Forum Profile Handicap Indices....

[Fairway_CY]

Mine is both current and official.  I update it when I get a revision.

Regarding the use of the handicap system... say when you will, but I've played in both flat out net tournaments and in flighted tournaments.  Both are fun and both give anybody an opportunity to win.  The system works as long as actual scores are posted using the posting guidelines.  Trouble comes of the system when someone posts false scores or 'forgets' to post their 82 when all the other scores are upwards of 92.

I've seen the sandbaggers and I've seen the vanity handicappers.  Both are equally frustrating.  Either way... the system, as it's designed, works well, IMO.

CY

[iacas]

Originally Posted by Slice of Life

That's almost exactly what I said. Almost word for word if you go back and read it. I also said I understand the handicap system and would play with it, but I wouldn't look at it as the same type of competition as straight up beating someone.

I don't believe that's what you said. You argued for quite awhile that handicapped matches weren't even really competition, or "competitive," and that you weren't "built that way" or somesuch.

Of course it's not beating someone straight up. Duh. Everyone can look at two numbers and find the smaller one. That goes without saying (so there's on need to keep saying it).

If you were to play against me, we'd have a choice: a) be bored out of our minds with the foregone conclusion that I will win, or b) play a competitive match because it's properly handicapped.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by Fairway_CY

Mine is both current and official.  I update it when I get a revision.

Regarding the use of the handicap system... say when you will, but I've played in both flat out net tournaments and in flighted tournaments.  Both are fun and both give anybody an opportunity to win.  The system works as long as actual scores are posted using the posting guidelines.  Trouble comes of the system when someone posts false scores or 'forgets' to post their 82 when all the other scores are upwards of 92.

I've seen the sandbaggers and I've seen the vanity handicappers.  Both are equally frustrating.  Either way... the system, as it's designed, works well, IMO.

CY

Unflighted net may work, but it doesn't work well, particularly for low handicap players.  Here is the reason.

You have a 17.9 index posted.  Unless you are the strangest bogey golfer I ever met, you get a lot of fluctuation in your scores.  You have the room to easily post something 3 or 4 strokes under your handicap just by keeping the ball in play better one day that on another. You also have a lot of room to improve.

Both of those factors work against a 4 handicapper in the field of a large unflighted net comp.  He is going to be much more consistent and the likelihood of his posting a score 4 strokes under his handicap is minimal.  If there are 20 golfers who play at bogey or worse, and 10 low single digit handicappers, one or the other of the bogey players is going to win 10 times out of 10.  The single digit player has almost no chance to shoot the exceptional score which at least one of the bogey golfers is certainly going to shoot.

Even as a 10-13 handicapper, I often shoot in the 70's.  I just don't do it often enough to get my handicap below 10.  If I'm playing a 3 or 4 handicap, I have a fair chance to beat him head to head at net.  If there are 20 players at my level, against 20 at his, on any given day one of the those in my group is going to post a score which would require the single digit to shoot gross par or better to beat.  Even if he posts a net 4 under par, one of those higher handicappers is as likely to post 5 under and still beat him.

And the disparity gets much greater as the high handicaps get higher.  I've seen (even done it myself when I was a bogey golfer) a high handicapper shoot 10 or 12 strokes under his handicap, not sandbagging, just exercising the variability that a high handicapper lives with all of the time.  The low capper simply can't compete with that.

That is an unavoidable shortcoming of the handicap system, and really there is nothing which can be done to change it.  For that reason, in a large field with a significant handicap spread, flighting is mandatory if it is to be a fair competition, and players will only compete within their flights.  If it is desired to determine an overall winner (as in a club championship), then the top players in each flight of the stroke competitions should be played off at match play, which is what the handicap system is really designed for anyway.

[David in FL]

