I propose a new system of THREE handicaps

[sonicblue]

I see a lot of threads discussing handicaps, sandbagging, 'vanity handicaps,' etc... Clearly, the USGA index - while telling its intended story well - leaves a lot of questions unanswered as to what you can expect from a player. Maybe my proposition will have no tournament-type use, or maybe it will, but I thought I'd throw this out there to my fellow enthusiasts...

OK, we'll start with the base, which I believe should still be your last 20 calculated differentials, no reason to rock that boat. From that set of data, I'm offering these three statistics:

1) Handicap: average of your ten best (with a 0.96 factor, same as the USGA handicap, but I'm leaving it out for simplicity here).

2) Mode: average of the ten middle rounds (excluding five best and five worst)

3) Anti-handicap: average of your ten worst (mildly propagated already, but I don't hear it mentioned much)

For a consistent base, I took my league scores (a bunch of nine-hole rounds, 33.8/118 course) and tested this. My three results, respectively, would be:

4.4 / 5.9 / 7.8

So, this could be interpreted as (take index + 33.8, then times 118/113), that my good days would be a 40, normal day is a 41, and my bad day is a 43, relatively consistent. That would be in stark contrast to someone, e.g., who had results of 4.4 / 8.5 / 10.2, which would imply that, there are some good scores, but most days are much worse.

Discuss! :D

[denver_nuggs_15]

That's an awesome idea. The whole consistency issue has plagued me this year. It would be awesome to have a real number to identify how (in)consistent I am when compared to someone of a better or similar level. Knowing what you'd shoot on a good day when compared to a bad day may seem obvious, but with a number, you can compare it to others and find out how you can improve. Good idea, but doubtful that the USGA changes their handicap system.

[iacas]

I see no point to this. What problem are you attempting to solve?

Scorecard and other stats programs (or you, yourself, quite easily) can figure out your anti-handicap to see how consistent you are... but beyond that, why codify it? Again, what problem are you trying to solve?

[Fat Slice]

I did it based on 18 hole rounds and got (without the 0.96 adjustment):

21.5 / 24.7 / 29.7

Good day to average day is 3 strokes.
Good day to bad day is 8 strokes.
Average day to bad day is 5 strokes.

[sonicblue]

I see no point to this. What problem are you attempting to solve?

[QUOTE=sonicblue;346491]Clearly, the USGA index - while telling its intended story well - leaves a lot of questions unanswered as to what you can expect I thought the problem (as I saw it) was stated clearly, that a USGA handicap is insufficient (not for what it intends to accomplish, but for what we, as players, may want it to do).

A USGA index only tells you what a player's potential is, but I've seen many times where confusion abounds when someone says, "I played with this guy who claimed to be a XX, but then he shot a YY...," so real-world expectations can often seemingly contradict that handicap. The 'anti-handicap' is becoming a recognized term but I don't see it actually quoted often. Moreover, I don't think even adding that completes the story, either. I realize that any golf stats program, at a minimum, usually acquires all that's needed for this. I wasn't talking about some new software or gathering method. My proposition is for three specific outputs of any such program that AFAIK have never been specifically defined and, IMO, provide a nearly-as-concise yet more efficient commentary on what a player's skill level 'spread' is. Said in functional terms, I'm proposing an idea for a new 'statement of handicap,' where instead of someone saying, "I'm an 8," they could say, "I'm an 8/12/15," which would trigger a different expectation or perception vs. "I'm an 8/9/10." Do I expect the USGA to overhaul their system? No, I don't want them to, their index serves its purpose well. However, when it comes to we amateurs assessing our skill, consistency and progression across those things, I think this has a place to help.

[alf174]

I see no point to this. What problem are you attempting to solve?

I agree. Handicapping:

A

Any other use, such as comparing each others capabilities at websites like this, is purely incidental (or accidental).

(let me add that I like using the stats, knowing what my anti-handicap is, etc. so for personal improvement all the other numbers are very beneficial)

[iacas]

Said in functional terms, I'm proposing an idea for a new 'statement of handicap,' where instead of someone saying, "I'm an 8," they could say, "I'm an 8/12/15," which would trigger a different expectation or perception vs. "I'm an 8/9/10."

