Should the USGA be using average score for handicapping?

[Crashtestdummy]

I think that the USGA handicapping system would be much more accurate if it was based on average score that was adjusted to the difficulty of the course. My reasoning is that not all the same handicaps are alike.

 

Generally with the current handicapping system,  everyone supposed to shoot their handicap roughly every 1 out of 4 rounds.1 out of every 4 rounds shooting your handicap is not very good percentage nor an accurate assessment of the player. 

 

For example hypothetically, if you have two players that are both a 2 handicap.  One that consistently shoots scores that are around 74, and another player that is sporadic and shoots in the 70s and 80s. Even though they are both a 2-handicap, more times than not the 2 handicap with the consistent scores will beat the sporadic player.

 

However, if it was based on adjusted average score one player would have an average score around 74 and the other player would probably have an average score around 78 or so. Then you would handicap one player as a 2 and the other player as 6. It would be more evenly rated because statistically you will should more around your average score than you handicap. 

 

[Kenny B]

I can't think of any player I know that is consistent enough to shoot within a few shots of their handicap all the time.  Not happening. Everyone has bad rounds; even pros can't shoot consistent scores.  A player's potential is the best indicator of how good they are.

[gaussman1]

I'm uncomfortable with this example. If Player B shoots scores low enough to carry a current 2 hdcp and all of a sudden gets 6 shots I will be one of the many crying foul when he fires 70 or 71. I was our hdcp chair for a couple seasons and had to learn the entire manual but it all boils down to the concept of potential. Your index is supposed to reflect your best golf rather than the average, but even then it's not quite as far apart as you're suggesting. The system counts the best 10 out of the most recent 20 rounds. Although that's not the average that is an equitable way to determine what each player's "good average" is.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[revkev]

The handicap system works as well as the players who input their scores. If they input them honestly it's fine.

 

It measures potential not average.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Liberty Ball Markers]

I've never been a big fan of handicap. I get that it helps level things to keep it more fun for everyone, but in a league situation, if the guy who always plays right around par "loses" to the 16 cap who "had a good day"... that's ridiculous.

 

When a guy who's never broken 90 wins the men's league because his scores are adjusted? It just promotes inadequacy...

 

We preach "get fit" "take lessons" and then offer a nice security blanket so you don't have to play well to compete.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[PlaidJacket]

I can't think of any player I know that is consistent enough to shoot within a few shots of their handicap all the time.  Not happening. Everyone has bad rounds; even pros can't shoot consistent scores.  A player's potential is the best indicator of how good they are.

Is there a difference in Potential from the front 9 to the back? For example just yesterday I had the potential to shoot even par then we made the turn and I rather quickly realized my potential was running out of steam potentially wrecking my round.

[silver & black]

Is there a difference in Potential from the front 9 to the back? For example just yesterday I had the potential to shoot even par then we made the turn and I rather quickly realized my potential was running out of steam potentially wrecking my round.

Yea..... I just call it the potential for disaster out back...lol.

[mrsmith123]

I think that the USGA handicapping system would be much more accurate if it was based on average score that was adjusted to the difficulty of the course. My reasoning is that not all the same handicaps are alike.

 

Generally with the current handicapping system, everyone supposed to shoot their handicap roughly every 1 out of 4 rounds.1 out of every 4 rounds shooting your handicap is not very good percentage nor an accurate assessment of the player.

 

For example hypothetically, if you have two players that are both a 2 handicap. One that consistently shoots scores that are around 74, and another player that is sporadic and shoots in the 70s and 80s. Even though they are both a 2-handicap, more times than not the 2 handicap with the consistent scores will beat the sporadic player.

 

However, if it was based on adjusted average score one player would have an average score around 74 and the other player would probably have an average score around 78 or so. Then you would handicap one player as a 2 and the other player as 6. It would be more evenly rated because statistically you will should more around your average score than you handicap.

I have used the GAM (golf assoc of Mich) for my handicap keeping. I play in all scratch events and tournaments except for an invite now and then. Anyway, the system is designed to use averages because my extreme scores are discounted in my index keeping. The only exception is excellent tournament scores. So in my opinion the handicapping system does what it is supposed to.

