Thoughts on Handicap

[richk9holes]

my whole point is how subjective of a topic it is.

[Javs]

6 minutes ago, gophergutz said:

I see you're just trying to start an(other) argument. And for what ?

You re-posted that pic/description and said nothing. So what was your point ?

The World Handicap System is the de facto standard around the WORLD.  You want to do something different ? Knock yourself out. Please.

It's not like there aren't plenty of game organizers who make up their own games (quotas/points/ridiculous swings in "handicaps" for a single good round, and all sorts of other ways, without using the WHS,,,,,,,, and think they know better than the world wide golf organizations who have crunched literally tens of MILLIONS (or more) of rounds to come up with a workable way to make a fair game.

But you, and others who've "played a lot" think you know better. Fat chance. So go ahead and play with yourselves any way you want.

I'm giving you the official WHS as it's used in the USA.

You want to make your own ? Fine. Enjoy yourself.

Watching you guys go back and forth made me wonder. Out of curiosity I did look up and noticed the Texas State System is under the USGA GHIN and the WHS. I’m feeling better about having that drink now, ha ha

[richk9holes]

We're all discussing how subjective it is. The ghin # you pay for is even subjective to a degree and to a degree inaccurate. To what degree? How much more? Idk, I'm not the one making assertions besides asserting that this is all subjective.

The people responding to this OP are doing so from a variety of index systems, it adds to the subjectivity along with every other factor everyone referenced. 

@gophergutz you need to win arguments that much? This thread was never about the rules of the official world index. I am surely wrong about everything I said if we're discussing professionals and competition-level players using the world handicap index.

How many of them are reading this thread vs. hackers trying to get from 20 to 10 on a most likely inaccurate number self-calculated or hastily calculated to join a scramble?

 

[Javs]

Hey like I said earlier, I just play and post. I use the system my club tells me. I put the lotion in the basket. I try my best to follow all their rules. Accurate or not we all play under the same rules here and that’s good enough for me. Plus it is USGA approved. Most important I try even harder to have fun and improve my game. I hope you guys enjoy the game as well!

[gophergutz]

14 minutes ago, richk9holes said:

We're all discussing how subjective it is. The ghin # you pay for is even subjective to a degree and to a degree inaccurate. To what degree? How much more? Idk, I'm not the one making assertions besides asserting that this is all subjective.

The people responding to this OP are doing so from a variety of index systems, it adds to the subjectivity along with every other factor everyone referenced. 

@gophergutz you need to win arguments that much? This thread was never about the rules of the official world index. I am surely wrong about everything I said if we're discussing professionals and competition-level players using the world handicap index.

How many of them are reading this thread vs. hackers trying to get from 20 to 10 on a most likely inaccurate number self-calculated or hastily calculated to join a scramble?

 

*I* need to win an argument ?

That's laughable.

And like so many others, when you can't refute something, you move the goalposts. You say "This thread was never about the rules of the official world index" ? Meanwhile the title of the thread is "Thoughts on Handicap". LMAO

I'm no expert but I'm thinking discussing the WHS is at least kinda sorta related. LOL

Let me recap. It "morphed" into a discussion of handicaps and how they're (USGA/GHIN in my case) arrived at due to some new guy saying "if a guy shoots 5 over par every round he's a 5 handicap" (or some such - I'm too lazy to go back and look). Clearly not understanding the basics of the handicap system.

From THERE it became a discussion of the WHS vs. whatever it is you do. I'm sorry you don't like the WHS and feel it's so subjective. But subjective or not, the ENTIRE ORGANIZED GOLFING world has signed off on it.

Enjoy your evening.

 

[richk9holes]

1 hour ago, gophergutz said:

LOL

I'm still trying to find something worth having that costs nothing.

If one is a casual golfer just out to have fun, plays with/against one's buddies, one can do whatever one wants, no ?

If one wants to progress to more formal events one often needs a "recognized" handicap. My understanding is that some associations around the country, as well as apps (Grint ?) will do handicaps as well but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you'd have to join them,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and they charge too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

This is your moving goal post moment, not lazy to go back read and even quote.

Your need to make the thread about formal scoring and having a "need to progress" 

Hmm progress to being a ____? You tell me?

