How to be a 5 handicap averaging 84

[JeffreySpicoli]

I understand all the math, theory, potential, etc....of the current system.

 

From the real world I just know that when my index was around 10-11, I had little chance of winning a tournament. Now that the index is lower, I have no chance. Every tournament features an odds defying sandbagger posting a net 63 or whatever. There is no way I can post a net 63 without divine intervention.

 

I also know from the real world, the UK system is tends to be more reflective of the real world. Sure, you can have the excuse of not playing for awhile and being a bit rusty, but a regularly playing chap shoots his index or better a lot more than what is represented here. I got waxed everyday in Scotland playing against a guy with the "same index" as me.

 

I also like how my pro friends refuse to give me 2 or 3 a side and their excuses, makes maintaining an index really worth it. If it wasn't for the discounted fees at Poppy Ridge and Poppy Hills, I wouldn't bother with an index. Everyone I have played with on a regular basis, I know if they are a solid 70s, 80s, or 90s player, and even the guys who have real potential to be in the 60s, so it's easy to line up a fair game without breaking out the GHIN cards.

 

Also, it became a lot easier to line up games on the first tee when the stakes were lowered. When the most you can lose is $20-30, people don't get all worked up over strokes.

 

Sounds like you've an issue with sandbagging rather than the system.

[JeffreySpicoli]

Would you say that the expectation to break handicap 20-25% of the time actually happens Matthew?

 

According to the USGA research, a golfer with a legitimate handicap--note the word legitimate as it doesn't not include vanity handicappers & sandbaggers--will match or beat their course handicap 20-25% of the time. I seem to remember 15% quoted once too from the research but my memory could well be incorrect.

 

While I have not seen the data that makes up the USGA research, I assume that it's wide-ranging data.

[OrangeBlood]

The system isn't flawed it's the liars in the world that make it seemed flawed. The system is only as good as WE honest golfers make it.

 

I just played with 2 guys that said they were 12hc's....now either they both had really bad days, or they are lying out of their teeth. I shot an 88(putting was terrible)...they shot 102, 101.

[philfan316]

That is why I like the "risk" betting format, because potential is not definite and someone that is up and down with their scores is not going to have a 20% chance of shooting their handicap. It varies from day to day, based on feel. The percentage might be a 75% chance that they will shoot their handicap or 10% if they are experiencing muscle tightness from a lack of exercise.

 

You can change odds to how you feel, but you can't change your rock solid 7 that is from a group of scores that came 3 months ago, when you weren't so tied up at the office.

 

I like the risk format that you've outlined. But it seems like it works best when the players know each other.

 

As far as the USGA system, for instance, being based on the past rather than the present, jj912's post above seems definitive.

 

The saddest part of this thread--and I don't believe that this applies to you, philfan--are the posters that criticize the USGA system without understanding it.

 

It does work the best with people you know, but I have done it to people I don't know. I ask them how long they have been playing, watch them practice swing or hit at the range, look at their clubs, listen to their chatter, look at what clothes the are wearing. That gives you a good sense of what you're possibly dealing with. Then if they ask for a serious money game, then I tell them I will play straight up with odds. Then I explain how it works. If they don't bite, then I offer to use the stroke allocation system.

 

 

The system isn't flawed it's the liars in the world that make it seemed flawed. The system is only as good as WE honest golfers make it.

 

I just played with 2 guys that said they were 12hc's....now either they both had really bad days, or they are lying out of their teeth. I shot an 88(putting was terrible)...they shot 102, 101.

 

Yeah, exactly. I played with a kid that said he was a +1.2 and he sucked. He shot like 83 and his swing and ball striking quality was nowhere near being close to +1.2. When he asked me what my handicap was I told him it was a 5. He couldn't believe it because I was Even after 13 and he was like 9 over. If we were betting, that is a 14 stroke difference. What?!

[jjj912]

Some games or tournament formats use a fraction of the handicap. I think 50% is common, though you could use any percentage you deemed appropriate. The better player should benefits because he loses fewer strokes.

[Yuck]

Well I guess it is not a conspiracy after all. Maybe I do have the potential not to hack. Yesterday I was 6 over after 5 holes and came in with a 79, (3 over the last three holes) and I felt OK, thats about what I should shoot.

 

Today I was 4 over after 7 holes after I got both a lost ball and a shank out of the way early in the round, and I ended out shooting a one over 73. It is a lot easier to score when you only have 3 penalty shots and 28 putts. I did make a 6 on the last hole to go along with my other two 6's early in the round, but I suppose my handicap will not be going up after this weekend. The problem is still that I am just as likely to shoot an 84 next weekend.