 

Remember man, the handicap system is a reflection of "potential" not "average". Handicap has nothing to do with what you regularly shoot or "should shoot" but what you are theoretically capable of. I think this is why so many people get mad at moderate to high handicaps because they can play better than their handicap more easily than a lower cap guy. Keep in mind too that in my experience, the higher handicap guys can be prone to more inconsistency and extreme scores better than their handicap. If they do it enough though, their handicap will go down.

 

This is why I encourage "half stroke skins" in handicapped stuff.

 

Sent from my Sprint LG G5 mobile device

[hckymeyer]

There are always outliers, and Rev said it best that handicapping only works as well as the guy putting in the scores for his rounds.

 

That said in a match play situation, generally speaking, if you shoot your handicap you should win or be pretty darn close.

 

Now if you have a guy that consistently shoots his handicap then he's a sandbagger and should be cursed with a year of the shanks.

[Sparksjr]

I think the system works in stroke play events but in my opinion the jury is still out on match play. In my experience the 18 cap beats the 8 cap 8 of 10 times in match play.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Crashtestdummy]

I can't think of any player I know that is consistent enough to shoot within a few shots of their handicap all the time.  Not happening. Everyone has bad rounds; even pros can't shoot consistent scores.  A player's potential is the best indicator of how good they are.

 

I'm uncomfortable with this example. If Player B shoots scores low enough to carry a current 2 hdcp and all of a sudden gets 6 shots I will be one of the many crying foul when he fires 70 or 71. I was our hdcp chair for a couple seasons and had to learn the entire manual but it all boils down to the concept of potential. Your index is supposed to reflect your best golf rather than the average, but even then it's not quite as far apart as you're suggesting. The system counts the best 10 out of the most recent 20 rounds. Although that's not the average that is an equitable way to determine what each player's "good average" is.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using MyGolfSpy mobile app

 

I have seen and played with a lot of consistent golfers that have tight scoring. They are mostly among the low digit handicappers at the amateur tournament level. Mostly players where their ball striking is solid but score is more dependent on whether they make putts or not. 

 

I am pretty streaky and can shoot under par on a really good day but can shoot in 80s on a poor day. A lot depends on if I am pain free or the conditions. So, for me the average score is much more accurate of what the score will be. I still thing average score is the more accurate route more times than not because very few rounds are shot to your handicap or better. Statistically 1 in 4 round. 

[gaussman1]

I have seen and played with a lot of consistent golfers that have tight scoring. They are mostly among the low digit handicappers at the amateur tournament level. Mostly players where their ball striking is solid but score is more dependent on whether they make putts or not.

 

I am pretty streaky and can shoot under par on a really good day but can shoot in 80s on a poor day. A lot depends on if I am pain free or the conditions. So, for me the average score is much more accurate of what the score will be. I still thing average score is the more accurate route more times than not because very few rounds are shot to your handicap or better. Statistically 1 in 4 round.

I'm a +1 to 1 depending on time of year. Usually by June I'm on form and scratch or better. Last year my average score was 76.1 at my home course. My scoring range was from 68 to 84. That's not a very tight span. I just don't agree that type of player, who is capable of scores at par or better, should be a 4 hdcp because of average. Hdcp tries to represent your best golf. How would you feel playing with an 18 who shoots 78 on you but averages 90? Or would you say that guy should be an 8 or 9 because of what he is capable of? If a low single digit has a scoring range of 15 shots imagine how far apart the scores are from a high handicapper. It would be impossible to play each other equitably, and the higher the handicap the more tilted that direction a match would be. I get where you're coming from but I don't want to play in matches where the relative strength of hdcp rewards poorer play, which is what I think an average system would do.

Obviously we have different opinions on this. That's ok.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Kor.A.Door]

I'm short to answer the initial question, the answer is No. the Usga should not use average score to hcp. The best way that I have heard the hcp system explained is that it is based on your potential. The hcp system uses the 10 lowest scores of your last 20 rounds. So what it does is it throws out your "bad" rounds and gives you a hcp based on what you can do. I have plenty of buddies that are scratch and they can throw a big number at times. I wouldn't want to play them if their hcp is adjusted to include that 85 they just shot.

[Kor.A.Door]

I think the system works in stroke play events but in my opinion the jury is still out on match play. In my experience the 18 cap beats the 8 cap 8 of 10 times in match play.

