Jump to content
IGNORED

Golf Handicap System Explained for Newbie


Bunkerman125
Note: This thread is 4023 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Like said 10 different time in 10 different ways, it allows most golfers to compete against each other. Kind of like playing from different tees. It can be difficult to find a perfectly matched competitor. Is I'm playing a 5 and he gives me three aside and I beat him using those strokes I'm happy. It isn't a "pretend" win because without those stokes I'm no competition for him, and he would beat me every time straight up. It makes it even, can't make it simpler.

In the XTreme bag:
Driver: Steelhead
Fairway Woods: Steelhead 3 and 5 wood
Hybrids: 3 and 4
Irons: Victory Red Full Cavity (5-AW)Sand Wedge: Sand Wedge (old school)Putter: Pal 5Ball: Pro V1

Link to comment
Share on other sites


In mixed class sailing handicapping is also used. It is not based on crew skills but boat measurements/calculations. So slower boat can actually win. Then there is "scratch" sailing with same class boats. Ultimate is 1-on-1 match racing between exact boats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Trap shooting is also handicapped. Shooters of greater skill shoot from further away than those of less skill.

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

I proposed we simplify the handicap system.

Everyone compares their scores directly.  The performer themselves are handicapped.

We hang progressively heavier weights on their right thumb for progressively better players (left thumb for left handers - we have to be 'fair')

(I don't compete, but I like the handicap score for me to keep track of my potential for comparison with day to day rounds - It give me a goal.

I don't really think we compete, anyway with others in this sport, we compete against our personal bests (though head to head competition appears to be a great motivator to perform for quite a large segment)

Bill - 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Handicapping in association croquet is similar, sort of: you get a number of free strokes in a match equal to the handicap difference. As a newb you are given a very large handicap but unless you're pretty hopeless or never practice you quickly outplay your handicap in tournaments. This can be a bit embarrassing, that is until your lagging handicap drops to the point where better players with really low 'caps start hammering you. Then you cease to be embarrassed.

Driver: Cobra 460SZ 9.0, med.
3 Wood: Taylor stiff
3-hybrid: Nike 18 deg stiff
4-hybrid:
Taylor RBZ 22 deg regular
Irons:5-9, Mizuno MP30, steel
Wedges: PW, 52, 56, 60 Mizuno MP30
Putter: Odyssey 2-ball

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Seems like handicapping is actually not rare in sports. For example some autoracing classes use extra weights to handicap faster drivers, i.e. to slow them down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Stickbo

Like said 10 different time in 10 different ways, it allows most golfers to compete against each other. Kind of like playing from different tees. It can be difficult to find a perfectly matched competitor. Is I'm playing a 5 and he gives me three aside and I beat him using those strokes I'm happy. It isn't a "pretend" win because without those stokes I'm no competition for him, and he would beat me every time straight up. It makes it even, can't make it simpler.


that pretty much sums it up.  if you think about the handicap index, it's really not measuring your average skill level per round at all, more so the potential you have for your best round.  if you look at the math your handicap is actually taking your BEST 10 of 20 rounds, and then of those best 10 subtracts out your worst holes (within reason), and then after that discounts that average by 4%.  so the math itself is really giving you a lot of opportunities to portray a best case scenario.

and really the math could be anything.  it could be net score times pi plus the derivative of 3x-y divided by a hot dog, and as long as everyone is using the same calculation (and hot dog), it will always level the playing field.

as for scoring (scoring=total strokes to play an 18 hole course), i'm sure there are multiple examples of how it wouldn't be uncommon to see something such as a 12 handicap score the same as an 18 handicap in the same conditions (tees, course, etc.).  you could be 70 years old, a scratch golfer, but only drive 200y.  you're probably never going to play a 7,500y course with a final score of 72 (assuming 72 equaled approximately scratch/par on that course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by tuffluck

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stickbo

Like said 10 different time in 10 different ways, it allows most golfers to compete against each other. Kind of like playing from different tees. It can be difficult to find a perfectly matched competitor. Is I'm playing a 5 and he gives me three aside and I beat him using those strokes I'm happy. It isn't a "pretend" win because without those stokes I'm no competition for him, and he would beat me every time straight up. It makes it even, can't make it simpler.

and really the math could be anything.  it could be net score times pi plus the derivative of 3x-y divided by a hot dog, and as long as everyone is using the same calculation (and hot dog), it will always level the playing field.

I chuckled at the hot dog references, but still must point out:

No, the math cannot be "anything".  If the .96 adjustment was lower, for example, it would favor high handicappers more. If you took fewer than the best 10 rounds out of the last 20, as another example, it would favor the players with more wild swings in their scores.

