What is your handicap...?

[Matt Varney]

One last thing I will add to this post.  You guys never asked but, I will clarify this one big issue with you all thinking I am getting strokes.  When I am on the range or ready to start a round on #1 tee I ask all my playing partners what they normally shoot in a round.

I get all kind of answers but they settle on a numberr they are comfortable with lets say 85 and the others are give or take a 3-5 strokes in either direction 82 to 90 range.  We play a money game for $50 each winner take all using those scores and they love it because the match is usually me giving them a couple 2-3 strokes and I have to play really well to beat them.

When I do beat them I don't collect the money just to prove a point that the way the game was setup before our round even started not using USGA handicaps was actually a really good match.  They get to keep their money and they think damn that was fun and we all played really close right up to the end.  Call me stubborn but it works and I have never had a friend or colleague walk off the course mad because we used his average score to establish a baseline.

[Mike Benham]

Call me stubborn but it works and I have never had a friend or colleague walk off the course mad because we used his average score to establish a baseline.

What about when you play someone you don't know?  And don't you think the fact that when you win you don't make them pay has any influence on how happy they are when they leave the course?   

I'll have Jed Peters set up a game for you at Morgan Creek, they might even pay to fly you out here ...

[Matt Varney]

Mike,

Can't you read a guy pretty well when you ask him what he shoots on the first tee or on the tage.  If he kind of fumbles around giving you a straight answer he is bullshitting you and he is sandbagging.  I am sure when I play with friends and beat them and I don't take their money sue they are happy.  It is just money and to me it is not losing friendships over they already know that I beat them enough said go take your wife and kids to get pizza.  It is just a game!

I live in TN where is Morgan Creek?

[Lou_Duran]

Art Fuller,

You have cause me 3 full strokes on my handicap (I was using the 113 as the denomiator).  I felt uncompetitive before and totally inadequate now.  How one can average 85.something over the last 20 rounds and have a 6.1 handicap index is incomprehensible.  Thank God I don't have to play handicap golf to make a living.  For sure, no more wolf games with Mr. Huntley.

[Jed Peters]

Call me stubborn but it works and I have never had a friend or colleague walk off the course mad because we used his average score to establish a baseline.

What about when you play someone you don't know?  And don't you think the fact that when you win you don't make them pay has any influence on how happy they are when they leave the course?   

I'll have Jed Peters set up a game for you at Morgan Creek, they might even pay to fly you out here ...

Matt:

Under your handicap, you're cheating.

But that's okay.

My average score at my home course is currently 82.5. I'm currently a 5.9 handicap. In our stroke play club championship, I shot rounds of 86-78 for an 8 over 152 net score (we take 90% of index for the tournament scoring by using the USGA method). I was the first flight champion, luckily.

We can play straight up at my club with me as an 11, and you shooting your "average" score. In fact, I'm sure we can arrange 6-8 other members of the club as well playing by their "average" score as well in a game.

Let me know when you're in northern california.

[Andrew Mitchell]

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

Tom
With BUDA VI upcoming next week the disparity in the calculation of UK/US handicaps has been a concern, and has been addressed in detail primarily by Mark Bourgeois, see post #1 and subsequent posts on http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,34820.0.html  It is hoped that this will address the disparities between the two systems as both sides will be calculating their BUDA handicaps in advance using the same system.

[Rich Goodale]

Tom H

You are mistaken if you think that a UK 10 will average 82 per round (asuming a 72 CSS/Course rating).  This is because scores below his HCP will be reduced by .2/stroke, whilst if he scores 2 or more over his HCP he goes up only by .1 per round.  I would guess that a 10 HCP in the UK would average something like 85, much as in the US.  For lower handicaps (5 and under) the reduction is only .1/stroke, so they would be closer to this "average" thoery (though not completely, since even if a scratch player shoots 85, he only goes up .1).

AS I've said many times before, if you do the math, players will have roughly the same hancdicap under both the USGA and CONGU systems, IF USGA players post all their scores and play strictly under the rules of golf.  As this does not happen, you are always comparing apples with oranges.

