Simplified Handicap System

[Dgolfer277]

Hi. I want to discuss "handicapping".

My thoughts: 1. Really, who cares? 2. Do your best - why would you do anything else - while enjoying the day and the company of others. 3. Handicapping has one purpose, namely, competition between those that have good golf scores and those that don't. 4. The reason for handicapping seems to be motivated by Ego ... and Gambling. 5. The professional tours and top "open" events don't have a handicapping system - you pay to enter and if you make the cut, you get paid according to your results or no payment for amateurs.  6. I don't like the professional (and other) tours tampering with the players by penalizing long hitters - one example, "Tiger proofing" - or penalizing putting innovator Sam Snead.  7. I know that golf is not changing soon and sandbagging, cheating, bragging, etc. will go on until it does.      

Now that my thoughts are out there, here is what I want to know. Over 15+ years ago, I read an article proposing a simplified golf handicapping system.  I lost the article and attempts to find it or ask got me nowhere. It was like a cure for cancer had been presented but it was covered up - never to be discussed again. Except here I am discussing it again. It was simple enough that perhaps someone can piece it together from the following things that I do remember. 

Here are the pieces I remember: 1. Simply put, your handicap is based on the previous hole's score. 2. If you par a hole, then your handicap for the next hole is 0.  3. If you birdie a hole, then your handicap for the next hole is +1. 4. If you bogey a hole, then your handicap for the next hole is -1. SIMPLE, YES! However, the author(s) had done some research and had some basic limitations/adjustments to limit/prevent someone from easily cheating/gaming their handicap system - yeah, like anyone would want to "cheat or game" a handicap system. 

This is where I don't fully remember the adjustments: 1. Hole 1 and Hole 18 scores are reduced by 1/2 a stroke ... so someone doesn't take advantage of purposely "gaming" with a high score on the first hole and a low score on the last hole. 2. There is a maximum high and low adjustment that you can carry to the next hole. Truthfully, I don't remember but I think the most you take into the next hole is -2 (that is, if you had a triple bogey (-3) you would only get -2 strokes on the next hole). On the other hand, if you eagled, the most you take into the next hole is -1. 

Does anyone remember this article or handicapping system? I thought of trying to use the above with some lower and higher scoring players but haven't yet - Life distracted me. I have time now so this Spring I plan to try it. 

Thanks for reading and helpful comments! 

[iacas]

That doesn't strike me as a "handicap system" at all. Handicap systems do more than that which you said in #3 above.

Many will use them to measure progress, or to see how they played against the course that day. They're used (your index) to see if you qualify for entry into some events.

I don't think the current system is all that complicated. If a player gets nine strokes, he gets them on holes with the stroke index 1 through 9. Is that difficult?

[boogielicious]

I would think the simplified system would in fact be far more complicated to enact. You are constantly adjusting. The current handicap system is pretty easy to implement. You know ahead of time what your course handicap is and what holes you get strokes. 

[jsgolfer]

Wow, sounds way too complicated.  

[klineka]

9 hours ago, Dgolfer277 said:

Hi. I want to discuss "handicapping".

My thoughts: 1. Really, who cares? 2. Do your best - why would you do anything else - while enjoying the day and the company of others. 3. Handicapping has one purpose, namely, competition between those that have good golf scores and those that don't.    

You answered question 1 with your 3rd point. People with different skill levels who want to compete on a somewhat level field are exactly who care about a handicap system.

 

9 hours ago, Dgolfer277 said:

4. The reason for handicapping seems to be motivated by Ego ... and Gambling.

Or, you know, so that people of different skill levels can play against one another and have a fair competition. In the overwhelming majority of matches I've played my self-esteem or self importance has not been tied to the outcome of that match. (A quick definition of ego I found was "a person's sense of self-esteem or self-importance")

 

9 hours ago, Dgolfer277 said:

5. The professional tours and top "open" events don't have a handicapping system - you pay to enter and if you make the cut, you get paid according to your results or no payment for amateurs.  

But in order to play on a professional tour and/or a top "open" event, there is somewhat of a prerequisite skill level required (usually demonstrated through a qualification process), aka all of the players playing in a PGA Tour event are much closer to the same level of golf compared to what you'd find in a Saturday foursome where one player might shoot low 70s, another might be mid 80s, one might shoot 100, and one might shoot 120. There isn't a 30-40 stroke difference between PGA Tour player's abilities like there is between friends in a weekend match. 

