[Bill Seitz]

I think it depends on how you get to your index somewhat as well.  If you're long and somewhat sideways, you can go pretty low on days when you're hitting it straight, and go really high on days when you're not.  I'm not very long, but I'm not necessarily a short hitter, and tend to keep the ball in play for the most part off the tee, so my bad rounds usually aren't REALLY bad in terms of score.  If it's built on a great short game and playing courses without a lot of hazards, you may find yourself putting up big numbers when you get to a course with a lot of forced carries and water.

I'm around a four, and I won't usually shoot over 90 even when I play really poorly, because I'm not taking six shots just to get out of the junk and on to the green.  But I also never really break 70 (I've only done it once), and playing back tees can be a pretty big disadvantage for me against guys like Matt and Josh, who hit the ball a lot farther.  I also play most of my rounds at a course with pretty generous fairways, so my handicap doesn't always travel all that well.  

John's point about ESC is a good one as well.  You can walk off a couple of the par threes at Kingsley with numbers that you'd be embarrassed to write down on par 5s, but you can't post them as anything more than a double.  This means that those 8th, 9th, and 10th best rounds may have had a bit higher differential and pushed up your "real" handicap if not for the posting rules.

[Matthew Sander]

You can walk off a couple of the par threes at Kingsley with numbers that you'd be embarrassed to write down on par 5s, but you can't post them as anything more than a double.  

Uuh, I have no idea what you're talking about ...

[Josh Tarble]

If you're long and somewhat sideways, you can go pretty low on days when you're hitting it straight, and go really high on days when you're not.  

This is what I've seen cause the most fluctuation...including myself.  I've had days when my misses are 40 yards either way and I am struggling to make bogies and I've had days that I feel like I could hit it down a bowling alley. t's unbelievably frustrating and can be a legitimate 15 stroke difference.

[A.G._Crockett]

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

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

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

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

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

Absent an extreme example (and I think hypothesizing a player who more or less regularly alternated between 70 and 90 or even 80 and 90 ARE extreme because I've never met or even known of such a player!) don't you think that one's index is at least reasonably accurate as a skills index in a gross sense?  

To play to a 5, for instance, a player has to hit the ball a decent distance and relatively straight, have a decent short game and putt reasonably well.  Those skills are hard earned, and don't tend to come and go on a daily basis.  The guy whose normal differential is 6 or 7 won't alternate that level of play with differentials twice as high.

[JLahrman]

Absent an extreme example (and I think hypothesizing a player who more or less regularly alternated between 70 and 90 or even 80 and 90 ARE extreme because I've never met or even known of such a player!) don't you think that one's index is at least reasonably accurate as a skills index in a gross sense?  

To play to a 5, for instance, a player has to hit the ball a decent distance and relatively straight, have a decent short game and putt reasonably well.  Those skills are hard earned, and don't tend to come and go on a daily basis.  The guy whose normal differential is 6 or 7 won't alternate that level of play with differentials twice as high.

To play to a low handicap, perhaps. But I'm an 11 index right now. There are 11 indexes who play a lot and have probably maxed out their skills unless they are going to redo their swing, take lessons, etc.

Then there are people like me. I'm an 11 because I hit half my shots like a 5 handicap and half my shots like a 17 handicap. For one round, if I have a good day and hit 70% of my shots like a 5 handicap, I'm going to shoot 80ish. If I have a bad day and hit 70% of my shots like a 17 handicap, I will very easily struggle to break 100. A couple of the scores I've posted on my current index would have been above 100 without that Equitable Stroke nonsense. But I've got several low 80s posted as well.

[Jason Thurman]

It definitely depends on the player and how they get their scores. I can't imagine Pete Pittock shooting over 100, regardless of his modesty in this thread. He hits it short but dead straight and plays to about a 10. Same with Dan Moore. Guys who are prone to hitting it wild are at risk, but so are guys like me who just plain lack ballstriking consistency. I'm an 8 (it'll be going up at next revision). My lack of consistent compression with every club is what kills me as much as anything. I generally hit it fairly straight, but I struggle with distance control and predictability because I often don't hit it solidly.

On days when I'm compressing the ball, I drive it 280 or better and can stripe my irons, as the kids say. I can hit 10 or 12 greens easily, sometimes more, and post differentials around 5 or better.