You assumed everyone responding to this is paying for ghin. I know better and pointed that out, along with a resource for those who also don't pay for one.

Anyway, I'm moving on. Not going to gain the next reputation accomplishment on the forum with this tit for tat.

[Shinnman]

Data doesn’t lie.  With Arccos and shot scope they have so much data that it says it all.  I don’t disagree as to how difficult it is for a 20 handicap to string along 18 holes without blowing up.  Same goes for a 5.  I have a friend who is a 3 and is consistent, but he isn’t shooting a 68.

[gophergutz]

20 hours ago, richk9holes said:

This is your moving goal post moment, not lazy to go back read and even quote.

Your need to make the thread about formal scoring and having a "need to progress" 

Hmm progress to being a ____? You tell me?

You assumed everyone responding to this is paying for ghin. I know better and pointed that out, along with a resource for those who also don't pay for one.

Anyway, I'm moving on. Not going to gain the next reputation accomplishment on the forum with this tit for tat.

 

How did I KNOW a post like this would await ? LMAO

 

I already told you how it/I got to discuss GHIN handicapping and how "handicap" is IN THE TITLE of the thread. You choose to ignore it and accuse me of a need to discuss "formal scoring" and you make up something called a "need to progress". LMAO

I assumed NO SUCH THING as "everybody responding is paying for GHIN".

And you're worried about reputation ? Now THAT is hilarious.

 

As for the posted chart in the OP, once again, it doesn't mean anything without at least a value for "par", but much more importantly course rating and slope.

According to that chart, a scratch player should shoot 70 once every 6 months. Really ? What if par was 70 ? Then it might be once every 2-4 rounds. How about 68 ? Once every 2nd or 3rd round ?

At my old club I shot 70 or better every other WEEKMy handicap was between 2-4. Par was 67. Course rating was 65.7, slope 115.

So tell me how much anyone should rely on that chart.

Actually, no need.

 

[richk9holes]

37 minutes ago, gophergutz said:

 

How did I KNOW a post like this would await ? LMAO

 

I already told you how it/I got to discuss GHIN handicapping and how "handicap" is IN THE TITLE of the thread. You choose to ignore it and accuse me of a need to discuss "formal scoring" and you make up something called a "need to progress". LMAO

I assumed NO SUCH THING as "everybody responding is paying for GHIN".

And you're worried about reputation ? Now THAT is hilarious.

 

As for the posted chart in the OP, once again, it doesn't mean anything without at least a value for "par", but much more importantly course rating and slope.

According to that chart, a scratch player should shoot 70 once every 6 months. Really ? What if par was 70 ? Then it might be once every 2-4 rounds. How about 68 ? Once every 2nd or 3rd round ?

At my old club I shot 70 or better every other WEEKMy handicap was between 2-4. Par was 67. Course rating was 65.7, slope 115.

So tell me how much anyone should rely on that chart.

Actually, no need.

 

I'll try one more time from this angle. I have a Trackman index number. I COULD be looking at this post assessing the chart from the standpoint of a 6.8 and saying hmm how long would it take me to shoot 70 indoors with autoputting. Different scenario, see?

I must have read over where the Thread Title says "index" or "recognized" "ghin" or "whs" but I must be reading wrong. Oh wait, that's you... @gophergutzalready argued with Invee bc you read his post wrong, then didn't read Javs sarcasm and accidently argued with him.

Spark league has lateral drops with gimme inside the leather. Plenty of people have a number in their head of their handicap from their results in their 9 hole twilight league.

Some people play mulligans on both sides amongst their money group and have a handicap amongst themselves.

The word "handicap" is not owned by ghin, and as I said previously if they want to be a standard bearer and grow the game they should provide their service free and have an advertising model for revenues. 

But then folks wouldn't be able to ramble about "official" and "recognized" with your lied about anyway results. It might take joy away from some folks if they couldn't look down on anyone who doesn't use their subscription service that obviously 99% of the general public uses because you pay for it.

[richk9holes]

23 hours ago, gophergutz said:

LOL

I'm still trying to find something worth having that costs nothing.

If one is a casual golfer just out to have fun, plays with/against one's buddies, one can do whatever one wants, no ?

