The whole handicap system is flawed and fails it's purpose because it lags behind ability.

I took up the game, joined a club, was given a hcp of 28. As I learned to chip and putt my scores came down quite quickly and after a couple of complaints from opponents at home and away matches, I reported the complaints that I wasn't low enough to the club secretary who could do nothing. On one occasion in an official singles matchplay game, I shot 9 over off 21. The fella I played shot 5 over off 12 and lost the match, I added insult to injury by sinking a 40ft putt to win the match on the 13th green (we finished the round anyway). All I could do was apologise.

Also, as we all know, it is not uncommon for people to maintain their handicap higher than it should be and we all laugh and call them bandits but we shouldn't really take it so lightly. I've seen on more than one occasion, some daft old biddy thrilled at winning a trophy off 36. It is virtually impossible for a single figure handicapper to win a handicapped tournament. The system doesn't re-dress any balance, more often than not handing the winnings to people who don't deserve it !! and there is one scratch comp per year at my club, the club championship.

When I was off 17, i'd regularly play matchplay with members off 3 - 8 and I never took a shot off them, what's the point ? if you beat them, it was just because they gave you too many shots. If I could take them down the fifteenth, i'd be happy and got a sense of achievement from that. If we all went for a game of football, you don't make special rules for the fat boy or the geek, we're all good at different things.

My point is that better players are better for one of three reasons:

1. They are more talented.
2. They have played the game longer.
3. They practice harder/ put more in to their game.

Whichever is the case, what's wrong with the best players winning ?

The question that begs being asked is whether a +9 round i an average round for you or not.

If not, what's your average score?
If yes, why did you still have a 21 index at that time?

If you just started playing, it's pretty normal that your ability gets better faster than your handicap can come down. But that should last too long. When I started playing I was down from 54 to 24 within 4 months, 16 after another year. I'm now off 6.9 and still could shoot 42 net points if everything went my way.

The handicap system aims at creating a level playing field for all abilities.
You shot 13 under your handicap(which normally shouldn't happen, but what the heck) and your opponent shot 7 under his handicap. So clearly you were the better player that day and deserved to win.

A lot of people on this forum say the GHIN system in Europe is really great. I'm not familiar with it but it has to better than the one we have now.

The USGA system doesn't account for the outlying variables that effect a round.

Physical well being - Playing sore, Playing tight, Playing lose, Cold/Flu

Weather - I am a fair weather player and some do well in poor conditions. I have to attribute weather to my score, when others do not.

Periodic Struggles / Streaks - This year I have shot more under par nines, than any year before. I will go nuts somedays and make 4 or 5 birdies on a given nine holes. I don't know what it is. I am a 3 handicap. 3 handicaps do not shoot 32 and 33.

Quality Ball Striking - A good ball striker that has no control is going to have a penalty laden round on a course that is loaded with hazards. That will jack up his score and jack up his handicap. He will end up with and 83 and say he had 7 penalty strokes. We'll, that means he is more than capable of shooting 76, but has the handicap of one who shoots in the Mid 80's. What happens when he plays on a course where he can get away with his erratic play?

I hate people who abuse the handicap system and fail to shoot the scores their handicap indicates. Yes, there will be great days for some, but when a 14 handicap is hitting his driver better than most 14's, and striking his irons much better than 14's. You have to wonder where he loses most of his shots in his previous rounds that formulates his 14.

The system takes too long to establish an accurate handicap. There needs to be 4 or 5 categories that calculate handicap.

Example

Last 5 scores - Raw (None thrown out)

Last 10 scores - Best 2 and worst 2, thrown out.

Last 15 scores - Best 4 and worst 4, thrown out

Last 20 scores - Best 10 used for index and trends

Use these methods in supplement to the current system and you would find a finer calculation of handicap.

Ex. Consistent Player who averages around 80 at all courses. Potential for low scores and really never shoots above 86.

Last 5 Avg- 81
Last 10 Avg- 79.9
Last 15 Avg- 80.26

Last 10 adj - 80
Last 15 adj - 80.14

Best 10 Avg- 78.3
Worst 10 Avg- 82.2

Ex. Consistently poor player who shoots in the mid to high 80's at all courses. Potential for two good rounds at 80 or 79, and shoots 4 to 5 rounds in the low 90's to mid 90's.


