Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Rick Sides on June 07, 2008, 10:27:06 AM
-
Well after looking at he scores for the celebrity match at Torrey Pines yesterday, it is clear that many of the celebrities that claim to have 6 and 7 handicaps are more like 20. I have to laugh when I read magazine articles were celebrities claim to be a 5 or 6 handicap, then you see them at a pro-am and there swing looks horrible and they are posting double and triple bogeys all over the place. It' s not that different when playing with a person you never met and they say, I'm around a 10 and they post a 97 and blame the course. Granted the celebrities in this tournament palyed in US Open conditions, but I think 90% of people either lie about their handicap or have poor math skills when counting shots.
-
Here's the results of a handicap poll done by Grant Sanders early this year:
http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,33140.0.html
-
Keep in mind that the system is designed so that you "play to your handicap" something like 20% of the time (I don't know the mathematical statistic off the top of my head)...so it is not a reasonable expectation that a 4 handicap SHOULD shoot 4 over par, on average.
Keep in mind yet again that this Torrey Pines exercise uses a course that was rated (was that actual or an estimate?) near 80. Thus, If Romo is something like a 2 index, and the course rating is about 80, then an 84 is pretty darn near right on.
-
As an example, I am a 6.5 index right now and the average of my last 20 scores is 82.5.
Given the course rating over 79 and the slope of 153, I would be a 9 handicap at Torrey right now. It is highly unlikely that I would shoot 81 (+9 to par). But, the scratch golfer would be shooting 79 so 88 or so would be a good score. I'd probably average around 93-95 in 20 rounds there.
In any given round with the pressure they had, the TV crews, spectators etc, I'd say the scores weren't that bad.
-
It' s not that different when playing with a person you never met and they say, I'm around a 10 and they post a 97 and blame the course. Granted the celebrities in this tournament palyed in US Open conditions, but I think 90% of people either lie about their handicap or have poor math skills when counting shots.
Rick,
Stuff happens. A few years ago I was playing to a 7 handicap in a tournament. Historically, I've had my moments, but have never consistently been a great ball striker or a long hitter. But I have at times had a pretty good short game. That day, I had one of the most miserable rounds ever. I had ONE hole on which I had to take TWO unplayable lies and the ensuing penalty strokes. I hit two balls OB and three into water hazards. I had a sh&^%k. It was a long slog. But by far the worst part of the day came while sitting on the patio after the round as two guys who didn't know me saw my score (97) and my handicap. "Who the hell is this guy? Ninety-seven with a seven handicap? Talk about vanity handicaps! Jesus!" I downed my drink and slunk from the scene. Stuff happens.
-
As a member at Lake Merced GC I have had scores in medal events ranging from about 78 to about 95. This is from the back tees that I rarely played except in these events. Shooting a big number for a single round isn't all that difficult, just make a couple of quads and see how high the score gets on a tough golf course where there aren't many birdie opportunities. I believe that the 95 round had a 9 and a 10 consecutively (7, 8) and I then birdied 9 and 10 but stopped grinding after that because I knew I was out of contention and it didn't matter-lunch then became the #1 priority...
-
When I play in events I tell guys I am a 1o handicap. I play the back tees and play it down and I always shoot around 82 and if my chipping and putting just is not good maybe 85.
I don't understand why GHIN can say 5.5 and yet you shoot rounds all the time around the low 80's. You shoot one round say 77 and a couple high 80's everythign else is around 80 and your index is 6.0 go figure sounds like a screwed up system to me.
Guys brag all the time with friends and at the office about their handicap then you take them out and pound them thinking they were going to be competitive and fun to play in a match. The handicap formula system needs to be tweaked and fixed so that it is accurate not misleading. I would much rather play as a 10 then shoot a score of 78 and feel like I played much better than my handicap.
-
When I play in events I tell guys I am a 1o handicap. I play the back tees and play it down and I always shoot around 82 and if my chipping and putting just is not good maybe 85.
I don't understand why GHIN can say 5.5 and yet you shoot rounds all the time around the low 80's. You shoot one round say 77 and a couple high 80's everythign else is around 80 and your index is 6.0 go figure sounds like a screwed up system to me.
Guys brag all the time with friends and at the office about their handicap then you take them out and pound them thinking they were going to be competitive and fun to play in a match. The handicap formula system needs to be tweaked and fixed so that it is accurate not misleading. I would much rather play as a 10 then shoot a score of 78 and feel like I played much better than my handicap.
If you "always shoot around 82" from the back tees, you aren't a 10, not under any system I am aware of. You're probably closer to 6 than 10.
Like it or not, the system is intended to provide an indication of what a player is capable of. So you handicap is actually based on the average of your ten best scores compared to the course rating.
Ken
-
Rick & Matt,
Are you suggesting that the American handicap system allows too many vanity handicaps ?
-
When I play in events I tell guys I am a 1o handicap. I play the back tees and play it down and I always shoot around 82 and if my chipping and putting just is not good maybe 85.
I don't understand why GHIN can say 5.5 and yet you shoot rounds all the time around the low 80's. You shoot one round say 77 and a couple high 80's everythign else is around 80 and your index is 6.0 go figure sounds like a screwed up system to me.
Guys brag all the time with friends and at the office about their handicap then you take them out and pound them thinking they were going to be competitive and fun to play in a match. The handicap formula system needs to be tweaked and fixed so that it is accurate not misleading. I would much rather play as a 10 then shoot a score of 78 and feel like I played much better than my handicap.
If you "always shoot around 82" from the back tees, you aren't a 10, not under any system I am aware of. You're probably closer to 6 than 10.
Like it or not, the system is intended to provide an indication of what a player is capable of. So you handicap is actually based on the average of your ten best scores compared to the course rating.
Ken
Thank you Ken for setting him straight... I hate when people adjust their handicap to what they "usually" score instead of what their "potential" is. Like it or not, that's the system. I play to a 2.5, but rarely shoot in the low 70's and still regularly shoot rounds in the 80's. When I was averaging rounds of 82, I was way lower than a 10!
-
Rick & Matt,
Are you suggesting that the American handicap system allows too many vanity handicaps ?
Particularly when you add in the routine practice of conceding five footers in weekend "dogfight" type games. "That's good" is commonly heard. We don't do a lot of straight up medal play here, it can be shocking to actually have to post a true score.
I almost had a heart attack when I learned the club championship (senior division) I just signed up for at my summer course will be 54 holes of medal play........ ::)
-
A little education about the handicap system
--Par of the course has no bearing on handicap
--Handicap differential is calculated using your score (say 80) minus the course rating (say 72)
--Once you have 5 scores in the handicap system, an offical handicap can be determined
--The full handicap comes from twenty scores, with the best 10 score differential's counting in the score.
--The differentials are then added and averaged
--The mean differential is then multiplied by .96
The USGA link to handicaps is: http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/manual.html Section 10-2 defines the handicap index formula.
So, handicap is 96% of your best 10 scores in relation to the course rating, thats why you rarely see people shoot their handicap. For a tour player, I would say that a real handicap for them on the average course that a normal person would play would be somewhere around +6 or 7 for anyone on tour, with Tiger and Phil probably coming in around +11 or 12.
--BTW--my index before turning pro was in the range of 0
-
I know that every once in a while that people have a terrible round and that it does not reflect what their handicap is or what they normally shoot. However, I would say 9 out of 10 times when a guy tells me he is a 7 or 8 handicap then proceeds to slice balls into no man's land and barely breaks 100 I find it humorous. I am by no means a great golfer, about an 18 handicap. I just wonder if the system is flawed or the majority of guys don't want to actually admit that golf is no easy game and breaking 90 is often difficult when mulligans are not taken on 5 holes and the ball is not picked up within 3 feet of the cup.
-
A little education about the handicap system
--Par of the course has no bearing on handicap
--Handicap differential is calculated using your score (say 80) minus the course rating (say 72)
--Once you have 5 scores in the handicap system, an offical handicap can be determined
--The full handicap comes from twenty scores, with the best 10 score differential's counting in the score.
--The differentials are then added and averaged
--The mean differential is then multiplied by .96
The USGA link to handicaps is: http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/manual.html Section 10-2 defines the handicap index formula.
So, handicap is 96% of your best 10 scores in relation to the course rating, thats why you rarely see people shoot their handicap. For a tour player, I would say that a real handicap for them on the average course that a normal person would play would be somewhere around +6 or 7 for anyone on tour, with Tiger and Phil probably coming in around +11 or 12.
--BTW--my index before turning pro was in the range of 0
...But is that how it should be.
Here in Australia, we have a different handicap system & don't use the 'Slope' system. There is always the occasional blowout on the score card, but in general our handicaps are an indication of what we can actually play to every few rounds.
This is not meant to offend anybody, but I have played with thousands of people over the years, but I have rarely seen vanity handicaps with Australian golfers as I have with American golfers.
