Is handicap really a measure of potential?

[turtleback]

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.

Not a knock on you because you weren't the first to use one, but I find that using dictionary definitions in a specialized setting is not particularly useful.

I look at handicap as a figure calculated so that if I play well **for me** applying the handicap will get me at or under par (really adjusted CR but for simplicity I am going to use par).  Your way of looking at it would make it so that you would have to play very very well, for you, to have the application of the handicap get you to par.  However, you are a 5.4 so you are going to be around your handicap more than others. The good scores you shot will, if you can back them up by enough others, lower your index.  As it is, according to the USGA even with the current system, players play to their handicaps something like 25% of the time.  With your suggestion that would probably drop to something like 10% of the time.

The real problem is if you try to apply this to higher handicap golfers.  Their range of scores is going to be much greater and there is very likely to be a much bigger difference between their top ten average and their top 3 average than you would have.  So their handicaps are going to be much lower, on average than under the current system.  And if the current system is a good basis for equitable competition (and certainly one can argue whether it is or not), the new one would penalize high handicappers.

So when all these considerations are wrapped up in the USGA's process and then they choose to **describe** the process as measuring the golfer's potential it has to be viewed as characterizing what they have done, not using it to prescribe what they should do.  If you start out trying to measure a player's potential then you might come up with a different system.  But their use of the term is descriptive, not prescriptive, if that makes any sense.

The handicap system was developed in an iterative fashion over a long long time.  The fundamental goal was to come up with a way to allow players of varying abilities to play competitively.  After decades of using and tweaking the system (CRs, slopes, .96 instead of 85, etc.) they have come up with the current system.  The goal all along was to allow equitable play among players of varying ability.  And they choose (wisely or unwisely), to describe there system as measuring a players potential.  If their use of the word is incorrect, it is the word that is incorrect, not the system, since the goal was not measuring potential, it was equalizing the playing field.

[DaveP043]

turtleback, I agree.  I looked at the definitions in the handicap manual, but they don't define potential, so I went to another source.  As I've said, I support the USGA handicap system, I use it for club tournaments, inter-club play, and my informal weekend gambling.  As captain of our inter-club team, I've had to learn a lot about the handicap system, probably more than I ever wanted to.  I've read a lot of what Dean Knuth, author of the Slope System now in use, has to say on his website, www.popeofslope.com. I think it works pretty well, as long as everyone posts their scores properly.  Its probably just the word "potential" that I cringe at, so I was interested to start a discussion to see what other people think about it.  My thanks go to all who have contributed so far.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by saevel25

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.

To expand on this:

While the bogey golfer has a wider range of likely scores than a 4 handicap, the 4 handicap will score at or very close to his handicap far more consistently than the bogey golfer will.  This means that the bogey golfer has a better chance of winning a match when both players are playing well because he is more likely to shoot 3 or 4 strokes under his handicap on a good round, but in a best 2 out of 3 match the better player's consistency will usually win overall because his poorer scores will almost always beat the weaker players poor scores.  In single elimination match play the better player will win more often than he loses, again due to his consistency, but he can also run up against a bogey golfer who happens to be on his game that day and the net will look like a total mismatch.  This is what leads to the comments we see so often from low handicappers that the system is unfair to them in a handicap match.  It's not the system, just bad fortune to hit that player on one of his better days (I've been on both sides of this, and it just is what it is, not a failure of the system).  It's also why for a match tournament of any consequence, it shouldn't be played in single elimination unless the players are all of similar handicaps.

Where the low handicap player loses out is when a stroke competition is poorly set up so that he has to face a field of golfers with higher handicaps, all with varying degrees of likelihood of beating the better player's best potential net score.  The more higher handicap players he is pitted against, the more odds go against him.  This is why stroke competitions should always be flighted when there are a lot of players in the tournament with a wide spread of handicaps.  Trying to keep each flight to about a 3-4 stroke spread makes the competitions work well within the system's design.

[GolfLug]

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....

+1.

Slightly different note..I have always felt that a players true potential is displayed not necessarily in the 10 best of their last 20 rounds regardless of score variance but with a minimum of 5 rounds within rounds where they score within maximum 5 shots variance or next lowest variance . This could be any number of rounds in the last 20 anywhere in the score hierarchy. In other words more mean than average. IMHO this has a better chance of eliminating outliers on either end.

I admit I haven't really thought this through of all possible scenario but the point is spread of variance has to be more accounted for than it is now.