[Mark Pearce]

Tom H

You are mistaken if you think that a UK 10 will average 82 per round (asuming a 72 CSS/Course rating).  This is because scores below his HCP will be reduced by .2/stroke, whilst if he scores 2 or more over his HCP he goes up only by .1 per round.  I would guess that a 10 HCP in the UK would average something like 85, much as in the US.  For lower handicaps (5 and under) the reduction is only .1/stroke, so they would be closer to this "average" thoery (though not completely, since even if a scratch player shoots 85, he only goes up .1).

AS I've said many times before, if you do the math, players will have roughly the same hancdicap under both the USGA and CONGU systems, IF USGA players post all their scores and play strictly under the rules of golf.  As this does not happen, you are always comparing apples with oranges.

Rich is, of course, right.  I was astonished at the suggestion that players in the UK average near their handicap.  I'm currently a 12 (11.9).  If I shoot a net 69 on the SSS 72 course I play I'll drop 0.6, I can then play rubbish 6 consecutive times to get back to where I started.  As a 12 handicap I probably shoot in the high 802 or low 90s most of the time, dipping below 85 a few times a year (in competitions, remember) and once or twice into the 70s (that's when I start to hope).

[Tom Huckaby]

Rich/Mark:  thanks for the corrections.  Just note that I said "more or less." 

In any case the main difference does remain that CONGU uses only scores achieved in medal competitions, USGS uses all scores.  And of course that in and of itself is a large difference.  I wouldn't say it comes down to US golfers not playing by the rules nor posting all their scores, although that does play into it for many.  In any case the previously cited article by the pope sets out the differences and strengths and weaknesses very well.

http://www.popeofslope.com/scotland/usscothandicaps.html

For the Buda I'm sure you'll do it right.  Mine was just a flip comment given we have a perfect example taking place next week!  And reading that thread, well...  Behr handicaps?  Seems like a lot of work to me... but heck, that would seem to work.  What also would work is asking the US players to compute a handicap based on their T scores... it's not that tough, as most won't have many.

In any case, the ottom line for Matt V. is that again, you just want a system that connotes ability AS YOU SEE IT.  You and others want handicaps that represent an average score over par.  And neither system does that.  Each are what they are.  So you either accept them, or live in confusion and despair.

I know which choice I'd make...

 

TH

[Dean Stokes]

Call me stubborn but it works and I have never had a friend or colleague walk off the course mad because we used his average score to establish a baseline.

What about when you play someone you don't know?  And don't you think the fact that when you win you don't make them pay has any influence on how happy they are when they leave the course?   

I'll have Jed Peters set up a game for you at Morgan Creek, they might even pay to fly you out here ...

Matt:

Under your handicap, you're cheating.

But that's okay.

My average score at my home course is currently 82.5. I'm currently a 5.9 handicap. In our stroke play club championship, I shot rounds of 86-78 for an 8 over 152 net score (we take 90% of index for the tournament scoring by using the USGA method). I was the first flight champion, luckily.

We can play straight up at my club with me as an 11, and you shooting your "average" score. In fact, I'm sure we can arrange 6-8 other members of the club as well playing by their "average" score as well in a game.

Let me know when you're in northern california.

Jed, 8 over par net won the flight. Right there is enough information to let anyone know there is something wong with the handicapping method. Nobody in your flight could get within 8 shots of of their handicap on their own course.

Wouldn't it be better if the handicaps were correct and the scores were closer to par - or did everyone just play bad?

Matt let me know when you're going for a game. I want in.

[Peter Pallotta]

Tom H -

My handicap is a casual insouciance in approach and a reckless disregard for the consequences.  Think of Captain Kirk playing fast and loose with the Prime Directive, except without Spock to save his ass...

Peter

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom H -

My handicap is a casual insouciance in approach and a reckless disregard for the consequences.  Think of Captain Kirk playing fast and loose with the Prime Directive, except without Spock to save his ass...