-
The other thing I have noticed that happens in Australia, that doesn't seem to happen in America. Most Australian clubs have 3 to 5 single round competitions each week, where mulligans & gimme's are, of course, not allowed. I'm sure this helps with realistic handicaps.
-
That' sound like a good idea Andrew. I wonder what most people's REAL handicaps would be if they did not take mulligans, did not adjust lies, and holed every putt?
-
A little education about the handicap system
--Par of the course has no bearing on handicap
--Handicap differential is calculated using your score (say 80) minus the course rating (say 72)
--Once you have 5 scores in the handicap system, an offical handicap can be determined
--The full handicap comes from twenty scores, with the best 10 score differential's counting in the score.
--The differentials are then added and averaged
--The mean differential is then multiplied by .96
The USGA link to handicaps is: http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/manual.html Section 10-2 defines the handicap index formula.
So, handicap is 96% of your best 10 scores in relation to the course rating, thats why you rarely see people shoot their handicap. For a tour player, I would say that a real handicap for them on the average course that a normal person would play would be somewhere around +6 or 7 for anyone on tour, with Tiger and Phil probably coming in around +11 or 12.
--BTW--my index before turning pro was in the range of 0
...But is that how it should be.
Here in Australia, we have a different handicap system & don't use the 'Slope' system. There is always the occasional blowout on the score card, but in general our handicaps are an indication of what we can actually play to every few rounds.
This is not meant to offend anybody, but I have played with thousands of people over the years, but I have rarely seen vanity handicaps with Australian golfers as I have with American golfers.
--I am not sure if that is how the handicap system should be, but its how it is. I think that in general, people can shoot near their handicaps if you look at the course rating and not just par. Slope does not count into the Index, only course handicap strokes.
-
A little education about the handicap system
--Par of the course has no bearing on handicap
--Handicap differential is calculated using your score (say 80) minus the course rating (say 72)
--Once you have 5 scores in the handicap system, an offical handicap can be determined
--The full handicap comes from twenty scores, with the best 10 score differential's counting in the score.
--The differentials are then added and averaged
--The mean differential is then multiplied by .96
The USGA link to handicaps is: http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/manual.html Section 10-2 defines the handicap index formula.
So, handicap is 96% of your best 10 scores in relation to the course rating, thats why you rarely see people shoot their handicap. For a tour player, I would say that a real handicap for them on the average course that a normal person would play would be somewhere around +6 or 7 for anyone on tour, with Tiger and Phil probably coming in around +11 or 12.
--BTW--my index before turning pro was in the range of 0
...But is that how it should be.
Here in Australia, we have a different handicap system & don't use the 'Slope' system. There is always the occasional blowout on the score card, but in general our handicaps are an indication of what we can actually play to every few rounds.
This is not meant to offend anybody, but I have played with thousands of people over the years, but I have rarely seen vanity handicaps with Australian golfers as I have with American golfers.
Andrew, I have to say the same thing about golf in the UK. We generally have two club 'medals' every week (strokeplay competitions on Wednesday and Saturday). These are the scores that can contribute towards your handicap. You cannot just go out with your friends or even alone and put in a score to count for your handicap.
Your handicap should reflect the scores you shoot from the back tees in a competition situation with someone else marking your card, not from a round where you happen to play well and decide that one will do!
I have had the good fortune to work at several private clubs here in the States over the last ten years and may I say respectfully, there has to be something wrong with the handicap system.
I have stood on the first tee hundreds of times and listened to the handicaps being given out. In watching the golf and keeping the 'true' scores it is apparent that not many golfers can play anywhere near their 'chosen' handicap, certainly not without mulligans, suspect drops, given putts from six feet and a 'magic' pencil.
There is a definite lack of club strokeplay events here within clubs - something my Head Pro and I tried to rectify - almost costing us both our careers. ;)
-
Talk about Hollywood handicaps...I cover the Crosby most years, and see a wide range of honesty.
Dennis Quaid, for example, claimed to be a 2 a couple of years ago. No way. More like a 10, and played worse. His steel-vice, claw putting grip gave it away.
The answer to this lunacy...calculate handicaps from tournament scores, only.
My index ranges in the 5's. I actually shoot it maybe one every four or five times out, and rarely shoot lower.
-
I know that every once in a while that people have a terrible round and that it does not reflect what their handicap is or what they normally shoot. However, I would say 9 out of 10 times when a guy tells me he is a 7 or 8 handicap then proceeds to slice balls into no man's land and barely breaks 100 I find it humorous. I am by no means a great golfer, about an 18 handicap. I just wonder if the system is flawed or the majority of guys don't want to actually admit that golf is no easy game and breaking 90 is often difficult when mulligans are not taken on 5 holes and the ball is not picked up within 3 feet of the cup.
you have obviously never belonged to a private club, where handicaps are both accurate and reflective of ability. There are always a few vanity handicaps, but far more prevalent are sandbaggers who make sure their handicaps are higher than they should be so they can win in net tournaments
-
I know that every once in a while that people have a terrible round and that it does not reflect what their handicap is or what they normally shoot. However, I would say 9 out of 10 times when a guy tells me he is a 7 or 8 handicap then proceeds to slice balls into no man's land and barely breaks 100 I find it humorous. I am by no means a great golfer, about an 18 handicap. I just wonder if the system is flawed or the majority of guys don't want to actually admit that golf is no easy game and breaking 90 is often difficult when mulligans are not taken on 5 holes and the ball is not picked up within 3 feet of the cup.
you have obviously never belonged to a private club, where handicaps are both accurate and reflective of ability. There are always a few vanity handicaps, but far more prevalent are sandbaggers who make sure their handicaps are higher than they should be so they can win in net tournaments
Mike, which private club are you a member at? I have worked as an assistant pro and a caddie at 6 or 7 private clubs here. That means I have seen hundreds, maybe thousands of golfers in my twelve years in the States. 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. As I said earlier, I have witnessed this time and time again and it baffles me how somebody can give themselves a 7 handicap when there is no way on earth they can break 90. Maybe you can explain.
-
It has long been my contention that Dean is correct and not many club players can do it. "Club" players are beat before the match begins and that is because they are playing mostly at their club and that is why their handicap is a few strokes lower. That is my explanation, anyway.
-
What I take from this thread is that the USGA handicap system is worse than useless and that people don't understand handicaps. I play off 12. I was, until late last season off 11. I play perhaps 15 competitive rounds at my home club and a couple of opens at other clubs each year (this year next weekend at Cruden Bay and August at Elie). These rounds are off the back tees and to R&A rules. No other rounds count for anything. If I play well twice in those rounds my handicap will stay where it is. If I play really well ( a net 3 or 4 under) I'll get cut. If I play badly in all 15 I'll go up one stroke.
The nonsense we have matching UK/ROW handicaps to US indexes at BUDA appears to mostly be because CONGU, whatever its faults (and it has many) measures real golfing ability, the USGA handicap system appears to measure whatever the subject wants it to measure.
-
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.
Define 'regular basis'. As mentioned, for better or for worse the handicap system is not designed for ANYONE to play to their handicap on a regular basis, unless your definition of regular basis is different from mine.
Out of my last 20 scores, we're only looking at the best 10. Then my handicap (with some adjustments) is approximately the average of those 10 scores. Meaning only about 5 of my last 20 scores are under my handicap.
Obviously some out there are giving themselves a few putts, but even if you count everything you're not going to be playing to your handicap that often.
I'm an 8.5 at the moment. Tell me what you think I should be shooting and then see if that's what I have been posting. Here are my scores (rating/slopes are generally in the neighborhood of 72.5/122):
79 (1)
80 (1)
81 (3)
82 (2)
83 (1)
84 (2)
85 (4)
86 (1)
87 (2)
88 (1)
90 (1)
91 (1)
So I'm an 8.5, but half the time I'm putting up an 85 or worse...
-
Andrew,
Yes the GHIN System is for vanity so guys can talk about their single digit handicap. Reality is the system needs to not be based on your potential to score lower than your average but, accurate to your current game. If you go out and shoot scores around 80 to 82 on a par 72 course you should have an 8 to 10 handicap index period end of story. Telling me I have a 6 is joke and I have to get really lucky hit every fairway and make some bomb putts to shoot 78.
This potential bullshit to shoot a lower score is crazy. I have the potential to make millions every year if I get lucky and all the stars line up on my business deals. Reality is I make a comfortable living and I shoot 82 most of the time playing golf.
-
Much like JAL posted previously, my index is 8.2 and I have 1 score in the 70's. I don't understand the USGA's desire to handicap one's "potential" - why not just calculate your last 10 rounds or 20 rounds using the same formula. As the Big Tuna, Bill Parcells, is famous for saying regarding how good/bad a given team may be, "You are what your record says you are".
I would be considered a "weak" 8 due to the volatility of my score compared to a "strong" 8 that may score consistently between 79-85.
-
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.
