[Brian Potash]

I have gotten down to a legit 9 index 2 years in a row, but not breaking 100 is unfortunately still a very real possibility from time to time.  Without playing from 7,000 yards or in 40 MPH winds, how good do I have to get to not have to worry anymore?

Brian

[Kevin_D]

Based on this past weekend at Crystal Downs, not a 13!

[noonan]

I played Sawgrass a couple years ago. In the 2 rounds I played I shot between 90-95 each day. My last index was a 6.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

When I first got serious about recording my handicap I was an 8 and never shot above 100.   95 was worst.  So maybe you are a stroke away.  Now I'm a shade under 3 and trying to get out of the 80s for good.  Not easy.

I would also take a long look at where you are bleeding the strokes the most.  Wayward tee shots?  Missed greens?  Too many putts? etc.  Do you track any of these things when you play?

[Dan Herrmann]

There are often guys playing in the US Open that don't break 100.

[Alex Cameron]

There are often guys playing in the US Open that don't break 100.

Often? Do you have any examples of this?

As for the original question posed, once you get below a 5 handicap, significantly worse than bogey golf (eg shooting 100) would likely require an injury or a a combination of meltdown, double-digit score holes. So I'll draw the line there.

[Wayne_Kozun]

The handicapping system says nothing about variance, which is one of the shortcomings of the system IMHO, so there is no answer to this question.

You could shoot 105 for half of your rounds and 70 for the other half and you would have a +2 handicap and only break 100 50% of the time.

[Walter Bart]

 I'm always quite pleased to always see a number of  low single digit handicappers not breaking 100 for the qualifying rounds of the Carnegie Shield at Royal Dornoch .

[Matthew Sander]

Now I'm a shade under 3 and trying to get out of the 80s for good.  Not easy.

Many golfers seem to not understand this reality. I have been consistently between a 5 and 6 for some time now. I'll occasionally play with folks who assume I should be suicidal if I shoot an 84, when in fact my scoring history is littered with similar scores, and some much worse.

Crude math will tell you that you should play to your index or better what, maybe 30 - 35% of the time? That additional 70% leaves a lot of room for variance.  

[Mike_Trenham]

Interestingly I hear local professional, amature and USGA qualifier's are seeing more no cards due to the Internet and the transparency of information.  Playing by the rules makes stoke play very challenging on a bad day.

[JLahrman]

Crude math will tell you that you should play to your index or better what, maybe 30 - 35% of the time? That additional 70% leaves a lot of room for variance.  

Since your index is based on the average of your best 10 out of 20 scores, then you should probably beat your index in 5 out of 20 rounds, so 25%.

Never in my life will I understand why it makes sense for me to shoot 10 80s and 10 95s, and wind up with the same index as a guy who puts up 10 80s and 10 82s.

[Matthew Sander]

Crude math will tell you that you should play to your index or better what, maybe 30 - 35% of the time? That additional 70% leaves a lot of room for variance.  

Since your index is based on the average of your best 10 out of 20 scores, then you should probably beat your index in 5 out of 20 rounds, so 25%.

Never in my life will I understand why it makes sense for me to shoot 10 80s and 10 95s, and wind up with the same index as a guy who puts up 10 80s and 10 82s.

That is what I was getting at, I was being generous with the 30-35% figure.

As to your second point, my game has steadied a bit on the upper end in the last few years. Not that it doesn't happen, but I rarely shoot north of 84 or 85. However, my better scores haven't improved at all. That compartmental improvement isn't reflected at all in my index, and I don't know that it should be. I do feel though that a scoring range of roughly 74-85 makes me somewhat better than my former self where 90+ happened with more frequency.

[Patrick Hodgdon]

Now I'm a shade under 3 and trying to get out of the 80s for good.  Not easy.

Many golfers seem to not understand this reality. I have been pretty consistently between a 5 and 6 for some time now. I'll occasionally play with folks who assume I should be suicidal if I shoot an 84, when in fact my scoring history is littered with similar scores, and some much worse.

Crude math will tell you that you should play to your index or better what, maybe 30 - 35% of the time? That additional 70% leaves a lot of room for variance.  

Same here Matt, I kept a handicap last summer and had two 78's and a career-low 73 and got the index down to an even 5. This summer I played a dozen times and shot 79 once and all the others were between 81-84 every time except my last two rounds were 88 and a brutal 94. I definitely need to get out one more time before the season is over to get a good round going into 5 months of winter!

Tom's advice on evaluating your scores is good and I agree with the others that around a 5-6 is probably where something drastic (other than just a really bad round) would push you over 100.

[Tom Bacsanyi]

Now I'm a shade under 3 and trying to get out of the 80s for good.  Not easy.