Peter

Love it!
Mine is actually very similar to Mike Benham's - my wife and three kids.  We were debating how many shots he gets for having one more child.  I need the USGA or R&A to rule on this.

TH

[Peter Pallotta]

Tommy: you know I think the world of you, but I'm gonna start calling you Minnesota Fats from now on -- you just can't stop hustling! For a year now I've been reading your cries of woe: "no time to play", "my game is going to hell", "with the wife and kids I should get more strokes"...and all I'm thinking is DO NOT get into a money game with Tom Huckaby, who will take your money with a smile on his face, and all the while be asking after your health...

Peter

[Tom Huckaby]

Tommy: you know I think the world of you, but I'm gonna start calling you Minnesota Fats from now on -- you just can't hustling! For a year now I've been reading your cries of woe: "no time to play", "my game is going to hell", "with the wife and kids I should get more strokes"...and all I'm thinking is DO NOT get into a money game with Tom Huckaby, who will take your money with a smile on his face, and all the while be asking after your health...

Peter

Peter - Lou Duran thinks of me this way.  Truth is I don't tend to play money games... and for whatever reason do tend to play decently in GCA events.  You guys need to see my bad rounds.

I will admit this:  I undersell way way way more than I oversell.

 

[Jed Peters]

Call me stubborn but it works and I have never had a friend or colleague walk off the course mad because we used his average score to establish a baseline.

What about when you play someone you don't know?  And don't you think the fact that when you win you don't make them pay has any influence on how happy they are when they leave the course?   

I'll have Jed Peters set up a game for you at Morgan Creek, they might even pay to fly you out here ...

Matt:

Under your handicap, you're cheating.

But that's okay.

My average score at my home course is currently 82.5. I'm currently a 5.9 handicap. In our stroke play club championship, I shot rounds of 86-78 for an 8 over 152 net score (we take 90% of index for the tournament scoring by using the USGA method). I was the first flight champion, luckily.

We can play straight up at my club with me as an 11, and you shooting your "average" score. In fact, I'm sure we can arrange 6-8 other members of the club as well playing by their "average" score as well in a game.

Let me know when you're in northern california.

Jed, 8 over par net won the flight. Right there is enough information to let anyone know there is something wong with the handicapping method. Nobody in your flight could get within 8 shots of of their handicap on their own course.

Wouldn't it be better if the handicaps were correct and the scores were closer to par - or did everyone just play bad?

Matt let me know when you're going for a game. I want in.

Of course, the superintendent doesn't set the course up extra hard for the tournament, our course is not a 74.1 course handicap rating, and the wind wasn't blowing 40mph.

It would not be better if handicaps were "correct", because they are., They take into consideration multiple different courses, conditions, etc.

Your system doesn't.

Example, I can go to a local muni and fire in the low 70s just about any day. I can't do that at "big boy" golf courses.

[Doug Siebert]

"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.

I don't know about that Lou, I think it depends on what kind of a player they are.   If you take a really short hitting senior who has trouble even reaching some of the par 4s from the senior tees, needs driver on the long par 3s, etc. but has a killer short game, he may have a lower handicap from the tips because he's going to be playing all the par 4s as par 5s with a nice little wedge to the green and it might make up for the 8 or 9 shot difference in course rating.

If you have a guy who is a solid all around player from the tips he can probably shoot about the same from the front tees.  If you have someone who derives some of his advantage on the tips due to length, moving up might not help all that much.  Instead of a wedge or short iron to the par 4s it might be a flip wedge, and he still ends up with a par, or he'll try to drive a green and get into a bad position where up and down isn't easy or even possible.  The big problem is that a wild tee shot into the trees doesn't play all that much easier from 60 yards than it does from 160, trust me I speak from experience

I have had in the back of my mind for the last few years to try a few rounds on my home course playing from the senior tees with my dad and his friends, to see if I can shoot the about 9 strokes better I'd need to do to account for the difference course rating/slope.  Plus it might help me mentally to shoot a few really low numbers (assuming I actually can...) since I tend to start thinking about it a bit too much if I have a day where I threaten to go low and manage to sabotage myself.