-
I know that every once in a while that people have a terrible round and that it does not reflect what their handicap is or what they normally shoot. However, I would say 9 out of 10 times when a guy tells me he is a 7 or 8 handicap then proceeds to slice balls into no man's land and barely breaks 100 I find it humorous. I am by no means a great golfer, about an 18 handicap. I just wonder if the system is flawed or the majority of guys don't want to actually admit that golf is no easy game and breaking 90 is often difficult when mulligans are not taken on 5 holes and the ball is not picked up within 3 feet of the cup.
you have obviously never belonged to a private club, where handicaps are both accurate and reflective of ability. There are always a few vanity handicaps, but far more prevalent are sandbaggers who make sure their handicaps are higher than they should be so they can win in net tournaments
Mike, which private club are you a member at? I have worked as an assistant pro and a caddie at 6 or 7 private clubs here. That means I have seen hundreds, maybe thousands of golfers in my twelve years in the States. 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. As I said earlier, I have witnessed this time and time again and it baffles me how somebody can give themselves a 7 handicap when there is no way on earth they can break 90. Maybe you can explain.
I've belonged to the following private clubs:
-Lake Merced GC
-San Jose GC
-Palo Alto Hills GC
-Berkeley Hills GC
Lake Merced has a well earned reputation as a tough track, just look at the recent qualifying scores at the Sectional Open Qualifier with pins that were in much easier locations than for the club championship.
I don't understand the 'give themselves a handicap' comment. You post your scores and your handicap is calculated. I have always played in games where that either gave putts 'inside the leather' or not at all. No mulligans, no bending the rules, balls played down except when the course was really wet and soppy. I have played with fellow members who have qualified for US Senior Amateurs and Mid Amateurs as well as the San Francisco City Championship. I'm far from a great player but, as a 7, feel like I could almost always beat a 10 like a drum if there were no strokes involved. Personally, I think all scores should be counted rather than throwing out the 10 worst ones but the system is the system. I've personally never seen someone with a 7 handicap look like anything but a decent golfer with a solid golf swing, I guess we play in different golf universes.
-
Lou,
I don't maintain a USGA handicap because I think the system is flawed. I play from the tips and shoot 80-82 almost all the time at my home course. If I play from the white tees at almost any club with friends I pound my playing partners that all claim to be 5 to 10 handicaps.
The system needs to be accurate your handicap is an average of what you shoot regularly not some perfect round on a short course from the white tees with pool table flat greens. For me 50% of playing is the challenge of hitting shots that require focus and attention. When you play it back it is tougher and you are tested to hit fairways, greens and earn birdies.
-
Lou,
I don't maintain a USGA handicap because I think the system is flawed. I play from the tips and shoot 80-82 almost all the time at my home course. If I play from the white tees at almost any club with friends I pound my playing partners that all claim to be 5 to 10 handicaps.
The system needs to be accurate your handicap is an average of what you shoot regularly not some perfect round on a short course from the white tees with pool table flat greens. For me 50% of playing is the challenge of hitting shots that require focus and attention. When you play it back it is tougher and you are tested to hit fairways, greens and earn birdies.
the only reason for a handicap is to make equitable matches. If there was no stroke giving in match play why would we need anything? I used to play lots of tennis and all we had were USTA levels which were evaluations of our ability against certain standards. So let's just do away with getting or giving strokes, rate golfers according to ability just like in tennis, and then we won't have to worry about it, right? Unfortunately, most regular golfers play for some kind of money and everyone wants to get as many strokes as possible.
-
I'm surprised so many gus are saying that 'caps would be higher if every put was actually holed. I'd hazard a guess that 90% of my play is match play, where concessions are OK.
Obviously, you post rounds played under match play rules.
I also wonder how many folks post an 18 hole score if they play 13, or a 9 if they play just 7...
-
And that's a problem.
So is the difference between between a high handicapper and a low one when engaged in match play.
A 14 will beat a 5 almost every time.
-
As an example, I am a 6.5 index right now and the average of my last 20 scores is 82.5.
Given the course rating over 79 and the slope of 153, I would be a 9 handicap at Torrey right now. It is highly unlikely that I would shoot 81 (+9 to par). But, the scratch golfer would be shooting 79 so 88 or so would be a good score. I'd probably average around 93-95 in 20 rounds there.
In any given round with the pressure they had, the TV crews, spectators etc, I'd say the scores weren't that bad.
Here is my problem with the handicap system - it is totally dependent on what course you play the most. Your handicap should not be different because you are a member at Oakmont or a muni player. The course ratings and slopes should be adjusted so that no matter where you play your handicap doesn't travel well. The fact that there are traveling handicaps from some clubs that are notably higher than others tells you the system is screwed up.
-
And that's a problem.
So is the difference between between a high handicapper and a low one when engaged in match play.
A 14 will beat a 5 almost every time.
Wayne,
That is way too general a statement, it really depends on the two players and the strengths and weaknesses of their games. I can lose to a 14 who is consistent but almost always will beat a 14 who makes a bunch of doubles and triples interspersed with pars.
-
And that's a problem.
So is the difference between between a high handicapper and a low one when engaged in match play.
A 14 will beat a 5 almost every time.
There's another problem. When was the last time anyone ever heard of a scratch golfer or low single digit handicap winning a handicapped event at their club. The system is totally bogus and biased towards the mid level handicap. Either that or the are all sand baggers.
-
Guys,
Let me give you a perfect example of this crazy handicap index system. On Friday, I played with another GCA guy as the guest of a member at a great course The Olde Farm.
As I already mentioned in this thread I consider myself a 10 handicap forget what the USGA GHIN thinks. Well we step up on #1 tee and play a little money game with me as 10 and my playing partners in the range of 10-14. We all played good our host the member played really well and they won. Long story short, I shot 86 from the Blue Tees on a great course that was in perfect condition that I had never even seen before or played. I lost 2 balls hitting poor tee shots with my driver and my putting was not good because the greens were fast and perfect probably rolling in the 11-12 stimp range. I would try to make a birdie and roll it 6-8 feet past the hole and miss the par putts coming back and tap in a 6" putt for bogey.
What I am getting at is if I had told the member I was a 6 then shot 86 I would have looked like a dumb ass. I told him I was a 10 and in the end after the round I shot 4 shots higher than my handicap and he saw those extra shots due to a couple lost tee balls and some poor putting on perfect contoured fast greens.
My theory on calculating handicaps worked perfectly and had I played better I might have shot 80. I feel that handicaps need to be based on length and slope of the courses you platy then an average of your scores on those courses from not potential for your best round. I can't tell you how many times that I have heard a guy say come play my club and he shoots 80 because he knows every corner and where to miss it so he can scramble and make par or bogey if he misses the fairways and greens. You take that same guy on a golf trip and he finishes near the bottom of the group every round because he can't play other courses only his home course.
Case Closed!
-
One other thing to keep in mind is that if you get better it takes a little while for the handicapping system to catch up. That could be one reason why it is harder for scratch players to win net events. If you were a 10 but are starting to play much better, say at the level of a 5, then it will take your cap 10 rounds or so to catch up. That can be several months for some players.
-
Well said Matt. When a person plays a course over and over, he learns where to hit the ball, what club to take, and all the little intricacies of the greens. I played with a man the other day on a course I never played and he has been a member almost 30 years. He knew the greens like the back of his hand. Had he not helped me several times, I would have added at least 5 more strokes. So it is a weird system of sorts. I don't completely understand it, it just makes me laugh when 90% of the people I play with whom I've never played with before say they are one handicap and don't even shoot close to what they claim to be. I know a lot of people use the handicap system to bet and some people may say their handicap is higher to win some money, but I'm saying the majority of men will give a handicap that is not accurate. Somebody earlier said, if you belong to a private club, how could you cheat because they post scores right after the round, but let's be honest, even then you can overlook a shot here or there and move the ball a bit or your buddy yells "that's good" when your putt is not even close.
-
Matt Varney:
Adjusting your handicap to reflect what you think it should be because you don't like the way the USGA calculates handicaps is like adjusting your income taxes to reflect what you think you should pay because you don't like the way the government calculates your taxable income. I doubt that your playing partners would be any more thrilled with your adjustment than the IRS. While you may not agree with the USGA handicap system, until it changes, those of us that live in the US have to honor it.
Ed
-
Matt Varney:
Adjusting your handicap to reflect what you think it should be because you don't like the way the USGA calculates handicaps is like adjusting your income taxes to reflect what you think you should pay because you don't like the way the government calculates your taxable income. I doubt that your playing partners would be any more thrilled with your adjustment than the IRS. While you may not agree with the USGA handicap system, until it changes, those of us that live in the US have to honor it.
Ed
So Ed, if I get in the Wednesday afternoon foursome and we are throwing the balls up for partners, I should be thrilled to honor the USGA system when I get partnered in the $50 nassau with the member who says he's a 7 but who is likely not to come in one hole because he's really a 22.
Maybe what we are talking about here is not the 'true' USGA system but how it can be manipulated so that your 'ego' or 'restaurant' handicap as I like to call it can be whatever you want it to be.
