From a 5 to a 0, or from a 20 to a 5? Which is harder?

[Sluggo42]

Is it kind of like drag racing, ? when it's fairly easy to go from a 20 second car to a 12 second car.

But it brutally expensive to go from a 10 second car to a 7 second car

[jaskanski]

I assume you're talking about handicaps?

In which case I'd say that going from 5 to scratch is probably harder - in that you need to be a lot more consistent for a lot more of your time. 

[BIG STU]

I assume you're talking about handicaps?

In which case I'd say that going from 5 to scratch is probably harder - in that you need to be a lot more consistent for a lot more of your time. 

Yep you nailed it

[RickyBobby_PR]

The lower the hdcp the harder to go lower.

[GolfJunkie302]

Probably 5-0. At some point, you have to bottom out. The closer you get to that point, the harder it is to get there. This is a quick sketch of what I imagine the graph would look like:

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[00sportsman]

I would definitely agree going from a 20 to a 5 would be easier.

 

Sent from my XT1585 using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[forzabucks]

Well I guess this makes me feel better about one day hitting 5. 

[tony@CIC]

Well I guess this makes me feel better about one day hitting 5.

I'd love to be at 10 let alone 5

 

 

Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

[Charli]

If both players have the same dedication it's like trying to lose weight when your 350 pounds. It's very easy to shed pounds at that weight with very little effort

[revkev]

It would be very difficult to do either but around 15 percent obtain a five and fewer than 1 percent a zero so I'm thinking 5 to zero.

 

Best I could ever do was 5 to .8

 

Not great.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[GolfJunkie302]

.

Your graph shows it's essentially the same, when in reality the time involved on reaching scratch (except in very rare cases) would be much longer - and thus the bottom half of your curve should be much more drawn out from left to right.

Like I said, it's just a rough sketch with a stylus. But I still disagree. Here is a revised version. Same graph, I just added marks for time. To make it easy, each mark denotes one year, even though that probably isn't super accurate. As you can see on the graph, it would take one year to get from 20 to 5, and four years to get from 5 to 0. It makes sense to me, but I could be doing it wrong...

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[GolfJunkie302]

.

But that even lessens the accuracy of your graph, in comparison to the OP, because they didn't mention a time frame. ... And in the greater scheme of stats, there are few if any golfers during a 5 year period that go from never having played to a 20 to a 5, and the ones that go from 20 to scratch during that period are probably 1-in-10,000,000 ... Lesson being, when you draw graphs you have to show it relative to the bigger picture, and graphs ain't easy, and you're showing that there are just as many scratch golfers within 5 years as there are new golfers with 20s.

just sayin'

 

So something more like this, and this isn't even good. ... >

 

It must not be evident that I was using a stylus on a square drawing surface. This may come as a surprise, but it's kind of hard to get it perfect. As for my timeline, that obviously only begins at a 20 handicap. It clearly doesn't take into account anything before that point. It could take a golfer four years to get to a 20 handicap, then five after that to get to scratch. That's nine years total. But like I said, that isn't quite accurate. It would probably take longer.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[revkev]

It must not be evident that I was using a stylus on a square drawing surface. This may come as a surprise, but it's kind of hard to get it perfect. As for my timeline, that obviously only begins at a 20 handicap. It clearly doesn't take into account anything before that point. It could take a golfer four years to get to a 20 handicap, then five after that to get to scratch. That's nine years total. But like I said, that isn't quite accurate. It would probably take longer.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

Like never

 

99 percent of people who play golf never see scratch.

 

85 percent never see 5.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[Peanut05]

I'd have to say going from 5 to 0 is definitely harder.  I've been trying to get there for the past several years.  I got all the way down to a 2, and now back up to a 5-6.  I'm hoping one day I'll get there, but my patience is wearing thin.

[GolfJunkie302]

Like never

 

99 percent of people who play golf never see scratch.

 

85 percent never see 5.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Are we talking about a hack who just wants to have fun with his buds, or are we talking about somebody who's devoting time and money into reaching scratch? My graph depicts the latter. It was simply to show that it takes longer to go from 5-0 than it does 20-5. If you guys want, I can go back and delete my graphs so we aren't spreading misinformation on here.

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

[GregB135]

The biggest factor with establishing, maintaining, and lowering a handicap is time.  While the handicap index, and trend can help provide an estimate, it takes at least 20 recorded rounds to establish the handicap.