[JLahrman]

[I have had in the back of my mind for the last few years to try a few rounds on my home course playing from the senior tees with my dad and his friends, to see if I can shoot the about 9 strokes better I'd need to do to account for the difference course rating/slope.  Plus it might help me mentally to shoot a few really low numbers (assuming I actually can...) since I tend to start thinking about it a bit too much if I have a day where I threaten to go low and manage to sabotage myself.

I've heard of college coaches taking the same approach with their players in practice rounds, getting them used to being under par so when they have a good round in a tournament it's not as new of a feeling.  Plus more wedge practice if nothing else.

[Mike Golden]

"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.

I don't know about that Lou, I think it depends on what kind of a player they are.   If you take a really short hitting senior who has trouble even reaching some of the par 4s from the senior tees, needs driver on the long par 3s, etc. but has a killer short game, he may have a lower handicap from the tips because he's going to be playing all the par 4s as par 5s with a nice little wedge to the green and it might make up for the 8 or 9 shot difference in course rating.

If you have a guy who is a solid all around player from the tips he can probably shoot about the same from the front tees.  If you have someone who derives some of his advantage on the tips due to length, moving up might not help all that much.  Instead of a wedge or short iron to the par 4s it might be a flip wedge, and he still ends up with a par, or he'll try to drive a green and get into a bad position where up and down isn't easy or even possible.  The big problem is that a wild tee shot into the trees doesn't play all that much easier from 60 yards than it does from 160, trust me I speak from experience

I have had in the back of my mind for the last few years to try a few rounds on my home course playing from the senior tees with my dad and his friends, to see if I can shoot the about 9 strokes better I'd need to do to account for the difference course rating/slope.  Plus it might help me mentally to shoot a few really low numbers (assuming I actually can...) since I tend to start thinking about it a bit too much if I have a day where I threaten to go low and manage to sabotage myself.

I'm now 61 so probably qualify as a 'Senior' and shoot essentially the same scores from the front tees as the Blue tees on most courses.  That's because my short game sucks.  The only real difference is that from the front tees I would be able to reach the par 5's in 2 at least a couple of times and probably make a couple of birdies that way.  It's all about your game, not your age.

[Jason Connor]

I would say that in a strokeplay situation ( whick is extremely rare) - at least 80% of private club golfers could not play to their handicap on a regular basis.

That's the way it SHOULD be.  Since the handicap is 0.96* the Best 10 of your Last 20 scores, no one can "play to their handicap regularly".  They aren't supposed to!   In fact ~24% percent of scores should play to their handicap.  (0.96 * 0.5 * 0.5 = 0.24:  0.96 * the average of the best half of one's scores)

For example, Sunday was fine whether at my club.  We had 23 guys in the Sunday morning game (we play a stableford game, no gimmies, all rules, and as far as I know, everyone plays by the rules cause you're going to catch hell if you don't).    Handicaps for our Sat/Sun morning game are only established using scores from other Sat/Sun morning games.  So there is no sandbagging / vanities handicaps in the group since all scores for handicapping were produced within the group.  And you always play with different guys each week.

Results are online    http://www.northshoregg.com/scoreboard/showcal.php?year=2008&display=1

This Sunday only 2 of 23 players were net below par.  The handicaps were   +2  1  3  4  4  5  6  6  6  7  7 10 10 11 11 11 14 16 16 17 19 21 22   and the 6 and the 21 broke par (the course rating is 71.5 and the par 72, so it's a far comparison.

Since April (20 weekend rounds/games) 125 of 518 rounds were net under par.  So precisely as expected (the handicap is approximately the average of your best half of rounds) we saw 24% of guys beat their handicaps over a 10 week period.   