If every one of my friends or people I wanted to have a match with were all similar skill levels to me then sure there wouldn't be much of a need for a handicap system. But that's not reality.

 

9 hours ago, Dgolfer277 said:

Hi. I want to discuss "handicapping".

6. I don't like the professional (and other) tours tampering with the players by penalizing long hitters - one example, "Tiger proofing" - or penalizing putting innovator Sam Snead. 

What does #6 have to do with handicapping?

 

9 hours ago, Dgolfer277 said:

 Now that my thoughts are out there, here is what I want to know. Over 15+ years ago, I read an article proposing a simplified golf handicapping system.  I lost the article and attempts to find it or ask got me nowhere. It was like a cure for cancer had been presented but it was covered up - never to be discussed again. Except here I am discussing it again. It was simple enough that perhaps someone can piece it together from the following things that I do remember. 

Here are the pieces I remember: 1. Simply put, your handicap is based on the previous hole's score. 2. If you par a hole, then your handicap for the next hole is 0.  3. If you birdie a hole, then your handicap for the next hole is +1. 4. If you bogey a hole, then your handicap for the next hole is -1. SIMPLE, YES! However, the author(s) had done some research and had some basic limitations/adjustments to limit/prevent someone from easily cheating/gaming their handicap system - yeah, like anyone would want to "cheat or game" a handicap system. 

This is where I don't fully remember the adjustments: 1. Hole 1 and Hole 18 scores are reduced by 1/2 a stroke ... so someone doesn't take advantage of purposely "gaming" with a high score on the first hole and a low score on the last hole. 2. There is a maximum high and low adjustment that you can carry to the next hole. Truthfully, I don't remember but I think the most you take into the next hole is -2 (that is, if you had a triple bogey (-3) you would only get -2 strokes on the next hole). On the other hand, if you eagled, the most you take into the next hole is -1. 

Does anyone remember this article or handicapping system? I thought of trying to use the above with some lower and higher scoring players but haven't yet - Life distracted me. I have time now so this Spring I plan to try it. 

Thanks for reading and helpful comments! 

Do you not find it ironic that the first point you make is saying who cares about a handicap system but then you type multiple paragraphs trying to explain a different handicap system?

Also I think the handicap system you described is quite flawed. There are multiple things it doesn't factor in or address.

• First, not all holes are the same difficulty, yet under your system the strokes gained or lost would be the same. A par on a 215 yard par 3 surrounded by water and deep bunkers is different than a par on a 305 yd par 4 without much trouble yet in your system they would be treated the same. 
• Second, this doesn't account for the differences in levels of golfers. It's a greater "accomplishment" for someone who shoots 100 to get a birdie on that 215 yard par 3 than it is for someone who shoots 70, yet both players are "punished" the same with a 1 stroke addition for the next hole. (Granted it would still be a great accomplishment for both golfers, but the 100 shooter would gain a much higher amount of strokes gained for the 100 shooter to score a 2 there vs the 70 shooter to score a 2 there yet they each would get a -1 for the next hole) 
  • I mean FFS PGA Tour players average over 3 strokes to hole out on all par 3s over 160 yds, so on average most PGA Tour players would get the -1 for the next hole for bogeying the previous par 3. If your handicap system is supposed to allow players of different skill levels to compete, how is that fair when say the next hole after a tough par 3 is a short par 5? Let's say the next hole is a 540 yd par 5. PGA Tour pros average 4.65 strokes to hole out from 540 yds. Now give them a -1 for bogeying the last hole and they'd average 3.65. See how that doesn't make any sense? 
• Third, your handicap system doesn't allow for comparison of rounds across different golf courses. Golf is not played on a uniform playing field, so a 70 on a tight, tree-lined course at 6,900 yds is different than a 70 on an open, flat, 6,300yd course. Under your system I wouldn't be able to compare two of my scores from different courses to see which was a better performance.

I'm struggling to see how this is better, more accurate, more fair, easier to implement, etc. than the current handicap system. Can you explain how/why you think that is the case?

[iacas]

49 minutes ago, klineka said:

I'm struggling to see how this is better, more accurate, more fair, easier to implement, etc. than the current handicap system. Can you explain how/why you think that is the case?

I think we'd all be curious about that.

[Big Lex]

I'm in the camp that the current system isn't really complicated. Not in design or implementation. Maybe the only "complicated" thing is that you have to register to get a handicap, so there is some bureauocracy in the system I guess, so you can't just use the system with any two people who meet on a golf course. You have to make an effort to put yourself in the system. But after that, it's not hard. 

"Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein

 

[Darkfrog]

1 hour ago, Big Lex said:

I'm in the camp that the current system isn't really complicated.

Yeah, not complicated at all. I open the app on my phone, enter my score, and my index adjusts accordingly. I think the USGA handicap app even has tools for handicapped games with other players now.

As far as alternatives for official handicapping, I did play in someone's birthday tournament several years ago that used something called the Callaway handicapping system that was an on-the-fly type method for situations where people are competing in an event (like a birthday tournament) without handicaps.

[ChetlovesMer]

15 hours ago, Dgolfer277 said:

Hi. I want to discuss "handicapping".

My thoughts: 1. Really, who cares? 2. Do your best - why would you do anything else - while enjoying the day and the company of others. 3. Handicapping has one purpose, namely, competition between those that have good golf scores and those that don't. 4. The reason for handicapping seems to be motivated by Ego ... and Gambling. 5. The professional tours and top "open" events don't have a handicapping system - you pay to enter and if you make the cut, you get paid according to your results or no payment for amateurs.  6. I don't like the professional (and other) tours tampering with the players by penalizing long hitters - one example, "Tiger proofing" - or penalizing putting innovator Sam Snead.  7. I know that golf is not changing soon and sandbagging, cheating, bragging, etc. will go on until it does.      

Thanks for reading and helpful comments! 

1. I do. That's how I measure myself against other golfers and against myself. I was a 19 last year. I'm a 14 this year I can tell I'm improving. 

2. Okay, I'll do my best.

3. There are many purposes to handicapping, but one of them is allowing golfers of different abilities to compete against each other. 

4. What's wrong with gambling?

5. Okay, so....

6. I have no idea what you are talking about with this one. But, time has shown that lengthening the courses (I think that's what you mean by Tiger-proofing) makes it so that ONLY the long hitters can win. Not the other way around. 

7. I don't see how changing the handicapping system will eliminate cheating or bragging. 

I have to agree with those that say keeping a handicap is pretty easy these days. Maybe way back when it was more of a challenge. But now that we all carry the internet around in our pocket, it's just a matter of entering a score and getting an update. 

I will say that I've heard of people suggesting you can only use tournament rounds towards your handicap which in theory may lesson the amount of sandbagging. But other than that, dishonest people are going to be dishonest. 

[woodzie264]

16 hours ago, Dgolfer277 said:

Hi. I want to discuss "handicapping".

My thoughts: 1. Really, who cares? 2. Do your best - why would you do anything else - while enjoying the day and the company of others. 3. Handicapping has one purpose, namely, competition between those that have good golf scores and those that don't. 4. The reason for handicapping seems to be motivated by Ego ... and Gambling. 5. The professional tours and top "open" events don't have a handicapping system - you pay to enter and if you make the cut, you get paid according to your results or no payment for amateurs.  6. I don't like the professional (and other) tours tampering with the players by penalizing long hitters - one example, "Tiger proofing" - or penalizing putting innovator Sam Snead.  7. I know that golf is not changing soon and sandbagging, cheating, bragging, etc. will go on until it does.      

Now that my thoughts are out there, here is what I want to know. Over 15+ years ago, I read an article proposing a simplified golf handicapping system.  I lost the article and attempts to find it or ask got me nowhere. It was like a cure for cancer had been presented but it was covered up - never to be discussed again. Except here I am discussing it again. It was simple enough that perhaps someone can piece it together from the following things that I do remember. 

Here are the pieces I remember: 1. Simply put, your handicap is based on the previous hole's score. 2. If you par a hole, then your handicap for the next hole is 0.  3. If you birdie a hole, then your handicap for the next hole is +1. 4. If you bogey a hole, then your handicap for the next hole is -1. SIMPLE, YES! However, the author(s) had done some research and had some basic limitations/adjustments to limit/prevent someone from easily cheating/gaming their handicap system - yeah, like anyone would want to "cheat or game" a handicap system. 

This is where I don't fully remember the adjustments: 1. Hole 1 and Hole 18 scores are reduced by 1/2 a stroke ... so someone doesn't take advantage of purposely "gaming" with a high score on the first hole and a low score on the last hole. 2. There is a maximum high and low adjustment that you can carry to the next hole. Truthfully, I don't remember but I think the most you take into the next hole is -2 (that is, if you had a triple bogey (-3) you would only get -2 strokes on the next hole). On the other hand, if you eagled, the most you take into the next hole is -1. 

Does anyone remember this article or handicapping system? I thought of trying to use the above with some lower and higher scoring players but haven't yet - Life distracted me. I have time now so this Spring I plan to try it. 

Thanks for reading and helpful comments! 

My thoughts on your points:

1. That’s a pretty lengthy post for someone who doesn’t care (your first point).
2. No one will argue that.
3. Completely inaccurate, many of us use it to measure our own progress.
4. Spoken like someone who doesn’t understand the purpose of handicapping. what you said is inaccurate and sounds like trolling on site full of golfers dedicated to improving their game. 
5. Wrong again. Many of the “top opens” require a basement HCP to enter.
6. has nothing to do with Handicapping
7. agreed! People are people and always will be.

It’s not complicated at all. If you can download an app and enter the smallest bit of data into, you’re good.

 

[dennyjones]

@Dgolfer277 don't be discouraged by the comments opposed to your ideas.   Remember this is a discussion board.   Ideas are discussed.  While it seems that several have a difference of opinion, there are other topics I'm sure we can find commonality.

 

[Carl3]

How do you improve a metric if you are not measuring it while making adjustments and then remeasuring it? I am down here in Florida and my handicap is rising. I had a couple of bad scores, but the handicap differential for the course I am playing is not that bad. That is another good reason for the handicapping and the associated course rating and slope. I shot a pair of 86’s, but the course is about 5 strokes harder than the one I played most often last year. So even though I wasn’t happy with the scores, it wasn’t as bad of a situation as I thought. I have to get used to the different grass down near to improve my short game.

my index just when up 0.9 since I have been down here 😀

[saevel25]

19 hours ago, Dgolfer277 said:

1. Really, who cares?

Lots of people, it’s a sign of improvement. 

19 hours ago, Dgolfer277 said:

2. Do your best - why would you do anything else - while enjoying the day and the company of others.

You try to do that with or without a handicap system.

19 hours ago, Dgolfer277 said:

3. Handicapping has one purpose, namely, competition between those that have good golf scores and those that don't.

Yea, it allows for a level playing ground between golfers of different skill to compete. That is good for the game.

19 hours ago, Dgolfer277 said:

The reason for handicapping seems to be motivated by Ego ... and Gambling.

I disagree.

19 hours ago, Dgolfer277 said:

The professional tours and top "open" events don't have a handicapping system - you pay to enter and if you make the cut, you get paid according to your results or no payment for amateurs. 

Well, they are all like +4 or better golfers. You don’t need a handicap when the tournament is flighted. PGA Tour is its own flight. 

19 hours ago, Dgolfer277 said:

6. I don't like the professional (and other) tours tampering with the players by penalizing long hitters - one example, "Tiger proofing" - or penalizing putting innovator Sam Snead. 

This has nothing to do with the handicap system. 

With regards to your handicap system, it sounds more like a game. Instead of readjusting after nine holes you do it after every hole.

Is the handicap system perfect, no. It’s still really good

[TourSpoon]

There are a lot of people that don't care about handicaps. I like them to look for progress, to gauge a certain level of proficiency, and to compete (gamble) with others. I don't see how the system you describe can be a reflective measure of the day when it goes on the previous hole. 

[DrvFrShow]

@Dgolfer277 Next spring, why don't you just download one of the free apps for your phone and get a HC even if an unofficial one. I suggest The Grint because your unofficial HC can become official if you decide to become a paid member. I joined the USGA last July when I got an e-mail from the WA State Golf Ass'n that told me that if I had a bunch of scorecards from rounds played this season I could pay my membership fee and enter all of them so I said "why not?" And then I entered my USGA membership number on The Grint and it's now linked with the WHS. I use The Grint for some online golf tournaments.

[Beastie]

 

[klineka]

@Dgolfer277 Any response? 

You said you wanted to discuss handicapping but haven't responded to any of the multiple well thought out responses that address your post point by point.