Calculating your handicap -- flawed system?

[OneFootShort]

The bottom line with any handicap situation is: mine is too low, yours is too high.

 

[Bob M]

I agree that the handicap system generally does what it is supposed to do....allow golfers of different abilities to have a fair match.

It is also really interesting to calculate your anti-cap, that is your 8 worst scores of your most recent 20 and compare the two. The bigger the difference, the more inconsistent the golfer. My index is 24.5, but my anti-cap is 28.5, meaning I am pretty consistent (virtually all of my scores are on my home course). Comparing my average score of 94 to statistics from Grint (IIRC) my handicap should be about 20, which suggests to me that likely most high cappers like me are really inconsistent.

 

[goalie]

But why just the best you could shoot? I could shoot anywhere from 83 to 93 in a match.

Because there are a-holes that would post a few bad scores before an event if it raised their index and have them any advantage.

 

[CBaker]

I feel like the handicap system works well enough, but like others have said there are some flaws.

 

[InTheRough]

Your handicap represents your potential, not how you play. You play to your handicap 1 out of every 3 rounds.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

Your handicap represents your potential, not how you play. You play to your handicap 1 out of every 3 rounds.

1 out of 5 under the current system.

 

[Daddio]

Mathematically the HC does about as good as it could given the primary objective of the systhem. Unfortunately some people are going to try and cheat any system. Easy enough to track your average scores if that's what you're looking for. A lot tougher to fairly match golfers of differing abilities off hundreds of thousands of differing tee box/course combos as the HC formula strives to do.

 

[Daluteh]

I think understanding what the handicap system is supposed to do is different than what people think of they say it's the average.

The handicap system, as I understand it, is a measurement of numerical potential. It's obviously not a perfect system because it's not used by professional golfers just like you don't give points to a basketball team who's struggling in the NBA before the game starts.

I think going into the conversation with the understanding that it's not an average and it's not supposed to be an average changes things a lot. Your handicap isn't what you usually shoot it's what you should shoot when you have a good round, not an average round.

 

[leftshot]

Just revisiting this as I was looking at my hdcp which currently sits at 6.0 and is nowhere near reflective of my scoring at the moment. It's amazing how one low round can drop it but getting your hdcp back up near "average" score is nearly impossible. Am I capable of shooting 78? Sure IF everything is clicking. How often do I do so? Once every 6 rounds or so MAYBE...I'm the guy right now that would play a tournament, shoot 85 like I did today all while giving up 8 strokes to a 14 and getting steamrolled. Irritating.

Yeah no. You are looking at the 14 handicapper as if his handicap represents the average of what he's going to shoot. It does not. Both his handicap and yours represent your potential. That 14 handicapper is even MORE inconsistent than you are. He might smoke you...one out of 5 times. The majority of the times the 14 handicap is going to post a gross score north of 90 to over 100.

 

[greenOak]

I actually agree taking a total average would lead to more fair (odds of winning closer to 50/50) handicapped matches. As it currently stands, the more consistent golfer will beat the less consistent golfer more than 50% of the time in a handicapped match. This tends to mean that the lower handicap is advantaged over the higher handicap but there are exceptions.

Nevertheless, I always see low handicaps complaining that the system is unfair when they have to play significantly higher handicappers. Part of the reason I think is because if the higher handicap plays a great round you're likely just going to lose no matter how well you play. General rule of thumb is:

Low handicap plays well, high handicap plays well -> high handicap wins
Low handicap plays bad, high handicap plays bad -> low handicap wins
Low handicap plays average, high handicap plays average -> low handicap wins

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

I actually agree taking a total average would lead to more fair (odds of winning closer to 50/50) handicapped matches. As it currently stands, the more consistent golfer will beat the less consistent golfer more than 50% of the time in a handicapped match. This tends to mean that the lower handicap is advantaged over the higher handicap but there are exceptions.

Nevertheless, I always see low handicaps complaining that the system is unfair when they have to play significantly higher handicappers. Part of the reason I think is because if the higher handicap plays a great round you're likely just going to lose no matter how well you play. General rule of thumb is:

Low handicap plays well, high handicap plays well -> high handicap wins
Low handicap plays bad, high handicap plays bad -> low handicap wins
Low handicap plays average, high handicap plays average -> low handicap wins

I believe at this point with the better part of a century experience running a handicap system the USGA has a pretty good handle on what produces the desired result. If fairer matches were produced more often by average scores they would be using average scores.

You should incorporate into your thinking the fact that if handicaps were based on average scores, high handicappers would see theirs go up far, far more than those near scratch because the worst rounds for high handicappers tend to be awesomely bad. The formula that you are criticizing exists in large part to deal with the fact that higher handicappers have more variable scores than low handicappers.

Using average scores would have the exact effect that you are attributing to the use of the best 8 of 20 scores. Golf scores tend to be fairly skewed which is why it makes sense to censor the largest values (from a statistical viewpoint).

 

[Phil75070]

1 out of 5 under the current system.

"1 out of 5 under the current system" is the expectation to shoot one's handicap. So is that relative to the course rating or par? If a par 72 course is rated 69.3 is the expectation that someone with an 8 course handicap on that course will shoot 77 or 80 (or better?) 20% of the time?

 

[goalie]

What I've taken away from this whole debate is that people who don't like or understand what the handicap system's stated purpose is don't like it.

The system is purposefully skewed to make official sandbagger caps difficult to obtain while making vanity caps exponentially easier to get.

They know.

It's a feature, not a bug.

And if you start to play really, really poorly, it's going up a lot slower than it did/can come down.

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

"1 out of 5 under the current system" is the expectation to shoot one's handicap. So is that relative to the course rating or par? If a par 72 course is rated 69.3 is the expectation that someone with an 8 course handicap on that course will shoot 77 or 80 (or better?) 20% of the time?

I have no idea about Rest Of The World but our USGA Course Handicap as reported to us in the GHIN app takes into account the difference between Course Rating and Par.

So is true on average that golfers will shoot net even par or better approximately 20% of the time. That’s derived from the fact that the handicap formula averages the the best 8 of the last 20 scores (best 40% of scores) and we’d expect the average of the best 40% to fall about in the middle (ie 20th percentile).

Of course there’s rounding involved and not all score are bell shaped in distribution so it is not exactly true every time. But pretty close to 1-in-5 in the long run.

 

[Sean]

This is golf, most of us rarely play to our HI. Realizing one's potential just doesn't happen that often.

 

[rollin]

Using only your most recent best scores or differentials to calculate your handicap is a flawed system isn't it? :confused2: All of your scores make up who you are as a golfer and should be averaged, not just your best ones.

This is what i said in my OP. Rolling scoring average better reflects ones ability.

My original statement in the OP is very simple, straightforward, and correct; i will continue to stand behind it. Thank you for taking so much interest in my post as it gives it quite a bit of validation.

you havnt responded to this thread in a while since your last post but i thought to revisit what your suggesting because its not consistent with a handicap..
Handicap a some have implied was never intended to rate ones average ability. The only reason a handicap even exists is so people of different abilities can play against each other. And in order for that to take place a given players handicap must represent that players potential, not his average. It doesnt work (for a bunch of reasons) if they were to use each players average.

Who we truly are golf wise is our average, not our handicap. Thats not its intent.

Matter of fact we can never be our handicap because soon as we play to our cap it always moves again. It always stays out of our reach. Anyone ever claims they play to their handicap often is lying because if they did then thier cap would jump ahead (go lower) and be out of reach again. Its designed that way in its very nature.

That all being said, since the HC system is what we use as a means to compete with different abilities players we do also use it to gauge ourselves vs others. It represents everyone's potential (not their average) so in that sense we can still use it to gauge where we stand vs our peers because it treats us all the same way.
But in the end.....what we truly all are is our average.

 

[*Range Rat]

The only reason a handicap even exists is so people of different abilities can play against each other. And in order for that to take place a given players handicap must represent that players potential, not his average. It doesnt work (for a bunch of reasons) if they were to use each players average.

Please list those reasons

 

[rollin]

Please list those reasons

Well,....not that its a whole list but more like ( as I should have put it) a big reason.

Firstly....(although there can always be exceptions) it is generally and widely common that the better a player is the narrower his scoring range becomes. And also as the ability level worsens the wider the scoring range becomes. The better player will be giving strokes to the lessor player. The strokes he gives cant be based off of the lessor players average because it will be almost always a win by the lessor player. In order to have a much more even playing field the lessor player can only receive strokes based off his best potential.

Whats basically happening is that the better player (the one giving strokes) is playing with a handicap vs the lessor player. In other words the better players hands are being tied and you can almost think of it like a physical handicap.
If one has to give up 7 strokes than that person giving the strokes is playing with a handicap. The person getting the 7strokes is playing with a bonus. Its being offered to him because he is not as good and so that it can create an even match. You cant give 12 strokes to that player getting the 7 based on his average but only give the 7 based from his potential.
Im having trouble explaining some of it but bottom line is that the better player would hardly ever win if they had to give strokes based on average vs based on potential. And if the handicap system (based on potential) didnt work correctly enough it wouldnt exist in the manor that it does. In fact it only exists the way it does exactly for the reason where as if average was used it wouldnt create a level field. And so they instead use potential. Thats why it was invented.

 

[*Range Rat]

Giving strokes is giving strokes; doesn’t matter if you’re using handicap or average. Also you said “it doesn’t work for a bunch of reasons” yet you’re having trouble explaining one reason. :confused2:

 

[Et Tu Brute?]

The USGA has run a handicap system for millions of golfers for the better part of a century. They say their experience shows using a specific type of average of the better rounds leads to a more useful handicap than any other formula.

A bunch of guys on an Internet forum have never run anything for anyone ever. They say their lack of experience shows that the average should be of all rounds.

They can't both be correct. It's up to you to figure out who knows what they're talking about and who is full of beans.

 

[greenOak]

Well its well known that the lower handicap player beats the higher handicap player more than 50% of the time, so clearly the system as it stands is not fair in that sense. While this could be by design, the people in charge sure haven't been very forthcoming about it. So yeah I'm pretty skeptical how much the people in charge actually know about this.

 

[greenOak]

Some basic statistical work:

I assume net scores are normally distributed (IRL they aren't but are somewhat close) and that each player shoots net 72 or better 20% of the time.

Player A averages net 75 while player B averages net 76. Player A would be your typical low handicap golfer while player B is your typical high handicapper. Using monte carlo simulation (100,000 sims), player A wins 53.38% of the time, ties 6.57% of the time, and loses 40.05% of the time. Player A is the clear favorite in this match despite both golfers shooting net 72 or better at the same frequency.

Now assume handicaps were based on average rather than "potential". In this scenario, player B gets one additional stroke. Now the simulation results are as follows:
Player A wins 46.76% of the time, ties 6.79% of the time, and loses 46.45% of the time. It's pretty obvious which system yields the fairer match.

Nitpicks:
-This assumes a handicapped match for medal play rather than match play.
-The scoring distributions aren't entirely accurate. If someone can find detailed information on how net scores are distributed for different handicap ranges, I'd be happy to run simulations on those numbers. I can only find info on how very good scores (ie lower than net par) are distributed.

 

[rollin]

Giving strokes is giving strokes; doesn’t matter if you’re using handicap or average. Also you said “it doesn’t work for a bunch of reasons” yet you’re having trouble explaining one reason. :confused2:

having trouble cause its hard (for me) to find the words that better explain it.

Bottom line is that the handicap system is designed for people of different levels to compete. Average scores are not the same thing. What we are golf ability wise is our average score. What we do when competing is use our potential when determining how many strokes one is to handicap themselves.

 

[Ooo]

Have never played a round that anyone wanted to know my handicap, we just play, some days better than others. Have kept my stats for years mostly to see weaknesses and those haven't changed in years.

 

[CrashTestDummy]

Using only your most recent best scores or differentials to calculate your handicap is a flawed system isn't it? :confused2: All of your scores make up who you are as a golfer and should be averaged, not just your best ones.

Totally agree. I have been saying the same thing for years and years. Average score adjusted to difficulty of the course is much more accurate assessment of a player and can match players more accurately in tournaments or matches with adjustments. The argument that the handicap system is supposed to reflect your potential and prevent sandbagging I don't agree with for several reasons.

First, theoretically you only shoot your handicap or better 1 out every 4 rounds. That is very far and few between to meet your potential.

Second, two players with the same handicap could be totally different level of players. Here is a hypothetical scenario I have seen and experienced many times. Two players A and B, both have the same index is 4.0, and play out of the same club. Player A is very consistent and shoots in 70s pretty much every round and average score is 77. Player B is sporadic and shoots in 70s to 80s with average score of 80. Although both have the same handicap of 4.0, Player A will beat Player B majority of the time.

Third, I don't think the rating/slope rating is accurate enough to adjust score for handicapping. Another scenario I have seen and experienced many times as well. Two players playing out of different clubs with same handicap. Player A is playing out of a very difficult track with lots of trouble. Player B is playing out of an easy track with little trouble. They have a match on a difficult track, Player A will beat Player B majority of the time.

However in both scenarios, if you went on average score (adjusted to course difficulty), the matches are much more even with similar average scores or strokes given for adjustment. Average score is much better assessment of a player's ability majority of the time. You would have pretty much the same amount of scores above and below the average instead of only 1 out 4 rounds reaching your handicap or better.