What do you consider a low/mid/high handicap?

[YukonLiving]

Three categories is tricky considering each person has a different perspective; I expect a scratch player would have a different view than someone just taking their first lesson.

Ultimately, I’d agree with something similar to @Snowman. Of course, that’s taking into consideration my own bias as a mid-capper where this year I played 9 holes at my home course under par for the first time, but I also shot a 91 last week at another course. Consistency is huge in the different categories.

 

[Obee]

I think you're low medium and high are pretty sensible, I would make them just a tiny bit different but not that much. I think an important thing for people to understand it's that just because a 4 handicap can beat a 9 handicap doesn't mean that a 9 handicap is in a different category. They are still both excellent handicaps which I would consider in the low handicap area, it's just that one is a little better than the other.

So what do you guys consider a +3 or a +4? Are they not included in your levels?

 

[Obee]

Super super super slim

Interesting. Where do you play your golf? At most private clubs, members, in general, do a decent job of policing each other to where I would venture that ~75% of golfers have an accurate index. Where do you play your golf that you think that people don't accurately submit scores for handicap purposes?

 

[wristcock]

humans are not to be trusted - well , not all of them....say 97.5%

 

[Gus R]

So what do you guys consider a +3 or a +4? Are they not included in your levels?

When they mention scratch I assume it just says anything below scratch is included. Yet once again a + handicap is also in a league of its own. There are so few + handicap players I guess it is too small of a group to mention. I think if we are going to have only 3 or 4 groups it might be necessary to not mention the + level. Not sure if that is right or not.

 

[Obee]

Handicap Index Percent of Total Cumulative
+1.0 or better 0.92% 0.92%
+0.9 to 0.0 0.68% 1.60%
0.1 to 1.0 0.95% 2.55%
1.1 to 1.9 1.26% 3.81%
2.0 to 2.9 1.62% 5.43%
3.0 to 3.9 2.07% 7.51%
4.0 to 4.9 2.60% 10.11%
5.0 to 5.9 3.20% 13.30%
6.0 to 6.9 3.77% 17.07%
7.0 to 7.9 4.35% 21.42%
8.0 to 8.9 4.76% 26.18%
9.0 to 9.9 5.13% 31.31%
10.0 to 10.9 5.43% 36.74%
11.0 to 11.9 5.66% 42.40%
12.0 to 12.9 5.72% 48.12%
13.0 to 13.9 5.69% 53.82%
14.0 to 14.9 5.47% 59.28%
15.0 to 15.9 5.10% 64.38%
16.0 to 16.9 4.69% 69.07%
17.0 to 17.9 4.33% 73.40%
18.0 to 18.9 3.78% 77.17%
19.0 to 19.9 3.34% 80.51%
20.0 to 20.9 2.96% 83.47%
21.0 to 21.9 2.62% 86.10%
22.0 to 22.9 2.30% 88.40%
23.0 to 23.9 1.98% 90.38%
24.0 to 24.9 1.68% 92.06%
25.0 to 25.9 1.43% 93.50%
26.0 to 26.9 1.19% 94.69%
27.0 to 27.9 1.00% 95.69%
28.0 to 28.9 0.82% 96.52%
29.0 to 29.9 0.68% 97.19%
30.0 to 30.9 0.54% 97.74%
31.0 to 31.9 0.45% 98.19%
32.0 to 32.9 0.36% 98.55%
33.0 to 33.9 0.29% 98.84%
34.0 to 34.9 0.24% 99.08%
35.0 to 36.4 0.92% 100.00%

 

[MikeF]

Low 0 - 5
Low Mid 6 - 15
Mid - 16 - 27
Mid High - 28-40
High - 41-54

I have taken into account the handicap maxes out at 54

 

[Obee]

Low 0 - 5
Low Mid 6 - 15
Mid - 16 - 27
Mid High - 28-40
High - 41-54

I have taken into account the handicap maxes out at 54

But you have not taken into account that it goes below zero… ;-)

 

[BigMac]

So what do you guys consider a +3 or a +4? Are they not included in your levels?

Doesn’t that fall under the “<10” category?

 

[OldandStiff]

Doesn’t that fall under the “<10” category?

I mean, technically. Yeah. That would be a larger leap than any in the other categories though, imo. @Obee 's stirring the ****, lol, but the difference in them is why I dropped my low a little lower.

 

[greenOak]

I mean, technically. Yeah. That would be a larger leap than any in the other categories though, imo. @Obee 's stirring the ****, lol, but the difference in them is why I dropped my low a little lower.

In fairness, in virtually all the ranges people have posted, "high" contains by far the widest spread of handicaps. Especially for the people who think a 13 handicap is high.

