What flaws do you think there are in the handicap system?

[DaveP043]

Just now, paininthenuts said:

I'm sorry, that's just a different language !!

Yes, its a completely different system to yours.  To be fair, I've read bits of the CONGU Handicap Manual, and its even MORE difficult to understand, at least to me.  Lucky for all of us that computers mean we don't have to actually do the mathematics ourselves.

[18rounds]

Good conversation. I have never kept an official handicap.

Question how much does an official handicap differ from the handicap in Swing X Swing or Game Golf?

I am not intending to use it universally, I was just wondering if the two would be close.

Thanks,

 

[Jeremie Boop]

7 minutes ago, 18rounds said:

Good conversation. I have never kept an official handicap.

Question how much does an official handicap differ from the handicap in Swing X Swing or Game Golf?

I am not intending to use it universally, I was just wondering if the two would be close.

Thanks,

 

I don't know about Swing x Swing but Game Golf doesn't take into account course rating if I remember right.

[No Mulligans]

10 minutes ago, 18rounds said:

Good conversation. I have never kept an official handicap.

Question how much does an official handicap differ from the handicap in Swing X Swing or Game Golf?

I am not intending to use it universally, I was just wondering if the two would be close.

Thanks,

 

Game Golf computes handicaps differently.  Right now I'm a 15 on GameGolf and an 18.4 with my official handicap, well not really official as I keep posting solo rounds.  Game Golf should be close.

Swing X Swing would be the same if you take care to make sure the course ratings and slopes are correct.  I used it a couple years ago and the Swing by Swing data base of course ratings and slopes are not reliable, and least they weren't back then.  And, they included in my handicap rounds that were on a short course I play that doesn't have a USGA rating (Lomas Santa Fe Executive).

[DaveP043]

I wasn't sure, so I googled things.  Game Golf is calculated completely differently from the USGA system, and quite probably from any of the other systems being used worldwide.  Based on what I read, its probably an effective tool in tracking your overall game, but it would be inappropriate to use it as a basis for competition against someone using their USGA number.   Read more here:

https://gamegolf.desk.com/customer/portal/articles/1929900-handicap-everything-to-know

Swing by Swing says it does use the USGA calculation method, so it should be the same as if it was an official handicap.

[18rounds]

Thanks for the feedback.

Few of my friends and I all use Swing X Swing app to keep score on all our rounds. We use that handicap to play against each other. Non of us are members at a club or play in tournaments so it is of little consequence.  

Nice to know that Swing x Swing may be close. If I understand correctly I cant keep a regular handicap because 75% of my rounds are solo. My favorite golf is walking 9 by myself in the evening.

[DaveP043]

2 minutes ago, 18rounds said:

If I understand correctly I cant keep a regular handicap because 75% of my rounds are solo. 

You can certainly keep a handicap, but you're not allowed to report those solo rounds.  You won't have a lot of rounds to post, so your handicap will change very slowly.  This is where Swing x Swing may give you a more accurate handicap number based on all of your play than the official Handicap Index would.  If you read some of the other handicap threads here, you'll find lots of opinions, for and against, regarding the USGA's decision to exclude solo rounds.

[Lihu]

14 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

You can certainly keep a handicap, but you're not allowed to report those solo rounds.  You won't have a lot of rounds to post, so your handicap will change very slowly.  This is where Swing x Swing may give you a more accurate handicap number based on all of your play than the official Handicap Index would.  If you read some of the other handicap threads here, you'll find lots of opinions, for and against, regarding the USGA's decision to exclude solo rounds.

You know how it's funny that this has had essentially no impact on any of my rounds. Even ones where I've tried to play solo. You only have to be with another player or person for the duration of that round, and I assume that it's okay to switch up playing partners mid round as long as you don't play any golf without someone present?

[iacas]

1 hour ago, bkuehn1952 said:

ESC accounts for the high scoring holes. The 4% is just an adjustment to weight the system in favor of the better player.  Why does the system need to be weighted in favor of anyone?  When the USGA talks about the handicap system they always tout how it makes it possible for players of different abilities to compete against each other. The USGA never mentions it is a system weighted in favor of better players versus less skilled.

And for those that dismiss it as "only 4%" or an insignificant number, then we agree.  Since it is insignificant and only 4%, get rid of it.

It's an important 4%. ESC doesn't account for it all because scoring in matches doesn't use ESC.

When I was a 2 is commonly play people who were 20s. They'd get a few pars and bogeys per nine along with doubles and triples. Sure I'd win 2 or 3 of their bad holes, But I'd need par or birdie on all their good holes. They'd shoot 47 or whatever, but I'd need 35 to beat them given how the strikes were distributed.

Heck, 4%? I say make it 10%.