If one wants to progress to more formal events one often needs a "recognized" handicap. My understanding is that some associations around the country, as well as apps (Grint ?) will do handicaps as well but,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, you'd have to join them,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, and they charge too. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"If/then" statement FTL

[richk9holes]

And your par 67 home course, very anecdotal. Red flag 15 yards, bad argumentation.

I guess 99% of golfers play par 67s right? Cause you did, once upon a time. Everyone is gonna reflect on that chart as...hey this doesn't jive with my par 67 experience... Nailed it.

You're not explaining anything everyone here doesn't already know about course handicap vs. handicap index. I made the same exact point you did pages ago, comment starts with "where it gets wonky..."

[gophergutz]

20 hours ago, richk9holes said:

I'll try one more time from this angle. I have a Trackman index number. I COULD be looking at this post assessing the chart from the standpoint of a 6.8 and saying hmm how long would it take me to shoot 70 indoors with autoputting. Different scenario, see?

I must have read over where the Thread Title says "index" or "recognized" "ghin" or "whs" but I must be reading wrong. Oh wait, that's you... @gophergutzalready argued with Invee bc you read his post wrong, then didn't read Javs sarcasm and accidently argued with him.

Spark league has lateral drops with gimme inside the leather. Plenty of people have a number in their head of their handicap from their results in their 9 hole twilight league.

Some people play mulligans on both sides amongst their money group and have a handicap amongst themselves.

The word "handicap" is not owned by ghin, and as I said previously if they want to be a standard bearer and grow the game they should provide their service free and have an advertising model for revenues. 

But then folks wouldn't be able to ramble about "official" and "recognized" with your lied about anyway results. It might take joy away from some folks if they couldn't look down on anyone who doesn't use their subscription service that obviously 99% of the general public uses because you pay for it.

Firstly, I have no idea what a Trackman index number is. Are you bringing irrelevant information to the thread ?

This is what happens when someone like yourslf can't rebut an argument. You ignore it and just move onto more silly accusations and misrepresentations.

e.g. You earlier accused me of assuming "everybody responding is paying for GHIN" I claimed I said no such thing. Your response to that ? Crickets. Why ? Becasue you probably realized I said no such thing.

I suggested (again) the chart was ridiculous and said "According to that chart, a scratch player should shoot 70 once every 6 months. Really ? What if par was 70 ? Then it might be once every 2-4 rounds. How about 68 ? Once every 2nd or 3rd round ?"

And I gave you a perfect example of just how wrong the chart actually is.

Did you answer/address any of that ? You know, other than insinuationg rounds on a par 67 have nothing to do with the fallacy of the chart and with your Trackman index of 6.8 with autoputting.

Then you start talking about something called "Spark League" and telling me/us about people taking mulligans and making up their own handicaps. Who cares ? I never discalimed ANY of that.

The word "handicap" isn't owned by GHIN ? Who said it was ? Just more obfuscation on your part. 

What next ? Going to accuse me of saying we didn't land on the moon ?

 

Now, if you never answer ANYTHING (else) I write, kindly tell me what you believe I "lied" about.

 

17 hours ago, richk9holes said:

And your par 67 home course, very anecdotal. Red flag 15 yards, bad argumentation.

I guess 99% of golfers play par 67s right? Cause you did, once upon a time. Everyone is gonna reflect on that chart as...hey this doesn't jive with my par 67 experience... Nailed it.

You're not explaining anything everyone here doesn't already know about course handicap vs. handicap index. I made the same exact point you did pages ago, comment starts with "where it gets wonky..."

Now the football cliches ?  Just full of misdirection, ain't ya ?

No, not anecdotal at all. It's FACT. I could prove it to you if it really came down to it as my ex-club keeps records back over 50 years,,,,,,,,, but then you'd simply look at the records and say I made 'em up.

And, not that I'm surprised, you continually miss the point. The point is that chart is WRONG because it talks about a "career score" vs. a finite number, as if every golf course has the same par rating.

Everyone here knows about course handicap vs course rating ? Clearly the newbie who wrote 5 over par is a 5 handicap (paraphrasing here) that I originally posted the Tiger facepam to had no clue - and he wasn't the only one.

You said earlier "Where it gets wonky is with course ratings, but the chart is applicable for people who play a majority of their golf at a home course and have their handicap index based off that same course".  So you're basically "admitting" the chart is wrong. Congrats !!! You finbally, though accidentally, got it right - the chart is wrong.

But that's the POINT. That chart makes NO reference to either index nor course rating nor even PAR. So NOTHING can be extrapolated vis-a-vis an absolute #. A scratch shooting 70 could be 2 UNDER or 2 OVER. That's the point I am making with a lower than usual par rating and number shot. Clearly it's much easier to shoot "70" on a par 67 than a par 72.

 

 

[richk9holes]

42 minutes ago, gophergutz said:

Firstly, I have no idea what a Trackman index number is. Are you bringing irrelevant information to the thread ?

This is what happens when someone like yourslf can't rebut an argument. You ignore it and just move onto more silly accusations and misrepresentations.

e.g. You earlier accused me of assuming "everybody responding is paying for GHIN" I claimed I said no such thing. Your response to that ? Crickets. Why ? Becasue you probably realized I said no such thing.

I suggested (again) the chart was ridiculous and said "According to that chart, a scratch player should shoot 70 once every 6 months. Really ? What if par was 70 ? Then it might be once every 2-4 rounds. How about 68 ? Once every 2nd or 3rd round ?"

And I gave you a perfect example of just how wrong the chart actually is.

Did you answer/address any of that ? You know, other than insinuationg rounds on a par 67 have nothing to do with the fallacy of the chart and with your Trackman index of 6.8 with autoputting.

Then you start talking about something called "Spark League" and telling me/us about people taking mulligans and making up their own handicaps. Who cares ? I never discalimed ANY of that.

The word "handicap" isn't owned by GHIN ? Who said it was ? Just more obfuscation on your part. 

What next ? Going to accuse me of saying we didn't land on the moon ?

 

Now, if you never answer ANYTHING (else) I write, kindly tell me what you believe I "lied" about.

 

Now the football cliches ?  Just full of misdirection, ain't ya ?

No, not anecdotal at all. It's FACT. I could prove it to you if it really came down to it as my ex-club keeps records back over 50 years,,,,,,,,, but then you'd simply look at the records and say I made 'em up.

And, not that I'm surprised, you continually miss the point. The point is that chart is WRONG because it talks about a "career score" vs. a finite number, as if every golf course has the same par rating.

Everyone here knows about course handicap vs course rating ? Clearly the newbie who wrote 5 over par is a 5 handicap (paraphrasing here) that I originally posted the Tiger facepam to had no clue - and he wasn't the only one.

You said earlier "Where it gets wonky is with course ratings, but the chart is applicable for people who play a majority of their golf at a home course and have their handicap index based off that same course".  So you're basically "admitting" the chart is wrong. Congrats !!! You finbally, though accidentally, got it right - the chart is wrong.

But that's the POINT. That chart makes NO reference to either index nor course rating nor even PAR. So NOTHING can be extrapolated vis-a-vis an absolute #. A scratch shooting 70 could be 2 UNDER or 2 OVER. That's the point I am making with a lower than usual par rating and number shot. Clearly it's much easier to shoot "70" on a par 67 than a par 72.

 

 

 

[richk9holes]

"Firstly, I have no idea what a Trackman index number is. Are you bringing irrelevant information to the thread ?"

■Trackman index is a handicap you'd use to compete with people on indoor simulation courses. You find it irrelevant to the chart about handicaps, showing you are the supreme point-misser and projector extraordinaire. It's an index Trackman keeps for me complimentary when I play rounds indoors offseason, when your scoring doesn't happen because the rules you follow. I have one. You have a ghin. Congrats. Also those who cry-laugh emoji are the worst internet denizens, LOL and LMAO to start a response are another tell. If you want to blend in here and not be ignored as a troll you should do less.

"You earlier accused me of assuming "everybody responding is paying for GHIN" I claimed I said no such thing. Your response to that ? Crickets.  Why ? Becasue you probably realized I said no such thing."