Handicap Index Percent of Total Cumulative
+1.0 or better 0.92% 0.92%
+0.9 to 0.0 0.68% 1.60%
0.1 to 1.0 0.95% 2.55%
1.1 to 1.9 1.26% 3.81%
2.0 to 2.9 1.62% 5.43%
3.0 to 3.9 2.07% 7.51%
4.0 to 4.9 2.60% 10.11%
5.0 to 5.9 3.20% 13.30%
6.0 to 6.9 3.77% 17.07%
7.0 to 7.9 4.35% 21.42%
8.0 to 8.9 4.76% 26.18%
9.0 to 9.9 5.13% 31.31%
10.0 to 10.9 5.43% 36.74%
11.0 to 11.9 5.66% 42.40%
12.0 to 12.9 5.72% 48.12%
13.0 to 13.9 5.69% 53.82%
14.0 to 14.9 5.47% 59.28%
15.0 to 15.9 5.10% 64.38%
16.0 to 16.9 4.69% 69.07%
17.0 to 17.9 4.33% 73.40%
18.0 to 18.9 3.78% 77.17%
19.0 to 19.9 3.34% 80.51%
20.0 to 20.9 2.96% 83.47%
21.0 to 21.9 2.62% 86.10%
22.0 to 22.9 2.30% 88.40%
23.0 to 23.9 1.98% 90.38%
24.0 to 24.9 1.68% 92.06%
25.0 to 25.9 1.43% 93.50%
26.0 to 26.9 1.19% 94.69%
27.0 to 27.9 1.00% 95.69%
28.0 to 28.9 0.82% 96.52%
29.0 to 29.9 0.68% 97.19%
30.0 to 30.9 0.54% 97.74%
31.0 to 31.9 0.45% 98.19%
32.0 to 32.9 0.36% 98.55%
33.0 to 33.9 0.29% 98.84%
34.0 to 34.9 0.24% 99.08%
35.0 to 36.4 0.92% 100.00%

And what percent of golfers do you think actually carry a handicap? There's absolutely no way half the people out on the golf course would have a handicap below 13. From my observation, I'd venture that number to be closer to 10%.

 

[OldandStiff]

In fairness, in virtually all the ranges people have posted, "high" contains by far the widest spread of handicaps. Especially for the people who think a 13 handicap is high.



And what percent of golfers do you think actually carry a handicap? There's absolutely no way half the people out on the golf course would have a handicap below 13. From my observation, I'd venture that number to be closer to 10%.

I think there's a large difference between 'half the people out on the golf course', and half the people who bother to carry a handicap. The majority of golfers don't carry a handicap until they're good enough to care/have it matter in club events. That's part of the idea behind the new system. To get more higher handicaps to carry a handicap.

And the 'widest range of handicaps' isn't what I was referring to. I was talking about the widest difference in ability. Which is how I and some others have been trying to group them. I thought that was fairly clear. By the descriptor low, mid, mid-high, and numbers that best group ability.

 

[greenOak]

I think there's a large difference between 'half the people out on the golf course', and half the people who bother to carry a handicap. The majority of golfers don't carry a handicap until they're good enough to care/have it matter in club events. That's part of the idea behind the new system. To get more higher handicaps to carry a handicap.

And the 'widest range of handicaps' isn't what I was referring to. I was talking about the widest difference in ability. Which is how I and some others have been trying to group them. I thought that was fairly clear. By the descriptor low, mid, mid-high, and numbers that best group ability.

It depends what you mean by difference in ability. I could easily argue that the difference in ability between a 13 and a 36 is greater than the difference between a scratch and a 13 because a 13 will score closer to a scratch than the 36 will to a 13. I could also easily argue the difference between scratch and 13 is bigger because it is a much harder skill gap to close. And if we're going by the latter, I would argue that the skill gap between a +4 and a scratch is bigger than the skill gap between a scratch and a 20-handicapper.

 

[Obee]

It depends what you mean by difference in ability. I could easily argue that the difference in ability between a 13 and a 36 is greater than the difference between a scratch and a 13 because a 13 will score closer to a scratch than the 36 will to a 13. I could also easily argue the difference between scratch and 13 is bigger because it is a much harder skill gap to close. And if we're going by the latter, I would argue that the skill gap between a +4 and a scratch is bigger than the skill gap between a scratch and a 20-handicapper.

"Skill gap" is an interesting way to look at it. But that's also fraught...

 

[tequila4kapp]

Low - I instinctively consider single digit players to be low.

Mid - 11-19

High - I tend to think of 20s and higher as high.

An oddity here is that I also tend to think of people who are +/- 5 of an average handicap as Mid. Practically by definition that should be true. But that doesn’t mesh with what I said above.

 

[GenErr]

I think a low handicapper is capable of shooting close to par on most of their rounds. A mid handicapper can shoot under 85 consistently, and a high handicapper shoots around 100. There are many shades of talent in between all of these.

