Hole Handicap - What does it actually mean

[Canadan]

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.

Alright, then i follow up with this:

1 - Why is a scratch golfer being grouped with an 8 handicap? Are they equal? mmmmmmno
2 - Why separate an 8 handicap with a 9 handicap?
3 - If differential is used based on groupings, what happens when a 1 plays an 8? Or a 4 plays an 8? Their scores by design logic should be identical, giving the higher handicap a firm advantage on "x" number of holes.

really, I just don't agree with the logic involved here. it's basically telling low cappers that birdies can be washed quickly on the easier holes (which trust me is incredibly annoying) and telling high handicappers that they are going to get slapped around on numerous holes where the gap is deemed 'neutral' by this design.

It's a nuisance giving strokes, and as a low capper, an even bigger nuisance to lose holes with pars or even birdies. Especially when the person I am playing against is relatively close to my skill level.

 

[blugold]

^^^^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.

Hole nine takes a LONG drive to clear the creek with a 1wood. a 3wood might roll out. 5 wood is generally safe, but leaves about 170 in. There is a deceptive mound in the middle of the green that makes putting tough. 10 is a short tee shot, driver is unnecessary. 5 wood is even a touch to much. A tight approach makes accuracy a premium. The creek in front of the green gobbles up anything misstruck. 10 should be the easiest hole on the course, but it is so darned tough. All you can see from the tee box, it seems, is OB.

This is a prairie style links course, so the wind can really eff with your shots.

 

[blugold]

Alright, then i follow up with this:

1 - Why is a scratch golfer being grouped with an 8 handicap? Are they equal? mmmmmmno
2 - Why separate an 8 handicap with a 9 handicap?
3 - If differential is used based on groupings, what happens when a 1 plays an 8? Or a 4 plays an 8? Their scores by design logic should be identical, giving the higher handicap a firm advantage on "x" number of holes.

really, I just don't agree with the logic involved here. it's basically telling low cappers that birdies can be washed quickly on the easier holes (which trust me is incredibly annoying) and telling high handicappers that they are going to get slapped around on numerous holes where the gap is deemed 'neutral' by this design.

It's a nuisance giving strokes, and as a low capper, an even bigger nuisance to lose holes with pars or even birdies. Especially when the person I am playing against is relatively close to my skill level.

Then don't play net strokes. problem solved. Differential rating is how the USGA recommends rating holes.

It sure does sound rough being a scratch golfer. I will make sure to card some double bogeys so I can avoid the stresses of giving strokes.

 

[vtnerf]

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.

Maybe you are giving up a stroke on this hole now, but at the same time, you are not giving a stroke on another hole that you would have been before. Handicaps are based on averages, not on specific hole-by-hole results. Meaning, a 6 cap can have 7 birdies in a round and still shoot his handicap. This is because the overall score is entered at the end of the day. "Bonus points" are not awarded for the number of birdies (or eagles) that one has in a given round as far as handicapping is concerned.

Similarly, two people that are 3 handicaps can have greatly varied score histories. But both are 3 handicaps, just arriving by different means. Just because a hole is difficult for all doesn't mean that a lower cap deserves a stroke.

As for your example of the island green in another post, you kind of back up this thought. You say it's easier for a 1 to hit an island green in 2, while the higher cap can hit it in the water, drop, and get up and down for bogey. Assuming the 1 plays to his cap, he only needs to 2 putt for a par and a tie of the hole in a net game. That's not fair? There's no guarantee that the higher cap will get up and down, meaning the 1 could still win the hole. And if the 1 hit the green in 2, as he should, what makes it so difficult for him?

The issue is that there are only 18 opportunities to dole out handicap strokes, and not all #6 handicap holes are created equal. There isn't a set formula to layout a course, or where strokes will/do/should fall. Personally, I hate playing a #18 that is the # 2 or 4 handicap hole. IMO, #18 should be played straight up, no strokes...but that's just me. Along those lines, I hate playing #1 that is the #1. Just my .02.

 

[Canadan]

Then don't play net strokes. problem solved. Differential rating is how the USGA recommends rating holes.