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Here's why I think this is true, because the lower hcp player has to give shots on the incorrect holes. If I get 7 strokes to the course hat means that I should receive a shot on the 1-7 hcp holes. If I am playing ina match against a guy that get 14 to the course I have to give him 7 shots. I feel those 7 shots should come on hcp holes 8-14. The way it's set up is that they receive the stokes from me on 1-7 hcp holes.

[Sparksjr]

Here's why I think this is true, because the lower hcp player has to give shots on the incorrect holes. If I get 7 strokes to the course hat means that I should receive a shot on the 1-7 hcp holes. If I am playing ina match against a guy that get 14 to the course I have to give him 7 shots. I feel those 7 shots should come on hcp holes 8-14. The way it's set up is that they receive the stokes from me on 1-7 hcp holes.

 

would agree with this and add that the 14 cappers I know don't make 14 bogeys and 4 pars a round.  they make mostly pars with a handful of bogies, a couple doubles and maybe a triple.  add a birdie or two in the mix at times too.  the lower cap can beat the doubles and triple with pars or worse but the handful of bogies require pars to match, pars require birdies and forget about matching that birdie or two he may make.

 

anyway, i think the handicap system works well enough and I dont have any groundbreaking ideas to change it i just try to be careful of handicapped match play.  honestly most of my golf is just four buddies out playing the best they can and we dont complete with each other anyway.

[TheWahoo]

I think handicaps work best when events are flighted based on handicaps.   There are a couple of courses in our senior rotation, that creates two flights.   Best two net ball four person teams with players having a maximum index of around 15 in the first flight, with all others in the second flight.  Typically, the winning team in the first flight will be 5 to 10 under, while the winning team in the second flight will be anywhere from 15 to 25 under, even par being 144.

[gaussman1]

Here's why I think this is true, because the lower hcp player has to give shots on the incorrect holes. If I get 7 strokes to the course hat means that I should receive a shot on the 1-7 hcp holes. If I am playing ina match against a guy that get 14 to the course I have to give him 7 shots. I feel those 7 shots should come on hcp holes 8-14. The way it's set up is that they receive the stokes from me on 1-7 hcp holes.

There is an approved USGA method to account for that. In that method you compile all scores for all players over the course of a season. Then look at all the data and find the one hole on each side where there is the largest scoring discrepancy between any 2 players whose handicaps are 1 shot apart. A 1 vs 2, or 10 vs 11, or 17 vs 18. That one hole becomes the #1 handicap hole on each side. Then move on to players 2 shots apart etc until you've done both 9s. This should account for the scenario you're describing. The reality isn't quite so helpful, because it is enormously labor intensive to process that data and you're talking about scoring averages literally tenths or even hundredths apart. The easiest way to do it would be more like you're describing where you just rank them by difficulty and give shots in between handicaps.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Kor.A.Door]

There is an approved USGA method to account for that. In that method you compile all scores for all players over the course of a season. Then look at all the data and find the one hole on each side where there is the largest scoring discrepancy between any 2 players whose handicaps are 1 shot apart. A 1 vs 2, or 10 vs 11, or 17 vs 18. That one hole becomes the #1 handicap hole on each side. Then move on to players 2 shots apart etc until you've done both 9s. This should account for the scenario you're describing. The reality isn't quite so helpful, because it is enormously labor intensive to process that data and you're talking about scoring averages literally tenths or even hundredths apart. The easiest way to do it would be more like you're describing where you just rank them by difficulty and give shots in between handicaps.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using MyGolfSpy mobile app

What I would like to see is that when playing match play, that each person receives their strokes to the golf course, I receive my 7 and then the other guy gets his 14, I still give the 7 strokes, they're just on different holes. I Made the turn 4 up 2 years ago, I made par on 10, lost the hole, made par on 11, lost the hole, par on 12, won the hole, par on 13, lost, bogie 14 lost, par 15 lost, bogey 16, lost, par 17 lost match. I made par on 6 of 8 holes on the back nine and lost 5 of them. If I would have received the strokes to the course I would have tied 3 of those, and won the match. I love playing match play as long as I am only giving up 2-3 shots, amymore than that it becomes very difficult to win. We always say, you cannot beat strokes.

