Is handicap really a measure of potential?

[turtleback]

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.

You sound to me like a guy who might enjoy taking the USGA class for getting certified to be a handicap chair.  You're interested and thoughtful and that is all it takes.  And you don't have to actually become a handicap chairman.

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.

As to the first comment there is a big difference between a word that is used in the context of the rules and a word that is used in a more general context.  Th rules require words to be defined with precision.  Characterizing a process designed to allow equitable competition as measuring potential needs no such precise a definition.

As to the final comment - but that would be cheating.

[Fourputt]

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.

Actually, virtual certainty is much more than just "reasonable".  Virtual certainty arises when the ball is not found through the green, but because of the circumstances, it can be no place else other than in the condition where it is thought to be, i.e. in a water hazard, or lost in casual water or an obstruction.  If there is any other possibility, however remote, then virtual certainty is not achieved and the ball is lost.

[bubble]

To me the handicap calculation yields an index that's somewhere between average and the true potential.  What do you think?

I ont beleive it is the purpose of a handicap to show potential or such.

It is more used to level players of different levels on the same rounds for 19 holes prizes. not ?

[Rulesman]

USGA Handicap Manual

The purpose of the USGA Handicap System is to make the game of golf more enjoyable by enabling players of differing abilities to compete on an equitable basis.

The System provides a fair Course Handicap for each player, regardless of ability, and adjusts a player's Handicap Index up or down as the player's game changes.

At the same time, the System disregards high scores that bear little relation to the player's potential ability and promotes continuity by making a Handicap Index continuous from one playing season or year to the next.

CONGU® Unified Handicapping System

The purpose of the CONGU® Unified Handicapping System is to enable golfers of differing abilities,men and ladies alike, to compete on a fair and equitable basis.

For handicap purposes only, limiting the maximum score that can be recorded on any hole by application
of the Stableford/Nett Double Bogey adjustment in order to make handicaps more representative of a
player’s potential ability .

[MyrtleBeachGolf]

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.

I have to say, an 18 index shooting 79 and 77 in back to back rounds sounds like a great stretch. My index has hovered between 11 and 12 since I established it and I have never broke 80. Sounding from your scores of 77, 79, 83, 85 it sounds like 14.1 is a closer representation of your ability than 18. Then again, I have no idea of slope/rating of the courses those scores were posted on I guess.

[DaveP043]

You sound to me like a guy who might enjoy taking the USGA class for getting certified to be a handicap chair.  You're interested and thoughtful and that is all it takes.  And you don't have to actually become a handicap chairman.

turtleback, thanks very much for the compliment.  I've looked into taking the handicap seminar, just haven't made the time in my schedule to do it.  As I've mentioned, I've captained our inter-club team for five years, and that job takes quite a bit of time.  I'm retiring that position at the end of this season, and next year I'm sure I'll be taking up more responsibility in some other sector of our club.

I ont beleive it is the purpose of a handicap to show potential or such.

It is more used to level players of different levels on the same rounds for 19 holes prizes. not ?

I brought up the term 'potential" because it appears several times in Section I of the USGA handicap manual, and is used by many people, both within this forum and elsewhere to describe the goal of the handicap system.  When I read Section I closer, the manual simply states that the "Handicap Index indicates a player's ability."  We may not all agree on the term potential, but I think most of us agree that the Handicap systems works to allow players of different abilities to compete against one another.

[Rulesman]

I brought up the term 'potential" because it appears several times in Section I of the USGA handicap manual, and is used by many people, both within this forum and elsewhere to describe the goal of the handicap system.

It only appears twice. In addition the to part I quoted earlier:

"the System disregards high scores that bear little relation to the player's potential ability "

it also says:

"It reflects the player's potential because it is based upon the best handicap differentials posted for a given number of rounds, ideally the best 10 of the last 20 rounds."

[DrvFrShow]

Yeah, so unless I truly improve after I return from my shoulder injury next season, I'll suffer from my two outlier rounds for the entire summer next year. Unless I get a different number.

[DaveP043]

Yeah, so unless I truly improve after I return from my shoulder injury next season, I'll suffer from my two outlier rounds for the entire summer next year. Unless I get a different number.

I hope your recovery goes well, and that you're back on the course soon.  When you do come back, you may want to talk to the handicap committee where you play.  They have the authority to give you an increased handicap due to your temporary disability.  As I read the rules, the increased handicap would only be valid for local use, but it would help make things "fair" while you recover.  Good luck!

[iacas]

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.

Rich, that's you. No way is 99% remotely accurate. I bet the majority of golfers use handicaps to gamble. Net skins is gambling, Nassaus are gambling, etc.

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.

Remember also that it's 96%. That further bumps it toward "potential" and not "average scores."

[RBirzes]

I don't think the handicap system shows potential. It is there to even the playing field. I think a good way to get an Idea of your potential is to get 3 scores from a course where you played . Hopefully you will have them played within the same time period. I play in a few 3 days tournaments so it was easy to get time period close. I took the best score from each hole of the 3 rounds and added them up like it was a scramble. Might seem a little far fetched, but I did it for a few of the tourneys and they all came in at 4 or 5 over. It makes sense to me because I have a 14.4 index, but my index is from having a couple blowup holes per round. Try it and see what you think. When I do this, (at least to me) it is showing me what I have the potential to do.

[PapaMatt]

I have to say, an 18 index shooting 79 and 77 in back to back rounds sounds like a great stretch. My index has hovered between 11 and 12 since I established it and I have never broke 80. Sounding from your scores of 77, 79, 83, 85 it sounds like 14.1 is a closer representation of your ability than 18. Then again, I have no idea of slope/rating of the courses those scores were posted on I guess.

Yeah it was a great stretch, unfortunately it has not been duplicated! But I can see that from a "potential" standpoint, if I did it, I can do it again so that is my potential.

I tried the method from RBirzes on my best scores from three rounds and ended up the same, +5 and as our handicaps are almost the same, that is interesting. My handicap is also as high as it is because of blowup holes. I played a couple of weeks ago and had a 94. I was +11 on 4 holes and then +11 on the other 14. Shot an 88 last week and was +8 on four holes, +9 on the other 14.