Last 5 Avg - 85.6
Last 10 Avg- 86.5
Last 15 Avg- 87.06

Last 10 adj - 86
Last 15 adj - 86.71

Best 10 Avg - 83.5
Worst 10 Avg- 90.8

Differentials

Last 5- 4.6
Last 10- 6.6
Last 15- 6.8

Last 10 adj - 6
Last 15 adj - 6.57

Best 10 Avg- 5.2
Worst 10 Avg- 8.6


Compare these differentials to the handicap difference you get between a 4 and 15. 9 to 11 shots is crazy.

Is the system you showed as example the GHIN system?

NO, this is just an an example of using Averaging amongst the last 20 scores. The differentials are much closer than what the USGA handicap system would suggest.

Basically, I am trying to make the point that a consistent player holding a handicap of 3 to 7, can really never fairly compete with a semi-consistent player that holds a handicap of 12 to 15. More times than not, the better player gets screwed because of the inflation of shots doled out to the worse player.

Any system will find it difficult to cope with a rapidly improving player, as the handicap will always trail the ability until the player settles out. The club can certainly cut your handicap for your performance in non-competition rounds - under the General Play clause.

There are ways of dealing with a 21 vs 8 handicap match. The number of shots given should only be 3/4 of the difference because the 21 is likely to have a wider variability in scoring than the 8. This is how it works in the UK. Likewise only a fraction of handicap is given in fourballs.

I think that had a system simply added three shots to my best to date round, it would have kept up to me and I think my average stroke play score would have been close to my handicap. I can't be bothered to work out how that unfair match that I described would have worked out under this rule but I suspect it would have been a better and more fair, therefore more enjoyable match.

It would be "incumbent upon one" to declare any low scores that would effect handicap. Honest players would self regulate as they already do under other rules.

I play off 17.7 and can more easily shoot 96 or 106 than 86 - of course depending on the day, course conditions etc. Most of the 3s and 5s friends that that I play with play very close to thier number most of the time - for them my 20 stroke potential variance seesm like more like 8 strokes. In fact it is to hot back to back 86s on tough courses (high slope and rating) that sent me sub 18. So I have had occasion in which I "beat" a better (lower capped) player, but this is not a predictable event for me since it is rare, statistically and actually rare.

So I think, in my case and the cases of my gang of players, that everyone breaches into new terrirtory - it just happens more often (and larger) for new, learning, crappy golfers like me :-)

taskerc

Since score is the only objective measure in a round of golf, there's no way to measure "quality of ball striking" other than what someone shoots.

To address your last point: When he plays a course where he can get away with his erratic play, the slope of that course will be lower, thus adjusting for his most likely lower score. Second, you have ESC which will adjust those big holes down, and third, a good ball striker isn't going to be losing 7 shots. Heck, I'm a 3.5 index and average ball striker and if I lose 3 balls a round it would be a lot (on difficult courses, mind you).

I think the formula for the USGA handicap is spot on for those who play casual rounds as seriously as they play competitive rounds. I say that because it's been developer over thousands of rounds of golf.

I play against a buddy whom I've given as many as 11 and as few as 4 shots for 18 holes. The thing that seems to determine the outcome of the match most often is how each one of us is trending compared to our handicap. But there's no way for a handicap to take that into account. Our handicaps are updated every 2 weeks. If you use less than 10 of 20 scores, you then make it easier for sandbaggers to sand bag.

Oh, also, some 3 cappers do shoot 32 or 33 for 9 holes on occasion. But they don't shooter 64 or 65 for 18.

It has to lag, otherwise you'd make it way too easy for a sand bagger to jack up his handicap right before a competitive round.

I thought people understood what the GHIN is and how it's calculated. It's not an AVERAGE score, it's a calculated differential based on your BEST 10 scores out of last 20 rounds.
The tournament index, post Tourney rounds marked as such, identifies sandbaggers really quick and adjusts accordingly.
Golf is SUPPOSED to be game of integrity. WHen I used to keep a USGA GHIN (now use GolfChannel Game Tracker, cuz I like the stats and database of each courses rounds) I played with guys who had refused to post their good scores, never used ESC, it was a joke.