Many golfers seem to not understand this reality. I have been pretty consistently between a 5 and 6 for some time now. I'll occasionally play with folks who assume I should be suicidal if I shoot an 84, when in fact my scoring history is littered with similar scores, and some much worse.

Crude math will tell you that you should play to your index or better what, maybe 30 - 35% of the time? That additional 70% leaves a lot of room for variance.  

So true.  It seems that if a golfer doesn't keep a handicap, there is no chance of him understanding the system.  If I tell someone I'm a 3, they would expect me to shoot a 75 every time.  Not so.  Sadly, I shoot plenty of rounds in the low 80s.

[Matthew Sander]

This summer I played a dozen times and shot 79 once and all the others were between 81-84 every time except my last two rounds were 88 and a brutal 94. I definitely need to get out one more time before the season is over to get a good round going into 5 months of winter!

Patrick,

Knowing where you live, the clock is ticking...

[A.G._Crockett]

Crude math will tell you that you should play to your index or better what, maybe 30 - 35% of the time? That additional 70% leaves a lot of room for variance.  

Since your index is based on the average of your best 10 out of 20 scores, then you should probably beat your index in 5 out of 20 rounds, so 25%.

Never in my life will I understand why it makes sense for me to shoot 10 80s and 10 95s, and wind up with the same index as a guy who puts up 10 80s and 10 82s.

I've never met a player that was capable of shooting 80 in half his rounds who shot 95 in the other half.  A 15 shot swing is massive for a player capable of shooting 80 every other round; you just don't see it in the real world.

However, even if such a situation occurred, I don't think it is an indictment of the system.  It's true that those two players would have the same index (assuming all 40 rounds were played on the same course so that the differentials were the same) but clearly the 80-82 is a better player day in and day out.  In a match, since he doesn't have to give shots, the system would slightly favor him which is as it should be; he is the better player, if only on the basis of consistency.

The problem with a system that uses variance as a factor in calculating the index is that it would encourage players to take a dive in a round that they see early on isn't going to be a great round in order to post a higher score.  Under the current system that doesn't matter since only the 10 best of the last 20 count.  Anything that encourages MORE sandbagging is a bad idea.

[Josh Tarble]

I don't know...I've played with a couple guys that have the ability to shoot in the low 70s as well as the high 90s.  They don't really have an "average score" they're either playing to or below their handicap or waaayy above it.  

You always have to ask what they're bringing before any bets are placed  

[A.G._Crockett]

I don't know...I've played with a couple guys that have the ability to shoot in the low 70s as well as the high 90s.  They don't really have an "average score" they're either playing to or below their handicap or waaayy above it.  

You always have to ask what they're bringing before any bets are placed  

The key word is "ability"; if somebody can shoot in the "low" 70's the ONLY way they are going to shoot in the 90's on the same course is by taking a dive.  The ONLY way.

I've played a lot of points and skins games at my club(s) over the years.  I've know several guys who were known for going ahead and making a double when they knew they couldn't make birdie, but they are few and far between.  And pretty unpopular, I might add.  I don't enjoy playing with those guys, and I wouldn't bet 'em a nickel on anything.

[Carl Johnson]

I think it is important to understand the USGA's objective with the handicap system.  It is not intended to be a measure of relative golfing ability, as such.  Here's a link to the handicap manual, a good place to start:  http://www.usga.org/Rule-Books/Handicap-System-Manual/Handicap-Manual/

Here are what I think are some key excerpts from Section 1-1, Purpose: "The purpose of the USGA Handicap System is to make the game of golf more enjoyable by enabling players of differing abilities to compete on an equitable basis. . . . the System disregards high scores that bear little relation to the player's potential ability . . . .  A Handicap Index compares a player's scoring ability to the scoring ability of a scratch golfer on a course of standard difficulty. . . .  It reflects the player's potential because it is based upon the best handicap differentials posted for a given number of rounds, ideally the best 10 of the last 20 rounds. . . ."  (Emphasis added.)

The two most important words are "compete" and "potential."  Take the two players with identical handicaps, say plus 2.  Each of the player's 10 best rounds is 70, while player A's remaining 10 are 90, and each of player B's remaining 10 are 75.  Looking at the scores, one might say it is clear that player B is a more highly skilled player than player A, so why do they have the same handicaps?  Because the USGA's stated purpose of the system is to permit the players to "compete" against each other on an equitable basis, assuming they play to their "potential," or relatively so.  For what it's worth, based on their last 20 scores, it does appear to me that player B is a more highly skilled player than player A, but that does not mean A should have a higher handicap than B.

The word's "game" and "enjoyable" are also important to an understanding of the system.

The USGA is protective of the handicap system, so I'm not suggesting someone try this.  However, I'd bet that a computer guru could figure how to get into the GHIN system and capture the data in order to construct a different index, say an average of last 25 scores, or whatever the guru thinks the best way to measure relative ability for purposes other than competition on the course, and publish for each player a "skill" index (as distinguished from a handicap index) based on posted scores.  Then, in casual conversations about playing golf players could cite both their handicap index and their skill index.

[Dan Byrnes]

Consistency and potential are widely different.  I like to look at the differential of the other 10 scores and see how the differential compares to the best 10 from the worst 10.  This is what separates the good 10 handicap from the bad 10 handicap which is me.  I can play well and play very poorly.  Been a while when 100 was breached but it certainly can't be ruled out especially on a tougher course.

The course itself can be a big factor.  Two course I play alot one its very hard to lose a ball of the tee, while the course rating is higher it not harder for me as it is forgiving towards me weakness which is OB tee balls.

Dan

[Mark Pearce]

There is at least one example of a former Ryder Cup player failing to break 100 in a European Tour event.  So the answer must be very, very low indeed.

[Jason Topp]

 However, I'd bet that a computer guru could figure how to get into the GHIN system and capture the data in order to construct a different index, say an average of last 25 scores, or whatever the guru thinks the best way to measure relative ability for purposes other than competition on the course, and publish for each player a "skill" index (as distinguished from a handicap index) based on posted scores.  Then, in casual conversations about playing golf players could cite both their handicap index and their skill index.

All you need to do is look at your highest index that counts or your lowest index that does not count.   That number will be your median score over the last 20 rounds.  Just be sure to convert that number into a handicap (using slope) and add it to the course rating in order to identify the score you would expect.  

I check that pretty regularly and it more accurately reflects how I have played over the last 20 rounds than my handicap index.  

 I do not think 100 is out of reach for anyone above a 3 handicap who plays stroke play by the rules and plays some tough courses.  There was a pro who recently shot close to 100 in a tour event a year after winning a local event with a score of 72.  

[JLahrman]

I've never met a player that was capable of shooting 80 in half his rounds who shot 95 in the other half.  A 15 shot swing is massive for a player capable of shooting 80 every other round; you just don't see it in the real world.

It's an extreme example, but I currently have a very wide range in my scores. 5 of them are 84 and below; 5 of them are 95 and above. And it used to show more variance than that.

At my best, when I was playing quite a bit (this was about 8-10 years ago), I was a 4 handicap. You will still see remnants of a 4 handicap if you play a round with me. Right now, I do not get to play very often (maybe 15 rounds a year). My swing is very rusty and ungrooved. If I have a good day, and hit a lot of 4-handicap quality shots, I can put up an 80. If I have a bad day, with few 4-handicap shots, it's going to get very ugly. Additionally, I am 6'6" with a long wingspan and swing arc. Trust me, when I hit one off line it goes way the hell off line.

I was a 5 something index when I played my first round at Pasatiempo, and I put up a 113 there (had only played 5 rounds in the previous 12 months).

However, even if such a situation occurred, I don't think it is an indictment of the system.  It's true that those two players would have the same index (assuming all 40 rounds were played on the same course so that the differentials were the same) but clearly the 80-82 is a better player day in and day out.  In a match, since he doesn't have to give shots, the system would slightly favor him which is as it should be; he is the better player, if only on the basis of consistency.

Perhaps, but this is why I rarely play any matches!

[John Kavanaugh]

It's far more difficult to post a score of 100 than to shoot one given the most I can take on any one hole is a double.  I'd have some 30 stroke swings without ESC.  There is not a single hole at Victoria National where I haven't taken at least 10 strokes to complete during a stroke play money game.  These scores are always reduced to a double before posting.  I've had 7 three putts and six lost balls trying as hard as I can in a single round.  It just flat gets ugly some days.

[Michael Felton]

I'm a 1 and I played in a few tournaments this year. Shot a 71 in one of them (birdied the last to win by a shot - brag over). Previous one I shot 92 (it's an 89 on my GHIN because I had three triples). That was a combination of working on a swing change that was still gelling, a course that REALLY didn't fit my eye (I hate it so much - never playing there again) and I was the only person in my flight, so I was going to win if I just got round (I really hate the fact that it's on my GHIN record, so I was not throwing it to get my handicap up - I want to get that as low as possible).

Jose Coceres shot 104 in final qualifying for the 1998 Open at Royal Birkdale. I believe he was playing at Hillside and it was a filthsome day and serious credit to him for posting it and not copping out. He was on the European Tour for quite a long time. Bottom line is I'm not sure there is one where you can guarantee it.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()