Hole Handicap - What does it actually mean

[thewitt]

I wonder how a brand new course assigns the handicap strokes, since they have no playing record to go off of.

The USGA and R&A have a baseline method for determining the hole handicap, and it's tied to hole length and difficulty based on bunkers, water, OB, etc.

If you run your course through these formulas, you will likely match the handicap numbers at most courses.

I don't believe many courses use the stroke differential method recommended by the USGA to actually adjust the hole handicaps over time to reflect what their membership actually shoots on the course - though most will go back after a physical change in the course to modify the individual holes.

I find it interesting on one course I play regularly that I par or birdie the #1 hole every round, but I bogey the #15 hole nearly every round...

 

[mikeg_74]

Great read Blu and thanks for sharing. I'm usually the higher Hcap for my group of friends so getting strokes turns into a mini negotiation on the first tee. Mostly because we've always thought getting strokes based on the scorecards were not accurate. We've agreed to take out par 3's & this would simplify the rest. I will be sharing this.

 

[TheHeez]

I wonder how a brand new course assigns the handicap strokes, since they have no playing record to go off of.

In the case of new courses, I believe they will put that in the hands of the rating organization. As play happens they will make changes where necessary, but usually those course raters have lots of experience and are pretty spot on.

 

[Hawk]

Great post blu. News to me.

 

[Canadan]

A couple thoughts on this:

First, it can change course to course. Two years ago, my course had structured the handicaps to suit differential and give not unlike what this pro is saying, an opportunity to level the playing field. It made for some weird numbers on holes that didn't make a lot of sense, but it was all done using GHIN based member data.

Recently it was decided to make a change back to hole difficulty, and quite honestly, the membership prefers it that way. Aside from a couple holes, I much prefer it that was as someone who gives strokes more than i ever get them. The harder holes punish all skill levels, but also makes it more fair to force the 5 handicap to work hard for that extra stroke advantage on me, already dealing with playing a harder golf hole.

In addition, when members are applying extra holes to an incomplete round to enter into GHIN, you take your handicap and the holes remaining to total your score. So for example, if you're a 5 handicap and you've played through hole 15, with hole 16-17-18 being handicaps 1-14-3, you're supposed to apply two strokes onto your score. If it's a hole you generally do well on, it doesn't make sense to have to apply those extra strokes. Better to leave it up to difficulty.

 

[AMart]

Thanks Blu, very interesting. While I didn't expect the article to change my thinking about the handicap, I feel their process and beliefs on the purpose of the handicap makes a lot of sense! I wonder how many courses determine the handicaps in this fashion.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

 

[Wakit300]

Our Men's Club groups players on four different tee boxes for tournaments and our former club President (who just happens to be a statistician) used the differential to recalculate the handicaps per tee box starting about 3 years ago. This has really changed, for the better, the handicapping and placement of strokes for each group of players. As we collect more scoring data the hole handicapping changes every year and it is more in line with what holes . We print up our own scorecards for all tournaments so this is not a problem to administer. The management of the golf course has taken notice of the differences (some of the original handicapping holes are just dumb) and plan to update their cards using the middle tee info we've provided the next time they print.

 

[captaincaution]

A couple thoughts on this:

In addition, when members are applying extra holes to an incomplete round to enter into GHIN, you take your handicap and the holes remaining to total your score. So for example, if you're a 5 handicap and you've played through hole 15, with hole 16-17-18 being handicaps 1-14-3, you're supposed to apply two strokes onto your score. If it's a hole you generally do well on, it doesn't make sense to have to apply those extra strokes. Better to leave it up to difficulty.

Dan, this is a really good point. At the same time, I probably only have 1 score out of 20 where I don't finish my round and have to apply par + my handicap strokes.

 

[Canadan]

Dan, this is a really good point. At the same time, I probably only have 1 score out of 20 where I don't finish my round and have to apply par + my handicap strokes.

A fair point right there, but worth noting as far as I am concerned. Personally? I prefer the hard holes giving the higher handicaps the stroke break. It just makes more sense to me.

 

[blugold]

A couple thoughts on this:

First, it can change course to course. Two years ago, my course had structured the handicaps to suit differential and give not unlike what this pro is saying, an opportunity to level the playing field. It made for some weird numbers on holes that didn't make a lot of sense, but it was all done using GHIN based member data.

Recently it was decided to make a change back to hole difficulty, and quite honestly, the membership prefers it that way. Aside from a couple holes, I much prefer it that was as someone who gives strokes more than i ever get them. The harder holes punish all skill levels, but also makes it more fair to force the 5 handicap to work hard for that extra stroke advantage on me, already dealing with playing a harder golf hole.