Sounds great to the crowd in the restaurant but awful to the unlucky sole who happens to get you as a partner. "I'm out of the hole Dean yer on your own, again." Right.
-
Matt Varney:
Adjusting your handicap to reflect what you think it should be because you don't like the way the USGA calculates handicaps is like adjusting your income taxes to reflect what you think you should pay because you don't like the way the government calculates your taxable income. I doubt that your playing partners would be any more thrilled with your adjustment than the IRS. While you may not agree with the USGA handicap system, until it changes, those of us that live in the US have to honor it.
Ed
Well said, Ed. In the end, you're cheating. Case closed.
-
As far as throwing balls, use the index based on Tournament scores. Simple enough.
-
Ed,
Golf is founded on honor, integrity and traditions. I find it truly amazing that a game that at its core requires you to be honest and play with honor by the rules and that you call a penalty on yourself during your round then post you scores. The USGA GHIN system is totally screwed up and it will never get fixed and when I shot a score around 80-82 all the time from the tips and then get my handicap and it says 6 we have a problem. I am a total gentleman and play by the rules and I have never had a round where a playing partner on any course felt I was not truly honest on my abilites to play the game.
Comparing my income and taxes paid to the IRS and the USGA GHIN system is absurd. I play by the rules pay taxes on all my income earned - I don't cheat the system and I have flawless financials in the event I ever get audited with my accounting firm standing right next to me.
My character and my integrity mean more to me that some dumb ass handicap index. I don't carry a USGA handicap anymore I just play the game and tell my partners this is my true handicap. Guess what Ed, I play courses all over the country (public, private and resorts) and I rarely shoot 5-7 shots over my average scores at home in Knoxville.
That is honest and real so the system is flawed!
-
As far as throwing balls, use the index based on Tournament scores. Simple enough.
Nobody plays tournaments Tony so that would be really tough. ;)
-
Matt Varney:
Adjusting your handicap to reflect what you think it should be because you don't like the way the USGA calculates handicaps is like adjusting your income taxes to reflect what you think you should pay because you don't like the way the government calculates your taxable income. I doubt that your playing partners would be any more thrilled with your adjustment than the IRS. While you may not agree with the USGA handicap system, until it changes, those of us that live in the US have to honor it.
Ed
So Ed, if I get in the Wednesday afternoon foursome and we are throwing the balls up for partners, I should be thrilled to honor the USGA system when I get partnered in the $50 nassau with the member who says he's a 7 but who is likely not to come in one hole because he's really a 22.
Maybe what we are talking about here is not the 'true' USGA system but how it can be manipulated so that your 'ego' or 'restaurant' handicap as I like to call it can be whatever you want it to be.
Sounds great to the crowd in the restaurant but awful to the unlucky sole who happens to get you as a partner. "I'm out of the hole Dean yer on your own, again." Right.
Dean, I understand your feelings. But at the end of the day, your problem is with the people that skew the system and not with the system itself. Do you really believe that those same people wouldn't skew their handicaps if it were based on a pure average of actual scores? If you are playing a game where you think the field is tilted, then that sounds like a bet I want no part of.
Ed
-
Wasn't the idea of this thread to establish why so many golfers cannot play to the handicap they admit to being?
We are not discussing sandbaggers here. We are discussing 'inverted' sandbaggers and how the system allows them to get to this point.
Let's get back to the point. How can players call themselves 5, 10 or 15 handicappers when they cannot play within 10 or 15 shots of that in a competition scenario?
Simple. Because a system that allows you to walk to a computer screen and punch in whatever numbers you want on any given date allows it!
Until the USGA enforces 'competition' scores only counting for handicap there will always be 'inverted' sandbaggers. I just hope you don't get them as a partner :D
-
Well said Dean
Tony, I would love to play with you in a money game as your partner and see the look on your face when you hit a tee ball O.B. on 18 with the match on the line and you are counting on me to make par on 440 yard par 4 hole to win a match for a couple hundred.
Your thought process would change completely when I hammer a drive in the fairway and can hit the green then two putt. I can play the game the guy that is really a 20 handicap that says he is 7 you need to go ahead and get your money out because you lost the match.
Let me know when you want to play sometime? I will take your money
-
Matt Varney:
Adjusting your handicap to reflect what you think it should be because you don't like the way the USGA calculates handicaps is like adjusting your income taxes to reflect what you think you should pay because you don't like the way the government calculates your taxable income. I doubt that your playing partners would be any more thrilled with your adjustment than the IRS. While you may not agree with the USGA handicap system, until it changes, those of us that live in the US have to honor it.
Ed
Well said, Ed. In the end, you're cheating. Case closed.
Matt didn't 'adjust' his handicap yesterday. He doesn't have a handicap. He told us all he played to a 10 on the first tee. I can't speak for anyone else, but in my experience, when I hear 10, my brain tells me the person shoots around 82.
Now I do have a usga hcp and right now my index is 9.1, equating to a 10 from the blue tees at The Olde Farm yesterday.
Matt shot 86, I shot 87. We played the same. Missed more putts than usual, attributed to the challenging greens.
I am also not a fan of the system. I turned in 22 scores to my pro last month, all of my rounds for 2008. The average score was I think 86.5, something like that. Equals a 9.1? It's the system and that's fine. I'm just sticking up for Matt here because "In the end, you're cheating. Case closed." got my attention in the above post.
Eric
Ed,
Golf is founded on honor, integrity and traditions. I find it truly amazing that a game that at its core requires you to be honest and play with honor by the rules and that you call a penalty on yourself during your round then post you scores. The USGA GHIN system is totally screwed up and it will never get fixed and when I shot a score around 80-82 all the time from the tips and then get my handicap and it says 6 we have a problem. I am a total gentleman and play by the rules and I have never had a round where a playing partner on any course felt I was not truly honest on my abilites to play the game.
Comparing my income and taxes paid to the IRS and the USGA GHIN system is absurd. I play by the rules pay taxes on all my income earned - I don't cheat the system and I have flawless financials in the event I ever get audited with my accounting firm standing right next to me.
My character and my integrity mean more to me that some dumb ass handicap index. I don't carry a USGA handicap anymore I just play the game and tell my partners this is my true handicap. Guess what Ed, I play courses all over the country (public, private and resorts) and I rarely shoot 5-7 shots over my average scores at home in Knoxville.
That is honest and real so the system is flawed!
Great day yesterday. Still grinning ear to ear.
You're a 10.
-
Eric,
Great post to this thread and I would love for you and I to play as partners against some guys that tell me they have 5 or 8 USGA handicap. We would smoke them playing together you have a really good game and what it really comes down to is - Can you play?
Really great day yesterday one of the best days of golf I have had in long time.
Matt
-
Golf is founded on honor, integrity and traditions.
Yes, and whether you like the current system or not, it ONLY works if everyone uses it with honor and integrity. People like you who choose not to use it are cheating. The current system is fair as long as everyone uses it as designed (which requires honor and integrity).
-
Matt... Wow, someone had Wheaties for breakfast ;) Listen, any time you end up in AZ, let me know & we can get a game at Desert Mountain Outlaw. You can even pay the guest fee...
You see, I agree with you guys that the system is flawed. It's based on potential, thus the 96% of the average of the low-10 differentials. Which are based on rating & slope. Which are based on length, hazards, difficulty of play for both a scratch & a not so scratch player, etc. I have spoken with Kevin O'Connor, Dir. of Handi. USGA many times in a previous profession as it is not perfect, and doesn't travel well. I have gotten into more than a few threads on GCA.com to the same effect. Still, engineers from NASA came up with the equations (seriously, cliches aside) so there must be something there. Kind of like Democracy. Not perfect, but...
The bottom line is that there is a reason that most tournaments require an USGA index to compete. It's so everyone is on the same page, so you are comparing apples to apples... If not, those of us with indexes that tend to trend low due to the questionable "accuracy" of the system end up saying that we are a 6 on the tee when asked. Then Matt says he's a 10 'cause that's what he thinks it should be. Then Matts takes our money due to the 4 extra pops that Matt got with his handicap that he thinks he should have. And yes, Matt, I know that those 4 extra pops didn't matter cause you bombed it down the middle of the fairway all frickin day :D
-
Art,
So what is your handicap? Can you back it up?
You are just the kind of guy I want to play straight up based on handicap. I will play to mine and you play to your USGA index and we will see who wins in a match for $500. This is the kicker - we play at a neutral site not your home course or my home course. Pick the place?
-
Tony,
I know where your coming from that is my point exactly. I would rather people be honest about their abilities not some number on a card and play the game. I don't want to give or receive strokes based on system that is flawed. I just want the game to be accurate.
If I get a chance to get to AZ this year we will play and will pay the guest fee.
-
But Matt, that's the problem. No one would be honest. I can say for a fact that I have seen CEO's for Fortune 500 companies blatantly sandbag their indexes to get more pops and thus win the 5th Flight, Net. Seriously. That's why you need to have an equation. Some way to quantify. Thus, the USGA ;)
-
Golf is founded on honor, integrity and traditions.