The current formula is used because it's what's agreed on as the best formula to even the playing field. You can't just use *any* formula, whether it involves hot dogs or not. :-)

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by SCfanatic35

How do they calculate/use handicaps in bowling? Is it just finding your average or is it more complicated than that?

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Determine your average. In league bowling, a minimum of three games is required to establish an average. To calculate your average, take the total number of pins and divide by the number of games. If you scored a total of 480 through three games, your average is 160 (480 divided by three).

Determine the basis score. Ask your league secretary, as the basis score varies from one league to the next. Ideally, the basis score will be higher than the highest average in the league. A typical basis score might be 210. Many leagues will take a percentage, for example 90%. If you ask your league secretary what the basis score is, you might hear, “90% of 210.”

Subtract your average from the basis score. If your average is 160 and your basis score is 210, subtract 160 from 210. 210 – 160 = 50.

Multiply by the percentage. Take 90% (or whatever percentage your league uses) of the difference between your average and the basis score. 50 x .9 = 45. Your handicap is 45.

Yeah, exactly this ... unless you kick ass (like SCfanatic's brother) and play in a scratch league. :)  But even there, they have different rules to keep an even(ish) playing field.  For example my league is a 3 person team "Scratch 590" league.  The number in the name signifies the maximum allowable entering average for the team.  Otherwise, the three best bowlers in the house could form a team and they'd never lose.  (The 3 high averages in our league right now are 223, 221, and 217)

I played in a league a couple of years ago that had a basis score of 200 (we even played 100% handicaps, which I thought was kind lame, but whatever) but there were too many subs with 215 averages coming in every week and helping teams run the table.  So they've sinced upped it to 210. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I chuckled at the hot dog references, but still must point out:

No, the math cannot be "anything".  If the .96 adjustment was lower, for example, it would favor high handicappers more. If you took fewer than the best 10 rounds out of the last 20, as another example, it would favor the players with more wild swings in their scores.

The current formula is used because it's what's agreed on as the best formula to even the playing field. You can't just use *any* formula, whether it involves hot dogs or not. :-)

so what you are saying is - this subjective, hypothetical calculation is the 'best' because it's been around vs any other subjective hypothetical formula that might do something similar.  Because if you used something else, it would subjectively change the balance of who gets some perceived advantage over the currently subjectively defined perceived advantage/adjustment.

I'd agree with your 2nd to last sentence if you had just stopped at "it's what's agreed on".  That's the only thing that matters.  If everyone agreed on another set of calcs, then that would be just as legitimate - even if some people moved around a bit in rankings as a results.

I would say that ANY formula that doesn't widen the existing gap and, in some way or another, closed the gap, could be argued as fine if you got enough people to agree to live by that rule.  If you really want to go out on a limb - I'd be more specific and tighten that criteria to something that statistically shows that most people would score on typical days all to a similar distribution of adjusted scores.

Bill - 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by rehmwa

Quote:

Originally Posted by sacm3bill

I chuckled at the hot dog references, but still must point out:

No, the math cannot be "anything".  If the .96 adjustment was lower, for example, it would favor high handicappers more. If you took fewer than the best 10 rounds out of the last 20, as another example, it would favor the players with more wild swings in their scores.

The current formula is used because it's what's agreed on as the best formula to even the playing field. You can't just use *any* formula, whether it involves hot dogs or not. :-)

so what you are saying is - this subjective, hypothetical calculation is the 'best' because it's been around vs any other subjective hypothetical formula that might do something similar.  Because if you used something else, it would subjectively change the balance of who gets some perceived advantage over the currently subjectively defined perceived advantage/adjustment.

I'd agree with your 2nd to last sentence if you had just stopped at "it's what's agreed on".  That's the only thing that matters.  If everyone agreed on another set of calcs, then that would be just as legitimate - even if some people moved around a bit in rankings as a results.

I would say that ANY formula that doesn't widen the existing gap and, in some way or another, closed the gap, could be argued as fine if you got enough people to agree to live by that rule.  If you really want to go out on a limb - I'd be more specific and tighten that criteria to something that statistically shows that most people would score on typical days all to a similar distribution of adjusted scores.

No, it's not the best simply because it's been around. It's been around because it's the best that has been come up with so far, based on mathematical and empirical evidence.

You're missing the same point that tuffluck missed. You can't just pick any formula out of a hat, even if you universally employ it. Any random formula is going to favor either higher handicappers more, or lower handicappers more. It's going to favor either wild swings in recorded rounds more, or consistency more. If a scratch, low cap, mid cap, and high cap all play against each other, each one has a pretty good chance of winning if they play to their potential as defined by the current handicap formula. That is highly unlikely to be the case if instead you pick some random formula for handicapping.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I have no problem with that other than the whole "favors one guy more or less" stuff.  more or less, relative to what?  answer - vs the current formula.

So all that means is that a different calc will bring different results - that does not imply in any way a more or less fair comparison.