A beginning golfer, with moderate athleticism, and a little bit of practice, by the time the finally establish their handicap will likely be in the 20-25 range. 

From there it is a matter of dedication to practice, and how often they play and record scores to affect the handicap.

That same golfer with a lesson or two, one practice session, and one round per week could likely see their handicap move into the mid-teens over their next 20-25 rounds.

Moving the handicap lower than that, takes recording consistently lower and lower scores, and lots of time.

Overall, for the majority of us that can't dedicate hours every day to practice, and maintaining a consistent play schedule, much harder to go from 5 to scratch, than from 20 to 5. 

As stated several times, the vast majority of golfers won't ever get below about 10.

[Sluggo42]

Here's my thought...

 

It kind of goes back to whether any individual “has it”, or doesn't.

I don't see anyone ever getting to a 5 without having “it”, or basically the root skills and athleticism needed.

 

So as rev points out, the vast majority of players will never get to a 5, but semi decent players can get in the 15-20 range with a relative devotion to the game- say once or twice a week, and some form of practice. But I doubt they get much lower as their skill level bottoms out.

 

But those who do get to a 5, obviously have pretty good skills.

If that person devotes a reasonable amount of time to the right type of practice and training, along with some serious mental training, like course management and green reading skills, they have a higher chance of getting there.

 

But again- it's just how I see it...

[JAGolfore]

I agree with most here. Harder to go from 5-0. The strokes are harder to find and it's about playing good golf consistently.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[MDGolfHacker]

I dropped all the way down to a 7.8 but with even with playing more, haven't been down that low since. Throw some kids in the mix and now I'm floating between a 16-18HC. It was easy to go from a high handicap to single digits, but it seems like more effort and work to go from single to scratch in my experience.

 

MDGolfHacker

[poprocksncoke]

Had a friend that took up golf, within a year he worked his way down to an 8 handicap.  A couple years past and he couldn't go any lower, he got frustrated and just quit the game completely.

[RickyBobby_PR]

Like never

 

99 percent of people who play golf never see scratch.

 

85 percent never see 5.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

Most don't break 100.

[Zylem]

Woo hoo get to actually use some statistics stuff here. I would say it more difficult to get to zero. This is due to diminishing returns.

 

You will never progress faster and easier than you do when you first start something. That's because you really only have one way to go, up.

 

At some point, no matter you natural ability, you will hit the point of diminishing returns. Meaning X amount of time spent nets you less progress. Just a guess on my part but I would say the point that diminishing returns starts to hinder golfers around an 18 handicap. (Just guessing here based on that average USGA handicap statistic)

 

Another interesting piece to this puzzle that statistics plays a part in is the difficulty to remove one stroke increases as they average moves lower. This it because the weight of each stroke is higher the fewer there are. It's easier to shave 3 strokes off a 100 than it is off of a 75.

 

Sent from my Pixel using MyGolfSpy mobile app

[PMookie]

I was at a 5 and went back to a 7 in a year. 5 to zero has to be harder. Few chances for bad rounds.... The amount of time I'd have to devote to the game to have gotten 5 more strokes doesn't seem possible with a real life

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[Sluggo42]

I do not consider golf a sport , or even a pursuit which requires especially good athleticism. Size, strength, speed, excellent hand-eye coordination 

certainly don't harm a persons chances of shooting low golf scores, but the "athletic factors" are not a requirement like they are for baseball, basketball etc...

I've observed plenty of people without any noticeable athletic skills turn themselves into players who can shoot par 72. They did it through learning and practicing swing technique.

I've also observed exceptionally gifted athletes, including some who played other sports professionally, that chose to never learn correct golf technique. Despite their extraordinary speed, strength, coordination, and other athletic traits, this type player often struggle to break 90.

I thin one of the great aspects of golf is that just about anyone, if they learn and practice good sound fundamental technique, can strike consistently good shots and shoot low scores.

I would disagree heartily with this statement.

I don't feel that athleticism is limited to size and strength and the lot.

A basketball player is one type of athlete. But most basketball players can't play other sports- other than the rare power forward who plays tight end in football.

But they sure can't play baseball or hockey for example.

A baseball player generally is to small to play basketball or football, so does that mean they aren't athletes?

Golf is another type of athleticism which requires insane hand eye coordination, along with superior body control. Just because they aren't rippled with muscles doesn't mean they aren't extremely athletic. Plus they play for 4-5 hours per day, as well as a few hours it warmup and dialing themselves in.

