Ghin handicap vs average score

[kmc]

I've often wondered why an individuals handicap isn't a cumulative average of all scores. If you play poorly it'll go up, play well it'll come down. 

Does anyone know the reasoning behind counting 8 of the last 20 posted?

Thx KMC

[jvincent]

I think they have taken the wording out in recent updates, but your handicap is supposed to be a measure of your "potential". That's why they throw out the bad scores and keep the best 8.

[North Butte]

They have refined the system over decades to give players of different abilities as near as possible to equal chances of winning a handicapped game. It just happened to work out that 8 of 20 (plus all the other arithmetic in the formula) does that better than any practical alternatives they looked at. 

 

It's like asking why the circumference of a circle is 3.1416, etc. times its diameter instead of just being 3 times. That's how the numbers worked out. 

[Dewdman42]

as someone said, its supposed to be your best potential, not your average play.  statistically speaking your average differential is likely to be about 3 strokes higher then your actual index, but if you have wild swing days with lots of doubles and penalties, it could be even higher then that.  I tracked my actual average differential for a few years and can verify that what they say is true, its going to work out to be about 3 higher then your index.  

 

If you want to i know whether you played course above or below average for you, then calculate the course handicap for the course using rating and slope, add 3 to that and add that to the course total par, and that will be your average baseline to try to beat on that course.

 

At least for me, "better than average" is a reason to smile as I walk off the course.  You have to shoot more like 7 or 8 under average to have any hope of winning a tournament.

 

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by Dewdman42

[DaveLeeNC]

I have no idea if this is a factor or not, but using all scores would be of great assistance to the traditional sandbagger. If they used all scores then a couple of really bad scores would increase your index in an amount proportional to 'how bad' the score was. In the current system a 'bad score' (as in a higher differential than any of your best previous 8 of 20) has no effect at all on your index, regardless of how bad it is, other than rolling off the 21st oldest score (which might or might not increase your index). 

 

dave

Edited August 29, 2023 by DaveLeeNC

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, kmc said:

I've often wondered why an individuals handicap isn't a cumulative average of all scores. If you play poorly it'll go up, play well it'll come down. 

Does anyone know the reasoning behind counting 8 of the last 20 posted?

Thx KMC

 

Nearly everything you want to know about handicapping is here:

https://www.popeofslope.com/

[DaveLeeNC]

40 minutes ago, rogolf said:

2 hours ago, kmc said:

I've often wondered why an individuals handicap isn't a cumulative average of all scores. If you play poorly it'll go up, play well it'll come down. 

Does anyone know the reasoning behind counting 8 of the last 20 posted?

Thx KMC

 

Nearly everything you want to know about handicapping is here:

https://www.popeofslope.com/

 

Given Dean Knuth's strong objections to several parts of the WHS, I 'm not sure that this is the best place to go for an understanding of the rationale behind the WHS. Prior to 2019 is a different story. 

 

dave

[SNIPERBBB]

If you go purely of averages, handicaps will hardly vary if a player plays enough. Just to get a 1 stroke change in the average means a player has to shoot a minimum of the total number of rounds in the record above or below his current average+1. Someone that has 100 rounds a year if we just use a years worth of scores if he wants to increase his average by one would flirt with shooting 200 if normally barely breaks 100! Or to drop his cap by one, he'll need to change his name to Kim Jon Un.

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, kmc said:

I've often wondered why an individuals handicap isn't a cumulative average of all scores. If you play poorly it'll go up, play well it'll come down. 

Does anyone know the reasoning behind counting 8 of the last 20 posted?

Thx KMC

 

Ol' @DaveLeeNC got it right.

 

If you've read the board at all, THE #1 complaint, rightly or (usually) wrongly, is about players sandbagging; artificially inflating their handicap.

 

It is human nature, IMO, to "let down" almost as soon as you realize you aren't going to have a very good day. And the snowball effect is that of the snowball rolling downhill; the day simply gets worse and one tries/concentrates less.

 

You can imagine, if a player's playing terribly by say 13, and purposely makes 10 on each of the last 5 holes,,,,,,,,,,,, of course that's mitigated by the handicapping rules by limiting the max score on ANY hole to "net double bogey".

 

So, that round is NOT representative of one's "demonstrated ability" ("Potential" is sooooooooo 2019) and most likely won't make it into the best 8 of the last 20 for handicap calculation.

 

It's akin to "dumping" in bowling where EVERY game is included in one's average. Once the game is "out of the wood" (mathematically over) and players start missing easy spares to keep their average down.

 

Edited August 29, 2023 by nsxguy

[Newby]

5 hours ago, jvincent said:

I think they have taken the wording out in recent updates, but your handicap is supposed to be a measure of your "potential". 

That is no longer so. The manual offers a different view of the purpose.

" ...to indicate with sufficient accuracy the score a golfer is reasonably capable of achieving
on any course around the world, playing under normal conditions."

and it does it by

Measuring a player’s demonstrated ability calculated against the Slope Rating
of a golf course of standard playing difficulty.

 

[davep043]

5 hours ago, Newby said:

That is no longer so. The manual offers a different view of the purpose.

" ...to indicate with sufficient accuracy the score a golfer is reasonably capable of achieving
on any course around the world, playing under normal conditions."

and it does it by

Measuring a player’s demonstrated ability calculated against the Slope Rating
of a golf course of standard playing difficulty.

 

I'd suggest that "reasonably capable of achieving" is similar to potential, but not quite as high a standard.  

 

To me, if a player expects to win, a match, a competition, whatever, he should expect to be required to play well.  Given that expectation, why not base the handicap on scores from a player who is playing well? 

 

Separately, the WHS involved compromises among six different worldwide handicap systems.  Five of those used some kind of averaging, and every one of those used some number of the player's better scores.  Nobody should be surprised that the WHS uses a number of the player's better scores.

[cardoustie]

The handicap system is excellent if you’re not playing a bagger

 

My scoring avg is 76.9 thru 127 rounds this year and index is currently 0.7

 

if every event had gross and net components life would be better

 

used to be able to win a low net major men’s night with a 67 a handful of years back … now it seems you need to be 61.  ie … 19’s dropping 80’s or 14’s shooting 75 … gtfo 

[GoGoErky]

5 hours ago, Newby said:

That is no longer so. The manual offers a different view of the purpose.

" ...to indicate with sufficient accuracy the score a golfer is reasonably capable of achieving
on any course around the world, playing under normal conditions."

and it does it by

Measuring a player’s demonstrated ability calculated against the Slope Rating
of a golf course of standard playing difficulty.

 

So I’m summary ones potential 

[DaveLeeNC]

4 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

That is no longer so. The manual offers a different view of the purpose.

" ...to indicate with sufficient accuracy the score a golfer is reasonably capable of achieving
on any course around the world, playing under normal conditions."

and it does it by

Measuring a player’s demonstrated ability calculated against the Slope Rating
of a golf course of standard playing difficulty.

 

4 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

So I’m summary ones potential 

 

I assume that you mean "So in summary one's potential". 

 

I would judge those standards to be different. If a golfer goes out and shoots a (for example) differential of 0.0 and that is a "career round" for him/her, obviously this person has the potential to shoot that differential (he/she just did it). But I would not view this golfer as "reasonably capable" of doing this again on a given day, simply by the definition of a 'career round'. Maybe once again over the next 10 years (maybe). As @davep043 said - a somewhat lower standard. 

 

dave

[jvincent]

The new wording is definitely a little more relaxed in terms of what the scoring expectations would be.

 

Either way, the general idea is the same. I.e. your handicap should be biased towards your better scores vs an average of all scores.

[North Butte]

I'm completely in favor of them dropping the silly loaded term "potential" in favor of language more description of the actual purpose of handicapping. The "potential" wording always struck me as sucker bait for marketing handicaps to all the aspirational solo players who want to use a handicap to "track their progress". 

 

Guess they must have changed that wording about the same time they quit basing handicaps on solo rounds. 

[davep043]

14 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Guess they must have changed that wording about the same time they quit basing handicaps on solo rounds. 

No, solo rounds were no longer acceptable (for USGA areas) starting in 2016, the WHS and revised wording took effect four years later.  

[SNIPERBBB]

19 minutes ago, North Butte said:

I'm completely in favor of them dropping the silly loaded term "potential" in favor of language more description of the actual purpose of handicapping. The "potential" wording always struck me as sucker bait for marketing handicaps to all the aspirational solo players who want to use a handicap to "track their progress". 

 

Guess they must have changed that wording about the same time they quit basing handicaps on solo rounds. 

Pretty sure there's way less people that's read the handicap manual than have read the RoG. Great marketing there./sarcasm

 

Nobody actually used an alternative handicap supplier to track progress . They were after some sort of legitimacy or to get onto courses or tournaments that required established handicaps.

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

So I’m summary ones potential 

 

Nah. Potential is something that cannot possibly be measured; only guessed at.

 

Demonstrated ability can be measured.

 

Not that it came up in discussions very often but I always "shook my head" anytime the word "potential" came up in discussion of handicaps.

[davep043]

32 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

Not that it came up in discussions very often but I always "shook my head" anytime the word "potential" came up in discussion of handicaps.

I remember suggesting that a player's Handicap Index wasn't a measure of "potential", rather a measure of his "pretty good."

[Newby]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

I remember suggesting that a player's Handicap Index wasn't a measure of "potential", rather a measure of his "pretty good."

Was it the USGA or CONGU which came up with the idea it was a measure of 'potential'?

[davep043]

6 minutes ago, Newby said:

Was it the USGA or CONGU which came up with the idea it was a measure of 'potential'?

I believe I remember reading it in the USGA Handicap Manual, but I can't find that online now.  I don't know what CONGU would have said at that time, perhaps someone else can remember.

[MountainKing]

I don't really think there's a great way to do this, but it always feels like handicap events work against a lower handicap golfer.   I can't tell you how many times over the years I've seen a legit 20 handicap throw up a 85 to win the event with an adjusted score of 65.  As a current 1 handicap, that means I need to shoot a 66 to compete, and I've seen that happen, never.  66 is my career low and I was a +3 practicing for hours on end when I did that, so yeah no matter what you do there's never going to be a legit way to balance things out the way people think it is.

[North Butte]

40 minutes ago, MountainKing said:

I don't really think there's a great way to do this, but it always feels like handicap events work against a lower handicap golfer.   I can't tell you how many times over the years I've seen a legit 20 handicap throw up a 85 to win the event with an adjusted score of 65.  As a current 1 handicap, that means I need to shoot a 66 to compete, and I've seen that happen, never.  66 is my career low and I was a +3 practicing for hours on end when I did that, so yeah no matter what you do there's never going to be a legit way to balance things out the way people think it is.

Everyone knows that the variation in net scores among high (15+hcp) is far, far greater than the variation in net scores among low (<5hcp). So if you stick a bunch of lows and highs in the same flight and play off anything close to full handicaps the low-net winner will almost always be a high handicapper. 

 

It does not necessarily work that way in head to head or 4BBB type matches. But in large fields, you absolutely have to flight the net competition or the low handicappers will be extremely unlikely to post a low enough net score to win. To match a 20hcp shooting one standard deviation below his average score, a scratch golfer needs to shoot maybe three standard deviations below his average. Which is rare enough to say it ain't gonna happen.

[mrfitz]

Our club does any of their sanctioned competitions at 80% course handicap. I think that levels the playing field much better than 100%. 

 

 

[larrybud]

17 hours ago, North Butte said:

It's like asking why the circumference of a circle is 3.1416, etc. times its diameter instead of just being 3 times. That's how the numbers worked out. 

