90% of golfers do this

[sean_miller]

Don't forget to factor in women, juniors, beginners, and seniors.

[zeg]

And looking at USGA handicaps isn't going to give an accurate number. I bet only 1 out of every four players has a ghin number.

Be careful: you don't have to sample every member of a population to accurately estimate its properties. If GHIN members is a representative sample of "golfers," then 1 in 4 is probably far, far more samples than you'd need to estimate those statistics to within a very small error margin. The reason to doubt those numbers is that it's likely that people with GHIN numbers are not a representative sample of golfers. The first key is to define what you mean by a "golfer," which, as you (and others) have pointed out, is a tricky proposition. Nevertheless, I am a bit skeptical that a reasonable definition of golfers would be made up of the sort who ARE modeled by GHIN members are only <10% of the total, which is what you'd have to assume to make the 90% number work.

[sean_miller]

. . . Nevertheless, I am a bit skeptical that a reasonable definition of golfers would be made up of the sort who ARE modeled by GHIN members are only <10% of the total, which is what you'd have to assume to make the 90% number work.

I may or may not agree with this statement. Are you saying the 90% shooting > 100 stat is too high, because the list of

men's USGA handicaps is a reasonable representation of all golfers? Or, are you saying that if all people who could be considered golfers (people of all ages who own clubs and play at least a couple times a year) were included, the stat the OP provided could be essentially correct?

[Shindig]

I suspect the statistic has to either include people who play once or twice a year, or it's assigning penalties to the mulligans and improved lies.

68% of all statistics are made up.

It's nice to be part of the 43% of the population that knows this.

[Fat Slice]

if each person had to play the ball as it lies and couldn't use any mulligans, i'd believe 90% of people couldn't shoot under 100. there are a lot of people out there who claim to shoot this or that or the other, but you watch them play and it's a mulligan here, moving the ball a club length there, improving their lie over there... take all that away and yeah, they'd probably really have to knuckle down and focus to get under 100.

Totally agree. I played a tough course on a windy day and shot 105. My friend shot a 104...with mulligans, foot wedges, self-gimmies, etc. I am sure he shaved 10 strokes or more off his "score."

[spitz20]

Hello,

most golfers are recreational compared to the serious amature.

[soon_tourpro]

Looking at my home course, the average result is around 90 and up in championchips.

The reason is that golf is to though and complicated to master for the average Joe out there.
I got a friend who played for 15 years, he standed still at 15 handicap for 10 years.
He did practice, he do have time, but he simply cant play the game well enough.

Most I would assume never take lessons, and expect a different outcome this time....they play

The timing requried is to much for most people , and that is why the handicap and scores is high in golf.

[Jay-Bird]

90% of people who play golf are not "golfers".

[Leftygolfer]

Be careful: you don't have to sample every member of a population to accurately estimate its properties. If GHIN members is a representative sample of "golfers," then 1 in 4 is probably far, far more samples than you'd need to estimate those statistics to within a very small error margin. The reason to doubt those numbers is that it's likely that people with GHIN numbers are not a representative sample of golfers. The first key is to define what you mean by a "golfer," which, as you (and others) have pointed out, is a tricky proposition. Nevertheless, I am a bit skeptical that a reasonable definition of golfers would be made up of the sort who ARE modeled by GHIN members are only <10% of the total, which is what you'd have to assume to make the 90% number work.

I agree. The people who keep there handicap are the people who take the game seriously and not a random sample. The reason people aren't good is that it is hard, really hard to improve, and easier just to play for fun.

[GolfTools]

I never shoot over 100.

When I get to 99 I quit.

[zeg]

I may or may not agree with this statement. Are you saying the 90% shooting > 100 stat is too high, because the list of

I wasn't very clear, I'll try to be more precise. There's some fraction of golfers who are either already counted in the USGA sample or who are essentially the same population but just haven't bothered to register for an official handicap. From the USGA stats, the average handicap for those guys is ~15. However, only 10% of golfers in that group are at handicaps > 26, and to claim anything about 90% of those golfers, you have to include people all the way down to about a handicap index of 6.5!