Anyway for you math wizzes, the GHIN is based on potential ability hence the lowest 10 of last 20 rounds not a simple average. YOu can look up on USGA website the statistical significance of slope rating and course rating (slope if for bogey golfers, course rating for scratch, so they merge the two in calculations)

Here is why it's NOT a simple average (not figuring in slope, course rating of 72.0 to keep it simple and shorter to type):

Player 1 Steady Eddie ---- Shoots 80 even for 20 rounds in a row (total shots for 20 rounds is 1600)
Average score is 80
Avg of lowest 10 rounds is 80
GHIN is LOWEST 10 rounds averaged less course rating, so 80-72= 8

Player 2 Streaky Pete ---- Shoots 90 for 10 rounds and 70 for 10 rounds (total shots for 20 rounds 1600)
Average score is 80
Avg low 10 of last 20 is 70
GHIN is 70-72= +2 (negative number is a plus hadnicap, think about it)

Player 3 Inconsistent but good --- Shoots 100 for 5 rounds, shoots 90 for 5 rounds, shoots 80 for 5 rounds, then shoots (insane I know proving a point) 50 for 5 rounds -- 1600 total shots
Average score 80
Avg lowest 10 of last 20 is 65
GHIN is 65-72= +7 (top 50 tour pro)

So Player 3 is either trying to bag hacking around in 100 shots, thinking his average score will be way higher than his real ability -- hey he shot 50, right?

Players 1 and 2 simplify enough, an overall average score is just that....(my average score over last 20 rounds per TGC Game Tracker is 79.9), both Player 1 and 2 average is 80 BUT,
asuming both Players are honest and turn in all scores, follow rules, use ESC, etc.....who's really the better player (has lowest handicap) the guy who carded a bunch of 70s, right...(if I average only my lowest 10 rounds, that average {GHIN Differential for GHIN} is 74.2 --- FIVE shots lower than my average score.

Given the above, if I wanted to, I could bag and throw in bunch of 90 rounds, right? IF used straight average, I"d be a double sigit handicap then...but who doesn't want to post that 70 round? SO using lowest of 10 of last twenty provides the player's potential and does equate for conditions, health, temperament, etc over the course of 20 rounds.

Anyway, hope that illustrates point and educates some on how GHIN is derived.

Does the Euro system simply just keep your low rounds? Maybe that's the way we should too , if so. Perhaps over a rolling 12 month window or something like that.

Golfdad

The USGA system uses a form of averaging, albeit from a selected proportion of scores.

The UK system is more a push-pull system. Each competition round (note - no casual rounds count) affects the handicap. The effect of a good score, pushing handicap downwards, is greater than the effect of a bad one. So, for example if I shoot a net 68 at my club (-4 to par, -3 to the standard scratch), I lose 3 x 0.2 = 0.6 from my handicap. If I shoot net 75 (+3 to handicap, +4 to standard scratch), I go up 0.1. There is a small zone around standard scratch where no handicap adjustment takes place ("buffer zone"). The standard scratch can vary according to playing conditions.

There is no rolling period. You have a handicap, it goes up, it goes down and on you go without reference to any time frame. In practice, the standard scratch scores tend to be lower than they would be for an equivalent US course and it is difficult to play enough comps to get back more than 2 shots a season.

In the US the UK system would never work because few players play "competition" rounds. Heck, I'm an avid golfer (60+ rounds a year) and only play perhaps 5 or 6 tournament rounds in the entire year.

You might wonder why have a handicap if you don't play in tournaments? I play several friends who never play in tournaments, yet we have wagers going on in our casual rounds.

I don't know if one system is better than the other; they are just different.

I've been reading about the UK system, and it looks like the handicap committee *IS* allowed to adjust a player's handicap based on his casual rounds. Seems very arbitrary to me.

This is the biggest problem. Heck, 4 or 5 years ago I used to play in the MI Publinx tournaments until the same 4 guys always finished in the top 10 for every tournament. Looking at their posted scores, and their tournament scores wouldn't be posted! I complained to the "committee"... yeah, ok, and they just ignored the issue. So I took my money elsewhere.