 

[NEhomer]

Nobody is disagreeing with your comments that there are plenty of golfers both better or worse than you ... that is simply an indisputable fact. What is arrogant, and which you haven’t addressed in your answer, is your comment that some of those players worse than you (i.e. those on 26+) should give up a game that they probably enjoy immensely and take up something else instead. I have known several scratch golfers and they were all very encouraging to high handicappers and none of them ever suggested that they should give up golf. It’s called humility.

So you read my quip as my sincere suggestion that 26+ cappers should quit the game. It was a joke son. This is the internet. I wouldn't say that to someone's face to truly try to convince them to quit. The only part that I'm serious about is that there are lot of egos on display in golf.

 

[Scorp]

High - 20+
Mid - 10-20
Low - anyone better than 9.

I'll keep it simple for me... I'm a high handicap. I'll probably never be mid handicap. I don't care to much about that at the moment... for me, golf is a distraction and fun.

 

[NEhomer]

High - 20+
Mid - 10-20
Low - anyone better than 9.

I'll keep it simple for me... I'm a high handicap. I'll probably never be mid handicap. I don't care to much about that at the moment... for me, golf is a distraction and fun.

Yup, there are a lot of egos in golf. Yours isn't one of them! Knock 'em straight..or at least less often bro!

 

[AnserMePing]

I don't know, in the last two years I've been down to a 17, and blown up as high as 20. I feel I'm up there a ways to be considered a mid, but with a cap hovering around bogie golf most of the time I'm not sure I'd be a high either . :confused2:

To me its all about pace of play.

I wouldn't consider 20 as high. A 20 is playing bogey golf, keeping up with the group and not holding up the following group. Any player unable to keep pace because of scoring issues is a high handicapper to me, and that happens well above 20.

 

[Raiderboost]

I have always looked at it like this.

Scratch Golfer
1-6 low handicap
7-15 mid handicap
15+ high handicap

This was exactly what I was going to say. I would change scratch to this:

0 and below- A stick or player

 

[Obee]

In fairness, in virtually all the ranges people have posted, "high" contains by far the widest spread of handicaps. Especially for the people who think a 13 handicap is high.



And what percent of golfers do you think actually carry a handicap? There's absolutely no way half the people out on the golf course would have a handicap below 13. From my observation, I'd venture that number to be closer to 10%.

According to some quick research: approximately 10 million US Golfers hold a handicap. There are approximately 24 million people who "golf" in the U.S. But if we're talking about golfers who actually play the game more than once or twice a year (say, people who play at least once a month), that number drops significantly. Of people who play once a month, about half or a bit more hold a USGA handicap is the best estimate I can come up with without purchasing the NGF's data on golfers.

I believe it's fair to say that approximately one-third of golfers who play at least once a month have an index of 13 or below.

And my observation is simply different than yours. Of people who actually play the game "fairly regularly" (by any definition of that phrase), that 13-index number feels about right to me as being the one-third mark for ability.

But this whole conversation is silly if we are just going to have 3 "levels" of golfer. The distinctions are meaningless when you are going to lump a 9 in with a +3 (or even a zero) as a "low handicapper," or a 10 with a 19 as a "mid-handicapper." I mean, what's the point of separating into three categories to begin with? When the difference in scores and abilities are so far apart within the levels it's just weird to do that.

"I'm a mid-handicapper," says the 19 (or whatever the upper end of mid-handicapper is in anyone's "three-level" grading system)

"I'm also a mid-handicapper!" says the 10.

Meanwhile the 19, if playing the 10 in the real world would get beat 100 times out of 100 in a real match. Grouping a 19 with a 10, or a 9 with a +2 just makes zero sense -- unless one insists on creating three levels for some arbitrary reason.

IMNTBHO, or course.

 

[Rock N TN]

To me its all about pace of play.

Any player unable to keep pace because of scoring issues is a high handicapper to me, and that happens well above 20.

And well below 10, particularly the + somethings.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[OneFootShort]

I think people forget that the GHIN is more of a measure of potential, not necessarily straight consistency. I play with many who are classified as a 1-2. They've pulled off a few 72, 73 that lowers their handicap but they don't shoot it regularly. Like others have said, a handicap can travel sometimes and won't others. My home course is more of a "shot-maker's" course, not a bomber course. A guy can't just pound the ball all over the place and save par from another fairway. You hit it a bit right/left and you're out of bounds, not on another fairway. I've seen 2 handicaps shoot mid-high 80s. Because the home course is a fairly forgiving course, regardless of slope/rating. May be 7,000yds but you can spray it all over.

I almost wish the handicap system was based on score average as opposed to potential. I think when you average below 80, you should be considered a "low-cap".

 

[jim54]

That seems close enough to how I think of it if there's only 3.

I tend to think about them more like:
<5 low
6-12 low-mid
13-20 mid
21-30 higher
30+ high/beginner

I agree with this 100% there is a huge difference from a 5 to a 10 and below 5 is another level all together.