It sure does sound rough being a scratch golfer. I will make sure to card some double bogeys so I can avoid the stresses of giving strokes.

Kind of a pointless comment, but that's fine. It's not rough at all, it's quite fun, but I play to beat the course par not my playing partners. If you want to cheat your way to a handicap that's your business.

My scenario (which you quoted) provided examples of where a 4 handicap (not scratch) plays an 8 handicap, and being that they are grouped by this logic in the same section, gets a four hole seemingly unfair advantage. Most at my club, in my circle of playing partners (I would say around 30 or so golfers ranging from 0-18+) would prefer to get or give strokes on the hardest holes on the golf course.

 

[blugold]

Kind of a pointless comment, but that's fine. It's not rough at all, it's quite fun, but I play to beat the course par not my playing partners. If you want to cheat your way to a handicap that's your business.

My scenario (which you quoted) provided examples of where a 4 handicap (not scratch) plays an 8 handicap, and being that they are grouped by this logic in the same section, gets a four hole seemingly unfair advantage. Most at my club, in my circle of playing partners (I would say around 30 or so golfers ranging from 0-18+) would prefer to get or give strokes on the hardest holes on the golf course.

I agree, it is harder on those at either end of the grouping. No doubt. But the hole rating system is designed to balance out a high caper and a low caper. not a high and a high. Rating the holes based on difficulty does nothing to help the high caper playing the low. It doesn't balance out the ends of the spectrum.

 

[vtnerf]

Then don't play net strokes. problem solved. Differential rating is how the USGA recommends rating holes.

It sure does sound rough being a scratch golfer. I will make sure to card some double bogeys so I can avoid the stresses of giving strokes.

I've seen this a bit over the years. My question is, why is a scratch golfer concerned about the handicap rating anyway. They aren't getting shots anyway, so who cares what number is attached to that hole. Just because a hole is difficult for a low capper doesn't afford a stroke right off the bat. It might be 2 shots tougher to the high cappers, still holding the great disparity in strokes. The net game is not for low cappers; it's to level the playing field among all playing...in net events.

 

[Canadan]

Maybe you are giving up a stroke on this hole now, but at the same time, you are not giving a stroke on another hole that you would have been before. Handicaps are based on averages, not on specific hole-by-hole results. Meaning, a 6 cap can have 7 birdies in a round and still shoot his handicap. This is because the overall score is entered at the end of the day. "Bonus points" are not awarded for the number of birdies (or eagles) that one has in a given round as far as handicapping is concerned.

Similarly, two people that are 3 handicaps can have greatly varied score histories. But both are 3 handicaps, just arriving by different means. Just because a hole is difficult for all doesn't mean that a lower cap deserves a stroke.

I am quite competent on how strokes are awarded. Wait, are high fives considered bonuses?

As for your example of the island green in another post, you kind of back up this thought. You say it's easier for a 1 to hit an island green in 2, while the higher cap can hit it in the water, drop, and get up and down for bogey. Assuming the 1 plays to his cap, he only needs to 2 putt for a par and a tie of the hole in a net game. That's not fair? There's no guarantee that the higher cap will get up and down, meaning the 1 could still win the hole. And if the 1 hit the green in 2, as he should, what makes it so difficult for him?

Is it fair to halve a hole where a 15 handicap saves bogey after dunking one and the lower cap doesn't make his birdie putt? Yes, absolutely it is! I would see zero issue giving up a halve there.

The issue is that there are only 18 opportunities to dole out handicap strokes, and not all #6 handicap holes are created equal. There isn't a set formula to layout a course, or where strokes will/do/should fall. Personally, I hate playing a #18 that is the # 2 or 4 handicap hole. IMO, #18 should be played straight up, no strokes...but that's just me. Along those lines, I hate playing #1 that is the #1. Just my .02.

My course boasts three of the toughest finishing holes in the area. They are handicapped 9-1-3 for very good reason, with water and bunkers surrounding the greens, and the final hole being a 450 yard par 4 that runs alongside the road (OB) on the left and water along the right. It's a tight green that requires accuracy to avoid a downward slopped bunker or water. To go by this USGA logic and not make it one of the hardest holes on the course (or one deserving a stroke) is crazy to me. As I can easily get home in two with an iron, I see many of my playing partners with higher caps bail out right and wedge up for an opportunity to make par, rather than going into the drink (high percentage).