Some private clubs take it more seriously, where they mandate that you turn in your score card after a round at the home club to make sure all rounds were posted, but there are still ways around that.

The solution is to get good enough so you don't have to play in handicapped tournies to be competitive!

Most clubs have competitions every weekend, and sometimes during the week too. I only play competitions at my own club, never play causal rounds.

The Committee can adjust handicaps, but this is not very common, and usually occurs if someone is winning lots of matchplay or fourballs where the automatic adjustments to handicap do not apply.

I agree they are different - they are simply mathematical methods for treating data, but I didn't say one was better than the other. I think the US system results in players having lower handicaps than they would have in the UK - but that could be a good or bad thing.

You make valid points but I feel there are two legitimate arguments for each side.

What I mean by "quality ball striker" is someone who has the ability to hit the ball in a way that is unachievable by another. For example, I will strike the ball in a way that produces a good divot, piercing ball flight, and lands on the green with obvious spin. My father sweeps the ball off the grass, his ball flight is low, high, thin, knuckler, floater, etc., and his ball hits the green and releases forward most times.

If he stiffs one, but he blades it and it hits the rough before the green to kill the momentum, and then I get up there and hit a pure, money shot that ends up 2 inches to short of being great, in a bunker......then what gives. He is now going to make birdie 2, net 1. He wins the hole, by at least 3 if I don't get it up and down. You will never be able to measure this, and that is what flaws the system a bit.

Also, slope ratings are sometimes BS. I've played many courses that range 130 to 140 from the tips, and they are way easier than some courses with slope ratings 124 to 129 courses. Once you become familiar with a course that will skew scores a little to the lower side.

ESC is great, but answer me this question. I'm playing in a college qualifying tournament for 2 individual spots for the weekend event. I make a 7 on a par 4 and an 11 on a par 5. My first two holes of the day. Then, on the next 16 holes, I shoot -2 and finish with 79 (+7). With ESC, I am supposed to post 74, but I missed qualfying because two other kids shot 75 and 76 and that beats my 79. AWESOME DEAL! Post a round 5 shots better than the score I had to accept in an unsanctioned tournament. Course rating - 74.3 Slope - 137

Also, when I said "3 handicaps don't shoot 32 and 33." You couldn't see the sarcasm in the statement, because you read it and didn't hear me say it. Yes, 3 handicaps can shoot great nines, but rarely put a 64 or 65 down. Today, I shot 40 and then 34. I might as well should of shot 37-37. Except, knowingI can shoot under par, is better than wondering if I can shoot under par. That would be the only plus, I guess.

flubbed it, I think many of the other responses are right on when they make the point that a rapidly improving golfer will play better than their handicap index, more often, and win more often, but after a period of time, this will level out.

the other point worth making is that it is more common to flight players based on their handicap index and then have them compete only against each other based on either actual scores or net after handicap index. but it is pretty unusual to have a high or mid handicapper actually competing against a golfer who is single digit. so if your handicap index is, say, 18, then you would normally be competing only against golfers who have handicaps in the 15 to 20 range. this flighted competition is more fair to those who are the better golfers, and also allows them to play against and with each other, which is more fun and appropriate for those better golfers (no offense to anyone with a higher handicap).

Even though i do understand what you are saying flubbed_it, it should be something that levels out very fast if you play the way you say you do.

You have to start somewhere. It was decided 36 was the handicap a player starts with, no matter if you have the ability of Tiger Woods or Joe Shmo. The system will work once both start playing competition rounds. A good player will drop fast in a short time, and yes ... he'll probably win quite often.
If this is a real problem to you, start enrolling in every single official medal you can, so you get to a spot you think is adequate for you.

You notice these things at our club too. Most medals are stableford competitions with 3 categories (36-26/26-14/14-0), the first two categories are constantly won by kids with 40+ stbf points. They end up in cat.1 in a year and the winning stops.
But what i'm trying to say is, the first 2 categories are somewhat looked down upon now because of so many young kids getting very good very quick, and winning it all. This might be good for your ego as a better player, but it's also not very nice to more average players. And even though the better players don't win that often anymore in their own category, they acknowledge lot's of better players are popping up and competition is getting more fierce.