I shot a (rare) net 72 Sunday (88 off my 16).  But just this year I've been as bad as 110 at 14 for a net 96!  Was I a vanity handicap the day I shot 110?  Was I a sandbagger when I shot 87?  Or am I like most 16 handicaps and have wild differences in my score depending on if I can keep my driver in play?

The only way to play to your handicap "regularly" is if you have very very low variability in your scores. 

And who cares about vanity handicaps.  The only time I dislike vanities handicaps is when the guy can't pay his bet.

[Jason Connor]

Regarding the questions of "Why don't we use the average of our last 20 scores" there is good reason.

It's well known that low handicappers have an advantage in match play.  But it's very hard for them to win in stroke play.

Already in a stroke play event, low  handicappers have a huge disadvantage.

What happens is that a low handicapper also tends to have low variability.  So he can only ever beat his handicap by a few strokes at the most.

But a high handicapper has high variability, so he has a chance of having one of his "good days" and going very low.  Of course this doesn't happen often, but that's why there is a difference in stroke play vs. match play.

In match play, the low handicapper has a good chance of beating his opponent.
But in stroke play, the low handicapper has to beat ALL of his opponents.

Imagine an event at a club with 50 guys of various handicaps.  Chances are at least one high handicapper will go low.  And net, a high handicapper can go lower than a low handicap.  So while the chance of any particular high handicapper going low is small, the probability that at least one high handicapper going low is larger. 

So if the handicap is just the average all ALL scores (course adjusted of course) then it becomes even easier for a high handicap to win.  It would be extremely uncommon for a low handicapper to win any stroke play event.

Furthermore, right now a guy can't really sandbag just by turning in a single high round or two (because the worst 10 of 20 don't get counted).  Under a "use all scores" scenario, sandbagging becomes much easier.

[Mike Benham]

... 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 -

Any update on the formula, is it finalized? 

Are you waiting for trademark or patent approval before you release it to the masses?

[Jason Topp]

One other update - I was pretty surprised at how similar the GB&I handicaps seemed to North American handicaps in the Buda event.  North America won by a wide margin which is the opposite of what I would have expected based on what I know about the respective systems.  In my matches the handicaps seemed about right and every one was very competitive.

[Tom Huckaby]

One other update - I was pretty surprised at how similar the GB&I handicaps seemed to North American handicaps in the Buda event.  North America won by a wide margin which is the opposite of what I would have expected based on what I know about the respective systems.  In my matches the handicaps seemed about right and every one was very competitive.

Jason - didn't you guys use some special "Behr" handicap for that event?

If not, well then something is either rotten in Denmark or the handicaps were in some other way adjusted.   The methodologies are just so different it's just very difficult to believe the handicaps came out correctly - that is equal - without adjustment.  I'm a 4.1 index and if I play a UK 4 handicapper I want at least 2-3 shots.

TH

[Jason Topp]

One other update - I was pretty surprised at how similar the GB&I handicaps seemed to North American handicaps in the Buda event.  North America won by a wide margin which is the opposite of what I would have expected based on what I know about the respective systems.  In my matches the handicaps seemed about right and every one was very competitive.

Jason - didn't you guys use some special "Behr" handicap for that event?

If not, well then something is either rotten in Denmark or the handicaps were in some other way adjusted.   The methodologies are just so different it's just very difficult to believe the handicaps came out correctly - that is equal - without adjustment.  I'm a 4.1 index and if I play a UK 4 handicapper I want at least 2-3 shots.

TH

No - we were free to negotiate handicaps and all of my groups just used their home handicaps.  As far as I know everyone ignored that Behr thing with the possible exception of Bourgois.  North America won by a huge margin.

[Tom Huckaby]

Jason - then the only answer is the UK guys used handicaps that they self-adjusted, or that these "home handicaps" you North Americans used were adjusted.  There's just plain no way a USGA 6 is equal to a UK 6.  You know this - it's all based on how the two numbers are calculated.

Of course another possible answer is the UK guys all choked their minds out!