[gaussman1]

What I would like to see is that when playing match play, that each person receives their strokes to the golf course, I receive my 7 and then the other guy gets his 14, I still give the 7 strokes, they're just on different holes. I Made the turn 4 up 2 years ago, I made par on 10, lost the hole, made par on 11, lost the hole, par on 12, won the hole, par on 13, lost, bogie 14 lost, par 15 lost, bogey 16, lost, par 17 lost match. I made par on 6 of 8 holes on the back nine and lost 5 of them. If I would have received the strokes to the course I would have tied 3 of those, and won the match. I love playing match play as long as I am only giving up 2-3 shots, amymore than that it becomes very difficult to win. We always say, you cannot beat strokes.

I feel your pain. I played our season long team match a week ago and my partner and I lost to a 16 who shot 81 and his 19 of a partner who had 7 pars on the front nine. Sorry to say we were not entirely thrilled with their "best golf ever"

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Kor.A.Door]

I feel your pain. I played our season long team match a week ago and my partner and I lost to a 16 who shot 81 and his 19 of a partner who had 7 pars on the front nine. Sorry to say we were not entirely thrilled with their "best golf ever"

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using MyGolfSpy mobile app

The 14 I was playing shot Even par on the back nine. I said he was the best 14 hcp I've ever seen. I've Not seen a 14 hcp'er never miss a shot for 9 holes. He hit the middle of the fairway on every hole on the back nine. It was his "best" round eve as well. I call him sandbagging POS. I will say though, if winning means that much to you that you have to cheat to do it, then you can have it.

[Crashtestdummy]

I'm a +1 to 1 depending on time of year. Usually by June I'm on form and scratch or better. Last year my average score was 76.1 at my home course. My scoring range was from 68 to 84. That's not a very tight span. I just don't agree that type of player, who is capable of scores at par or better, should be a 4 hdcp because of average. Hdcp tries to represent your best golf. How would you feel playing with an 18 who shoots 78 on you but averages 90? Or would you say that guy should be an 8 or 9 because of what he is capable of? If a low single digit has a scoring range of 15 shots imagine how far apart the scores are from a high handicapper. It would be impossible to play each other equitably, and the higher the handicap the more tilted that direction a match would be. I get where you're coming from but I don't want to play in matches where the relative strength of hdcp rewards poorer play, which is what I think an average system would do.

Obviously we have different opinions on this. That's ok.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using MyGolfSpy mobile app

 

I understand your point, however, it is much more rare that someone shoots their handicap or better. Shooting your handicap or better is only about 1 out of 4 rounds. So, the consistent player would beat out the streaky player 3 out of 4 times and to me they are not equally weighted players and not equally matched. I would rather know that it was pretty much 50/50 chance that I was able to win or lose a match against a guy with same handicap rather than 25/75% chance of winning a match. 

 

To me, the range of scoring is not as accurate as average score. You can have fluke rounds good and bad but generally they are rare. All of the professional golf tours base their statistics on average score. So, why shouldn't the amateur ranks stats be equated the same way?  

 

On indexed tournaments, low handicappers rarely have a chance against high handicappers. High handicappers have a much wider range to save more strokes. I never see low handicappers win indexed tournaments. 

 

Currently, my handicap is 1.4 and my scoring range is 72-83. Adjusted differential range  -0.3-9.0. So the average of the adjusted differential is 3.6. So, I would be a considered a 3.6 based on my average. To me, a 3.6 differential is really accurate assessment of my game. More so, than 1.4. My guess is a guy who shoots a scoring range of 78-90 is highly unlikely an 18 handicap and is more like a 10-12 handicap or less. 

[gaussman1]

I understand your point, however, it is much more rare that someone shoots their handicap or better. Shooting your handicap or better is only about 1 out of 4 rounds. So, the consistent player would beat out the streaky player 3 out of 4 times and to me they are not equally weighted players and not equally matched. I would rather know that it was pretty much 50/50 chance that I was able to win or lose a match against a guy with same handicap rather than 25/75% chance of winning a match.

 

To me, the range of scoring is not as accurate as average score. You can have fluke rounds good and bad but generally they are rare. All of the professional golf tours base their statistics on average score. So, why shouldn't the amateur ranks stats be equated the same way?

 

On indexed tournaments, low handicappers rarely have a chance against high handicappers. High handicappers have a much wider range to save more strokes. I never see low handicappers win indexed tournaments.