So, yes i admit the system is flawed liked that, but the US system has it's flaws too. What's the point of having an official handicap system if there is no official controlled way for players to enter their scores. In theory it's all great, enter your scores whenever you play 18 with someone else. But this is so open to cheating, and even though most on here are serious about their game and will not do this, others will happily abuse this.

I played with 2 american military guys who work for NATO over here. They said the same, everybody in the US who plays on a weekly basis seems to claim a single figure handicap.

So what good does that do? You have to make everybody start at the same level and let them work towards a level that suits their ability. If you as a 36 play like an 11, then playing medals will bring you there as fast as you have the time to compete in medals. And even though it may be unfair for a while, eventually it will even out to a fair level.
Maybe something like a first year is needed in which players are given their 36hcp, can compete in medals but are not allowed to receive prizes, they can only lower their handicaps. If they are that good, they'll get to a more suitable level in that year.

I'm not sure you understand the slope system. The term "slope" is equivalent to the "slope" of a line in a graph. The higher the slope, the more difficult it is for a bogey golfer compared to a scratch golfer. Statistically, slope is more irrelevant to a lower handicapper than a higher handicapper. If you're a 0 handicap, slope is completely meaningless, and you should look at course rating for a better idea of the difficulty of the course.

As far as ESC goes, the whole purpose of the US system is to measure "potential". In your example, it did exactly that. You have the potential to shoot very good scores, as demonstrated by your final 16 holes at -2. The 7 and 11 were out of the statistical norm, which is why ESC was introduced.

To add, the last I saw the game was about getting the ball in the hole.
A guy that stiffs his iron shot, misses his birdie putt, and makes a tap in par, scores the same as the guy that duffs his drive, pumps his 3w into a greenside bunker, blades it over the green and the precedes to chip in for 4.

That's golf.

Philfan..............you said...........ESC is great, but answer me this question. I'm playing in a college qualifying tournament for 2 individual spots for the weekend event. I make a 7 on a par 4 and an 11 on a par 5. My first two holes of the day. Then, on the next 16 holes, I shoot -2 and finish with 79 (+7). With ESC, I am supposed to post 74, but I missed qualfying because two other kids shot 75 and 76 and that beats my 79. AWESOME DEAL! Post a round 5 shots better than the score I had to accept in an unsanctioned tournament. Course rating - 74.3 Slope - 137


So what is your question??????????

It sounds like if you can learn to quit blowing up on just a few holes, you can be an awesome golfer and win a lot of tournmanets. Your ESC score is saying that you clearly have this potential.

I get slope and yes, the higher the slope for a higher handicap will affect his/her scores more so than someone who is a lower handicap. Course rating is a better measure of difficulty, but still I think some courses are just easier than what there ratings state sometimes.

There was going to be question in my ESC example, but that was a editing mistake. Here it is: Why should I have to accept a score 5 shots worse, than the score I am obligated to post? Since I was playing in a "tournament", albeit an unsanctioned one, shouldn't I be able to post a 79. That 79, (and like you said before, the final score is the only way to objectively calculate handicap) cost me a spot in a tournament. If I have to post 74, then why can't I have 74 as my score against everybody elses.

We enforce winter rules, auto 2 putt on badly aerated greens (if the 1st one doesn't go in), make-shift lateral hazards for pace of play. All affect score some way.




You're right and I have experienced both sides of this, but it is very discouraging to the better player. If the player's are equal in ability, then hey, that's the brakes. But when a guy, who is really not "playing golf", defies the odds, then that my friend is just gay.




Sorry, editing problem. The question is posted above. Also, I keep stats for myself and I basically make 2 or 3 triples every 45 rounds. and less than 1 quad or more within 80 rounds. However, I also do not shoot under par for more than 12 holes in a round. A round like this was rare and may never happen again.

The two blow up holes were the result of being rushed to the tee and little warm up time. I don't even care about hitting balls, I just like to swing my speed stick and stretch.