On days when I'm not compressing the ball, or when my trajectory gets too high and crappy, I drive it more like 230 even on swings that feel good and come up short constantly on approaches. The disparity was on full display when I last played with Bill and Josh a few weeks ago. I spent a Thursday bunting and flubbing the ball around and Josh was consistently 60 or 70 yards ahead of me. The next day I was hitting it out there with Bill and Josh on my good swings (though I don't know many people who can hang with Josh when he smokes one). Two days later, I was back to being 20 or 30 yards short of Bill. Inconsistency is hell. When I start hitting high driver "flop shots" and fat irons, I can shoot some big numbers. I haven't been over 100 in a few years aside from really long and tough courses, but I'm not immune to the mid-90s by any stretch.

As an aside, I've put in a lot of work in the last two weeks and was able to make a big fundamental change, partly as a result of the inspiration that came from getting shellacked by more consistent hitters for four days. Those of you that have seen me play won't recognize me the next time you see me, as the step-through is gone thanks to a head that has finally learned to stay behind the ball. It's amazing how big a gap there is between my inconsistency at around 8 or 9 and the consistently solid strikes and control that a 3 or 4 can show, despite the fact that scores in my low range of the mid/upper 70s might overlap with their mid to high range scores. I agree with AG that it takes real fundamentals and hard-earned lack of variation in the swing to play to a 5 or better over 20 rounds as opposed to just one good one.

[A.G._Crockett]

Absent an extreme example (and I think hypothesizing a player who more or less regularly alternated between 70 and 90 or even 80 and 90 ARE extreme because I've never met or even known of such a player!) don't you think that one's index is at least reasonably accurate as a skills index in a gross sense?  

To play to a 5, for instance, a player has to hit the ball a decent distance and relatively straight, have a decent short game and putt reasonably well.  Those skills are hard earned, and don't tend to come and go on a daily basis.  The guy whose normal differential is 6 or 7 won't alternate that level of play with differentials twice as high.

To play to a low handicap, perhaps. But I'm an 11 index right now. There are 11 indexes who play a lot and have probably maxed out their skills unless they are going to redo their swing, take lessons, etc.

Then there are people like me. I'm an 11 because I hit half my shots like a 5 handicap and half my shots like a 17 handicap. For one round, if I have a good day and hit 70% of my shots like a 5 handicap, I'm going to shoot 80ish. If I have a bad day and hit 70% of my shots like a 17 handicap, I will very easily struggle to break 100. A couple of the scores I've posted on my current index would have been above 100 without that EQI nonsense. But I've got several low 80s posted as well.

We're getting dangerously close to an angels on the head of a pin discussion here, but an 11 is VERY different from a 5.  The original example was the guy who shoots 10 80's and 10 82's vs. the guy who shoots 10 80's and 10 90's, so I'll go back to that.

Forget about the extreme of a bad day or a great day and forget about the guy who hits great shots and awful shots within the same round; keep it simple and just take the guy who shoots a bunch of 80's.  The skillset needed to shoot EVERY OTHER ROUND at that level just simply doesn't come and go to the extent that is being talked about here.

Sure the 11 will now and again shoot an 80, and sure the 5 will now and again shoot 90; happens all the time!  But I've never met the guy who alternates REGULARLY between 80 and 90 within a 20 round span.  As fickle as the golf swing is and as short as the shelf life of good golf is, that simply doesn't happen, at least in my experience.

Solid putters have rounds where they 3 putt several times.  Good drivers get crooked from time to time and hit several balls OB or into a hazard in a round.  Good iron players have rounds where they miss in the wrong places and can't get up and down.  But it is rare that all of those things happen at once, and if they do and stay that way, the 5 will be an 11 soon enough.

But alternating between 80 and 90 round after round regularly?  I don't think so.

[A.G._Crockett]

It definitely depends on the player and how they get their scores. I can't imagine Pete Pittock shooting over 100, regardless of his modesty in this thread. He hits it short but dead straight and plays to about a 10. Same with Dan Moore. Guys who are prone to hitting it wild are at risk, but so are guys like me who just plain lack ballstriking consistency. I'm an 8 (it'll be going up at next revision). My lack of consistent compression with every club is what kills me as much as anything. I generally hit it fairly straight, but I struggle with distance control and predictability because I often don't hit it solidly.

