Is handicap really a measure of potential?

[DaveP043]

This is a follow-up to a discussion that's kind of veered off the original topic in the "Virtual Certainty" post.  As most of us know, the USGA handicap uses the best 10 of your last 20 scores to calculate a handicap index (I know this is a simplification, but the mechanics of slope and rating really aren't part of the question).  But if the goal of the handicap is to truly indicate a player's potential, shouldn't it take the one or two best scores, rather than 10?  Or maybe look at the best over a longer time period?  I shot a 2-under 70 in a stroke play tournament last year, isn't that a real measure of my potential, rather than the 5.4 index I carry based on my last 20 scores?

I'm not advocating changing the system, necessarily, but I'm just not sure that the handicap calculation is really an indication of "potential."   To me the handicap calculation yields an index that's somewhere between average and the true potential.  What do you think?

[Golfingdad]

I think you nailed it with your last sentence.

It's not 100% true potential but it leans slightly more that direction than actual average.  But since it's main goal is to even the playing field and allow competition between people of different abilities, it doesn't matter too much since we're all on the same scale.

[GolfLug]

My handicap will refresh to just below 10 by end of May. Well, let me put it this way. I think it is a lot closer to potential on the low side than the high side definitely. On any given day I am much more apt to shoot a 85 (3 over HCP depending on course) then I am 79 (3 below HCP).

[Fourputt]

Of course it's your potential.  An average of your 10 best scores should be a perfect indication of your potential.  The goal behind the USGA system is for a player whose handicap is stable to shoot to his handicap about 25% of the time.  That simply means that you are unlikely to be rewarded when you don't shoot to your playing potential.  Some of that depends on how well your opponents are doing that day too.  You may be rewarded even when you shoot above your handicap, and there are also times when you will fail to reap any reward when you shoot at or better than your cap.

I played for 22 years in a tournament club, and the USGA handicap system works very well when it's properly managed as my club did.  Active management weeds out sandbaggers, and knowledge that sandbaggers won't prosper keeps them from joining in the first place.  Proper implementation and flighting makes tournaments quite fair, with the rewards going to the guys who actually play best in any given competition.  I had years where I had nearly $1000 earned (on the books in the pro shop, not cash), and I had years where I won exactly nothing but maybe a closest to the pin or the like.  The same sort of stats were true of most of the regular players who entered most of our 15 tournaments per season.

That just shows that when implemented and managed per the manual, the system works.  When not used as the USGA recommends, then the system can fail to a greater or lesser extent, depending on the degree of mismanagement.

[turtleback]

This is a follow-up to a discussion that's kind of veered off the original topic in the "Virtual Certainty" post.  As most of us know, the USGA handicap uses the best 10 of your last 20 scores to calculate a handicap index (I know this is a simplification, but the mechanics of slope and rating really aren't part of the question).  But if the goal of the handicap is to truly indicate a player's potential, shouldn't it take the one or two best scores, rather than 10?  Or maybe look at the best over a longer time period?  I shot a 2-under 70 in a stroke play tournament last year, isn't that a real measure of my potential, rather than the 5.4 index I carry based on my last 20 scores?

I'm not advocating changing the system, necessarily, but I'm just not sure that the handicap calculation is really an indication of "potential."   To me the handicap calculation yields an index that's somewhere between average and the true potential.  What do you think?

I disagree.  The best one or two scores are probably outiers.  And if their average is significantly better than the average of the top ten that is even more the case.

[SavvySwede]

I always thought handicaps were created to make gambling fair and easier, not measure potential. But I doubt the USGA would care to adopt such an interpretation.

[Fourputt]

I always thought handicaps were created to make gambling fair and easier, not measure potential. But I doubt the USGA would care to adopt such an interpretation.

While used for gambling, that is not the primary reason for the existence of a handicap system.  It is strictly for the purpose of allowing players of differing abilities to compete head to head.  The stakes may well be nothing more than a trophy, but in the larger picture, the stakes are irrelevant, and are not the basis for the system.

In fact, most wagers or money games I've been involved in were handicapped on the first tee by the friendly combatants negotiating the strokes received or given based on knowledge of each player's typical game.

[SavvySwede]

While used for gambling, that is not the primary reason for the existence of a handicap system.  It is strictly for the purpose of allowing players of differing abilities to compete head to head.  The stakes may well be nothing more than a trophy, but in the larger picture, the stakes are irrelevant, and are not the basis for the system.