For the "stat" quoted by the original post to be true, that golfers outside this group has to be large enough and bad enough that it pulls the statistics a long way. If we assume a handicap of ~25 corresponds to "shooting 100," then 90% of the GHIN group shoot better than 100. If EVERYONE in the non-GHIN group shoots worse then 100, you'd still need them plus 10% of the GHIN guys to be 90% of the total population. If there are X in the GHIN group and Y in the other, that says that 0.9*(X+Y) = 0.1*X+Y, or (after some math) that group would have to be 8 times the size of the GHIN group. That seems a bit unlikely to me, given that there are obviously enough high-handicappers in the GHIN group to make the USGA distribution a pretty clean looking bell curve.

[sean_miller]

I wasn't very clear, I'll try to be more precise. There's some fraction of golfers who are either already counted in the USGA sample or who are essentially the same population but just haven't bothered to register for an official handicap. From the USGA stats, the average handicap for those guys is ~15. However, only 10% of golfers in that group are at handicaps > 26, and to claim anything about 90% of those golfers, you have to include people all the way down to about a handicap index of 6.5!

I guess I would personally disagree then. I'd consider someone to be a golfer if they've ever taken up the game, no matter how casually, and they intend to continue playing the game in some capacity.

Rather than look at the USGA figures and try to extrapolate that against players without handicaps just think about 100. That's roughly 8 strokes better than a double bogey on every hole. There are a lot of seriously crappy golfers out there. Double bogey on every hole is probably better than most casual hackers will ever hope to get. Maybe I'm a pessimist, but I tend to believe the stat. Especially when the USGA table seen earlier is for men only - women have decidedly higher average handicaps.

[sacm3bill]

For the "stat" quoted by the original post to be true, that golfers outside this group has to be large enough and bad enough that it pulls the statistics a long way.... that group would have to be 8 times the size of the GHIN group.

I find it very easy to believe that for every golfer that keeps an official handicap, there are at least 8 recreational golfers that don't. In fact I'd wager the number is probably closer to 80 than 8.

Since there are no stats kept for golfers without a handicap, there really is no way to prove anything... However just based on my experience I have no trouble believing 90% of the people I've been paired with over the years couldn't break 100 if they kept a true score.

[char]

I find that a very believable statistic and also very interesting

[nevets88]

In addition to mulligans and improving their lie, lots of people don't properly score out of bounds or lost balls correctly. They don't hit a provisional and/or take the penalty stroke.

[rjfan91]

I bet only 1 out of every four players has a ghin number.

We know you are a golfer due to your willingness to bet on almost anything....

[zeg]

I find it very easy to believe that for every golfer that keeps an official handicap, there are at least 8 recreational golfers that don't. In fact I'd wager the number is probably closer to 80 than 8.

I agree, it is hard/impossible to determine, but my estimate is that 8 (or ~10) times as many people as are represented by the GHIN data would be needed if every single one of them shoots worse than 100. No doubt there are many more times the number with GHIN records who don't have them, but I'd sort of expect a lot of these guys to be shooting better than 100.

I play right around the 100 mark and most people I've been grouped with seem to play as well or better than I do. so my gut feeling is that the average score is somewhere around 100, not the 90th percentile. Of course, you're more likely to get paired up with someone who plays a lot since they play more rounds, so there are biases, etc, so... One last thought is that if you take the data posted in this thread and plot the percentages at each handicap, you get a very nice nearly normal distribution with a kick up at the 36+ bin. You'd expect that bump since that bin includes more handicaps than the others (i.e., the 35th bin is 34.5 to 35.5, while the 36th is anything from 35.5 to infinity). What's noticeably not present is a break in the slope at any point above the peak at 15 HCP. If it were the case that the people being sampled by the USGA method were the more serious, you might expect to find that there's a bump somewhere better than 36.4 where people decide to get serious. I would expect, e.g., that a lot of people loosely track their handicap until they're shooting in the low 90s, then decide to go ahead and get a real one, and this should show up as a big step upward in the 25-30 HCP range, which is not seen. This suggests to me that the data are more complete or more "cooked" than we're assuming---they may have corrections to adjust for that selection effect, for example. It wouldn't be that hard to do some sampling to measure these effects, and the USGA probably has the resources to do studies like that. If anyone has the inclination (or knows it offhand), it'd be interesting to read more about how they compile their statistics.

[Doctorfro]

I believe it. Every time I'm on the course it seems like the groups who play in front of me are hacking it all over the place. Then when I sit on my deck and watch groups go by, most of them are making swings that couldn't possibly propel them to shoot a score under 100. It's ugly. It's probably true.