Unflighted net may work, but it doesn't work well, particularly for low handicap players.  Here is the reason.   You have a 17.9 index posted.  Unless you are the strangest bogey golfer I ever met, you get a lot of fluctuation in your scores.  You have the room to easily post something 3 or 4 strokes under your handicap just by keeping the ball in play better one day that on another. You also have a lot of room to improve.   Both of those factors work against a 4 handicapper in the field of a large unflighted net comp.  He is going to be much more consistent and the likelihood of his posting a score 4 strokes under his handicap is minimal.  If there are 20 golfers who play at bogey or worse, and 10 low single digit handicappers, one or the other of the bogey players is going to win 10 times out of 10.  The single digit player has almost no chance to shoot the exceptional score which at least one of the bogey golfers is certainly going to shoot.   Even as a 10-13 handicapper, I often shoot in the 70's.  I just don't do it often enough to get my handicap below 10.  If I'm playing a 3 or 4 handicap, I have a fair chance to beat him head to head at net.  If there are 20 players at my level, against 20 at his, on any given day one of the those in my group is going to post a score which would require the single digit to shoot gross par or better to beat.  Even if he posts a net 4 under par, one of those higher handicappers is as likely to post 5 under and still beat him.   And the disparity gets much greater as the high handicaps get higher.  I've seen (even done it myself when I was a bogey golfer) a high handicapper shoot 10 or 12 strokes under his handicap, not sandbagging, just exercising the variability that a high handicapper lives with all of the time.  The low capper simply can't compete with that. That is an unavoidable shortcoming of the handicap system, and really there is nothing which can be done to change it.  For that reason, in a large field with a significant handicap spread, flighting is mandatory if it is to be a fair competition, and players will only compete within their flights.  If it is desired to determine an overall winner (as in a club championship), then the top players in each flight of the stroke competitions should be played off at match play, which is what the handicap system is really designed for anyway.

True! This is also why you see non-flighted net competitions played at some percentage of handicap. Just as a personal example. Looking at my current most recent 20 rounds. My scoring average is 79.8. My highest score is 84. My lowest is 75. 12 out of 20 are between 78 and 81. Assuming in not playing a significantly easier course, it takes a VERY good day for me to drop 4 strokes off my average.

[iacas]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Just as a personal example. Looking at my current most recent 20 rounds. My scoring average is 79.8. My highest score is 84. My lowest is 75. 12 out of 20 are between 78 and 81. Assuming in not playing a significantly easier course, it takes a VERY good day for me to drop 4 strokes off my average.

My handicap when I last calculated it was +1.0. My anti-handicap (worst 10 of last 20 rounds) was 1.8.

An 18.0 index can very easily have an anti-handicap of 25.0 or so. With the wider variation in scores you get greater chances of the stars aligning, even a little, to shoot a score that's -4 or -5 or so far more easily than a low handicapper.

This idea is carried out in the Odds of an Exceptional Tournament Score table from the USGA:

http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/understanding_handicap/articles/deanstable.html

[turtleback]

Originally Posted by Fourputt

Unflighted net may work, but it doesn't work well, particularly for low handicap players.  Here is the reason.

You have a 17.9 index posted.  Unless you are the strangest bogey golfer I ever met, you get a lot of fluctuation in your scores.  You have the room to easily post something 3 or 4 strokes under your handicap just by keeping the ball in play better one day that on another. You also have a lot of room to improve.

Both of those factors work against a 4 handicapper in the field of a large unflighted net comp.  He is going to be much more consistent and the likelihood of his posting a score 4 strokes under his handicap is minimal.  If there are 20 golfers who play at bogey or worse, and 10 low single digit handicappers, one or the other of the bogey players is going to win 10 times out of 10.  The single digit player has almost no chance to shoot the exceptional score which at least one of the bogey golfers is certainly going to shoot.

Even as a 10-13 handicapper, I often shoot in the 70's.  I just don't do it often enough to get my handicap below 10.  If I'm playing a 3 or 4 handicap, I have a fair chance to beat him head to head at net.  If there are 20 players at my level, against 20 at his, on any given day one of the those in my group is going to post a score which would require the single digit to shoot gross par or better to beat.  Even if he posts a net 4 under par, one of those higher handicappers is as likely to post 5 under and still beat him.

And the disparity gets much greater as the high handicaps get higher.  I've seen (even done it myself when I was a bogey golfer) a high handicapper shoot 10 or 12 strokes under his handicap, not sandbagging, just exercising the variability that a high handicapper lives with all of the time.  The low capper simply can't compete with that.

That is an unavoidable shortcoming of the handicap system, and really there is nothing which can be done to change it.  For that reason, in a large field with a significant handicap spread, flighting is mandatory if it is to be a fair competition, and players will only compete within their flights.  If it is desired to determine an overall winner (as in a club championship), then the top players in each flight of the stroke competitions should be played off at match play, which is what the handicap system is really designed for anyway.

That is true when the competition is one round,  Our stroke play tournament is 4 rounds and I think that levels the playing field.  Because the mid to high capper may shoot 4-5 shots under their cap in one round but, BECAUSE they are a mid to high capper they are likely to have at least one (probably at least 2) round 4-5, or even more, shots over their cap.  Whereas the 4 may not shoot 4 under his cap but is less likely to shoot 4 over his cap.  The mid to high may have net scores like:  68-73-77-72 while the 4 is more likely to be something like 70-73-72-71.