In fact, most wagers or money games I've been involved in were handicapped on the first tee by the friendly combatants negotiating the strokes received or given based on knowledge of each player's typical game.

http://www.popeofslope.com/history/ Seems like betting was the main inspiration to me.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by SavvySwede

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

While used for gambling, that is not the primary reason for the existence of a handicap system.  It is strictly for the purpose of allowing players of differing abilities to compete head to head.  The stakes may well be nothing more than a trophy, but in the larger picture, the stakes are irrelevant, and are not the basis for the system.

In fact, most wagers or money games I've been involved in were handicapped on the first tee by the friendly combatants negotiating the strokes received or given based on knowledge of each player's typical game.

http://www.popeofslope.com/history/ Seems like betting was the main inspiration to me.

The official system managed by the USGA for amateur golf is a different animal.  No doubt that the general idea of handicapping may have evolved from some sort of gambling, but it's actual purpose is to level the field of competitors, no matter if it's golf, bowling, or horse racing.  In golf it's to make amateur competitions more competitive.

From Merriam-Webster:

Quote:

Definition of HANDICAP

1

a : a race or contest in which an artificial advantage is given or disadvantage imposed on a contestant to equalize chances of winning

b : an advantage given or disadvantage imposed usually in the form of points, strokes, weight to be carried, or distance from the target or goal

2

a : a disadvantage that makes achievement unusually difficult

b sometimes offensive : a physical disability

Only in the origin of the term is any mention given to money:

Quote:

Origin of HANDICAP

obsolete English handicap, a game in which forfeit money was held in a cap, from hand in cap

First Known Use: 1754

[SavvySwede]

The official system managed by the USGA for amateur golf is a different animal.  No doubt that the general idea of handicapping may have evolved from some sort of gambling, but it's actual purpose is to level the field of competitors, no matter if it's golf, bowling, or horse racing.  In golf it's to make amateur competitions more competitive.

Well it's not like the USGA is going to officially condone gambling.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fourputt

The official system managed by the USGA for amateur golf is a different animal.  No doubt that the general idea of handicapping may have evolved from some sort of gambling, but it's actual purpose is to level the field of competitors, no matter if it's golf, bowling, or horse racing.  In golf it's to make amateur competitions more competitive.

Well it's not like the USGA is going to officially condone gambling.

Believe what you like.  I've carried a handicap for 26 years, and 99% of that time it's been used for tournament play only, not gambling.  Only once in a long while has my handicap factored into any sort of a wager.

[Rulesman]

Well it's not like the USGA is going to officially condone gambling.

http://www.usga.org/rules/rules-of-amateur-status.html#!appendix

An extract from the link above.

Acceptable Forms of Gambling

There is no objection to informal gambling or wagering among individual golfers or teams of golfers when it is incidental to the game. It is not practicable to define informal gambling or wagering precisely, but features that would be consistent with such gambling or wagering include:

• the players in general know each other;
• participation in the gambling or wagering is optional and is limited to the players;
• the sole source of all money won by the players is advanced by the players; and
• the amount of money involved is not generally considered to be excessive.

[Lihu]

This is a follow-up to a discussion that's kind of veered off the original topic in the "Virtual Certainty" post.  As most of us know, the USGA handicap uses the best 10 of your last 20 scores to calculate a handicap index (I know this is a simplification, but the mechanics of slope and rating really aren't part of the question).  But if the goal of the handicap is to truly indicate a player's potential, shouldn't it take the one or two best scores, rather than 10?  Or maybe look at the best over a longer time period?  I shot a 2-under 70 in a stroke play tournament last year, isn't that a real measure of my potential, rather than the 5.4 index I carry based on my last 20 scores?

I'm not advocating changing the system, necessarily, but I'm just not sure that the handicap calculation is really an indication of "potential."   To me the handicap calculation yields an index that's somewhere between average and the true potential.  What do you think?

Does it depend upon your circumstances? For instance, if you are an improving golfer, handicap would have very little to do with your potential as you noted as a good reason to using a single best score. However, if you just make one really good round but normally shoot 6 strokes above this score it might not be a good indicator of potential as it was just a freakishly lucky round?

[David in FL]

I disagree.  The best one or two scores are probably outiers.  And if their average is significantly better than the average of the top ten that is even more the case.