In addition, when members are applying extra holes to an incomplete round to enter into GHIN, you take your handicap and the holes remaining to total your score. So for example, if you're a 5 handicap and you've played through hole 15, with hole 16-17-18 being handicaps 1-14-3, you're supposed to apply two strokes onto your score. If it's a hole you generally do well on, it doesn't make sense to have to apply those extra strokes. Better to leave it up to difficulty.

I think a lot of this has to do with scorecard ego. Shooting a par or birdie on the #1 is an ego boost. But the handicap system is designed to level the field.

If a hole is hard for everybody, what is there to level?

 

[Texasbrons]

Great post and article!! From reading the comments there are a lot of us that have learned something.

 

[Canadan]

I think a lot of this has to do with scorecard ego. Shooting a par or birdie on the #1 is an ego boost. But the handicap system is designed to level the field.

If a hole is hard for everybody, what is there to level?

I'm not sure I agree with that at all. If there is an island green on a par 4 with a small landing zone, it's far more likely for a 1 handicap to hit the green than it is for a 10 handicap to hit it despite it being difficult for both players. Give the ten an extra stroke to try and save bogey net par after splashing one to combat the 1 handicap two putting for par.

 

[blugold]

I'm not sure I agree with that at all. If there is an island green on a par 4 with a small landing zone, it's far more likely for a 1 handicap to hit the green than it is for a 10 handicap to hit it despite it being difficult for both players. Give the ten an extra stroke to try and save bogey net par after splashing one to combat the 1 handicap two putting for par.

I agree with you at that hole. But that is different than the situation stated in the article.

The hole on the left is #3. The new handicap #1. The right is 7, the old #1.

I know you don't know this course, but I can say that the biggest score swings happen on 3.

 

[Canadan]

Well, I seriously doubt the situations in the article are going to defend the other side of the coin, for what it's worth. Having gone through this with my golf course and listened to the complaints first hand from all levels of skill, it was notably strong in favour of returning to difficulty vs differential.

Let me offer another sample. Let's say for example a par 15 that is reachable in two, and the score differential is massive, purely because people are incapable of playing within their means and always get into trouble trying to reach the green in two. Should the handicap reflect poor course management, or should it be a reflection on hole difficulty?

A great example on my course is hole number 15. It's a wide fairway par 5 that shows at 489 on the tee box we play, but often plays more like 470-475 yards from the tees I play (but arguably less IMO). For the most part, guys are enticed with anything from a mid iron if they catch the downslope on a dry day on the left side of the hole, or upwards of a reachable shot with a 3 wood. The percentage of golfers that attempt to hit that green in two (which is guarded by false fronts and two tough bunkers) is probably 75-80% as a very conservative estimate. It takes a very well struck shot to have a good chance at eagle, and doesn't take much to have guys in the heather or in the bunker and eventually struggling for par.

The handicap change from differential to difficulty went from 5 to 15. That's a HUGE gap. If I am playing a five handicap, there is absolutely NO good reason why I would give him a stroke on that hole. All he has to do is hit a 9 iron into the gap after his 3 wood off the tee, then knock it close for a guaranteed par net birdie to match what I can only HOPE will be a birdie for me.

 

[blugold]

Well, I seriously doubt the situations in the article are going to defend the other side of the coin, for what it's worth. Having gone through this with my golf course and listened to the complaints first hand from all levels of skill, it was notably strong in favour of returning to difficulty vs differential.

Let me offer another sample. Let's say for example a par 15 that is reachable in two, and the score differential is massive, purely because people are incapable of playing within their means and always get into trouble trying to reach the green in two. Should the handicap reflect poor course management, or should it be a reflection on hole difficulty?

A great example on my course is hole number 15. It's a wide fairway par 5 that shows at 489 on the tee box we play, but often plays more like 470-475 yards from the tees I play (but arguably less IMO). For the most part, guys are enticed with anything from a mid iron if they catch the downslope on a dry day on the left side of the hole, or upwards of a reachable shot with a 3 wood. The percentage of golfers that attempt to hit that green in two (which is guarded by false fronts and two tough bunkers) is probably 75-80% as a very conservative estimate. It takes a very well struck shot to have a good chance at eagle, and doesn't take much to have guys in the heather or in the bunker and eventually struggling for par.

The handicap change from differential to difficulty went from 5 to 15. That's a HUGE gap. If I am playing a five handicap, there is absolutely NO good reason why I would give him a stroke on that hole. All he has to do is hit a 9 iron into the gap after his 3 wood off the tee, then knock it close for a guaranteed par net birdie to match what I can only HOPE will be a birdie for me.

According to the article, you're both in "Group A". I'm sorry to say, playing a 5 handicap in a net stroke match, you're going to have a hard time.