Strange coincidence, as I was reading this thread, I'm a 3 handicap too and I shot a 67 today for 43 points!

Relative to the thread, I won the competition that was non divisional by 3 points

A quick question then....

How "fair" would it be if you had to play a handicapped match against a guy that shoots 83 with 6 birdies, 9 pars, 1 bogey and 2 (12)s.
If this was "common" for him, he'd be around a 10 index...

Or would it be fair for a guy that goes -4 for 16 holes and ends up shooting a 79 becuase of 2 REALLY bad holes....
Or the guys who "manages" his index by playing well for 17 holes and the just gasses the last hole taking something stupid like a 13 on a par 4....

Handicap is about "potential".....nothing more, nothing less.

This subject is very complex, i've glazed over !!!

The thread came from a personal view that I really enjoy a proper match, me against you, no other nonsense. If your a 3 and i'm an 8, a couple of friendly bounces and if I putt well, I can still beat you. If I fall short by a hole, i'll still get a lot of satisfaction from running a much better player close. Matchplay closes the skill gap and brings new dimensions, It can pay off to stay patient and wait for an opportunity.

I've beaten better players than me who gave me a hat full of shots and got nothing from it. If you forget that we are all used to a system that has been around forever, it's an odd thing to do to penalize those who are more dedicated or more talented. I should add that if we were to scrap handicaps all together, I wouldn't win then either, I always fall away at the semi final stage (scratch matchplay) of the club championship, I can't shoot sub 4 over which tends to be the required standard for the final. As for the handicapped singles match play tournaments at my club, I still enter because I love matchplay, I do well until I run in to some teen who has a rep for maintaining his handicap and find myself needing a sub par round to be competitive, hopefully I get a few rounds of my favourite format before that happens.

I'd like to see more scratch comps in club golf. I enjoy the challenge of maybe keeping better players honest.

The purpose of a handicap system is to provide a way for a worse player to compete with a better player and for the worse player to have a chance to win. If I have a 25 handicap and you have an 8 handicap, then without some method for allocating strokes there is no reason for me to compete with you because I can't expect to win. The handicap system is a method for determining how many strokes I should be given so that I can compete with you and I have a chance to win.

It doesn't matter what the system is, there will always be a way to cheat it or not follow the spirit of it. The USGA system is probably more susceptible to this than some of the other systems, but not because of the handicap calculations. Rather, the USGA lets any round that conforms to the rules of golf, including casual or recreational rounds, be accepted for handicap calculation purposes. In practice, there are people who like to post scores that are higher or lower than there actual scores. In some other systems only official tournaments are counted. In an official tournament, it is harder to get away with posting a score other than your actual score because your playing partners are more likely to pay attention to what your are doing and to keep up with your score than they would in a non-tournament round. Also, a tournament organizer may have observers or referees watching the players.

You can disagree with principles behind the handicap system, which ever one it may be, but the official systems are what they are. On this forum, a big complaint with the USGA calculation is that it doesn't reflect actual performance (e.g. an 8 handicap does not shoot 8 over par on average). Understanding the calculations, strengths, and weaknesses of the system in question is probably the best way to get comfortable with it, even if you disagree with it. At least you will be able to better understand what it means when someone says they are a 15 handicap. Regrettably, the systems can't tell you if person is an honest john, a sandbagger, or has a vanity handicap.

These are things we know, I guess the point i'm making is that it fails in doing this and serves as a disincentive when it tips the balance the other way.

When you join a club here, without a handicap, you have to play three rounds, medals or not with members who sign your card and are given a handicap which broadly reflects the average of the three rounds. At that time your handicap is more honest and reflective of your ability than it's ever going to be from that point on with the current scheme.

As I have said, there is no need for all this complexity, either rating players at 3 over their best ever score or as an average of their last three scores would be more accurate. The ruling of playing 3/4 of handicaps in singles only acknowledges the inaccuracy of the current scheme and like all the rules of golf, is another bodge on top of a flawed and un-necessarily complex system.

Nobody else say anything please because i'm bored of this thread now and I want to have the final word !