On days when I'm compressing the ball, I drive it 280 or better and can stripe my irons, as the kids say. I can hit 10 or 12 greens easily, sometimes more, and post differentials around 5 or better.

On days when I'm not compressing the ball, or when my trajectory gets too high and crappy, I drive it more like 230 even on swings that feel good and come up short constantly on approaches. The disparity was on full display when I last played with Bill and Josh a few weeks ago. I spent a Thursday bunting and flubbing the ball around and Josh was consistently 60 or 70 yards ahead of me. The next day I was hitting it out there with Bill and Josh on my good swings (though I don't know many people who can hang with Josh when he smokes one). Two days later, I was back to being 20 or 30 yards short of Bill. Inconsistency is hell. When I start hitting high driver "flop shots" and fat irons, I can shoot some big numbers. I haven't been over 100 in a few years aside from really long and tough courses, but I'm not immune to the mid-90s by any stretch.

As an aside, I've put in a lot of work in the last two weeks and was able to make a big fundamental change, partly as a result of the inspiration that came from getting shellacked by more consistent hitters for four days. Those of you that have seen me play won't recognize me the next time you see me, as the step-through is gone thanks to a head that has finally learned to stay behind the ball. It's amazing how big a gap there is between my inconsistency at around 8 or 9 and the consistently solid strikes and control that a 3 or 4 can show, despite the fact that scores in my low range of the mid/upper 70s might overlap with their mid to high range scores. I agree with AG that it takes real fundamentals and hard-earned lack of variation in the swing to play to a 5 or better over 20 rounds as opposed to just one good one.

Again, you are talking about your best days (occasional for us all) vs. your worst days (occasional for us all).  But do you see these sorts of swings round after round regularly, and have 20 rounds with half of them clustered around 80 and the other half at 90 or higher?

[Jason Thurman]

In my average last 20, I generally have one or two scores in the 70s, one or two in the 90s, and the rest in the 80s. So you're right, it's not a round by round fluctuation. In the last month, I had a stretch of four rounds within a week when I threatened the 70s each time, followed a week or two later by six rounds in four days where I was in danger of hitting the 90s in five of them. So the fluctuations can happen quickly, but they're usually consistent across a short time frame.

[Brian Potash]

Glad this thread got some legs, I was skeptical.

Lots of interesting responses.

I'm limping towards the finish line of the season in NY and have found myself wondering how good I need to get before I don't have to worry about sucking!

Looking forward to taking some lessons over the winter.

Brian

[Thomas Dai]

For a couple of years wasn't there a Golf Digest/TV challenge following a comment from Tiger about a 10 hcp couldn't break 100 on a US Open course? US Open set-up, TV camera's present, caddies, celebs, spectators, etc. Does this challenge still happen or has it been shelved?
All the best

[A.G._Crockett]

Glad this thread got some legs, I was skeptical.

Lots of interesting responses.

I'm limping towards the finish line of the season in NY and have found myself wondering how good I need to get before I don't have to worry about sucking!

Looking forward to taking some lessons over the winter.

Brian

Oh, THAT! 

The answer is that you will ALWAYS have to worry about sucking.  Always...

But sucking is relative term, and when you get good enough to break routinely be in the low 80's, the 100's will be for the most part in the rearview mirror forever.

[A.G._Crockett]

For a couple of years wasn't there a Golf Digest/TV challenge following a comment from Tiger about a 10 hcp couldn't break 100 on a US Open course? US Open set-up, TV camera's present, caddies, celebs, spectators, etc. Does this challenge still happen or has it been shelved?
All the best

I think it was done only once, at Bethpage.  Tony Romo might have shot 96 or something like that; don't even remember who the other celebs were.  Maybe Timberlake?  A beautiful woman in there somewhere?

[Bill Seitz]

For a couple of years wasn't there a Golf Digest/TV challenge following a comment from Tiger about a 10 hcp couldn't break 100 on a US Open course? US Open set-up, TV camera's present, caddies, celebs, spectators, etc. Does this challenge still happen or has it been shelved?
All the best

I think it was done only once, at Bethpage.  Tony Romo might have shot 96 or something like that; don't even remember who the other celebs were.  Maybe Timberlake?  A beautiful woman in there somewhere?