You could always sandbag a little and those some strokes back :angel:

 

[Canadan]

According to the article, you're both in "Group A". I'm sorry to say, playing a 5 handicap in a net stroke match, you're going to have a hard time.

You could always sandbag a little and those some strokes back :angel:

Cheat in golf? Sounds like madness.

Either way, I just pointed out one of the massive flaws in the concept of differential, and one that was endlessly argued by a group I play with who have a large chunk in the scratch -> 10 range.

 

[blugold]

Cheat in golf? Sounds like madness.

Either way, I just pointed out one of the massive flaws in the concept of differential, and one that was endlessly argued by a group I play with who have a large chunk in the scratch -> 10 range.

But there is no flaw in the concept of handicap rating based on differential from the scores of + handicaps through 8s, versus the scores of 14 handicaps through 24s.

 

[vtnerf]

Good read, and a great explanation. Job well done Head Pro!

Man, 9 & 10 must be bears; both under 390 from the "blues" but #4 & 5 cap holes. Things could definitely swing in a match with them back-to-back when giving (or getting) shots there.

 

[MWard]

Cheat in golf? Sounds like madness.

Either way, I just pointed out one of the massive flaws in the concept of differential, and one that was endlessly argued by a group I play with who have a large chunk in the scratch -> 10 range.

This is why I hate giving strokes. It annoys me from time to time when the #1 hole really isn't a difficult hole sometimes!

 

[Canadan]

But there is no flaw in the concept of handicap rating based on differential from the scores of + handicaps through 8s, versus the scores of 14 handicaps through 24s.

I don't have a clue where you're going with this haha. Can you elaborate?

 

[blugold]

Good read, and a great explanation. Job well done Head Pro!

Man, 9 & 10 must be bears; both under 390 from the "blues" but #4 & 5 cap holes. Things could definitely swing in a match with them back-to-back when giving (or getting) shots there.

9:

10:

 

[blugold]

I don't have a clue where you're going with this haha. Can you elaborate?

Because the course changed the handicap ratings based on 10 years of handicap scores from members and league participants. They looked at the largest differential between the scores of scratch to 8 handicap golfers, and the scores of 14-24 handicaps. The holes that had the largest differential got the lowest handicap.

 

[Agent Jay]

Interesting idea, and it makes sense overall I'd say. I don't see the USGA switching to this method, but based on theory, it works.

 

[vtnerf]

^^^^Yup, that'll do it. Can see where they would be the cap holes that they are now. 9 looks tight off the tee, with an even tighter approach. 10 looks like it's in my head already, and I'm nowhere near WI.

 

[blugold]

Interesting idea, and it makes sense overall I'd say. I don't see the USGA switching to this method, but based on theory, it works.

Good information and nice to see a proactive head pro figure this out. I guess when a course first opens and the USGA gives it a slope/rating, the "committee" makes a guess at the handicap difficulty. I'd bet 99% of courses never update those numbers.

Below is the USGA answer to 'hole handicapping'
https://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=25

Handicapping FAQs

Section 17

Allocating Handicap Strokes

Q. Does the USGA® have any recommendations for allocating Handicap Strokes?

A. The USGA recommends that the Handicap Committee should review the course hole-by-hole to determine the appropriate allocation of handicap strokes for men and women. This procedure is not mandatory and will have minimal effect on a player's Handicap Index®. Common sense should be used to ensure that the handicap strokes are used as an equalizer and should be available where it most likely will be needed by the higher-handicapped player in order to obtain a halve on the hole. When starting out, the Handicap Committee should remember a few basic guidelines: Allocate strokes based on the tees played most often by a majority of the members. Allocate the odd-numbered strokes to the front-nine holes and the even-numbered strokes to the back-nine holes—unless the back-nine is decidedly more difficult than the front—you can reverse the allocation. Avoid allocating the low numbered holes to the beginning or end of the nine holes A method for allocating your handicap strokes is to collect 200 hole-by-hole scorecards from two different groups of golfers. Group A consists of golfers with a Course Handicap™ of 0-8 for men or 0-14 for women. If there are very few members within this range, take the low 25 percent of its golfers as group A. Group B consists of middle-to-high Course Handicap golfers, ranging 15-20 strokes higher than group A (20-28 for men and 26-40 for women). The next step is to compare the average score per hole for group A against the average score per hole of group B. Rank the differential of hole scores between group A and group B from high-to-low (1 highest, 18 lowest) differential. Allocate odd and even numbers to front and second nine. The last step is to make sure low numerical holes are not at the beginning or end of each nine. The Handicap Committee should use good judgment when allocating handicap stroke holes. The club makes the final determination.Please visit Section 17 of the USGA Handicap System manual for further reference.

This is exactly how the USGA recommends to do it.