Agree. You could even argue that my potential is at least as good as my career low round/differential, but that's not reality, especially given the purpose of the handicap system. As others have stated, to allow for players of differing abilities to compete on a more level playing field.

[DaveP043]

So many interesting comments!  I'll respond to a few of them.

First, I agree with fourputt, the USGA handicap system does an excellent job of leveling the playing field for competition between golfers of differing abilities.  Of course proper administration and enforcement of the system is critical, but that's a separate conversation.

Second, regarding gambling, in my group we always play for a few bucks, and for over 20 years we have always used our USGA handicaps.  If its good enough to level the field for a 36-hole stroke play club tournament, its good enough for an informal bet between friends.  I see no need for negotiation on the first tee when there's a perfectly good record of each player's game already in place.

Last, back to the idea of potential.  Again, per Merriam-Webster:

potential

noun

: a chance or possibility that something will happen or exist in the future

: a quality that something has that can be developed to make it better

: an ability that someone has that can be developed to help that person become successful

The last definition seems the most applicable to me.  Again, the ability the player has is best indicated by his very best rounds.  To me, averaging the best half provides an indication of the player's "better than average", not his true potential.  I'm not saying the USGA is wrong in using its procedure, just that its not his true potential.

I understand Lihu's point as well.  In my case, my career-best 70 from last summer is probably an outlier.  However, I've had 74, 76T, 76T this spring, so these three are a reasonably good indication of my potential.  Averaging the differentials from just those three rounds would result in 3.6, about two strokes lower than my current 5.4 index.  I'd bet that doing this same type of calculation for other golfers would result in a similar difference.  I'd also bet that the differences in handicaps between different players would change very little.

[saevel25]

Handicap isn't a measure of potential. Its a measure of actual ability from previous rounds. In some cases it could be over or under estimated because it is not predictive. It is trying to level the playing field based on past events.

I will say that higher handicap players have more volatility in their game such that a handicap can be misleading, and in some cases can make it difficult for someone with a lower handicap to compete against.

This is why I think creating flights is a good way to curb this.

[David in FL]

So many interesting comments!  I'll respond to a few of them.   First, I agree with fourputt, the USGA handicap system does an excellent job of leveling the playing field for competition between golfers of differing abilities.  Of course proper administration and enforcement of the system is critical, but that's a separate conversation. Second, regarding gambling, in my group we always play for a few bucks, and for over 20 years we have always used our USGA handicaps.  If its good enough to level the field for a 36-hole stroke play club tournament, its good enough for an informal bet between friends.  I see no need for negotiation on the first tee when there's a perfectly good record of each player's game already in place. Last, back to the idea of potential.  Again, per Merriam-Webster:

potential

noun

: a chance or possibility that something will happen or exist in the future

: a quality that something has that can be developed to make it better

: an ability that someone has that can be developed to help that person become successful

The last definition seems the most applicable to me .  Again, the ability the player has is best indicated by his very best rounds.  To me, averaging the best half provides an indication of the player's "better than average", not his true potential.  I'm not saying the USGA is wrong in using its procedure, just that its not his true potential. I understand Lihu's point as well.  In my case, my career-best 70 from last summer is probably an outlier.  However, I've had 74, 76T, 76T this spring, so these three are a reasonably good indication of my potential.  Averaging the differentials from just those three rounds would result in 3.6, about two strokes lower than my current 5.4 index.  I'd bet that doing this same type of calculation for other golfers would result in a similar difference.  I'd also bet that the differences in handicaps between different players would change very little.

I disagree with the highlighted. From our perspective, I think the first definition is what we mean by potential. More specifically, the chance or possibility that something (a certain score) will happen the next round of golf you play. After all, that's how the hcp is applied....

[DaveP043]

I will say that higher handicap players have more volatility in their game such that a handicap can be misleading, and in some cases can make it difficult for someone with a lower handicap to compete against.

This is why I think creating flights is a good way to curb this.

I have certainly seen this scenario play out in larger field events.  In a hypothetical field with 30 20-handicappers and 30 6-handicappers, the 20-handicap group will probably shoot both the lowest net score, and the highest net score.  In an individual match, however, my experience is that the handicaps work out reasonably well.  Its just mentally draining to be giving strokes all day long.

I read the last sentence as​ "...creating fights....", and thought of arm-wrestling as a tiebreaker.