 

Currently, my handicap is 1.4 and my scoring range is 72-83. Adjusted differential range -0.3-9.0. So the average of the adjusted differential is 3.6. So, I would be a considered a 3.6 based on my average. To me, a 3.6 differential is really accurate assessment of my game. More so, than 1.4. My guess is a guy who shoots a scoring range of 78-90 is highly unlikely an 18 handicap and is more like a 10-12 handicap or less.

Where I disagree is you are thinking about your game only. You want to be a 4 hdcp with a 77 average because 1.4 seems to low to you. So if you play against someone who averages 88 he's a 16 even if his scoring span is 77-95. He has a much better chance of beating his average by a wide margin than you do. That trend would only increase as hdcp goes up. Your method would be tilting the indexes to reward higher average scores. You have a much better chance of beating that guy if you're both handicapped off your best scores the way the system does it currently. If you think high handicaps have a net advantage currently if the system changes to the average the advantage to higher handicaps would go through the roof.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[Kenny B]

The 14 I was playing shot Even par on the back nine. I said he was the best 14 hcp I've ever seen. I've Not seen a 14 hcp'er never miss a shot for 9 holes. He hit the middle of the fairway on every hole on the back nine. It was his "best" round eve as well. I call him sandbagging POS. I will say though, if winning means that much to you that you have to cheat to do it, then you can have it.

This is why I don't like playing in tournaments anymore.  I will play in a charity scramble if I like the charity, but no one likes a relatively short straight hitter in a scramble.

 

Yesterday, my wife and I played in a couples better ball and we played crappy.  I didn't really care, but we played with another couple that both shot better than their hcp.  The guy was a 20; hit most everything down the middle, and had a decent short game.  He shot +5 on the front nine and +9 on the back, but that +9 included a quad on the par 5 #18.  So, he was 6 shots better than his cap, and he would could have been 9 shots better.  They took second net to a 58!!  A 58 in couples better ball!!  How does that happen unless you are a sandbagger.

[PlaidJacket]

I seem to find myself going back and forth regarding handicaps. I'm not maintaining my hcp. this year. I finished 2016 with a 6 after dipping to a 5 for about 2 months last fall. I found myself chasing a number and letting it effect my game. Kind of like we do sometimes with our scores. So today I'm still a 6 in GHIN. Do I still play to a six? Sometimes. Like Kenny I've retired from tournament play except for our annual club championship (senior div.) in August. Otherwise I'd ditch the hcp. altogether. When the championship does arrive all the guys in the Senior division are grouped together in one flight. In past years no one had a hcp below a 5. As I recall the better rounds were scores in the mid to upper 70's. I can still play there on any given day... or two.

 

I have in years past tried to get the owners of my course to start a handicap committee of some sort but they aren't interested. I suggested to the Pro Staff that if a score isn't turned in after a round then the player on the tee sheet gets recorded with even par in GHIN. Again... no can do they say. I suppose the sandbaggers would get angry and not play in their tournaments. LOL

[Kor.A.Door]

I understand your point, however, it is much more rare that someone shoots their handicap or better. Shooting your handicap or better is only about 1 out of 4 rounds. So, the consistent player would beat out the streaky player 3 out of 4 times and to me they are not equally weighted players and not equally matched. I would rather know that it was pretty much 50/50 chance that I was able to win or lose a match against a guy with same handicap rather than 25/75% chance of winning a match.

 

To me, the range of scoring is not as accurate as average score. You can have fluke rounds good and bad but generally they are rare. All of the professional golf tours base their statistics on average score. So, why shouldn't the amateur ranks stats be equated the same way?

 

On indexed tournaments, low handicappers rarely have a chance against high handicappers. High handicappers have a much wider range to save more strokes. I never see low handicappers win indexed tournaments.

 

Currently, my handicap is 1.4 and my scoring range is 72-83. Adjusted differential range -0.3-9.0. So the average of the adjusted differential is 3.6. So, I would be a considered a 3.6 based on my average. To me, a 3.6 differential is really accurate assessment of my game. More so, than 1.4. My guess is a guy who shoots a scoring range of 78-90 is highly unlikely an 18 handicap and is more like a 10-12 handicap or less.