All I think you are saying, is that you consider the current system to have passed the test of what's 'fair'.  I'm just wondering what the fairness criteria is?

A handicap has a very specific purpose - to absolutely level the distribution of scoring between individuals that are in a static scoring state (not improving or worsening).  Therefore, it tends to reward personal bests, and trends to improvement as the priority.  It's pretty easy to test.

I suspect the current system has passed that test.  (great comment you made - "It's been around because it's the best that has been come up with so far, based on mathematical and empirical evidence." - I'd like to know how the evidence is demonstrated - something like what I wrote?")

but why do that provided the current system isn't busted - it's just a discussion on concept - not a proposal to change to just any random old thing.  I think I was being a bit off the cuff and flip in the first response - sorry about that, I wasn't trying to push your buttons.  I'm more obtuse when I do that.  It's just more entertaining to write in that style)

I suspect one could define several calculations that would do just as well.  But agree - not just "pick some random formula".  You do recognize that people make hyperbolic statements to make a point?  I'd contend that the content of those comments from the other poster wasn't explicitly "some random formula" (despite the use of pi and hot dogs in his example) but his point was that rules are an agreement and you can make anything a rule as long everyone follows the rule.  So you CAN (but might not WANT to) just pick some random "rule" from out of a hat, and it's 'fair' if applied to everyone - something like cleaning a ball in certain conditions, or not being allowed to test how hard a sandtrap is, etc etc etc - or even a horrible version of a handicapping formula that doesn't work at all.......)

blue skies,

Bill - 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Originally Posted by rehmwa

...I suspect one could define several calculations that would do just as well.  But agree - not just "pick some random formula".  You do recognize that people make hyperbolic statements to make a point?  I'd contend that the content of those comments from the other poster wasn't explicitly "some random formula" (despite the use of pi and hot dogs in his example) but his point was that rules are an agreement and you can make anything a rule as long everyone follows the rule.


In that one paragraph, you say contradictory things. You agree that you can't just pick some random formula and assume it will do a good job of evening the playing field between all handicap levels. Then you agree with the point tuffluck made - that you can make anything a rule as long as everyone follows it.

Much like your previous comments, I'm not sure which of those is how you really feel and which is the hyperbole. :-)

If you're saying there is more than one way to make a handicap system that evens the playing field, of course I agree. I doubt there is one single formula that is best, and even if there were, the one we have may not be it. But I don't agree with the notion that any random formula can fairly even the playing field, and it sure seemed that was what tuffluck was saying.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Quote:
Originally Posted by rehmwa View Post

I have no problem with that other than the whole "favors one guy more or less" stuff.  more or less, relative to what?  answer - vs the current formula.

So all that means is that a different calc will bring different results - that does not imply in any way a more or less fair comparison.

There has been articles about this, but at least here http://www.popeofslope.com/magazine/trailblazer.html you can find something. Below is some explanation why 0.96 and not something else.

Quote:

One of his main conclusions in finding how to give the weaker golfer an equal chance to win was: For two golfers of differing handicap to play a match on a truly equal footing, the USGA handicap of the weaker golfer had to be supplemented by extra strokes. And the number of extra strokes needed increased as the difference in the weaker and stronger player increased. An example used in the article showed that in a match between 10- and 15-handicappers, the 15 should have gotten 1.3 strokes more than the 5 he was getting.

Scheid felt that his study showed the present USGA system had a heavy bias in favor of the low-handicap golfer. The story said "part of [the USGA] premise is that the higher a golfer's handicap, the better his chance of shooting a score lower than the average of his 10 best. In other words, he has more room for improvement." Scheid added, "The weaker golfer could be pardoned for wondering if it is really necessary to stack the odds quite so high against him. Many more strokes could be given, yet he would remain an underdog."

Scheid's solution was to increase the current handicaps by 27 percent. "The simplest way to do this would be to follow the current USGA method of finding the player's average differential -- using the 10 lowest differentials of his last 20 -- but then produce his handicap by multiplying this average by 108 percent, instead of the current 85." The USGA nearly heeded Scheid's findings in full, making a change from 85 percent to 96 percent in 1976.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Quote:
Originally Posted by luu5 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by rehmwa View Post

I have no problem with that other than the whole "favors one guy more or less" stuff.  more or less, relative to what?  answer - vs the current formula.

So all that means is that a different calc will bring different results - that does not imply in any way a more or less fair comparison.

There has been articles about this, but at least here http://www.popeofslope.com/magazine/trailblazer.html you can find something. Below is some explanation why 0.96 and not something else.

