Of the eight of them, only one could regularly play to within five shots of his stated handicap. Using the Stableford system, he and I were regularly scoring in the thirties, but everyone else was in the twenties most of the time. And the thing that struck me about this was that they clearly thought it was perfectly normal - the fact that I was scoring in the thirties prompted a lot of good-humoured stuff about my being a sandbagger, despite the fact that at no point did I score better than net par figures.
This got me thinking about whether there is something in the differences between the US and British systems that might account for it. As I understand it, in the States you put in cards every time you play. Over here, only competition scores (played understrict rules, obviously) count for handicap purposes. Any thoughts on whether that might give rise to different results?