And I can't say I've ever seen a scratch shooter who was an uncoordinated goof.

Again, just my opinion...

[silver & black]

It is harder to go from 5 to scratch, no doubt at all.

 

I was down to 8.6 a year ago. I ended that year at a 9.7. I'm sure I'm at least a 10 or 11 right now... maybe more. I just can't play or practice enough, and I don't have the extra money to take lessons anymore. I still enjoy playing, But I may never be a single digit again. Ya know what..... I don't care!

[Kenny B]

Like I said, it's just a rough sketch with a stylus. But I still disagree. Here is a revised version. Same graph, I just added marks for time. To make it easy, each mark denotes one year, even though that probably isn't super accurate. As you can see on the graph, it would take one year to get from 20 to 5, and four years to get from 5 to 0. It makes sense to me, but I could be doing it wrong...Project%20-%20Drawing%201262124523.png

 

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk

The time line is different for different people.  Most people will never get there; some could make it to scratch in a few years, maybe even a year or two with dedicated coaching and training.  

 

However, if you extend the graph out enough years, the curve starts to go back up.  Wherever you bottom out, the curve goes back up as you age.  I know.

[tony@CIC]

5 to scratch is not even on my horizon. If I can play in the mid 80's I'd be thrilled. I also want to be out having fun with the other guys/gals vs. e work it would take to get to single digits.

 

 

Sent from my iPad using MyGolfSpy

[robertson153]

I don't know any statistics here, but here's my story. I started golf around 2 years ago. Started around a high 18 to low 19, beginning of last spring it was down to a 16, at the end of last season it was around a 13. Fast forward to this year (2 solid months into this season) I'm at an even 10. By the end of this season (sometime in October) I expect to be around a 8. I'm self taught so I don't expect to get any lower without lessons and continually playing year round. Will I ever get to scratch? I highly doubt it. Time, money, and life in general will hinder my efforts. That doesn't mean I won't try. So to the OP, 20 to 5 is extremely hard for the average guy, 5 to 0 is all but impossible. I think the number is somewhere around 1.5% of golfers are scratch. For those of you that made graphs, you're both wrong. For 98.5% of us, it will NEVER happen.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using MyGolfSpy

[sgold7]

Got lessons to kick-start my golf career last August. My early-August rounds were in the 110 range. After just hitting the range hard after 4 hours of lessons last summer I started this march in the low-100s and am now consistently shooting in the mid-90s. I'm 27 and can hit it very long. I'm hoping my progression goes like this:

 

By end of this summer: Breaking 90 routinely

By this time next year: Shootign mid-80s routinely

By end of summer 2019: Handicap around 10

By end of summer 2020 (I'll be 29): Handicap around 5. 

 

I don't think it's feasible to think I can go from a 20hdcp to a 5 in one yeary---I think that the 2+ years until the end of the 2020 summer is realistic. Lets say I accomplish that---I'd say it would probably take 3 more years to get that hdcp down to 0, hopefully golfing a bit more in the process. 

[PING Apologist #9]

My 2-cents...

 

I was immersed in competitive target shooting for years in the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) using a service rifle (AR-15) across the National Match Course format (200, 300 & 600-yds w/open sights). As a former Marine, the AR-15/M-16 platform was VERY familiar to me and after only a year of shooting this format, I went right up into expert classification (89-93.99%). My primary goal in this sport was to not only become "distinguished", but also move classification up to at least Master (94-96.99%) or even to the elite High Master level (97% & above). 

 

To move up to Master, all I needed to do was be in the 10-ring by more than 94% of the time. My averages at the time were in the 91-93% range and I basically just needed to hit 3 or 4 more 10's or X's per match to move up, so easy right??? WRONG! I shot for over 12-years. I lived that sport from top-to-bottom, had the best equipment & ammunition available, became a coach, line judge, Match Director and even held board positions (V.P.) at my club. Despite all this, I was unable to obtain either of my goals.

 

Those higher levels are for the elite of the elite and even sometimes even with all the practice and training you can possibly sink into something that difficult, there are just some of us who wind up hitting some sort of weird barrier with our mental game, lack of sheer ability or talent.

 

The golf "Holy Grail" of 5-to-scratch has got to be similarly hard to obtain in my opinion. Judging on how hard it is for my formerly "athletic" self to just get below 100, I know it is.