[Big C]

@DaveP043 , I think you are getting caught up in the semantics of the word "potential." Obviously, you have the potential (i.e the possibility exists) to shoot under par on any given day. Earlier this year, my index was down to a 7.4 because it included the two best rounds I had ever shot. On the other hand, none of my other 18 scores were within 6 strokes of those two low rounds, so my potential and my actual performance were normally very far apart. I think @Fourputt once posted about a 73 he shot while playing to a 16 handicap. During those once in a lifetime rounds, did we unlock our true potential or did we just get lucky, hole a lot of putts, find our mishits in very playable spots, etc? Probably a combination of both. But if you are suggesting that our handicap should be weighted more heavily towards those once in a blue moon type of rounds, then I have to respectfully disagree.

Your post reminds me of a thread that @iacas started awhile back talking about the average golfer who hits 3-4 pure shots in any given round and thinks that represents his true game. If he could just be that guy who pured a 7 iron to within 2 feet of the cup on hole 17, he would start shooting better scores. Well guess what? He is that guy - but he's also the guy who hit a bunch of fat shots, a handful thin, swept across a couple more with an open club face and pull hooked 3 drives.

To me, the word "potential" doesn't really mean anything in terms of golf. Golfers (myself included) are notoriously narrow minded when it comes to analyzing our own games. We lament the poor rounds we shot and think back to all our bad breaks, missed short putts and say what could have been. Then we pat ourselves on the back for our good rounds, without reflecting on the balls that caromed off trees and into the fairway, or the chip in that turned a likely double bogey into a fortunate par. That's why the handicap system - used properly - works so well. It doesn't deal in delusions or opinions. I just takes the raw numbers, enough of them to be statistically meaningful, IMO and tells us how we've been playing recently.

[Lihu]

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 can argue that it's even more mentally draining taking strokes all day long.

@DaveP043, I think you are getting caught up in the semantics of the word "potential." Obviously, you have the potential (i.e the possibility exists) to shoot under par on any given day. Earlier this year, my index was down to a 7.4 because it included the two best rounds I had ever shot. On the other hand, none of my other 18 scores were within 6 strokes of those two low rounds, so my potential and my actual performance were normally very far apart. I think @Fourputt once posted about a 73 he shot while playing to a 16 handicap. During those once in a lifetime rounds, did we unlock our true potential or did we just get lucky, hole a lot of putts, find our mishits in very playable spots, etc? Probably a combination of both. But if you are suggesting that our handicap should be weighted more heavily towards those once in a blue moon type of rounds, then I have to respectfully disagree.

I'm going with this one. . .

[DaveP043]

I'll say it again, I think the handicap system as it is works just fine, I was simply questioning the use of the word potential.  To me, potential indicates a player at or near the top of his game.  Using the best 10 out of 20 is a slightly lower standard of excellence.  I understand that others will disagree with my interpretation of potential, and I'm fine with that.

But reading Big C's post reminded me of another article I read on Dean Knuth's site, about the "Anti-Handicap".

http://www.popeofslope.com/guidelines/anti.html

In essence, calculate your anti-handicap exactly as you would your handicap, except use the worst 10 differentials.  The difference between handicap and anti-handicap gives some indication of consistency.  For anyone who cares, mine are 5.4 and 10.6.  The article suggests that the anti-handicap can help you select a partner, and further suggests that a more consistent player is more likely to win a match than a more erratic player, even at the same handicap level.  Food for thought.

[DaveP043]

I can argue that it's even more mentally draining taking strokes all day long.

We're two different sides of the same coin, apparently.

[Lihu]

I'll say it again, I think the handicap system as it is works just fine, I was simply questioning the use of the word potential.  To me, potential indicates a player at or near the top of his game.  Using the best 10 out of 20 is a slightly lower standard of excellence.  I understand that others will disagree with my interpretation of potential, and I'm fine with that.

But reading Big C's post reminded me of another article I read on Dean Knuth's site, about the "Anti-Handicap".

http://www.popeofslope.com/guidelines/anti.html

In essence, calculate your anti-handicap exactly as you would your handicap, except use the worst 10 differentials.  The difference between handicap and anti-handicap gives some indication of consistency.  For anyone who cares, mine are 5.4 and 10.6.  The article suggests that the anti-handicap can help you select a partner, and further suggests that a more consistent player is more likely to win a match than a more erratic player, even at the same handicap level.  Food for thought.

That is what potential really means. . .

Is it probable? Not sure?

[Big C]

I'll say it again, I think the handicap system as it is works just fine, I was simply questioning the use of the word potential.

Agree on this point. As I said above, potential is a meaningless term in my book. Just about every golfer I've played with who takes the game somewhat seriously thinks he has the potential to be scratch. Like the great Bill Parcells said once, "you are what your record says you are."

[DaveP043]

Like the great Bill Parcells said once, "you are what your record says you are."

No matter how anyone describes it, as long as we're all playing by the same rules, its all good.  I kind of knew it would be like tossing a string of firecrackers into a room full of gunslingers, but its been an interesting discussion.