Yes, and whether you like the current system or not, it ONLY works if everyone uses it with honor and integrity. People like you who choose not to use it are cheating. The current system is fair as long as everyone uses it as designed (which requires honor and integrity).
That's twice now someone has used the word cheating and aimed it at Matt. On what page of the 2008 USGA Rules of Golf does it say if you don't have a GHIN handicap and you play golf against others in a match you are cheating? Guess you better get that NASA formula down Matt.
Art, do you play a match against Matt if he guesses better, e.g. lower, what his hcp should be? I mean really, it's only a guess unless you've got an official GHIN right?
-
I have a very close friend that has made tons of money and he told me this once and I will never ever forget it "Before I ever finalize a business deal I take the guys I am going to be working with to play golf with me. In one round of golf I can see how they conduct themselves and how they play by the rules."
Honor, Integrity, Character
This must be the reason why people call me all the time to play with them. I play by the rules and I don't cheat screw the damn handicap index. Did you have fun playing and did you post an honest score?
-
I know that every once in a while that people have a terrible round and that it does not reflect what their handicap is or what they normally shoot. However, I would say 9 out of 10 times when a guy tells me he is a 7 or 8 handicap then proceeds to slice balls into no man's land and barely breaks 100 I find it humorous. I am by no means a great golfer, about an 18 handicap. I just wonder if the system is flawed or the majority of guys don't want to actually admit that golf is no easy game and breaking 90 is often difficult when mulligans are not taken on 5 holes and the ball is not picked up within 3 feet of the cup.
you have obv
iously never belonged to a private club, where handicaps are both accurate and reflective of ability. There are always a few vanity handicaps, but far more prevalent are sandbaggers who make sure their handicaps are higher than they should be so they can win in net tournaments
Mike, which private club are you a member at? I have worked as an assistant pro and a caddie at 6 or 7 private clubs here. That means I have seen hundreds, maybe thousands of golfers in my twelve years in the States. 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. As I said earlier, I have witnessed this time and time again and it baffles me how somebody can give themselves a 7 handicap when there is no way on earth they can break 90. Maybe you can explain.
I've belonged to the following private clubs:
-Lake Merced GC
-San Jose GC
-Palo Alto Hills GC
-Berkeley Hills GC
Lake Merced has a well earned reputation as a tough track, just look at the recent qualifying scores at the Sectional Open Qualifier with pins that were in much easier locations than for the club championship.
I don't understand the 'give themselves a handicap' comment. You post your scores and your handicap is calculated. I have always played in games where that either gave putts 'inside the leather' or not at all. No mulligans, no bending the rules, balls played down except when the course was really wet and soppy. I have played with fellow members who have qualified for US Senior Amateurs and Mid Amateurs as well as the San Francisco City Championship. I'm far from a great player but, as a 7, feel like I could almost always beat a 10 like a drum if there were no strokes involved. Personally, I think all scores should be counted rather than throwing out the 10 worst ones but the system is the system. I've personally never seen someone with a 7 handicap look like anything but a decent golfer with a solid golf swing, I guess we play in different golf universes.
I believe the old lady still holds the record for highest cut in the US Junior (1990) at 163. I knew a guy that played in it and said it was beyond difficult.
-
Art,
So what is your handicap? Can you back it up?
You are just the kind of guy I want to play straight up based on handicap. I will play to mine and you play to your USGA index and we will see who wins in a match for $500. This is the kicker - we play at a neutral site not your home course or my home course. Pick the place?
Yes, you'd obviously do well against anyone who maintains an accurate index! That's my point. Your manufactured handicap isn't fair to those of us who play by the rules.
I'm a 2.5 and have been playing 3 years. The course I play the most often is rated 70.7/135. If I used YOUR math, I'd be a 6, because my average score over the last 20 rounds is 77.25 (played mostly on a course that plays to par 71).
I'll play you anytime, anywhere and give you 4 strokes (my flawed 6 to your flawed 10).
-
Seriously, this thread is gettin waaaay off base. Bottom line is if you don't carry an USGA handicap index (not GHIN, GHIN is just one of a number of official providers) then you don't carry an official index. No big deal unless you want to compete & play tournaments. Then, it's pretty much a given that you need an official index or you play to scratch. Once again, there has to be equity, as well as a way to quantify. And, honestly, the USGA equations are really not difficult. You have a base rating, a base slope. You take your score. You end up with your potential playing ability based on 10 lowest of 20. In turn, you should shoot your index right around 20-25% of the time. Not everytime.
If I'm on the tee, playing with some guys that I don't know, and they want to play for money, I am always game. If they don't have an index, we play straight up. Or 6's. Or Vegas. Because, unlike Matt, here is the typical approach to "what's your index?" from those that don't carry an index, don't understand the system, etc. Well, let's see... Last week I shot this, and that, and my last 5 scores have been... but, I haven't really been playing all that much & my back has been flaring up so make me a... Been there. Done that. No thanks ;)
-
Golf is founded on honor, integrity and traditions.
Yes, and whether you like the current system or not, it ONLY works if everyone uses it with honor and integrity. People like you who choose not to use it are cheating. The current system is fair as long as everyone uses it as designed (which requires honor and integrity).
That's twice now someone has used the word cheating and aimed it at Matt. On what page of the 2008 USGA Rules of Golf does it say if you don't have a GHIN handicap and you play golf against others in a match you are cheating? Guess you better get that NASA formula down Matt.
Art, do you play a match against Matt if he guesses better, e.g. lower, what his hcp should be? I mean really, it's only a guess unless you've got an official GHIN right?
Eric, it's not a guess... you can do the math yourself. You can get the index for the score you shoot based on the course's slope and rating. Take the sum of your best 10 indexes from your last 20 rounds, divide by 10, then multiply by .96. Then when you bet someone who DOES have a GHIN handicap, you won't be taking advantage of him or her (not using the cheating word).
It's not necessary to do any of this if you don't compete in tournaments or don't bet money against people who ARE using a valid GHIN handicap. If you want to bet and don't maintain a handicap, play heads up... no strokes.
-
It's not necessary to do any of this if you don't compete in tournaments or don't bet money against people who ARE using a valid GHIN handicap. If you want to bet and don't maintain a handicap, play heads up... no strokes.
And that, my friends, is the core of the issue. You can't have your cake & eat it too. If you carry an index, you get pops. If you don't carry an index, no pops. We play straight up ;)
And again, it's a USGA handicap. GHIN is just one of many providers i.e. EZ Links (AZ, Chicago, etc.), Handinet (Michigan, etc.)...
-
Art,
A couple questions for you -
Where do you live?
What tees do you play from?
How much you want to play for?
What is the distance and slope for your home course?
I would love to see the outcome of this match just to prove my theory right. See your a 2.5 but if you say your giving me 4 strokes based on those scores. That is not a cheating 6 for you that is an average of your scores so it is accurate # not based on potential to shoot a lower score. Do you honestly feel good about yourself and your handicap index when you tell someone you are 2.5 then card a 78?
I think you would be suprised how close this match would be and I might even beat you depending on how long you want to play the course and how tough it is for this match.
-
Do you honestly feel good about yourself and your handicap index when you tell someone you are 2.5 then card a 78?
I have a feeling that Art typically plays with guys that carry an index, and thus UNDERSTAND exactly what that USGA Handicap Index denotes. Therefore, they would understand that a 78 (depending on the rating) for a 2.5 is a decent afternoon. Nothing special. But not a bad day.
You guys are trying to change the definition of what a handicap index is. Good luck with that one. Just give the USGA a call and tell them what you think... ;)
-
Eric, it's not a guess... you can do the math yourself. You can get the index for the score you shoot based on the course's slope and rating. The the sum of your best 10 indexes from your last 20 rounds, divide by 10, then multiply by .96. Then when you bet someone who DOES have a GHIN handicap, you won't be taking advantage of him or her (not using the cheating word).
Art:
Fair enough. BTW, way to go carrying a 3 hcp in three years of playing the game! Have you had a regular instructor from the start? I've played since I was 9, (I'm 38) and got down to maybe a 6 when I was in my early 20's, now inching back up to a comfortable 10, official USGA of course! ;)
-
How many of you guys who play & hold handicaps in America hand in cards from non tournament play ?
Most of the golf I have played in America has been at private clubs & it has always surprised me how few member tournaments American clubs have.
In Australia, generally only cards from tournaments are counted towards a player’s handicap, & as has been said before, most clubs in Australia & the U.K. have competitions at least twice (& quite often more) a week.
This wouldn’t fix the entire problem, but it may be a step in the right direction. It would require clubs to have more member tournaments as well as require golfers to have no mulligan or gimmes.
BTW, I have been playing golf for 30 years, yet had never heard of the term ‘mulligan’ until my first golfing trip to America about 15 years ago.