■You did read "handicap" in the title and immediately respond to everything from a ghin recognized index related perspective. Yes. You. Did. Remember IF...one weren't paying for ghin then your calculator blah blah

"You said earlier "Where it gets wonky is with course ratings, but the chart is applicable for people who play a majority of their golf at a home course and have their handicap index based off that same course".  So you're basically "admitting" the chart is wrong. Congrats !!! You finbally, though accidentally, got it right - the chart is wrong."

■I and others already commented on course handicaps and varying pars long before you added that to your diatribe. I wouldn't respond to something I addressed previously, read back. You added no substance just attitude.

"Clearly the newbie who wrote 5 over par is a 5 handicap (paraphrasing here) that I originally posted the Tiger facepam to had no clue - and he wasn't the only one."

■The truth is you were wrong and confused there. That "newbie" knows math. As irrational as it might be in practice, IF someone posted 20 scores of +5 in a row at a course with a difficult rating/slope they WOULD be a +5 handicap most likely. That's not how it USUALLY works because of random chance and human fallacy. But the same as a coin toss landing heads 20 straight times, it's mathematically viable as much as it is not likely to occur. That individual is too polite to respond to you. I enjoy this so ill gladly rub it in that his math was right 20/20 times. He didn't specify some elements but you don't get to make them up and argue him about what he didn't say.

"You know, other than insinuationg rounds on a par 67 have nothing to do with the fallacy of the chart"

■A par 67 is an anecdote in the library of golf courses. The fact you as an individual joined one is in fact THE DEFINITION of anecdote. I encourage you look up how many golf courses in the world, then how many par 67s. Similar to the number of people with 6 fingers I'm guessing.

"And, not that I'm surprised, you continually miss the point. The point is that chart is WRONG because it talks about a "career score" vs. a finite number, as if every golf course has the same par rating."

■I said previously that the chart is more applicable to those who play all or most their golf at a home course in similar conditions and each variation on that adds more stink to the equation like a data onion. Look back, it's the data onion metaphor you read over. So I made that point, didn't miss it. Why are you trolling?

"Then you start talking about something called "Spark League" and telling me/us about people taking mulligans and making up their own handicaps"

■+/- 2 stroke examples to show how all of it is subjective but within a range of accurate. Mulligan per side, lying about OB or not, taking 4 putts inside 26" instead of missing 2 of them. These are all +/- 2 adjustments rather than disqualifying of this as data. I'll throw in par 70 vs. 72 as well, not par 67 which is an outlandish outlier only usable for bad argumentation, +/- to the degree of accuracy, not exclusionary of being accurate was my point, you probably will refuse to accept still.

 

[HeathS16]

This is spot on.  As a 5 handicap I ALWAYS feel 132 years away from a 68. 

[richk9holes]

18 minutes ago, HeathS16 said:

This is spot on.  As a 5 handicap I ALWAYS feel 132 years away from a 68. 

If you shoot 72 a couple times in 6 months, your index might be better than a 5 at that point and your chances of shooting 68 get better. If you don't it will be worse and you're looking at a different part of the chart. 

That's the way to look at it to have it make sorta sense. Not that I'm going to have it tattooed on my back and tailbone at this point. I feel like the chart's irrational lover.

[richk9holes]

0 handicap who shoots 70 a couple times in 6 months at a difficult par 72 will be a negative index and no longer fall in the "wait X years to shoot 68" of the 0 handicap category because they won't be a 0 handicap shooting under par.

This all requires a level of imagination to get what the chart implies because it's a freaking meme on the internet.

 

[HeathS16]

14 minutes ago, richk9holes said:

If you shoot 72 a couple times in 6 months, your index might be better than a 5 at that point and your chances of shooting 68 get better. If you don't it will be worse and you're looking at a different part of the chart. 

That's the way to look at it to have it make sorta sense. Not that I'm going to have it tattooed on my back and tailbone at this point. I feel like the chart's irrational lover.

Oh for sure. I just feel that the chart may not capture the emotional/mental state of the 5 handicapper. But I suppose that isn't the point of the chart anyways.   

I do like discussions on these types of things, keeps things fun and interesting. 

[jaz29]

LOL, we just had this discussion in my golf league as we have a 15HDCP (8 for our 9 hole league) that shoots 40-43 a few times (always against me of course). I think the numbers are not accurate as a player can find a course that fits them. I never judge a player by their handicap as I look at where they play. A friend of mine is a 14 and I am a 9. I play a public course and he plays Pinehurst every day. While I understand that the index should represent the difference, I feel that his would come down and mine would go up if we switched home courses.

[Tom the Golf Nut]

5 minutes ago, jaz29 said:

LOL, we just had this discussion in my golf league as we have a 15HDCP (8 for our 9 hole league) that shoots 40-43 a few times (always against me of course). I think the numbers are not accurate as a player can find a course that fits them. I never judge a player by their handicap as I look at where they play. A friend of mine is a 14 and I am a 9. I play a public course and he plays Pinehurst every day. While I understand that the index should represent the difference, I feel that his would come down and mine would go up if we switched home courses.

There is a course handicap calculator that will tell you what your handicap is for a particular course. You enter your handicap, course rating, slope rating and what par is. Then hit the calculate button. 

Course Handicap™ Calculator (usga.org)

[gophergutz]

On 5/15/2023 at 9:06 PM, richk9holes said:

"Firstly, I have no idea what a Trackman index number is. Are you bringing irrelevant information to the thread ?"

■Trackman index is a handicap you'd use to compete with people on indoor simulation courses. You find it irrelevant to the chart about handicaps, showing you are the supreme point-misser and projector extraordinaire. It's an index Trackman keeps for me complimentary when I play rounds indoors offseason, when your scoring doesn't happen because the rules you follow. I have one. You have a ghin. Congrats. Also those who cry-laugh emoji are the worst internet denizens, LOL and LMAO to start a response are another tell. If you want to blend in here and not be ignored as a troll you should do less.

So Trackman IS relevant to the thread IYO ? LOL Ok, got it.

 

"You earlier accused me of assuming "everybody responding is paying for GHIN" I claimed I said no such thing. Your response to that ? Crickets.  Why ? Becasue you probably realized I said no such thing."

■You did read "handicap" in the title and immediately respond to everything from a ghin recognized index related perspective. Yes. You. Did. Remember IF...one weren't paying for ghin then your calculator blah blah

More shuckin' and jivin'. And crickets. Talk about blah, blah, blah. LOL

So where did I "assume everybody was paying for GHIN" again ? Or was that just your ass-ump-tion ? You know what happens when we ass-u-me, right ? LMAO

 

Keep making stuff up. My FIRST post in the thread was to the gentleman who suggested

a) that handicap is a reflection of a golfer's potential and not the golfer's average score"

That was the OLD USGA Handicap system's verbiage. Since the WHS in 2020 It is no longer one's potential but one's "demonstrated ability".

AND

b) 5 over par was a 5 handicap. While that IS a possible differential/index, it would be incredibly coincidental and rather unlikely.

THAT led to the ensuing "discussion" on GHIN - totally within the framework of the title. Can't help it if you, or others, don't agree and/or don't understand it.

 

On 5/15/2023 at 9:06 PM, richk9holes said:

"You said earlier "Where it gets wonky is with course ratings, but the chart is applicable for people who play a majority of their golf at a home course and have their handicap index based off that same course".  So you're basically "admitting" the chart is wrong. Congrats !!! You finbally, though accidentally, got it right - the chart is wrong."

■I and others already commented on course handicaps and varying pars long before you added that to your diatribe. I wouldn't respond to something I addressed previously, read back. You added no substance just attitude.

Hardly a diatribe but I've already noticed your penchant for hyperbole and out-and-out misrepresentation. LMAO

And I'll simply note that you have made ZERO references (that I remember) about the absence of course rating OR slope to the numbers on the chart - and THAT is why the chart makes ZERO sense.

Your wonky post was3 PAGES later "Where it gets wonky is with course ratings, but the chart is applicable for people who play a majority of their golf at a home course and have their handicap index based off that same course. Every layer of discrepancy from that adds a layer of stink much like a data onion."

Really ? And where was THAT referenced ? Did I miss it on the chart ? Or are you ASSuming again ? <--- that's a rhetorical question btw.

 

On 5/15/2023 at 9:06 PM, richk9holes said:

"Clearly the newbie who wrote 5 over par is a 5 handicap (paraphrasing here) that I originally posted the Tiger facepam to had no clue - and he wasn't the only one."

■The truth is you were wrong and confused there. That "newbie" knows math. As irrational as it might be in practice, IF someone posted 20 scores of +5 in a row at a course with a difficult rating/slope they WOULD be a +5 handicap most likely. That's not how it USUALLY works because of random chance and human fallacy. But the same as a coin toss landing heads 20 straight times, it's mathematically viable as much as it is not likely to occur. That individual is too polite to respond to you. I enjoy this so ill gladly rub it in that his math was right 20/20 times. He didn't specify some elements but you don't get to make them up and argue him about what he didn't say.

Wrong, I am not confused in the least, see above. While it's possible on some course(s) 5 over par COULD be a 5.0 differential, IMO, it's highly unlikely.

The course RATING would have to be about the same as par AND the slope would have to be right around 113. I believe that to be a very rare occurrence; at least on courses I've played on. 

Generally speaking, when the rating is right at par, the slope is considerably higher than 113 on the courses I've played; resulting in a differential lower than 5, likely somewhere in the 4.5 area.

 

On 5/15/2023 at 9:06 PM, richk9holes said:

"You know, other than insinuationg rounds on a par 67 have nothing to do with the fallacy of the chart"

■A par 67 is an anecdote in the library of golf courses. The fact you as an individual joined one is in fact THE DEFINITION of anecdote. I encourage you look up how many golf courses in the world, then how many par 67s. Similar to the number of people with 6 fingers I'm guessing.

Just guessing here but I assume you mean "anomaly", no ? It was originally a par 72 (I think) but the city chopped up a large portion for housing - so 67 it is.

Anywho, while you're no doubt right about a par 67 being an anomaly, the average length of a full shot (disregarding the 36 putts) there is 184 yards, slightly longer than a 6300 yard par 71 course. So, it's hardly irrelevant to the point.

But, as you already KNOW, it was just to make the point that the chart is WRONG. Is the chart based on par 72 ? 71 ? 70 ? 73? There are plenty of those around.

The link I posted to a similar, but far more relevant chart on the Pope of Slope website is worthwhile as it's based on differentials where rating and slope come into play. Without par, rating, and slope a score of 70/75/80 is meaningless.

Is 75 a great score ? Maybe from the tips at Pinehurst #2. On a wide-open easy par 70 ? Not so much. Without including CR & slope how can you tell ? Correct, you can't.

 

On 5/15/2023 at 9:06 PM, richk9holes said:

"Then you start talking about something called "Spark League" and telling me/us about people taking mulligans and making up their own handicaps"

■+/- 2 stroke examples to show how all of it is subjective but within a range of accurate. Mulligan per side, lying about OB or not, taking 4 putts inside 26" instead of missing 2 of them. These are all +/- 2 adjustments rather than disqualifying of this as data. I'll throw in par 70 vs. 72 as well, not par 67 which is an outlandish outlier only usable for bad argumentation, +/- to the degree of accuracy, not exclusionary of being accurate was my point, you probably will refuse to accept still.

 

And of course, more obfuscation.

So where was it I "lied" again ? Or did I miss where you answered me ?

[gophergutz]

On 5/16/2023 at 12:36 AM, richk9holes said:

If you shoot 72 a couple times in 6 months, your index might be better than a 5 at that point and your chances of shooting 68 get better. If you don't it will be worse and you're looking at a different part of the chart. 

That's the way to look at it to have it make sorta sense. Not that I'm going to have it tattooed on my back and tailbone at this point. I feel like the chart's irrational lover.

Finally !!! NOW you've got it !!! LMAO

[richk9holes]

On 5/13/2023 at 7:06 PM, gophergutz said:

Off-season scores are not post-able for handicap purposes so the yardages are irrelevant.

In the northeast the season generally starts around April 1 and ends Oct 31 (give or take a week or 2).

Well, here you responded as if everyone uses ghin, didn't you?

[richk9holes]

On 5/12/2023 at 6:24 AM, Tallwood88 said:

There are so many variables to consider if this were to be taken at face value. Shot differential would be a better place to start. 

