American Handicapping system - explain please.... ???

[AtlantaGolfer]

The thing I think most golfers do not realize is the the USGA handicap system is actually your potential - not your average score. so a 5 handicap is not going to routinely shoot 77 - more like 80 to 82. If a 5 handicap shoots 77 regularly then that person is not a true 5 handicap. When this is understood, and everyone is on the up and up with their handicap, then you can have a fair match using handicaps. Unfortunately the majority of golfers do not understand that the handicap system is in place to show your potential for a good round and in fact the USGA has posted odds on how much you should beat your handicapped score.

[sevenfourate]

Thats interesting and makes some sense from some scores ive seen from some American friends,other posts in this thread and conversations with a guy i used to know who was +2 "over there"

Our handicap in the UK is much more of a "up to date average" of your scoring potential i would say,erring on the better side of your scores.However it never quite keeps up with a changing handicap in either direction.

[Rafcin]

...the USGA handicap system is actually your potential - not your average score....a 5 handicap is not going to routinely shoot 77...

I disagree, that it's strictly potential. It should indicate your "better" rounds average, not the potential score. It is indicated by 10 best out of 20, not based on top 1, 2 or 3 rounds, so there is some room there.

Even if you are 100% correct - that's what is REALLY wrong with it. If I'm 5 hcp and my average scores are 80's and I play with a guy who is 20hcp and his average rounds are 95's - What is more likely to happen - I'll shoot 65 or he'll shoot 80 ? No guessing required. Both scores are 15 strokes below average... but trust me, I've seen it happen. Of course it's an extreme example, trying to make a point - but if I shoot 78 (which is a very good score for 5hcp) and he shoots 90 getting 10 strokes - I've lost the match I'm sure. The point I'm trying to make is, that a couple of strokes lower of hcp/average/potential (whatever you want to call it) is much easier to achieve for a high hcp player. It's less likely also, that he'll go way over his average, where a 5 can with 2 bad swings go into mid 80's. Been there, done that. Of course - it's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

[AtlantaGolfer]

USGA Handicap Index compares a player’s scoring ability to the scoring ability of an expert amateur on a course of standard difficulty. A player posts scores along with the appropriate USGA Ratings to make up the scoring record. A Handicap Index is computed from no more than 20 scores plus eligible Tournament Scores in the scoring record. It reflects the player’s potential because it is based upon the best scores posted for a given number of rounds, ideally the best 10 of the last 20 rounds.

Obviously with more room for improvement a higher handicap will have more variance in their scores. That is a given. It bothers me when every year in some tournaments around here the same people are winning net events. If you look at their score postings these 7 handicaps are remarkably consistent (all scores in an 8 shot window). I can't do that! I have an index that is 3.4 which means my course handicap will normally be around 4 - theoretically my best score (of my last 20) should not be any lower than 74 or so, and the odds of that happening two times in a row are better than being struck by lightning. I see it happen every year though in the Mercedes events and our member guest.

If everyone is of good character and turns in scores that they are supposed to then there is no problem. My only thing would be if I was to play someone with a handicap more than 10 points higher than me there would have to be some concessions by that golfer because of his variance.

[Rafcin]

I think we are saying the same thing, I just didn't make myself clear enough. What I was arguing though (being very picky, I agree) - is the word "potential". In my understanding my "potential" is a score of about 70 (2 under), because I've done it 4 times in my career. So I can "potentially" do it My handicap is 5, because it's based on 10 rounds... which will inculde some rounds above(strokewise) my potential. Is all good though. I hear ya and agree.
Bottom line is - if you're below 5 index - you get screwed 8 out of 10 times playing higher hcp dudes, unless you play your "real" potential. I managed to do that in a matchplay tournament my club holds every year - I played a 21, 18, 27 and 18 guys. Shot something like 71, 73, 77, 74 to win it. All matches were down the wire with 2 ending in extra holes. Note, only the 77 round was "at" my handicap level... I guess I'm a sandbagger

[AtlantaGolfer]

http://www.usga.org/playing/handicap...eanstable.html

Well according to the USGA your oddds for bettering your handicap by 6 shots in a tournament (I just used your index of 4.5 rounded to a 5) were 790-1. For the 20 hanidcaps the odds of doing what you did are only 130-1. To put together two rounds of 6 under your handicap and 4 under the odds are 888-1. Those 4 scores didn't knock your handicap down? 3 of those should have been counted double since they are tournament scores. I am a 3.4 and the best score I have had was twice last year I shot par 72. My handicap dropped to a 2.1 but has since risen. Our club championship (3 rounds) I shot 75-82-75 which is over my handicap. The only net event I ever play in is the member-guest and I go in knowing that I will not win.

[AtlantaGolfer]

http://www.usga.org/playing/handicap...s/howwell.html

The USGA Handicap System is based upon the potential ability of a player rather than the average of all his scores. The USGA's Handicap Research Team tells us that the average player is expected to play to his Course Handicap or better only about 25 percent of the time, average three strokes higher than his Course Handicap, and have a best score in 20, which is only two strokes better than his Course Handicap.

[Rafcin]

http://www.usga.org/playing/handicap...eanstable.html

They did... for a while, there was a time last year I was around 2.5.