-
Golf in America is already slow enough. If you made everyone play a tournament with official rules they might not ever finish. In our member-guest this weekend there groups (6th flight) that were taking over 3 hours for nine holes and it was two man teams, one net best ball match pay. Insane.
Anyway the only fair system is to have handicaps that are based on individual stroke play tournaments only. End of story. That eliminates vanity handicaps and sandbaggers. Because if you want to win you have to play your best. The sandbagger would have to throw a bunch of tournaments to pad his handicap. And the vanity handicap would disappear real quick.
-
Matt
If there are a bunch of vanity handicaps, who cares? They are just hurting themselves.
I agree that there are a alot of vanity handicaps under the US system. I think the reasons are:
1. Not playing by the rules
2. Claiming you handicap is your index
3. Maximum scores for adjustment purposes
4. Not holing out putts
5. Playing the same course with the same people all of the time
6. Playing without tournament pressure
That said - If you regularly shoot 80-82 from the tips of a 7000 yard course in tournaments, your index is probably around a 3 handicap based on the results of tournaments I play in.
Also - my index was 5.2 a few weeks ago and I am struggling to break 90 right now. I'm up to 6.8 and climbing fast.
-
basically all this thread shows is how arrogant certain posters are about themselves and their golf games. Making comments like 'give me strokes and I'll probably kick your ass with $500 on the line' is so far outside my own experience and perspective I'm just wasting my time posting anything further. If you think that handicaps are bullshit then just play every match even up, do you have the balls for that? Just show up for the Dixie Cup at World Woods, announce you will play anyone even up because the handicap system is flawed and everyone with a lower handicap can't play worth a crap anyway, and take any and all bets. I fail to understand how money factors into golf anyway, if I want to bet serious money I'll go play Texas Holdem, Blackjack, or craps.
-
Where is the Pope of Slope, Dean Knuth, when we need him?!
I'm pretty confident the primary application of the USGA handicap system is to enable equitable match play. If not, why is there 'equitable stroke control'? Hence, all this discussion about what you should be shooting in stroke play off your index is just silly.
-
Where is the Pope of Slope, Dean Knuth, when we need him?!
I'm pretty confident the primary application of the USGA handicap system is to enable equitable match play. If not, why is there 'equitable stroke control'? Hence, all this discussion about what you should be shooting in stroke play off your index is just silly.
http://www.popeofslope.com/
-
Golf is founded on honor, integrity and traditions.
Yes, and whether you like the current system or not, it ONLY works if everyone uses it with honor and integrity. People like you who choose not to use it are cheating. The current system is fair as long as everyone uses it as designed (which requires honor and integrity).
That's twice now someone has used the word cheating and aimed it at Matt. On what page of the 2008 USGA Rules of Golf does it say if you don't have a GHIN handicap and you play golf against others in a match you are cheating? Guess you better get that NASA formula down Matt.
Art, do you play a match against Matt if he guesses better, e.g. lower, what his hcp should be? I mean really, it's only a guess unless you've got an official GHIN right?
It is cheating to claim you are a 10, when, under the system in place, you are probably a 3-5.
One way to check this - On the home course GHIN computer, it gives an average score.
-
Matt, this is hardly the place to continue this dialog. Contact me directly if you're serious about a match. I'm in California. And yes, I have no problem stating my handicap and shooting poor scores (and often do). It's golf!
Eric, thanks. I've actually only taken 1 lesson, started when I was 46. Reading Extraordinary Golf by Fred Shoemaker had the most influence on my improvement. It all boils down to trust.
-
How well should you play?
Dean has the answer:
http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/understanding_handicap/articles/howwell.html
"The end result is you've got your USGA Handicap Index for better or for worse. Don't worry if you never seem to play to it on a given day. All golfers are in the same boat because USGA Handicap Indexes are based on a player's potential ability rather than the average of his scores."
I really don't understand your argument Matt at how not using the system makes you more honorable and full of integrity. Could you simply answer why you think using your "own" formula makes you more honorable or better than someone who follows the USGA Handicap rules, without challenging me or anyone else to a money game?
-
My problem is not with you guys on GCA but a flawed USGA handicap index system that is not an accurate assessment of your playing ability. This is my last post to this thread so lets bury the hatchet and be done with this issue it could go on and on forever. We are never going to see eye-to-eye on this matter.
If I regularly shoot around 82 and I tell someone I am a 10 then I am honestly telling you that I consistently shoot 10 over on a par 72 course. If my playing partners tell me they regularly shoot 75, 80 and 85 then I consider the first guy a 3, the second guy an 8 and the third guy at 13. If we go out and play based on consistent average scores you would be suprised just how close matches are in stroke play or match play.
What happens usaully with most matches based on handicap index scores is that one or two guys are sandbagging and then smoke the other guys claiming they are just playing a great round. Thus honor, integrity and character these are your friends not guys you lie to so you can win $50 off them. If I shoot 77 I played a great round and I got lucky getting a few good bounces but I wasn't sandbagging I just played to my potential I guess that would be called using the USGA system. If you can't regulary shoot the score then that is not your handicap.
-
My problem is not with you guys on GCA but a flawed USGA handicap index system that is not an accurate assessment of your playing ability. This is my last post to this thread so lets bury the hatchet and be done with this issue it could go on and on forever. We are never going to see eye-to-eye on this matter.
I think many people are seeing eye to eye with you about how a handicap should be defined, just not your approach to the problem. Me included. I would rather have my handicap be what I'm usually going to shoot rather than what I may shoot if I play well, which would make me go from an 8.5 to about a 12 or 13. I don't think anyone is contesting that there are other ways a handicap can be calculated, what people are saying is that creating it through your own definition and formula is probably not the way to address the issue.
By your definition of a 10, there is almost no way I'm going to give you any shots and beat you. But while your definition of a handicap is what I should shoot on average, what if I decided a handicap should be how high I have the potential to go on a bad day? Not as good of a definition but it's plausible. Now I'm going to go around telling everyone I'm a 16 or 17?
-
The system is what it is and will probably not change. The facts will not change however. If you run an event, make it strokeplay, with 100 players given USGA handicaps, I would hazard a good guess having worked at several, that a high percentage will not play near their handicap.
Surely there is a flaw in the system. That is all I wish to say. It goes back to the guy in the pub telling you he's a 5 handicap to impress the masses. I've heard it too many times. We go out and have a game and the guy shoots between 85-90. Is he really a 5? How did the system let him get there?
And does it really matter in the long run if someone has an 'ego' handicap as long as he's not in my group for the 3 best balls out of four to count and he doesn't use his vastly false handicap to gain entry into events that have handicap restrictions - thereby wasting the spot that a legit player could take.
-
The answer to this lunacy...calculate handicaps from tournament scores, only.
Nope. That is the system we have here in Germany and it makes for even more vanity handicaps. The reason is that once you have reached a satisfactory handicap number, you can simply stop playing tournaments and your handicap will be frozen in place forever. We have numerous 80 year old guys with "well-seasoned" single digit handicaps, who cannot break 100 anymore.
In my case, I have played more than 50 rounds last year and none of them counted towards my handicap - how is that for lunacy?
Ulrich
-
Stuff happens. A few years ago I was playing to a 7 handicap in a tournament. Historically, I've had my moments, but have never consistently been a great ball striker or a long hitter. But I have at times had a pretty good short game. That day, I had one of the most miserable rounds ever. I had ONE hole on which I had to take TWO unplayable lies and the ensuing penalty strokes. I hit two balls OB and three into water hazards. I had a sh&^%k. It was a long slog. But by far the worst part of the day came while sitting on the patio after the round as two guys who didn't know me saw my score (97) and my handicap. "Who the hell is this guy? Ninety-seven with a seven handicap? Talk about vanity handicaps! Jesus!" I downed my drink and slunk from the scene. Stuff happens.
Well it wasn't in a tournament, but a few years ago I shot a 78 in a round that included two OB, one lost ball, one water hazard (stroke and distance) one lateral hazard and one unplayable. Now I certainly get more penalty strokes than the average single digit handicap because I can be kinda wild off the tee and somewhat inconsistent in my results shot to shot due to less practice per decade than many GCAers probably do in an average week, but losing 10 strokes to penalties is crazy even for me. Point being, you can have all that weird stuff happening and contributing to a bad day, like you did, or you can have it happening on a day where you otherwise played extremely well -- I think I was about 5 handicap then, so that 78 including those 10 strokes lost to penalties was still beating my handicap!
-
The answer to this lunacy...calculate handicaps from tournament scores, only.
Nope. That is the system we have here in Germany and it makes for even more vanity handicaps. The reason is that once you have reached a satisfactory handicap number, you can simply stop playing tournaments and your handicap will be frozen in place forever. We have numerous 80 year old guys with "well-seasoned" single digit handicaps, who cannot break 100 anymore.
In my case, I have played more than 50 rounds last year and none of them counted towards my handicap - how is that for lunacy?
Ulrich
This can't happen in Australia, because if you don't play enough competitions per year, you lose your handicap.
-
I've held off from posting here, but cannot any longer.
We have an established system in place for handicapping play. The system may be flawed, and is certainly not above criticism, but it is in place and works.
Playing a match, money or otherwise, using a "handicap" which is knowingly higher than that which would be available using the USGA system is CHEATING. It is such flagrant cheating that it is one of the very few fouls which may cause disqualification following the close of a competition.
Matt, I suggest that, unless you make your opponents aware of your "questionable" method of handicapping, you are simply claiming a 3-4 shot unearned advantage every time you tee off. With that edge, I'd offer to play anyone in a "money match" too.
Jamey
-
There are too many people here who seem to think the USGA handicap system is something that it is not. Anyone who thinks a 10 handicap should be shooting 82 on a par 72 course either plays some incredibly easy par 72 courses that have a rating of about 68, or does really know or understand what the USGA system measures. The articles at Dean Knuth's site (linked already posted in this thread) will explain things far better than anyone here can for those who are interested to learn how it really works.
The short version is that under the USGA system the "expected" score is that you shoot 3 strokes above your handicap. That's the COURSE handicap, not your GHIN index, and based on your adjusted score not your raw score.
So if you are a 5.1 handicap playing a tough course that's 76.0/145 you have a course handicap of 7 so 76.0 + 7 + 3 = you are expected to shoot an adjusted score of 86. If you have two triples and one quad and shoot 90 you are shooting right in line with what you are expected to with that handicap, though it would appear that a lot of people reading this thread would think that score was an indication of a vanity handicap.
That's not even getting into courses that fit someone's game well or not at all, which the handicap system doesn't really take into account. Since I'm often a wild driver of the ball, if my home course featured very narrow fairways with lots of OB and other terrors awaiting a misdirected drive, I would surely raise my handicap a few strokes and end up with a handicap that "travels well" as they say, and some might think me a sandbagger. On the other hand if I played a long wide open course where you can hit it anywhere and it doesn't matter too much I'd reduce my handicap by several strokes and be unable to play to it anywhere and I'd be labelled as carrying a vanity handicap.
I'm not saying vanity handicaps don't exist, there are probably as many of them as there are sandbaggers, but the reasons for it are simple in that people either outright cheat by writing down lower scores or only posting lower scores, and/or don't play by the rules for stuff like lost balls, "winter rules", "gimmes" and so on.
-
I've held off from posting here, but cannot any longer.
We have an established system in place for handicapping play. The system may be flawed, and is certainly not above criticism, but it is in place and works.
Playing a match, money or otherwise, using a "handicap" which is knowingly higher than that which would be available using the USGA system is CHEATING. It is such flagrant cheating that it is one of the very few fouls which may cause disqualification following the close of a competition.
Matt, I suggest that, unless you make your opponents aware of your "questionable" method of handicapping, you are simply claiming a 3-4 shot unearned advantage every time you tee off. With that edge, I'd offer to play anyone in a "money match" too.
Jamey
And the main point of this thread is to establish that it is in place and it does not work!!! That is why so many players have handicaps that are completely false - usually to the advantage of the player who has a true handicap.
The whole point of Mr Sides thread was to find out why so many golfers have handicaps that they cannot play to - Matt is playing with his own group of players who understand the system is a mess. His handicap on the computer is 6.8 or whatever and he knows that he is nowhere near that. He is a 10 so in his own games, that is what he plays off. I do not call that cheating unless it is a real tournament.
I'll go back to my caveman theory on handicaps for you Jamey. You tell me you are a 10. I expect you to shoot around 82 regularly. If you keep scoring in the 90's I 'm going to tell you you are a 20. I don't care what your potential is over 20 rounds averaged out mius 96% add this take that etc etc. ;) What can you score with a card in your hand? That is your handicap.
-
There are too many people here who seem to think the USGA handicap system is something that it is not. Anyone who thinks a 10 handicap should be shooting 82 on a par 72 course either plays some incredibly easy par 72 courses that have a rating of about 68, or does really know or understand what the USGA system measures. The articles at Dean Knuth's site (linked already posted in this thread) will explain things far better than anyone here can for those who are interested to learn how it really works.
The short version is that under the USGA system the "expected" score is that you shoot 3 strokes above your handicap. That's the COURSE handicap, not your GHIN index, and based on your adjusted score not your raw score.
So if you are a 5.1 handicap playing a tough course that's 76.0/145 you have a course handicap of 7 so 76.0 + 7 + 3 = you are expected to shoot an adjusted score of 86. If you have two triples and one quad and shoot 90 you are shooting right in line with what you are expected to with that handicap, though it would appear that a lot of people reading this thread would think that score was an indication of a vanity handicap.
That's not even getting into courses that fit someone's game well or not at all, which the handicap system doesn't really take into account. Since I'm often a wild driver of the ball, if my home course featured very narrow fairways with lots of OB and other terrors awaiting a misdirected drive, I would surely raise my handicap a few strokes and end up with a handicap that "travels well" as they say, and some might think me a sandbagger. On the other hand if I played a long wide open course where you can hit it anywhere and it doesn't matter too much I'd reduce my handicap by several strokes and be unable to play to it anywhere and I'd be labelled as carrying a vanity handicap.
I'm not saying vanity handicaps don't exist, there are probably as many of them as there are sandbaggers, but the reasons for it are simple in that people either outright cheat by writing down lower scores or only posting lower scores, and/or don't play by the rules for stuff like lost balls, "winter rules", "gimmes" and so on.
Doug, you are trying to tell me that because that the course is a little tough a 5 handicap should shoot 90. Now I really know something is wrong. Let me play that 5.1 index all day long. I could quit working. ;D
-
Dean,
Thanks for your comments you get it and you understand my position on my handicap. Call it caveman handicap theory but, it works time and time again when I play with my friends.
-
Matt,
When you are playing with friends that's one thing, but you said "when I play in events I tell guys I'm a 10 handicap". That's outright sandbagging since it sounds like you know your GHIN index would be much lower but you just don't like the way its figured. I sure hope you haven't ever won and accepted prizes based on that fictitious handicap!
This is a great example of why I never play for anything more than a token sum with someone I don't know, unless they are vouched for by someone I really trust. It doesn't have to be actually lying about a handicap or going to the extremes of deliberately missing putts to post higher scores, there are a lot of ways to sandbag.
If someone asks your handicap, why don't you just say "I don't post my scores so I don't have an official handicap, but I usually shoot about an 82". If someone mistakenly infers that you are about a 10 handicap from that, then its their fault and you haven't done anything wrong. But don't get pissed if they decide you are a 5, because if your 82s are at a moderately tough track, that's probably about what you are, according to GHIN, whether you like or agree with it, or not.
Its no surprise you find you "pound" the guys in your office when you play them based on their handicap, if they are a GHIN 10 and you are a Varney 10 they are essentially giving you five shots. You might find the competition you seek if you got yourself an official handicap and played guys (who play by the rules, ball down, etc. as you do) who have a similar handicap. Or if the guys at your office are all GHIN 10s, by giving them the 5 shots they deserve!
I have to say, given how little knowledge of how GHIN really works that even the GCAers in this thread exhibit, whom I would expect to know this stuff pretty well, that one could probably make a lot of money perhaps not quite honestly but definitely not dishonestly. Simply by NOT carrying a real handicap yet being scrupulously honest when asked "what's your handicap" and replying with the exact raw totals of your last 10 scores. I'll bet a lot of people would average them, subtract from 72, and decide that's your handicap. A guy could really clean up that way, and no one could fault him for cheating, at least not by the letter of the law...
-
To say your handicap is 10 when you know that it is not (whether or not in your world you think it should be calculated differently) is cheating. Cheating has no place in golf.
-
I think the importance of a handicap is to be honest and keep accurate scoring. I know the handicap system is hard to understand and is not perfect. I think the point I was trying to convey when starting the post was to get an answer why most men lie about their handicap. Some lie to cheat for money, but most lie to look themselves look better. An example I can think of was when I recently played in Arizona with my brother in law, a man was paired with us. He said he was a 6 handicap. Well by the second hole when he was slicing balls off the course and into houses and blasting irons into the desert, it was clear that he was not having a bad day, the fact was there was no way in hell he was a 6 handicap! This is not a rarity. I can't begin to tell you the number of times a person claims to be a single digit handicapper and their swing and game does not match the handicap they claim.
-
Mark is completely right
If you do not follow the rules for handicaps (regardless of which system), you do not have a legitimate handicap. Anybody playing with you or against you with anything significant at stake is doing so at his or her peril and your ignominy.
Rich
-
To say your handicap is 10 when you know that it is not (whether or not in your world you think it should be calculated differently) is cheating. Cheating has no place in golf.
It certainly doesn't. So we can wipe away probably 75% of official ghin/usga handicaps as they are gained taking mulligans, rolling the ball in the fairway (sometimes the rough) and not finishing the hole out because the rules of golf construe all three as 'cheating'. ;)
-
I think the importance of a handicap is to be honest and keep accurate scoring. I know the handicap system is hard to understand and is not perfect. I think the point I was trying to convey when starting the post was to get an answer why most men lie about their handicap. Some lie to cheat for money, but most lie to look themselves look better. An example I can think of was when I recently played in Arizona with my brother in law, a man was paired with us. He said he was a 6 handicap. Well by the second hole when he was slicing balls off the course and into houses and blasting irons into the desert, it was clear that he was not having a bad day, the fact was there was no way in hell he was a 6 handicap! This is not a rarity. I can't begin to tell you the number of times a person claims to be a single digit handicapper and their swing and game does not match the handicap they claim.
maybe it does given what I have learned about how the system works on this thread. ;D
-
Doug,
You make a great point that validates what I am saying about handicaps. If I play with a group of friends and they claim to be a 7, 10 and 12 handicaps then we play 18. I told them on the range that I was a 10 and guess what I shot 83. My playing partners on the other hand shoot 86, 90 and 95 respectively. I was honest and shot a round consistent with my scoring handicap of 10. I played to my true ability one shot higher that my handicap average.
This is really simple when you quit using the NASA / USGA formula for calculating handicaps.
I am not a cheater or ball roller or mulligan player. I play it back and play it down counting all my shots what is the point in lying / vanity handicaps if you can't back it up. I shoot around 82 not 77 thus I am a 10.
-
Matt:
Your "system" works for you and your friends, and there's nothing wrong with it. In fact I'd venture to say that that's how a lot of people playing with their friends handle handicapping - you know what each is expected to shoot and you handicap relative to each other. So you're a 10 the way you look at it, your other friends may be 5 and 15, and the strokes are given accordingly. Perfect, no hassles, have at it.
Obviously the problem with your way of handling this is that it fails when you play against someone you don't know. And perhaps that never happens - if so, great!
But if your index the way the USGA does things is indeed 5.5, then you can't show up to a tournament and claim 10, now matter how logical you find your easy way of calculating things to be. You get that, right? In the end it seems to me you just want to base this on average score, so you can call yourself a 10 instead of the 6-7 that you'd likely get on a decent course. Fair enough, have at it. It works for you and your friends. It just won't work against others who use the USGA handicap system.
The USGA handicapping system was created how it is for many reasons, most above my head, hell I really don't know WHY it is how it is. A guy like John V. likely could explain it. What I do believe is that when applied correctly, it works for how most Americans play this game and treat it. But whether it works or not, or whether anyone likes it or not, well... one key factor is that if there are going to be "net" tournaments among strangers, there simply must be one uniform system that all use. And thus here in America we have the USGA system, for better or for worse.
Does it allow for sandbagging? Yes, absolutely.
Does it allow for vanity handicaps? Check, yes there also.
Is there a better way to do it?
Not that I've heard of, not that would work here in the USA.
TH
-
Matt, you've simply redefined the meaning of the term handicap. In your world, handicap means average, in most everyone else's it means whatever the USGA defines it as. Like Tom said, this is fine among friends who are using your same system. But don't get so tied up in the "value" of your handicap. It's simply a tool to make competition between players of different abilities "fair." You seem to think of it as more of a "label" to define yourself by. I don't care if the official USGA handicap system calculates my index as a 2.5 or a 25. All I care about is that the system does its best to make a match against another player as fair as possible. The current system does that for the most part - assuming everyone posts all their scores, plays by the rules, and tries to score their best every round.
-
Matt, you've simply redefined the meaning of the term handicap. In your world, handicap means average, in everyone else's it means whatever the USGA defines it as. Don't get so tied up in the "value" of your handicap. It's simply a tool to make competition between players of different abilities "fair." You seem to think of it as more of a "label" to define yourself by. I don't care if the official USGA handicap system calculates my index as a 2.5 or a 25. All I care about is that the system does its best to make a match against another player as fair as possible. The current system does that for the most part - assuming everyone posts all their scores, plays by the rules, and tries to score their best every round.
Art - extremely well said, a succinct and far more logical version of what I just posted. I couldn't possibly agree more.
Many thanks.
TH
-
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.
HANDICAPs are about making the playing field more even for playing against golfers of differing abilities. It is about setting up a match that is more fair. Matt, by the things you have posted, you are NOT a 10 handicap. 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
-
Bart: well... if Matt doesn't get that a handicap using average score is a completely different thing than one arrived at using the USGA system, then yes, there is no hope for him. But I think he does get that. He wouldn't really show up for a net tournament and claim a 10, would he?
Matt if you are still here, apologies for talking about you in this way. You wouldn't claim a 10 if you ever played a net tournament, would you?
TH
-
My brain hurts reading all of this.
A question for those who feel handicaps should be based on average score versus par...
My average score this year is around 79 - I guess in your world, this means I'm a 7 handicap.
My index is a 2.5 at the moment...in your world, I'm obviously a vanity handicap because I only 'play to my handicap' and break 75 about once every five or six rounds.
The thing you aren't accounting for is the fact I'm playing the back tees every round I play, with the average course rating around 74 or 75 and a slope around 140. Do you not even think about course difficulty being an issue regarding handicap?
If not, I'll gladly take my '7' and play you from the back tees any day of the week versus your 10 since that obviously doesn't matter much to you.
A handicap takes into account numerous factors, but none of them include PAR, nor should they. You need to remember that.
-
I don't belong to a club of any type or play in tournaments or money games. I calculate my own handicap index, but sometimes when I tell people that I am a 9 or 10 they just roll their eyes. This is how I calculate it:
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.
Isn't this the correct methodology?
I was 1-1-1 at the KPVI. Perhaps I wasn't flighted high enough and the overall results should be invalidated.
-
I don't belong to a club of any type or play in tournaments or money games. I calculate my own handicap index, but sometimes when I tell people that I am a 9 or 10 they just roll their eyes. This is how I calculate it:
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.
Isn't this the correct methodology?
I was 1-1-1 at the KPVI. Perhaps I wasn't flighted high enough and the overall results should be invalidated.
5. Lastly, multiple result from #4 by .96.
-
Matt,
You and I are much closer than you think. I also play it all the way back on a course that is about 7,200 yards where they used to play the Nationwide Tour event in our town. So you mean to tell me that if I play it back and another guy plays the course at 6,200 yards and has a 5 handicap he is better than me? I would love to see that 5 play from the back and shoot around 80 based on the USGA system. Your 2.5 handicap is what you have if you want to call it vanity that's fine but, can you shoot 75 all the time? Probably not so you shoot scores around 80 and we would have a really good match "my Cheating 10 to your USGA 2.5" If you hit one bad tee shot O.B. or putt poorly I would beat you so tell me how that works out?
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.
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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."
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
My handicap is a "wife and 4 kids" ...
-
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."
-
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.
-
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
-
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! :)
-
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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 - 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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
Matt, if you want to solve a "real" handicap problem, Dr. Reid Sheftall (http://www.reidsheftall.com/) - 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) (http://www.golfwrx.com/forums/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=224027)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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 (http://golf.about.com/cs/handicapping/a/howcalculated.htm)
-
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.
-
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 ...
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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
-
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.
-
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 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
-
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
-
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.
;D
-
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.
-
"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 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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
... 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?
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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!
;D
-
AwsHuckster
At the end of the day, a handicap is what it is. Personally, I don't see a need to adjust handicaps unless its part of a society where you want to make sure all have a good shot a winning prizes by the end of the year. Hell, the group I run has me at +3 and we always do 3/4s! One thing is for certain, nobody in that group can bitch to me about caps. I say state yer number and keep the stakes reasonable (essentially, enough to buy a round of drinks). All this mumbo jumbo about fairness makes about as much sense as a Behr essay.
Ciao
-
Sean: I agree with you.
But the question at hand was what to do when people who don't know each other's games, one from the US and one from the UK, play against each other at match play. The point is that they if they are concerned with making it fair, they just plain can't use their respective handicaps as given by their home associations, as the methodology is so different as to make the use against each other meaningless.
But of course in the end, keeping the stakes reasonable and just doing the best one can is always great advice!
That just wasn't the question here, that's all.
TH
-
Of course another possible answer is the UK guys all choked their minds out!
;D
I'm sure that was it. It was a real pressure cooker!
-
Sean: I agree with you.
But the question at hand was what to do when people who don't know each other's games, one from the US and one from the UK, play against each other at match play. The point is that they if they are concerned with making it fair, they just plain can't use their respective handicaps as given by their home associations, as the methodology is so different as to make the use against each other meaningless.
But of course in the end, keeping the stakes reasonable and just doing the best one can is always great advice!
That just wasn't the question here, that's all.
TH
AwsHuckster
I reckon its about as fair as it gets. I can't see how making up crazy formulas based on opinions and anecdotal evidence makes things any more fair.
Ciao