due to slope being used in the calculation when it's meaningless to do so for plus handicaps.

(1) the slope has nothing at all to do with players who can shoot better than scratch, by definition

(2) if a below scratch player uses the slope, the current USGA formula reverses the effect of a harder course.

You can learn about the problem (and his proposed solution) in this PDF file posted by D. Sheftall.

Error in USGA Handicap System (pdf)

[Joe Bausch]

Matt:

You are still entirely missing the point.  It is a handicapping system.  A system designed to allow for players of different abilities to play against each other.  You are fixated with making the person's "handicap" be an accurate representation of their score.  THIS IS NOT THE POINT TO THE HANDICAP SYSTEM.  The handicap exists ENTIRELY to allow for competition that is more fair.

from Wikipedia:  "Handicapping, in sport and games, is the practice of assigning advantage through scoring compensation or other advantage given to different contestants to equalize the chances of winning".

Your handicap is just a number.  There should be no vanity to it.  If you are not using it to level the playing field (and using to represent what you shoot) you are just wasting your breath.

Good luck,

Bart

Bart people may be missing the point altogether. The point of this thread was to understand why a high percentage of US golfers have handicaps that are not at all reflective of their ability.

Why the heck does the index have to reflect the 'potential' you have? Why not reflect your 'actual' ability ( the scores you HAVE shot). I have played with many golfers whose 'potential', per the USGA handicapping system was to play to a 6 or 7. In reality they will never break 90 in a stokeplay round (competition or not).

I know it is just a number and half of us jawing on this thread don't really care - so why not just have a system where when you say you are a 5, you can actually play to a 5? Wouldn't that be more sensible.?

I think the way to get handicaps more realistic is to get the slopes/ratings more in line. I have played many courses where the rating is 74 or 75. If I played the course and rated it it may be 70 or 71. Is modern day equipment, the long ball and better conditioning taken into account when rating courses? Many of the courses I play seem way too easy to get around in level par than the ratings would suggest.

Dean, I'm confident in stating that you've likely played way more courses that I have, but I have played hundreds across the country.... and I've NEVER played a course with a rating of say 75 and walked off thinking it should have been 71.  If you can recall any of these specific courses, I'd like to hear about them as perhaps I've played them and can rethink my evaluation of the rating based upon your post.

I've been told the book used to do slope and rating for a course isn't exactly Mad magazine thickness... it is hundreds of pages,  I think.

[John Moore II]

J.K. Moore,

Are you sure that slope is not part of the index calculation?

The was I calculate my handicap is as follows:

1. Adjust my gross score downward for any single hole score above 6.
2. Subtract the adjusted gross score (the results of #1) from the applicable course rating.
3. Take the result of #2 and multiply by quotient of the applicable slope by 113.
4. Take the lowest 10 from the last 20 scores as calculated in steps 1-3, and divide by 10.

It has been my experience at three or four clubs that vanity handicaps are much more common than those of sandbaggers.  Also,  holding everything else equal, it appears to me that golfers with handicaps established from the back tees have a considerable advantage over those with similar handicaps who normally play the shorter markers.  

No, slope is not a factor in the index calulation, at least it does not say that anywhere on the USGA handicap website. The slope rating comes into play on the Course Handicap calculation, not the index.

[Bart Bradley]

Dean:

I am afraid that any system that shows exactly what you have shot would not allow for proper handicapping of matches...which is the point of the whole idea.  If I average 82 but have the potential to shoot 70 would you really like to give me 10 strokes if you average 72... I think not.  If everyone followed the rules and posted all of their scores, then I believe the system would allow for very equitable "handicapping" of matches.  I wish my writing on this subject were more eloquent, as I must be failing to convey my point.  Oh well, good luck and I don't want to play any of you guys who's stated "handicap" is your average score.  I won't have a chance.

Bart

[Matt Varney]

Art,

Thanks for the article link I will check it out.

Dean,

Thank you and you see it exactly the way it should be.  I am not trying to knock the USGA its just that everybody accepts a flawed system when everyone knows its not accurate.   This is a discussion forum to discuss topics and my point of viewis that your # regardless should be as accurate as possible to your playing ability.

[Joe Bausch]

J.K. Moore,

Are you sure that slope is not part of the index calculation?

The was I calculate my handicap is as follows:

1. Adjust my gross score downward for any single hole score above 6.
2. Subtract the adjusted gross score (the results of #1) from the applicable course rating.
3. Take the result of #2 and multiply by quotient of the applicable slope by 113.
4. Take the lowest 10 from the last 20 scores as calculated in steps 1-3, and divide by 10.

It has been my experience at three or four clubs that vanity handicaps are much more common than those of sandbaggers.  Also,  holding everything else equal, it appears to me that golfers with handicaps established from the back tees have a considerable advantage over those with similar handicaps who normally play the shorter markers.  

No, slope is not a factor in the index calulation, at least it does not say that anywhere on the USGA handicap website. The slope rating comes into play on the Course Handicap calculation, not the index.

Wow, I guess I've been wrong all these years in trusting my golf association to calculate my handicap index. From now on I'm going to request my pro remove the box on the computer where I post that asks the slope of the course I've played.

[Jamey Bryan]

Amen cubed.  I'd have to say, though, that Matt has economics and marketing degrees.  I think he gets it very well, and understands that he's getting a 4 shot or so advantage with his "declared handicap" in his "money matches."

Sorry, I'm not usually personal but I've been burned with this too many times.

Jamey

[Ken Moum]

Mike,

I am working on it man chill out I know you want beat me over the head with this but, my index will take into account slope, course rating and tee length differences along with scores.  I need to focus on the formula and how things are calculated.  You all battle it out I will have a index formula soon that will suprise even you how accurate it is even if you play at many different courses and from different sets of tees / length for your rounds.
 

You're wasting your time.

To achieve what you want, make a simple change to the USGA's system--calculate the index from the median differential of a player's last 20 rounds. (Or 10 rounds if you prefer.)  BTW- I chose median instead of average, because it makes the formula simpler.

Eliminate all USGA stuff, such as "10 best of the last 20," and "multiplying by .96."

In the case of my pathetic game, that would make my current index 21.8 instead of the USGA-approved 16.4 that I actually have. That's pretty much what I would have expected.

You know what? It makes ZERO difference because everyone else's handicaps would also go up.

The only thing that matters, really, is that everyone use the same system. (Unlike the rounds you described where your opponents used a USGA index and you use a system that gives four or five extra strokes.)

Ken

Ken

[Richard Boult]

J.K. Moore,

Are you sure that slope is not part of the index calculation?

The was I calculate my handicap is as follows:

1. Adjust my gross score downward for any single hole score above 6.
2. Subtract the adjusted gross score (the results of #1) from the applicable course rating.
3. Take the result of #2 and multiply by quotient of the applicable slope by 113.
4. Take the lowest 10 from the last 20 scores as calculated in steps 1-3, and divide by 10.

It has been my experience at three or four clubs that vanity handicaps are much more common than those of sandbaggers.  Also,  holding everything else equal, it appears to me that golfers with handicaps established from the back tees have a considerable advantage over those with similar handicaps who normally play the shorter markers.   

No, slope is not a factor in the index calulation, at least it does not say that anywhere on the USGA handicap website. The slope rating comes into play on the Course Handicap calculation, not the index.

Not true! The USGA Course Rating and Slope Rating for the courses played are factored in to the "differential" index for each round posted. Using those figures, you calculate the handicap differential for each round entered using this formula:

(Score - Course Rating) x 113 / Slope Rating

Info obtained here

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()