 

PI isn't contrived, however, and is a fixed relation which cannot be changed. On a side note, if you want to know WHY PI comes out to 3.14... watch this:
 

 

 

[mark m]

I have a couple of old books. The first is from the definitions:

 

edit: I prefer “demonstrated ability” as well. I am in favor of a change to the current scoring record to include the best two differentials in the past 24 months being shown at the bottom.

Edited August 29, 2023 by mark m

[Dewdman42]

10 hours ago, cardoustie said:

The handicap system is excellent if you’re not playing a bagger

 

My scoring avg is 76.9 thru 127 rounds this year and index is currently 0.7

 

if every event had gross and net components life would be better

 

used to be able to win a low net major men’s night with a 67 a handful of years back … now it seems you need to be 61.  ie … 19’s dropping 80’s or 14’s shooting 75 … gtfo 

 

read up the stats from popeofslope.com.  Anyone shooting net 61 is sandbagging.  therein lies the problem with current handicapped tournaments.  As long as sandbagging is tolerated to the degree that it is today, it's a rigged system.  It's still possible to show up and play one of YOUR best rounds while any registered sandbaggers also happen to have bad days and leave it for you to possibly win it, it can happen once in a while, but the odds are stacked against you.

 

Also keep in in mind that the very intention of handicapped tournaments is to entirely level the playing field.  As such, on any given day, if everyone has truly accurate handicaps, then everyone will win about the same number of events as everyone else that is playing.   In other words, if it is truly working as it's supposed to work, no one person will win more often than anyone else, and nobody is going to win very often period.  you'll be lucky to win once every couple of years.  but with all the sandbagging, the truth is it doesn't work as it is intended.  Non sandbaggers can win, but sandbaggers have the odds severely in their favor and have more chance of winning and more then once every couple of years.

 

 

[Dewdman42]

10 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I would judge those standards to be different. If a golfer goes out and shoots a (for example) differential of 0.0 and that is a "career round" for him/her, obviously this person has the potential to shoot that differential

(he/she just did it). But I would not view this golfer as "reasonably capable" of doing this again on a given day, simply by the definition of a 'career round'. Maybe once again over the next 10 years (maybe). As @davep043 said - a somewhat lower standard. 

 

dave

 

your stats are off.  A 0 differential should happen once or twice every 20 rounds.  Remember your index is average of best 8 out of 20 rounds.  That means a couple of those 8 good rounds, will be below your index.   every once in a while we will shoot a round that is at our index, and a stroke or two below it.  couple of times per 20 rounds, which is roughly 10% of the time.

 

presuming everyone has legit indexes (which is generally not the case), then at any given tournament there might be a few people shooting at or below their index by a stroke or two, and if you are 2 strokes under...you should have a chance honestly...or be right up there near the top...3 strokes would probably do it and 4 strokes definitely.  but your odds of hitting 3-4 under your index are definitely low probability...I can't remember the odds right now, but it's very low odds.  Really in my opinion most tournaments should be won at just -2 or -3 differential, which would be best round of the year or something like that.  Occasionally -4

 

-5 and lower is probably sandbagging.

 

But there are also lots of sandbaggers who go out and shoot a round that is definitely not their best round, but due to the sandbagging, nets them -2, for example, and in some cases they can win with a round that is closer to on or even just above their index.  those are the ones you see winning more frequently then everyone else.

 

 

 

[Dewdman42]

5 hours ago, MountainKing said:

I don't really think there's a great way to do this, but it always feels like handicap events work against a lower handicap golfer.   I can't tell you how many times over the years I've seen a legit 20 handicap throw up a 85 to win the event with an adjusted score of 65.  As a current 1 handicap, that means I need to shoot a 66 to compete, and I've seen that happen, never.  66 is my career low and I was a +3 practicing for hours on end when I did that, so yeah no matter what you do there's never going to be a legit way to balance things out the way people think it is.

 

20 handicap throwing up an 85 is a sandbagger, plain and simple.  Their handicap is not accurate.