I think they did it at Torrey as well, but I could be wrong.  

[Michael Felton]

For a couple of years wasn't there a Golf Digest/TV challenge following a comment from Tiger about a 10 hcp couldn't break 100 on a US Open course? US Open set-up, TV camera's present, caddies, celebs, spectators, etc. Does this challenge still happen or has it been shelved?
All the best

I think it was done only once, at Bethpage.  Tony Romo might have shot 96 or something like that; don't even remember who the other celebs were.  Maybe Timberlake?  A beautiful woman in there somewhere?

I think they did it at Torrey as well, but I could be wrong.  

They did indeed. I think both times one of the celebs did it (Romo may have shot in the low 80s at Torrey, but he's a genuinely good player and wouldn't be fazed by the crowds or TV), but the random 10 that they found didn't. I think. Might be mistaken about that.

[Matthew Petersen]

Agree that it depends a lot on the kind of player you are.

I have been as low as a 1 in the past, now I'm around a 4. After my son was born I played barely at all in the first year of his life. One of my first rounds after I started playing again was with some folks at the very long, very penal Quintero GC, from the tips. That day was a big struggle, but I still broke 90. On my handful of worst days I might threaten the 90s, but I can't recall the last time I actually shot such a score.

For me, I drive the ball very well, generally. Hit it a reasonable distance. Not real long, but long enough that length doesn't intimidate me much. My primary struggle is with short irons and putting. So my variance in scores tends to be very low because the difference between a really good day and a bad one is, maybe, a bad drive or two, and how I putt. I'm sure there are courses out there where I couldn't get down in 4 putts, but I haven't found one yet, and it's have to be that kind of extreme before my scores got so bad that I was seriously threatening 100. Even my worst days driving the ball, even on tight, penal desert courses, I can get it in play more often than not.

On the other hand I have a buddy who can play well enough to break 80, but can also easily be over 100, or anywhere in between. He can be good but there's really no part of his game that is consistent at all. I think if you can get consistent with any mjor part of the game, you can go a long way toward taking those big numbers away.

The US Open set up examples are pretty extreme, and pointing out that even good players can struggle to break 100 in those conditions doesn't seem to prove much except how extreme those conditions are.

[Carl Johnson]

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

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

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

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

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

Absent an extreme example (and I think hypothesizing a player who more or less regularly alternated between 70 and 90 or even 80 and 90 ARE extreme because I've never met or even known of such a player!) don't you think that one's index is at least reasonably accurate as a skills index in a gross sense?  

To play to a 5, for instance, a player has to hit the ball a decent distance and relatively straight, have a decent short game and putt reasonably well.  Those skills are hard earned, and don't tend to come and go on a daily basis.  The guy whose normal differential is 6 or 7 won't alternate that level of play with differentials twice as high.

A.G., I used the extreme example because prior posters (see numbers 6 and 10, above, for example) had used some extreme examples.  The extremes (mine, and their's, I believe) are intended for illustration purposes only.  I used the extremes to try to make the point about the USGA's stated purpose of the handicap system.  I'd agree with you, of course.  The 10/70 - 10/90 player does not exist in the real world.  And yes, I'd agree that one's HC index is "reasonably accurate as a skills index in a gross sense?"  I might add "very" before gross, but would not quibble if others did not.  Having said that, my sense is that some players try to read too much into their HC index.  I think it's important that when discussing handicaps that everyone understand what a "handicap index" as part of the handicap system is intended by the USGA to be used for.  Once they have that understanding, then they can reach whatever conclusions they wish for the number.

Not to try to divert the topic, but I do not think everyone on this site has a real good idea of the nuts and bolts of the handicap system.  For example, the latest being yesterday, I hear golfers saying something like, "This is the hardest hole on the course.  Most everyone agrees.  Why isn't it the no. 1 handicap hole on the course?"  Many folks (that I play deal with, including some that are highly skilled) can't seem to get in their heads, no matter how well or often it's explained to them, how the golf committee decides to assign handicap numbers to holes on a course, even though it is a relatively simple matter.  They still come back to one word simplicity, "hardness."

[Tim_Weiman]

Brian,

Good question.