I disagree with this thinking. You said that if you play someone with the same hcp you would rather have a 50/50 chance, vs the 25/75 chance you feel you have. In this scenario, both of you have 25/75 chance, and both of you havea 75/25 chance as well, I believe that's 50/50. The hcp system is not based on average. There are 18 hcp folks that shoot 85-120. In the current system the 120 scores wouldnt count, I would hate to play against a guy who keeps the average that included a couple scores in the 110-120 range. Even though those are outlier scores. The hcp system is based on potential of a score you can achieve and have achieved, it doesn't count the outlier high because as you increase in ability your scores should go down. The best 10 scores of the last 20 rounds is a pretty fair assessment of what you are actually capable of doing on the golf course.

[PlaidJacket]

I failed to mention in my recent post. I don't play handicap golf. It's heads up. Especially since most of the time there's a wager on the match. Sure there have been times when I've been asked for a couple of strokes here and there. And I've done the same myself. But I know these guys around my course. And  we all know what everyone can shoot on any given day. I never walk up to the first tee and ask a stranger what his handicap is before I play. Who cares.... and besides; we're not betting. Just playing. I never gamble with a stranger.

[Crashtestdummy]

Where I disagree is you are thinking about your game only. You want to be a 4 hdcp with a 77 average because 1.4 seems to low to you. So if you play against someone who averages 88 he's a 16 even if his scoring span is 77-95. He has a much better chance of beating his average by a wide margin than you do. That trend would only increase as hdcp goes up. Your method would be tilting the indexes to reward higher average scores. You have a much better chance of beating that guy if you're both handicapped off your best scores the way the system does it currently. If you think high handicaps have a net advantage currently if the system changes to the average the advantage to higher handicaps would go through the roof.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using MyGolfSpy mobile app

 

 

I disagree with this thinking. You said that if you play someone with the same hcp you would rather have a 50/50 chance, vs the 25/75 chance you feel you have. In this scenario, both of you have 25/75 chance, and both of you havea 75/25 chance as well, I believe that's 50/50. The hcp system is not based on average. There are 18 hcp folks that shoot 85-120. In the current system the 120 scores wouldnt count, I would hate to play against a guy who keeps the average that included a couple scores in the 110-120 range. Even though those are outlier scores. The hcp system is based on potential of a score you can achieve and have achieved, it doesn't count the outlier high because as you increase in ability your scores should go down. The best 10 scores of the last 20 rounds is a pretty fair assessment of what you are actually capable of doing on the golf course.

 

That is fine you guys disagree. Here is my thinking. 

 

gaussman1,  I am not just thinking of my own score. I am thinking only of the odds. The way the current system is right now, you have better chances to be beat your handicap as your handicap increases because the wider range of saving strokes. I still think average score would be more accurate because most of your scores will close to your average. It would be very rare and an anomaly if you shoot your best score. All of the pro tours go off of average score. If you look at those scoring averages, they are very consistent with the rankings. Much more accurate. 

 

Kor, I think you are misunderstanding my statement. If you have two players with the same handicap (lets say scratch) and one player averages around 72 and one averages around 76. More times than not the player with the lower average will win. It would not be even odds. For another example, Sergio Garcia is #1 in scoring average right now  at 69.304 and Steven Bowditch is #202 at 74.841. Who would win most of the time in a match? In reality, both could very well have the same handicap but definitely Garcia would win most of the time. 

 

I like this debate.

[gaussman1]

I get what you're​ saying. I think we are trying to prove different points. The entire purpose for handicap is to give us a way to compete against players of different ability levels.That's is it's purpose. It is not to be an assessment of our own games. By using a scoring average this becomes more difficult to do as the worse a player the greater his disparity in scoring range. This means that you are tilting the advantage to a higher handicap in every single match because that player is capable of beating his average by a much greater degree than the better player. Of course he won't do it every time. But the potential to beat his number by a wide margin exists more for the weaker player using average.

All of the pro tours use scoring average to give an assessment of a players current form. Once again that is not what​ handicap is for. It is to allow us to compete against players of different abilities. I think it's more effectively done measuring your best 10 out of last 20. That is still an average, it's just your good average. But I do see your point and you have caused me to reflect on this more than I would have otherwise.

 

Sent from my Nexus 6P using MyGolfSpy mobile app