I have a match tomorrow against a 20-handicap player. Any bets that he shoots his best score in 12 years?

 

Follow-up - I won my match 1 up after going 5 down. 

This was the 2nd response. Shot differential would be a better place. An excellent point, made very early on.

When I'm contributing in these threads I don't rush in with my argument like a chatbot I actually see what points have been made already.

[richk9holes]

And when I say an anecdote in the library of golf courses, it's a turn of phrase meaning hey here's a story about a par 67. That 1 story in a library of books about golf courses. Oh well I have an anecdotal par 67 that's perfect for arguing against this chart that I'm going to strawman the heck out of. 

+/-1 or 2 all over the place. All the data stinks, but it falls under a margin of error. Your par 67? Oh well duh! Of course I shoot 70 all the time, I was member at a par 67. Convenient that. Useful even.

[richk9holes]

The point is the specifics don't matter in an approximation. Which is what your handicap is anyway, an approximation. This chart is making prognostication based on approximation. 

Everyone raise your hand if you're shocked that we can invent ways to poke holes in it if we imagine the unstated elements.

[richk9holes]

"But then folks wouldn't be able to ramble about "official" and "recognized" with your lied about anyway results. It might take joy away from some folks if they couldn't look down on anyone who doesn't use their subscription service that obviously 99% of the general public uses because you pay for it."

 

And it took me days to figure out what you were talking about @gophergutz

That statement starts with "folks" which is a general colloquial term meaning people in general. If you took it personally perhaps I touched a nerve.

Yes, pretentious people who talk about "recognized" handicaps are super proud of a system of approximations based partly on lies about results on the golf course. I never said you do anything in particular besides troll. But "folks" certainly lie about lateral drops and improved lies, breakfast balls mulligans and the whole spectrum of ways to not count a stroke. There's a host of justifications that go along with all of them. 

So you can chill asking where you lied every time I log in here. I never said you did. Reading is fundamental.

[FallenSaber]

Remember that handicap is a reflection of a golfer's potential and not the golfer's average score.  A 5-handicap has the potential to shoot five over par approximately once in every four rounds.  If she/he is routinely shooting five over par then they are probably a lower handicap (or, a sandbagger ).
Chris Nickel wrote this article based last year using Grint data: https://mygolfspy.com/news-opinion/golf-performance-by-handicap/

This makes a lot of sense. I was viewing it as one's average score. Thanks for the insight!

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[FallenSaber]

What is the source of that chart? Someone just making it up?  
 
Lou Stagner, Data Analyst at Arccos (@LouStagnerGolf) publish something similar recently, but it was more detailed, and broken down by percentages, not months/years. I’m guessing someone took his work, applied some low number for number of rounds per year , like maybe 20 or 30 rounds, and inaccurately extrapolated real data to something wholly unbelievable.
I’m a 10 handicap. Shot a 75 last week, a 70 2 months ago, and a 66 (personal best) 2 years ago. But I play 200-220 rounds a year, so the frequency of having a very good round will occur more often in a year, than someone who plays 20 rounds a year.

I found it on Reddit without much context other than how to identify a sandbagger.

Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk

[richk9holes]

On 5/16/2023 at 9:45 AM, jaz29 said:

LOL, we just had this discussion in my golf league as we have a 15HDCP (8 for our 9 hole league) that shoots 40-43 a few times (always against me of course). I think the numbers are not accurate as a player can find a course that fits them. I never judge a player by their handicap as I look at where they play. A friend of mine is a 14 and I am a 9. I play a public course and he plays Pinehurst every day. While I understand that the index should represent the difference, I feel that his would come down and mine would go up if we switched home courses.

What is the par for the 9 holes you're playing? 36 or 37 I'm assuming.

My question for everyone is how many times would you let someone shoot a net -4 or 5 or better on 9 holes before gently reminding them that handicaps can be updated? Is this a case where 9 hole scores aren't being counted and the 15 hcp is based off full 18 hole scores but the golfer carrying it is incapable of putting a clean 18 holes together? 

I'd probably ask that they include the league scores in their differentials and recalculate at some point, but is that a conversation for after the season? Let them win and disinvite?