[Fourputt]

The way I read it in this usage, it's your reasonable potential for scoring when you are playing well.  For handicap purposes there is really no reason to deal with a player's ultimate limit other than to use that in the calculation.  This would be an unrealistic expectation for anyone with a double digit handicap.  I'm still suffering from a 79 that I posted in 2011, which singlehandedly keeps my index at a potential that I haven't matched in 3 years.  I need 3 more scores to eradicate that from my record, and then my cap will jump up closer to what my current potential really is.  I'm supposed to play to my handicap about 25% of the time - at the moment, I'm playing to my handicap 0% of the time.

In my opinion, "potential" for the handicap system reflects a realistic and attainable goal, not a once in season glory round.

[DrvFrShow]

terms like potential, virtual certainty etc. need nearly legal definitions.

virtual certainty in reality is no more than "reasonable certainty." Then this gets into "what is reasonable?" Is it "preponderance of evidence?" Yeah, it went over there. Yeah, it rolled in the direction of the water hazard and we can't find it so by process of elimination it's in the water hazard? Or did is it a lost ball vanished in the Bermuda Triangle?

I guess the solution with the handicap system is not to post the glory rounds so you don't suffer from them for years.

[DaveP043]

I guess the solution with the handicap system is not to post the glory rounds so you don't suffer from them for years.

The other option, and the only legal one, is to play enough golf so that the glory rounds pass out of the record quickly.  Fourputt, you have my sympathy if you've only played 20 rounds since 2011.  I missed one summer with a broken wrist a few years back, and it was the longest 14 weeks and four days of my life.

[Lihu]

terms like potential, virtual certainty etc. need nearly legal definitions.

virtual certainty in reality is no more than "reasonable certainty." Then this gets into "what is reasonable?" Is it "preponderance of evidence?" Yeah, it went over there. Yeah, it rolled in the direction of the water hazard and we can't find it so by process of elimination it's in the water hazard? Or did is it a lost ball vanished in the Bermuda Triangle?

I guess the solution with the handicap system is not to post the glory rounds so you don't suffer from them for years.

Or recognize that they are once in a lifetime glory rounds.

If a round was made up of a bunch of pars consisting of awful drives, so-so approaches topped with a blah scrambles for par, it seems like this is a round that was played to your potential or below and seems like something possible to repeat. OTOH, if you played as well as you can for every hole to shoot the same score, you would need your perfect game to repeat and this is less likely.

[Fourputt]

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrvFrShow

I guess the solution with the handicap system is not to post the glory rounds so you don't suffer from them for years.

The other option, and the only legal one, is to play enough golf so that the glory rounds pass out of the record quickly.  Fourputt, you have my sympathy if you've only played 20 rounds since 2011.  I missed one summer with a broken wrist a few years back, and it was the longest 14 weeks and four days of my life.

I lived out of the US for 2 years and just moved back last year in August.  I reinstated my handicap this year, and since I chose to keep my old GHIN number, it reverted to where I was at the end of the season in 2011.  I'm not playing remotely that well right now, so I'm trying to "cycle" my scores as much as I can to get my cap to a more reasonable level.  I need 3 more to erase that 79.  It's depressing that 6 years ago I actually beat my head pro straight up, 76 to 77, and now I struggle to break 90.  A protracted layoff when one is in his 60's, or at least a period with minimal play like I've had, really takes a toll on the swing.

[DrvFrShow]

I'll miss this entire summer. Appt with the orthopedist in mid-June. Then it's MRI. Then go from there and see what the damage is. After I get cleared to play again it's starting all over again. I'm always going to suck at this game. I give up.

[PapaMatt]

As someone that does not gamble much or play competitive rounds outside of with my stepfather and instead uses the handicap as a sort of gauge of how I am doing, those low outlier scores can throw your perception for a loop. I had two rounds last year that were uncharacteristically low. I was an 18 and shot a 79 and then a 77 back to back. Closest other scores ever where an 83 (the week before the 79) and an 85 six months later. Those two scores dropped me down to a 14.1 and they are just now coming off, this means my cap is likely going up to almost 16 BUT there is no question I am playing better and more consistently now than I was the last year while I have been riding those two rounds to a 14.1. I do think the handicap represents potential, but as has been said, it works a bit differently for high handicappers versus low. Or, as that article mentioned, Steady Eddies and Wild Willies. :) On a side note, I think improvement in golf is a lot like weightlifting. You get stronger and stronger but do not see much size change and then you plateau and then something happens and you pop through, gain ten pounds and look like a new person. I am hoping that now that my rounds seem to be getting more consistent I am going to make a leap soon....whereas a year ago I could shoot 80 or 110 on any given day.