[Ernest Jones]

Until I'm consistently breaking 100 I don't really see the point in maintaining an official handicap or even calculating it online for that matter. Once I am consistently breaking a 100 I'll probably just maintain an unofficial one using an online calculator seeing as I don't have any intention to enter any real competitions. My position may be revised at any point though...

[David in FL]

My handicap when I last calculated it was +1.0. My anti-handicap (worst 10 of last 20 rounds) was 1.8. An 18.0 index can very easily have an anti-handicap of 25.0 or so. With the wider variation in scores you get greater chances of the stars aligning, even a little, to shoot a score that's -4 or -5 or so far more easily than a low handicapper. This idea is carried out in the Odds of an Exceptional Tournament Score table from the USGA: [URL=http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/understanding_handicap/articles/deanstable.html]http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/understanding_handicap/articles/deanstable.html[/URL] [URL=http://thesandtrap.com/content/type/61/id/79847/] [/URL]

I've never calculated an anti-handicap before, so I just did........8.6. 3 strokes difference between my best 10 and my worst 10. Interesting.....

[Slk1981]

I do not know what my handicap is because if I am honest I have no idea at all on how to work it out, I have looked on various sites and it baffles me so I have never bothered

Also I do not think I would be any lower than 36 max

[iacas]

Originally Posted by David in FL

3 strokes difference between my best 10 and my worst 10. Interesting.....

Well, not "strokes" per se, but you know what I mean… :)

[zipazoid]

I enter my scores into Yahoo Handicap Tracker whenever i post a score. I don't know if that makes it "official" or not, as it's not 'USGA approved.'

But it works for me. That 4.9 is a bit low though. I'm not playing to a 5 cuz I haven't posted a score for a couple of months with moving to Miami, learning a new job, etc. I've only played a couple of 9-hole evening rounds since I've been here.

[David in FL]

[RIGHT][/RIGHT][quote name="iacas" url="/t/68730/forum-profile-handicaps/180#post_874269"] Well, not "strokes" per se, but you know what I mean… :) [/quote] Huh. I never thought about it before, but I guess there's no defined unit in a hcp index. It's nothing but a number......strokes don't really enter into it until you convert an index into a course handicap. Right?

[iacas]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Huh. I never thought about it before, but I guess there's no defined unit in a hcp index. It's nothing but a number......strokes don't really enter into it until you convert an index into a course handicap.

Yep. It's just a number.

A 3.3 can become 4 strokes, after all, and there's no such thing as 0.3 strokes anyway (not in scorekeeping - there are in statistics or whatever, of course).

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by David in FL

Quote:

Originally Posted by iacas

Well, not "strokes" per se, but you know what I mean… :)

Huh. I never thought about it before, but I guess there's no defined unit in a hcp index. It's nothing but a number......strokes don't really enter into it until you convert an index into a course handicap.

Right?

What it is is a formula multiplier - nothing more, nothing less.  Plug it into the course handicap calculation formula and Bingo!  Up comes your course handicap for the slope of the tees you are  playing.

[Golfingdad]

I've never calculated an anti-handicap before, so I just did........8.6. 3 strokes difference between my best 10 and my worst 10. Interesting.....

Never thought of this either ... 11.0 for me so 4.1 difference.

[David in FL]

Originally Posted by iacas

Yep. It's just a number.

A 3.3 can become 4 strokes, after all, and there's no such thing as 0.3 strokes anyway (not in scorekeeping - there are in statistics or whatever, of course).

Originally Posted by Fourputt

What it is is a formula multiplier - nothing more, nothing less.  Plug it into the course handicap calculation formula and Bingo!  Up comes your course handicap for the slope of the tees you are  playing.

I'm thinking this could make for a profitable bar bet after the round......  "What's the unit of measurement in the handicap index?"  I bet everyone says "stroke", and like me, they'd be wrong.

[boogielicious]

So am I reading this right?  The odds of me hitting -10 below my handicap, basically shoot par, are 84300:1?  This should either give me massive incentive to improve or just depress me.

[Fourputt]

Originally Posted by boogielicious

So am I reading this right?  The odds of me hitting -10 below my handicap, basically shoot par, are 84300:1?  This should either give me massive incentive to improve or just depress me.

As long as you aren't in an improvement phase, that's about right.  One such score would be an aberration, two would be a warning flag to your handicap committee that a manual adjustment was needed.  If you are in a game improvement phase, that would make the absolute numbers less certain, because your index would be dropping normally each revision, and better scores would be less "exceptional".