[bkuehn1952]

When there are disagreements over whether the USGA handicap system is slanted toward lower or higher handicaps, I go by what Dean Knuth said:

"Although handicaps are supposed to equalize matches, it's not always true, is it?

Unfortunately not. The scale is tipped in favor of the better player.

The way the formula works, for every six strokes difference in handicap, the better player has a one-stroke advantage, because the lower handicapper is more likely to play at or near his handicap than the high handicapper.

In a match between an eight handicapper and a 14 handicapper, the better player is giving away six strokes, yet the odds are still 60-40 that he will win the match.

Why?

As we explained in part one ("Handicaps 101," Apr., p. 97), the USGA set up its system to favor better players. Its philosophy is that handicaps should be based on potential rather than average ability.

Back to the math. In part one, when we told you how to figure your handicap, it was explained that after determining your differentials, using course rating and slope, the result is multiplied .96. To be truly equal, the result would have to be multiplied by 1.07. The lower number keeps the advantage with the better player.'

Of course, when one gathers a large group together, the best net score is more often put up by a high handicapper because their scores are more variable.  In a field of 40 with 20 scratch players and 20 25-handicappers, one of the 25 handicappers will have a good day and shoot a net score in the mid 60's while the scratch players will be grouped around "72".  That is why most larger field events flight the event to avoid scratch players having to compete directly with the 20+ handicapper.

[tdiii]

My club has lots of older players.  Also, I play annually in a five round tourney at Fall River Mills up near Lassen in NorCal which has several older players (none of whom are members at my club).  I mention Fall River as the course is very long (7,000 yards, 7,400 from the tips).  In any event, I see older players who play forward tees at their home courses and have indexes in the 8-16 range, but cannot seem to play close to their indexes when forced to play moderately long courses.  It doesn't negatively impact me, as it is like a vanity handicap so if we compete I benefit, but my experience is that the handicap system does not seem to account enough for length, at least with older golfers who are lucky to hit it 220 off the tee. 

Edited April 21, 2016 by tdiii

[kpaulhus]

12 minutes ago, tdiii said:

My club has lots of older players.  Also, I play annually in a five round tourney at Fall River Mills up near Lassen in NorCal which has several older players (none of whom are members at my club).  I mention Fall River as the course is very long (7,000 yards, 7,400 from the tips).  In any event, I see older players who play forward tees at their home courses and have indexes in the 8-16 range, but cannot seem to play close to their indexes when forced to play moderately long courses.  It doesn't negatively impact me, as it is like a vanity handicap so if we compete I benefit, but my experience is that the handicap system does not seem to account enough for length, at least with older golfers who are lucky to hit it 220 off the tee. 

I dont think is so much the distance as they dont know the course. Im a 7 at my home course but I know every bump and turn like the back of my hand. Without ever seeing a course, I rarely shoot close to my handicap. 

[tdiii]

4 minutes ago, kpaulhus said:

I dont think is so much the distance as they dont know the course. Im a 7 at my home course but I know every bump and turn like the back of my hand. Without ever seeing a course, I rarely shoot close to my handicap. 

I hear you, but you put one of these 12 indexes off our back tees (6,940, 73.3, 135 slope) and they can't break 90. 

Edited April 21, 2016 by tdiii

[kpaulhus]

Thats understandable though. a 12 index usually shoots 83-88? So 4-5 shots off of their usual round on a new course isnt stretching the limits. 

[tdiii]

2 minutes ago, kpaulhus said:

Thats understandable though. a 12 index usually shoots 83-88? So 4-5 shots off of their usual round on a new course isnt stretching the limits. 

I was working off your example where they know the course inside and out.  Thus, when they play off the tips, it is the same course. 

[kpaulhus]

2 minutes ago, tdiii said:

I was working off your example where they know the course inside and out.  Thus, when they play off the tips, it is the same course. 

Ah, I gotcha. That is odd then. When I play the tips at my home course Im usually 1-3 shots within my normal rounds anyways. The distance must really be getting at them then. 

[Golfingdad]

7 minutes ago, tdiii said:

I hear you, but you put one of these 12 indexes off our back tees (6,940, 73.3, 135 slope) and they can't break 90. 

Well, 90 on that course comes to a 13.4 differential so not only would it make perfect sense that a 12 would shoot that, it would VERY LIKELY even lower his handicap!

[tdiii]

21 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Well, 90 on that course comes to a 13.4 differential so not only would it make perfect sense that a 12 would shoot that, it would VERY LIKELY even lower his handicap!

Except I said he couldn't break 90, meaning 90 is the lower end.  In any event, I'd like to understand how a 13.4 differential doesn't increase one's index of 12.0. I mean, I suppose a score higher than that could be dropped off the 10 best of the last 20, but I don't understand why it is very likely to lower the handicap. 

Edited April 21, 2016 by tdiii