About twenty five years ago I shot what might have been the best round of my life - not my best score ever, but my best compared to my golfing buddies (a group of 12 guys on a trip to Scotland, with about 8 - myself included - being single digit).

The venue was Turnberry on a bright sunny day with winds reported at 75-80 miles per hour. It was an amazing day that felt like a war. Forget ball striking. Putting was unbelievable.

Anyway, the best player in our group - a legitimate 3 handicap and former scratch player - had our group's SECOND best score.

He shot a 135!

Somehow I managed to shoot 50-41 for a 91, fully 44 strokes better than my 3 handicap playing partner.

Don't know if that helps answer your question, but my experience does illustrate how crazy the game can be at times.

[Ken Moum]

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

The GHIN system does calculate your average for the last 20. IIRC it shows up on one of the screens you see when entering scores.

FWIW,  I used to play with a guy who carried about 6 index who complained all the time about not counting his bad rounds. He said it wasn't fair that he had to give up those strokes.

He thought he was giving the high indexes too manyn shotd. So I calculated indexes for everyone in our little game using all 20 scores.  Everyone else's handicaps went up more than his.

K

[Carl Johnson]

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

The GHIN system does calculate your average for the last 20. IIRC it shows up on one of the screens you see when entering scores.

FWIW,  I used to play with a guy who carried about 6 index who complained all the time about not counting his bad rounds. He said it wasn't fair that he had to give up those strokes.

He thought he was giving the high indexes too manyn shotd. So I calculated indexes for everyone in our little game using all 20 scores.  Everyone else's handicaps went up more than his.

K

Ken, Thanks, I had not noticed that (avg. on  GHIN).  I'll look for it next time.  Carl

[Andrew Buck]

I'd be curious if there is anyone on this board that is greater than a 5 who doesn't have at least a 10 shot variance in their last 20 rounds.  I'm currently 0 an I think I have from 67 to 82 (adjusted) posted, and rarely will I go 20 rounds without at least one round in the 80's or a couple under par.

How many pro's don't have at least a variance of 8 - 10 shots over 20 rounds?

Sure there are consistent players and less consistent, but the 80 - 82 player doesn't exist.  

[A.G._Crockett]

I'd be curious if there is anyone on this board that is greater than a 5 who doesn't have at least a 10 shot variance in their last 20 rounds.  I'm currently 0 an I think I have from 67 to 82 (adjusted) posted, and rarely will I go 20 rounds without at least one round in the 80's or a couple under par.

How many pro's don't have at least a variance of 8 - 10 shots over 20 rounds?

Sure there are consistent players and less consistent, but the 80 - 82 player doesn't exist.  

Andrew,
I agree with you 100% that the 80-82 player doesn't exist, either.  I would also expect that 10 shot swings would be commonplace, even for low single digit players.  My current index is 5.9, and I have a 13 shot swing among the 20 rounds.

But the thread veered off on the question of how it is reasonable for the hypothetical 80-90 player to have the same index as the 80-82 player.  I don't think it is an important question, since neither player exists anyway, so I'll refine my thought just a bit.

To the extent that the handicap system gives the same index to a player who is very consistent and a player who is very inconsistent, the system favors the more consistent player by not awarding strokes to the inconsistent player and therefore rewarding him for his inconsistency.  I think that's a good system.

[Thomas Dai]

For single figure players I would have thought more like a 16 shot swing, ie play out of your skin once in 20 games and you could be about 6 under hcp, play like a complete dog once in 20 games and you might be like 10 over hcp. Overs seem to occur more easily than unders!
All the best

[Tom Bacsanyi]

My last 20 ranges between 69 and 86.  17 shots.  To be fair, the 69 was my first round under par ever, and I played out of my mind.  74 is a much more common "really good" round for me.

[Andrew Buck]

To the extent that the handicap system gives the same index to a player who is very consistent and a player who is very inconsistent, the system favors the more consistent player by not awarding strokes to the inconsistent player and therefore rewarding him for his inconsistency.  I think that's a good system.

I agree with you.  To the extent there are two players with the top 50% of their last 20 rounds providing an expected score of 80, that's a fair measure of their potential.  It wouldn't be fair, IMO, for a system to reward the inconsistent player with a higher handicap, which would ensure he would beat his competitor with the same capabilities when they both played to their potential.  

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()