Quote:

One of his main conclusions in finding how to give the weaker golfer an equal chance to win was: For two golfers of differing handicap to play a match on a truly equal footing, the USGA handicap of the weaker golfer had to be supplemented by extra strokes. And the number of extra strokes needed increased as the difference in the weaker and stronger player increased. An example used in the article showed that in a match between 10- and 15-handicappers, the 15 should have gotten 1.3 strokes more than the 5 he was getting.

Scheid felt that his study showed the present USGA system had a heavy bias in favor of the low-handicap golfer. The story said "part of [the USGA] premise is that the higher a golfer's handicap, the better his chance of shooting a score lower than the average of his 10 best. In other words, he has more room for improvement." Scheid added, "The weaker golfer could be pardoned for wondering if it is really necessary to stack the odds quite so high against him. Many more strokes could be given, yet he would remain an underdog."

Scheid's solution was to increase the current handicaps by 27 percent. "The simplest way to do this would be to follow the current USGA method of finding the player's average differential -- using the 10 lowest differentials of his last 20 -- but then produce his handicap by multiplying this average by 108 percent, instead of the current 85." The USGA nearly heeded Scheid's findings in full, making a change from 85 percent to 96 percent in 1976.

And that kind of thought process, which is used in all the other aspects of the handicap calculations as well, underscores why you can't just pick any formula and universally apply it.

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by Bunkerman125

So, a player, could score less than another player and still win?

I'm confused.

It's not that complicated really.  The handicap system is designed to measure a particular player's "average" given score on a particular course.  A player who is objectively better, on average, makes a better score than a player who is objectively worse.  However, if both players are subscribed to a handicap index, each player is measured against their "average" score, so the better player could "lose" to a worse player, because the lesser player exceeded their average by a greater amount than did the better player.

In an ideal situation, both players are meticulous (and honest) about maintaining their handicap indexes, so that their typical score would be more or less even (when the index is applied).  For example, a 2.9 index might play as a 4 handicap at a given course, while an 11.9 might play as a 14.  Assuming this to be the case, the 4 would have to beat the 14 by more than 10 shots to "win" their head to head game.  Or, in a "match play" scenario, the 14 would get a 1 shot net improvement on the 10 hardest holes on a given course (as determined by the course rating), so the higher handicap player could "tie" the hole's individual score with a score 1 shot higher than the better player, or "win" the described hole with a tie score.

Ping i15 9.0 (UST Mamiya S)

Cobra X-Speed 4+ Wood (Aldila S)

Cobra Baffler 3-Hybrid (19)

Mizuno JPX-825 Pro (4-GW) KBS Tour S

Cobra Rusty 55 SW

Cobra Rusty 59 LW

Never Compromise Gambler (34")

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by carrx

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bunkerman125

So, a player, could score less than another player and still win?

I'm confused.

It's not that complicated really.  The handicap system is designed to measure a particular player's "average" given score on a particular course.  A player who is objectively better, on average, makes a better score than a player who is objectively worse.  However, if both players are subscribed to a handicap index, each player is measured against their "average" score, so the better player could "lose" to a worse player, because the lesser player exceeded their average by a greater amount than did the better player.

In an ideal situation, both players are meticulous (and honest) about maintaining their handicap indexes, so that their typical score would be more or less even (when the index is applied).  For example, a 2.9 index might play as a 4 handicap at a given course, while an 11.9 might play as a 14.  Assuming this to be the case, the 4 would have to beat the 14 by more than 10 shots to "win" their head to head game.  Or, in a "match play" scenario, the 14 would get a 1 shot net improvement on the 10 hardest holes on a given course (as determined by the course rating), so the higher handicap player could "tie" the hole's individual score with a score 1 shot higher than the better player, or "win" the described hole with a tie score.

Actually the handicap system measures a player's potential scoring ability relative to scratch, not his average score. "Average" only enters into it when you average the 10 best differentials (calculated using score + course rating and slope) of the last 20. Since you're throwing out the worst 10, and then subtracting another 4% off the average of the best, your handicap us clearly going to be lower than your average scoring ability.

Other than that clarification, I think you've described it well.

  • Upvote 1

Bill

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Originally Posted by sacm3bill

Actually the handicap system measures a player's potential scoring ability relative to scratch, not his average score. "Average" only enters into it when you average the 10 best differentials (calculated using score + course rating and slope) of the last 20. Since you're throwing out the worst 10, and then subtracting another 4% off the average of the best, your handicap us clearly going to be lower than your average scoring ability.

Other than that clarification, I think you've described it well.

+1 on the explanation.  The use of the 10 best scores is what I believe makes the handicap method of golf superior to bowling in that it makes sandbagging much more difficult.  I know from my bowling days, guys that could roll a 240 any time they wanted would only bowl good enough to win their head to head points.  In golf, you would have to tank over half of your rounds to have any of the lower scores apply towards your handicap.

Joe Paradiso

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Note: This thread is 4023 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...