[/quote]
I'm not sure you understand the slope system. The term "slope" is equivalent to the "slope" of a line in a graph. The higher the slope, the more difficult it is for a bogey golfer compared to a scratch golfer. Statistically, slope is more irrelevant to a lower handicapper than a higher handicapper. If you're a 0 handicap, slope is completely meaningless, and you should look at course rating for a better idea of the difficulty of the course.

As far as ESC goes, the whole purpose of the US system is to measure "potential". In your example, it did exactly that. You have the potential to shoot very good scores, as demonstrated by your final 16 holes at -2. The 7 and 11 were out of the statistical norm, which is why ESC was introduced.
[/quote]
[/quote]
A quick question then....

How "fair" would it be if you had to play a handicapped match against a guy that shoots 83 with 6 birdies, 9 pars, 1 bogey and 2 (12)s.
If this was "common" for him, he'd be around a 10 index...

Or would it be fair for a guy that goes -4 for 16 holes and ends up shooting a 79 becuase of 2 REALLY bad holes....
Or the guys who "manages" his index by playing well for 17 holes and the just gasses the last hole taking something stupid like a 13 on a par 4....

Handicap is about "potential".....nothing more, nothing less.
[/quote]
Exactly, lower single digit to scratch golfers only should look at course rating. The slope thing is based on 18 HDCP (bogey golfer) and is a relative measurement of 'difficulty' of course. 113 is average slope, so lots of forced carries, lots of agua esp on right side, tons of deep bunkers around greens will mean higher slope.

ESC (when used) does do 2 things, sort of the same:

1. prevents peeps like me or others from shooting par for 17 holes, then taking a 12 (intentional or not) to keep from having to post a 'low' score.
2. prevents say a 12 hdcp from posting a couple of braindead quads a round and elevating his score.


THis is why my buds and I play a modified scoth game, one of them from OK (go Sooners) calls dots. We don't give strokes and hdcps range from 4 to 18. Huge stakes, loser buys breakfast @ WaffleHouse after the round.

Players can 'fluff it' if they want (I don't cuz want to know hwat I really shot) but high hdcps do and I don't care, it's their score/ego.

Long drive in fairway (one mully a nine if lose a ball of tee) 1 dot
first on green (# of strokes irrelevant) 1 dot
closest to pin (# of strokes irrelevant) 1 dot
longest putt (matters not how many) 1 dot

Any dots not won on a hole (tee shot only if no one hits fairway or Par 3) carryover to next hole for that shot (fairway, once in a while long putt ties (wo don't have measuring tapes)

Bonus dots:

1 for natural birdie
2 for natural eagle

IF player wins all the dots on one hole, it's an umbrella (Umby) and dots are doubled.

It's a fun game cuz the single digits have to play very well to earn dots and the high handicappers have good shot at closest to pin (usually a chip) and anyone can get long putt (strategy comes into play if someone is say 2 feet out, hit it hard enough to blow by at least 2.1 ft if doesn't go in....or a bad putter usually plays hockey back and forth but gets longest putt eventually on the hole)

I won't gamble with someone who wants strokes, nor do I ask for them. I'm either confident enough as I know I can shoot par on any hole to wager against a player or not. Sandbaggers have taken the integrity out of hdcp system, so I just don't use it. I only keep one as relative measure of how I'm playing over time.

is that confirmed? that's how handicap strokes are handled in the UK? i like the 75%... makes more sense...

my regular golf buddy is a 17 and I'm an 8... further, his 17 is more due to poor course management and the "hero shot" attempts (trying to pull off a shot that he has no chance at)...

when we play, he refuses to play it as a "match" if he gets less than the full 9 strokes... well, it's much easier for him to cut strokes 17-9 than it is for me to cut strokes 8-0... also, we sometimes play a bet where if you win by double the handicap difference then you double the money... that means he has to beat me straight up and i have to beat him by 18 strokes - i think it goes without saying that i rarely even have a chance at the double...

basically, by simply playing DECENT course management that 17 can come down to a 11-13 (assuming they can hit the ball)...

in my opinion, all competitions should be scratch... i will get beat very often by a 2-3 handicap... to me that would mean that i need to get better, not that he needs to give me more strokes...