 

[vtnerf]

My course boasts three of the toughest finishing holes in the area. They are handicapped 9-1-3 for very good reason, with water and bunkers surrounding the greens, and the final hole being a 450 yard par 4 that runs alongside the road (OB) on the left and water along the right. It's a tight green that requires accuracy to avoid a downward slopped bunker or water. To go by this USGA logic and not make it one of the hardest holes on the course (or one deserving a stroke) is crazy to me. As I can easily get home in two with an iron, I see many of my playing partners with higher caps bail out right and wedge up for an opportunity to make par, rather than going into the drink (high percentage).

Even with this example of the 18th, I bet with 10 years of data, it would still be one of the lower cap holes. Just because it's difficult for single digits doesn't mean it's the same difficulty for higher caps. My old course, #2, 456 par 4 from the tips. Club championship, champ flight, par won the skins with 20 in the flight. Hole played to over 5.2 for both days. The second flight, playing at around 410, had a scoring average of 5.6. Shorter tees and still higher average. Yes, it was hard for the low caps, but even harder for the higher caps. Under this scenario, it would keep it's #3 handicap status, both ways.

Edit:
I think you are just taking the OP's example too literally. One of the holes on his home course changed drastically. That may not be the case everywhere, and was probably set in motion by seeing the glaring issue that was needed. What you say about your 18th, I still see it staying the same, and don't picture the USGA guidelines saying it would need to change. The proof would be in the data collection, which is different than "feel" sometimes.

 

[Canadan]

I agree, it is harder on those at either end of the grouping. No doubt. But the hole rating system is designed to balance out a high caper and a low caper. not a high and a high. Rating the holes based on difficulty does nothing to help the high caper playing the low. It doesn't balance out the ends of the spectrum.

I think that's where this logic loses me. If you're measuring up a scratch golfer and an 18 handicap golfer, the dude gets 18 strokes. Relatively easy process right there.

But to achieve that balance at the cost of making the stroked holes logical for a 4 playing an 8 or a 9 playing a 13 just seems weird to me.

 

[Canadan]

Even with this example of the 18th, I bet with 10 years of data, it would still be one of the lower cap holes. Just because it's difficult for single digits doesn't mean it's the same difficulty for higher caps. My old course, #2, 456 par 4 from the tips. Club championship, champ flight, par won the skins with 20 in the flight. Hole played to over 5.2 for both days. The second flight, playing at around 410, had a scoring average of 5.6. Shorter tees and still higher average. Yes, it was hard for the low caps, but even harder for the higher caps. Under this scenario, it would keep it's #3 handicap status, both ways.

Actually that was a reference to this from USGA (posted a short while ago):

"Avoid allocating the low numbered holes to the beginning or end of the nine holes"

Not so much the logic of differential. Which is funny because the first hole at my course is the 2 handicap hahaha! And rightfully so!

 

[blugold]

I think that's where this logic loses me. If you're measuring up a scratch golfer and an 18 handicap golfer, the dude gets 18 strokes. Relatively easy process right there.

But to achieve that balance at the cost of making the stroked holes logical for a 4 playing an 8 or a 9 playing a 13 just seems weird to me.

I am in 100% agreeance with you that when looking at it from that perspective is difficult. But the system is design to find common ground between the low handicappers and the highs. That's it. Not to level the playing field for everybody playing everybody. That's the way the system is designed by the USGA. If your course is rating the holes based on difficulty and not differential, and knowingly doing so, a rulebook stickler could make the argument that any net stroke match at the course is invalid.

 

[Jeanthemachine]

Alright, then i follow up with this:

1 - Why is a scratch golfer being grouped with an 8 handicap? Are they equal? mmmmmmno
2 - Why separate an 8 handicap with a 9 handicap?
3 - If differential is used based on groupings, what happens when a 1 plays an 8? Or a 4 plays an 8? Their scores by design logic should be identical, giving the higher handicap a firm advantage on "x" number of holes.

really, I just don't agree with the logic involved here. it's basically telling low cappers that birdies can be washed quickly on the easier holes (which trust me is incredibly annoying) and telling high handicappers that they are going to get slapped around on numerous holes where the gap is deemed 'neutral' by this design.