Yeah, I don't see that as a problem in need of a solution. Guess you do. Good luck.

[bIGwIRE]

If one is good and two is better and, as you say, three is better yet.... then I want FOUR!

Accually, one is fine.... your anticap isn't even that usefull to know. It will help you see if your consistent (like you don't know) and may help choose the best scramble partner for you... thats about it. The 3rd is totally useless, imo.

[Slim 11]

The only reason I can see this being of any use is to explain to someone who may not know your game well (or for them to explain to you) that you had a good, average or bad day. And at that, only if you give them this information before a round and say, "if I shoot good I'll score x, average y, bad z."
Personally, I don't need the explanation. If I know you I know how your playing relative to usual and if I don't know you...whatever. You say you're shooting well...good for you. You say you're having a bad day...fair enough.

[TakeDeadAim]

I think the more solid data (factual data) is available, the better. 3 pieces of information tell a much better story about the player than just 1.

If you are set up on a blind date, it is better to know that she has pretty green eyes, long hair and a huge ass, than just knowing she has pretty green eyes...

... the more you know...

Whether popular or not, I think the 3 handicap data is one of the better more creative ideas I have read in this forum for a long time.

[tjy355]

[QUOTE=sonicblue;346754]

Said in functional terms, I'm proposing an idea for a new 'statement of handicap,' where instead of someone saying, "I'm an 8," they could say, "I'm an 8/12/15," which would trigger a different expectation or perception vs. "I'm an 8/9/10." ...

So if you are an 8/9/10, do you give strokes to the 8/12/15 ??

[Fat Slice]

[QUOTE=tjy355;347219]

So if you are an 8/9/10, do you give strokes to the 8/12/15 ??

I'd say no -- for handicap purposes (playing competitively against others), I'd use the first # - it's been proven to be as fair as possible.

[denver_nuggs_15]

[QUOTE=Fat Slice;347222]

I'd say no -- for handicap purposes (playing competitively against others), I'd use the first # - it's been proven to be as fair as possible.

But if no one used the other 2 numbers to determine shots, how do we know that a handicap is "as fair as possible"? If we don't try, we'll never know. I'd think that taking the middle number (average scores minus 5 best and 5 worst) would be fairest. And doesn't the handicapping system clearly favor the better player? The .96 multiplier favors the better players (search google for some stuff about it). The 80% of handicaps that are used in some tournaments also favors better players. So, it's not really that fair.

If an 8/9/10 plays an 8/12/15, I really don't know what the shots would be. The 8/9/10 sounds much better than the 8/12/15 and I'd much rather have him on my team. Maybe it would depend what format you're playing in. A singles match, maybe use the middle number, but in a 2 man best-ball, use the first number. Or average the 3 to determine the strokes given. It would complicate things for a while since no one (I know of) currently or ever has done it. But, having 3 numbers makes a distinction between golfers with the same handicaps. And I think that's good and would be good in matches.

[1par2win]

I think the more solid data (factual data) is available, the better. 3 pieces of information tell a much better story about the player than just 1.

I don't know if this idea has any merit but this thread has value if only for this quote!

[Leftygolfer]

I like the idea but too complicated. What number are you going to use in your bet? I gamble against one of my buddies, he gives me 4. he is a 6 and mine is a 10 or was.

Just figure out your anticap in your 20 scores. Mine is a 14.6 and I think that is pretty good considering my GHIN number. I have seen players at the same number with a anticap of 17.

[flanagan]

I don't know if this idea has any merit but this thread has value if only for this quote!

I disagree. If she's a 10, what more do you need to know?

[fischman]

I disagree. If she's a 10, what more do you need to know?

I'd like to know, is this on a scale of 10? 20? 100?

[Zeph]

It would be easier to learn the players how the handicap is calculated and how you should expect to play, using it. Who cares if someone is a handicap 6 and plays a round of 92? Nobody plays to their handicap all the time. Golf is a streaky game. The swing can go from fenomenal to atrocious in a day, or even during one round.

I like how the handicap indicates potential rather than an average. Everyone wants to play to their handicap or better. When the handicap indicates your potential, you will have to play better to play to net par, which is what most golfers look for, getting better.