It's a nuisance giving strokes, and as a low capper, an even bigger nuisance to lose holes with pars or even birdies. Especially when the person I am playing against is relatively close to my skill level.

Do you want to play Tiger straight up? Probably not. And the 15's don't want to play you straight up either.

One of the great things about golf is the handicap system which allows players of different skill levels to compete.

 

[blugold]

Actually that was a reference to this from USGA (posted a short while ago):

"Avoid allocating the low numbered holes to the beginning or end of the nine holes"

Not so much the logic of differential. Which is funny because the first hole at my course is the 2 handicap hahaha! And rightfully so!

Does the score differential show that to be the case?

 

[Playdough]

Pretty cool read Blu, looks like a fun track from black!!

 

[Canadan]

Do you want to play Tiger straight up? Probably not. And the 15's don't want to play you straight up either.

One of the great things about golf is the handicap system which allows players of different skill levels to compete.

With or without his bad back? Also, do i get to tee it forward? hahahahaha! I'd love to play Tiger (with handicap), just not for money.

To answer your actual question though, what does me playing a 15 straight up have to do with anything? I am simply comparing differential to hole difficulty. Were a 15 to play me straight up in either scenario, he'd still get all 15 strokes.

Does the score differential show that to be the case?

It was formerly #6, and it was a prime example of a hole that should have given more strokes than it didn't (from the people I spoke to - It is a very difficult hole to hit the green in two).

 

[Jeanthemachine]

Also, how does one determine hole "difficulty"?

Is the most difficult hole the one on which the scratch golfer has difficulty making par? Is it the hole on which the average score is the highest? Is it he 135 yard island green par 3 that almost everyone can reach but many don't or the 550 yard par 5 that the scratch player can reach in 2 and the 15 handicapper needs at least 3 and maybe 4 to reach?

Which is "harder", the 220 yard par 3 or the 320 yard par 4? The 15 can't reach either with one shot but may chip/putt for 3 on the shorter hole while needing a full shot on the longer hole.

 

[blugold]

Pretty cool read Blu, looks like a fun track from black!!

It's a lot of fun from the purples to. It's actually a really fun course in general.

 

[staticline]

The holes getting the shots are not that important in stroke play. The relevance is in match play and possibly nassau's. Golfers who prefer that the most difficult hole be the #1 handicap hole, are basing that perception on inaccurate information. The hole difficulty rankings are used to determine equitability, primarily in match play events, not in how hard a hole is.

I admit that I always thought it was based on hole difficulty. Upon reading this tread, and the USGA FAQ's on the subject, I like that it should be based on score differential, especially when handing out pops to higher handicaps.

There is no perfect system. But, this is about as close as it can get.

 

[blugold]

It was formerly #6, and it was a prime example of a hole that should have given more strokes than it didn't (from the people I spoke to - It is a very difficult hole to hit the green in two).

According to the USGA, hole difficulty is not the way to determine the handicap rating of the hole. It has nothing to do with it.

 

[Girardcorp]

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.

They sure do. Water on this hole is brutal


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Playdough]

It's a nuisance giving strokes, and as a low capper, an even bigger nuisance to lose holes with pars or even birdies. Especially when the person I am playing against is relatively close to my skill level.

Dan, I dont need any strokes when we play this summer...

It's a lot of fun from the purples to. It's actually a really fun course in general.

Would love to get up there and play some golf. Maybe one of these days I can make that happen.

 

[blugold]

Dan, I dont need any strokes when we play this summer...


Would love to get up there and play some golf. Maybe one of these days I can make that happen.

We have beer and cheese. More than enough to go around.

 

[deuce]

It shatters the common belief that the holes' handicap are ranked for difficulty. I wonder how many courses actually look at it this way...

That's the way I certainly looked at it. Now I know better. Thanks!

 

[blugold]

For further consideration

Old scorecard:


New scorecard: