How often do you play to your Handicap

Ive only recently come down to 8, and while this time last year my average score was roughly 7, its currently about 10.
How often do you guys play to your handicaps, and is your average score under or over ?
Im playing to my handicap or better aprrox 40% of the time, but have quite a few 86's etc on bad days .

Is the handicap meant to reflect your average score, or a good one ?

I'm with you busted. just come down to 8 from 11 and finding it a bit of a struggle to break 80 consistently. keep throwing in a big number here and there to keep me honest....

I thought it was supposed to be viewed more as a measure of what you can achieve rather than what you should achieve each time.

I'd say I play to mine 25 - 33% of the time so say roughly once in every 4 across a whole year. Streaks of getting nowhere near it for weeks then the purple patch of breaking/playing to it for 3/4 weeks. Average is over handicap though.

Guess it's different for different people, would have thought the plus/scratch to (say) 2 would be consistently there or thereabouts and the propensity for a card wrecker (or more than one) increases with handicap.

I'm generally pretty consistent rather than shooting the lights out one day and then stinking the place out the next so I reckon I play to my handicap pretty consistently.

Surely handicap is meant to reflect your average, thereabouts?

If your handicap is correct, you should be playing to it between 20 - 25% of the time. Most of the time you will be either in the buffer zone or above it. If you regularly play below your handicap then you are an improver, some might use other words, and your handicap will drop quite quickly to reflect that.

19 qualifiers this year. Only one cut, 10 buffer zones, 8 +0.1s

Hi, i struggle with a card in my hand - whether its just the "pressure" (ha, just imagine the pressure of playing for more than £20 !!) or the extra distance from the whites -
its taken me 4 years to get down to 8 , from 12!
so when i say i play 40% of the time, thats all rounds, most off the yellows..

busted wrote:Hi, i struggle with a card in my hand - whether its just the "pressure" (ha, just imagine the pressure of playing for more than £20 !!)  or the extra distance from the whites -
its taken me 4 years to get down to 8 , from 12!  
so when i say i play 40% of the time, thats all rounds, most off the yellows..

Why don't you play off the whites all the time, then you would feel more comfortable in a medal?

club rules im afraid, no idea why , but whites are for comps only.

I have been off 7 or 8 for the last 15 years. My average anual score over that time has been anywhere from 9 to 10.5. This year have had two cuts one of 0.2 and one of 0.4, have been outside the buffer 4 times and inside it the other 10 times (never actually playing to my handicap). That represents a pretty good, consistent year IMO. Handicap definitely is not intended to be a measure of average score.

golfermartin wrote:Handicap definitely is not intended to be a measure of average score.

 
 
I think most reasonable people would agree with GM's comment. I recall some years ago our handicap secretary used to say that you should play to or below your handicap on average 4 times a year. Any more occasions than that mean't that your handicap was too high. Not sure if many of the 'pot hunting golfers' that abound today would agree!

22 rounds in total through 2013

5 rounds under handicap (-4, -4, -3, -1, -1)
3 rounds level handicap (3xbuffer)
2 rounds +1 handicap (2xbuffer)
3 rounds +2 handicap (1xbuffer)
3 rounds +3 handicap
6 rounds +4 handicap or worse

5 rounds under hcp = 23%
8 rounds level hcp or better = 36%
11 rounds within buffer zone = 50%

11 rounds missed buffer (+2, +2, +3, +3, +3, +4, +5, +6, +8, +11, NR)

I have been reliably informed that the average handicapped golfer should only play to his handicap 25% to 30% of the time, or it means he needs a cut. A handicap should be where your good game is and the aim is to better it and hopefully get a cut. For each medal round where the player fails to play to hanbdicap or buffer zone he will go backwards by 0.1 making the cut a little bit further away.

This year I came down by 4.1 and although I played to handicap immediatley after my last cut, I have not managed it again since August. Lack of chances to play, mixed with inclement weather, wind, boggy conditions now makes it harder to achieve as most players get a cut in summer/harder conditions. Factor in medals/QC rounds playing from an average 25yards further back per tee and again a tougher ask.

The big question should be having a handicap that fits all courses because it can be a joke if you play elsewhere. Why should my 14 handicap be different from someone elses 14 handicap? his handicap is on a tougher course or a simpler course but we both get the same number of shots. How many times have you played out of your skin on a really tough track and not managed to play to handicap. How mmany times have you witnessed new members pick up the silverware at your club because his handicap was achieved on a much tougher track. We should go the US way and use slope index etc

Doc wrote:...We should go the US way and use slope index etc

Definitely.

Someone on here will probably know the figures but the way that the CSS is calculated is based on historical data of how many players in each division are within or below the buffer zone. I think that it's higher the lower hc you but it's generally around 20-30% are expected to be there. Otherwise the CSS is moved down as obviously the course was easier that day.

Personally I went through a purple patch early in the summer and was playing to late 70s off 12 so got cut. Then life got in the way of golf and now I'm playing about once every 1.5 weeks I'm more early to mid 80s. If I hit my buffer zone today I'll be reasonably happy.

And agree that the slope index makes a lot of sense.

Your handicap is calculated using the CSS and SSS, so reflect the degree of difficulty of your course.

It isn't perfect, but then again neither is the slope index system. There's no appetite to introduce anything like that in the UK in the financial climate at present - too many clubs are struggling.

One of our favorite courses is up a mountain behind an inn. The innkeeper, who built the course himself, said that when the officials came around to give it its slope rating they never actually played the course.  They took a scorecard and then rode around in a golf cart carrying clip boards.   That was it!  ⛳

15 x 0.1s
10 x buffers
7 x cuts (6 x 0.2 + 1 x 0.4)
3 x Reductions Only rounds

That's between my home course, 2nd course and Opens at Saunton, RND, Carnoustie & Trevose

that's an improvement on last year, ok slightly more 0.1s this year but last year I only had 2 cuts.

It's an interesting discussion on the strength/reliability of a handicap. as George says "handicap is calculated using the CSS and SSS, so reflect the degree of difficulty of your course". I'd add to that that the ability of the competitive playing membership is also factored in (for the CSS calc). So if you only ever play the one course your handicap will reflect your ability ON THAT COURSE.
I consider myself a fairly cosmopolitan 6/7. I've had cuts, buffers and 0.1s on Home, 2nd and away courses this year. So by and large put me on any course and I'd have a reasonable expectation of being able to make buffer. There are other guys at a similar level to me at my home club who only play my home club. Am I a better golfer? No, not necessarily. Would I expect to beat them if we went to an away course?? On probability I would expect them to find an away course a more difficult challenge than I do yes...but that doesn't necessarily translate into me expecting to beat them.

On the whole, if the slope rating system was used throughout then I think it would be the case of "same difference" Maybe a more accurate version of same difference, but same difference nevertheless.

The css system needs to be modified somehow. On harder courses - say those at 73 or more, competitions on tough weather days seem to cause scores to skyrocket, but the css is limited to either two or three more than css, i can't recall which it is. Nearly everyone goes up 0.1. It seems me we would be better served having a buffer zone that could be at least +4 shots, if not more.

SSS is a pretty poor indicator of difficulty, and irrelevant as most golfers are not scratch players. A course that has a SSS of 1 over par may be 4 or 5 shots harder against par for an 18 handicapper.

CSS works for club members but is not objective: as JAS stated it flatters people who only ever play their home course. I used to be a member at a public course and there were single figure handicappers there who would be mid teens at my current course.

CSS scale tops out at SSS+3, then SSS+3RO (reduction only). +4 would just mean more 0.1s handed out. The +3 bit in he +3RO is for hcp cutting purposes, otherwise you could read it as being +4 on the scale.

Having only ever held an official handicap in the US, I find that system incredibly fair. Key in the slope system and that usually works also.

Best benchmark for me is that, when we played an away course, the scores we shot were not necessarily spot on with handicap and slope, but the differentions between us travellers was very reflective of results at our home course.

That's exactly the point kwini, slope system seems to make a lot of sense although I have no experience of it.

When I'm on golf holidays in Spain we inevitably chat to other group in the bar. It's always the same story - course is really hard and nobody shot anywhere near handicap. But my mates and I always shoot near our handicaps on holiday. I bet a member at Carnoustie always beats his handicap on away courses.

Not sure there is a perfect system, but personal view has SSS/CSS way ahead of slope system. Tend to agree with summation provided by JAS - certainly when my home course SSS increased by a shot it was noticeable very quickly that handicaps travelled less well!
Why do I rate SSS/CSS more highly - when I've played courses with a SSS ahead of par, and resulting CSS impacted by weather etc it has seemed to me much more understandable than the arbitrary (to me) slope factors. I've played courses throughout Europe USA and elsewhere using slope, and typically have more of a problem rationalising the degree of difficulty than I have with SSS/CSS.
Most difficult course I've played, defined by par/SSS and on the days played CSS is Aldeburgh. Have played many courses in Europe rated tougher, but which in reality couldn't tie its shoelaces!
On a related point I've found in US particularly that low stroke indices are often (in my experience) on par 5 holes, which seems contradictory, taking account of the extra shot, and reduced length per shot! Or is it just me?

puligny,
"low stroke indices" are surely not quite the same as handicaps?
Imagine that the more difficult the course that anomaly is somewhat levelled out (tho' I've never thought to check).

Can't compare handicaps in Europe with US as have never tried to secure a h'cap except in US. Just that I find handicaps travel well in the States.

Kwini - they aren't, but there is a relationship in that that dictates where you get a shot allowance in matchplay or stableford. I do understand that they don't always need to be the most difficult holes, but there seems to be a trend on many courses I've played in US - I get shots where I don't expect them and not when I'm begging for help!

Agreed!!!!!!

What is the minimum no. rounds you need to keep a hcp active in the US each year? They also count non-medal rounds too don't they?

 I tend to find golfers here whose handicap doesn't seem to add up, play so few handicap counting competitions it really isn't surprising. How anyone can claim their handicap is reliable without playing say a minimum  of around a dozen  counting rounds is beyond me. 

Personally I'd like to see extra supplementary cards required where players play few competitions, where cuts are given but no 0.1s are added to avoid handicap manipulation outside comps.

Bara - not sure what the minimum is. Also I believe any round can be nominated for handicap purposes, with an averaging of the last 10 recorded? Sure some of our US contributors can fill in details/provide correction. I do know that the system in Oz and NZ is the toughest - all rounds are counted and averaged. I've played with people in NZ who would only play 9 holes so they didn't have to declare the round!
You are correct about minimum rounds here. A few years ago we increased the minimum for qualifying purposes for some club competitions from 3 to 6 and the howls of protest could be heard in Somerset!

I do today's golfer handicap. It calculates after every round if I input my score. Why wouldn't you want it updated each round played?

Ben - there are potential problems. Are all rounds notified in advance, or do people simply register the scores they are satisfied with, high or low? What about just going out for a casual knock? Are scores for matchplay rounds recorded?
There is something about playing a properly organised qualifying round which appeals to me.

We post handicaps via the metropolitan golf association website.  We post all of our rounds unless we decide in advance that we're going to practice using a new club or something, and we can post 18 holes or 9  as each 9 holes has a separate slope rating.  The score on each hole is capped, dending on handicap.  You need a min of 5 rounds (of 18) for a handicap but they don't use all of them for the calculation.   If you have 5or6 rounds, they just take the lowest, for 6or7 rounds they'll use the 2 lowest, etc until at  20 or more rounds they use the lowest 10.  Also, we can only post from April thru oct/nov in this area, presumably because they have witnessed the informal "winter rules" that some gofers employ in the off season !
Once you get to 20 games, then they take the lowest 10 of your most recent 20. I'm sure there are plenty of tweaks etc but I think that's the basic idea.

Plunky - thanks for that, very interesting. Tell me though, does your card have to signed by another player (I assume so) and do you have to notify that the round will be submitted before playing, or simply send the details afterwards?
I suspect that it is a bit like our option of submitting supplementary rounds, outside competitions.

We just post the scores, no "marker", no advance notice. Enter them in to the computer following the round.

I would say the resultant handicaps (as described by Plunky) are a very accurate reflection of comparable play, both at courses we play frequently, and travelling.

'Course, they're open to abuse and I'm sure that for those playing regular competition where handicaps matter, there might be tighter controls. Not sure about now, but once we used to get our Pro to validate handicaps, but no idea if that still applies.

Shotrock would have the latest on protocol at top level clubs . . . . . .

barragan wrote:CSS scale tops out at SSS+3, then SSS+3RO (reduction only). +4 would just mean more 0.1s handed out. The +3 bit in he +3RO is for hcp cutting purposes, otherwise you could read it as being +4 on the scale.

If the buffer zone was bigger, it would mean LESS 0.1s being dished out wouldn't it?

Yep, our system is definitely open to abuse but I think private clubs around here would do things differently. Mr. P used to work at the local country club (a long time ago) and they had to have their cards signed, hand them in, etc. Mr. P follows the rules of golf precisely at all times, but I must confess that I have adapted them a little. If my ball lands in a divot which some selfish golfer didn't replace, then i sometimes kick the ball back a little. Same thing for massive footprints in a bunker. But once on the green, there are absolutely no gimmes. I will occasionally take a mulligan but only for a truly horrid drive, and never more than one per round. And if I lose a ball simply because nobody saw where it went/too many leaves to find it/too cold to hang around looking for it any longer, then I will probably take a free drop. Having said that, my goal is always to try and break 50 for 9 holes and if i do that, then I ask myself if I broke any rules and I may add a shot back on my score at the end. Works for me, and I don't use the handicap for anything anyway !.

If I've understood Plunky right I like the sound of that ... every round, be it competition or social counts as a scoring round UNLESS you declare otherwise

I didn't realize that was possible and often wondered how it would work - I always thought all rounds counted and wondered how that worked if you wanted to try out new clubs or a change to the swing etc .. but if you can declare beforehand that you don't want it to count (limited number per year presumably?) - then that seems very fair.

I believe the system expects every player to try their best on every hole and to enter every round they play into the computer. However, since we don't belong to a club and I don't use my handicap for anything, I make up my own rules where handicap is concerned.  

Most clubs will now accept suplimentery cards, but it generally needs declaring beforehand. Anyone can sign the card and doesn't need to be a member, and guess this is open to abuse, but think that handicap engineering has always gone on and we all know who's doing it anyway.

I cannot be arsed to go through a full season of QC events, so usually only do the 3 and last year I only did 2 which meant that I went innactive. I sorted it out again and to be fair I only want a handicap for playing away in the event that I'm asked for it. I have no intention of trying to win money by engineering it, and my sole intention is to get as low as I can.

I believe the USA has another system in certain States, which is not just the slope index, and players of different levels are able to use forward tees or rear tees depending on ability. Another way of leveling the field.

George1507 wrote:

barragan wrote:CSS scale tops out at SSS+3, then SSS+3RO (reduction only). +4 would just mean more 0.1s handed out. The +3 bit in he +3RO is for hcp cutting purposes, otherwise you could read it as being +4 on the scale.

If the buffer zone was bigger, it would mean LESS 0.1s being dished out wouldn't it?

Yes, at present the buffer zones are different for each category:
cat 1 - 1 stroke,
cat 2 - 2 strokes,
cat 3 - 3 strokes,
cat 4 - 4 strokes.

I mistook you thinking you were talking about increasing the range of the CSS to CSS+4, which would just mean more 0.1s versus the current system which goes CSS+3RO when it reaches that point, meaning no 0.1s handed out at all (considerably fewer!).

personally i think adding 0.1s are a waste of time for most golfers as they
- do not increase the handicap (where required) at a fast enough rate (most handicap golfers play less than 10 medals a year so would take a long time to increase a single stroke let alone more than one if required
- stifle progress of a golfer capable of lower scores (the target which the handicap is designed to reflect apparently). just because i have a bad round, or bad rounds, doesn't mean i am not capable of scoring to my handicap or below it - a bit silly to make me take steps back when any score below handicap proves my ability to play to it.

for me, handicap cuts should continue as they are.

handicap increases should only occur at the annual review. at the end of the year, review the players best adjusted scorecard (as they do for handicap allocation purposes) and if the adjusted score is greater than the players handicap, the handicap ought to be adjusted up accordingly. i.e. if a 10 handicappers best score all year is an adjusted 12 over par, then they ought to have their handicap reset to 11.5 at the review. 3 cards would be insufficient in my opinion for this to work. if the player's best score is 10 or better, then any cuts made throughout the year should stand and the exact handcap remain unchanged. Just had a quick fiddle with my scores from this year, and based on the above system I'd have finished the year at 4.1 rather than 4.9 - if only.

Doc wrote:Most clubs will now accept suplimentery cards, but it generally needs declaring beforehand. Anyone can sign the card and doesn't need to be a member, and guess this is open to abuse, but think that handicap engineering has always gone on and we all know who's doing it anyway.

I cannot be arsed to go through a full season of QC events, so usually only do the 3 and last year I only did 2 which meant that I went innactive. I sorted it out again and to be fair I only want a handicap for playing away in the event that I'm asked for it. I have no intention of trying to win money by engineering it, and my sole intention is to get as low as I can.

I believe the USA has another system in certain States, which is not just the slope index, and players of different levels are able to use forward tees or rear tees depending on ability. Another way of leveling the field.

the general feeling with supplementary cards appears to be in my experience that they are only really used when a player is unable to complete 3 medal rounds in a year. there is certainly no encouragement for players to submit supplementary cards in general play in addition to playing adequate medals.

personally, i'd far rather you submitted a dozen supplementary cards from 'proper rounds' each year if you couldn't be bothered playing medals, than only playing the minimum medals. far greater chance of you having the appropriate handicap you deserve.

fyi, the SSS system is also set up to allow players of different ability to play against each other from different tees - you just don't see it because its highly unsocial! at our club the yellows are rated 70 and the whites are rated 72. technically, as a 5 handicapper, i should be able to play against a 25 handicapper and give 18 strokes instead of us both playing off the whites and me giving him 20.

Doc - Course handicap changes from tee set to tee set. More than you ever cared to know (likely) here: http://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=23

In addition to some of the above explanation, a (T) or a tournament score posted at my club lasts 2x as long as a non-tournament score. What's more, many tournaments often require you to play at 90% of your handicap, which in effect penalizes the higher handicap player. To further "spread the wealth" if you win a "major" tournament at my club, you play at 90% of that number next year, win it twice in a row and you play at 80% ... not sure this is "fair" (if everyone is playing by the rules), but it will make life difficult for the sandbaggers.

I realize that no system is perfect, but one observation I have (and not sure how to change it) is on the slope rating itself. A blind tee shot increases a course slope rating, yet if you play any course more than a handful of time it's not blind anymore.

Barragan for your information not all club members want to play in medals constantly, some of us just like to play bounce games. For those of us who want an accurate handicap, rather than one thats been engineered, handing in supplementary cards from general play works well, because it reflects how you played, and in most cases will actually penalise you more because you tend to score better in general play as there's no pressure. Its not like cards are handed in every round, its more a case of doing it once per month or 8-weeks max depending on how many games you get it. As long the pro' is made aware prior to going out that the round is a counting round. No harm done.

Shotrock I agree mate, and I dont think there will ever be the 'perfect handicap formula', but I think ours could be better. The blind shot rule is funny and makes no sense, because any course has hazards that are invisible/blind etc. The slope index you would think is because of difficulty, not a maybe dificult shot. I know a par 5 hole thats only 400 yards and is the toughest hole I've ever played. I have only managed to hit the green in 2 once, and only been on in 3 5 times. Sounds hard to believe but trust me that hole is a card wrecker. Its up a hillside and the slopes in a huge way from left to right down and down into a thicket or ditch. If you aim left to run the ball into the middle of the fairway you stand a high degree of probability of hitting the tree line. Take that hole out of my card and I can go round there in 8 over, with it in probably 12 over.

Doc - that isn't Shrigley Hall is it?
Only plated it once but sure I recall something similar?

Doc

You are right there is no ideal!

A lot of the trouble with the English system is not just down to slope vs SSS/CSS but more down to how many rounds the hc is based on and how slowly it goes up. When I look at my friends most probably play less than 6 medal rounds a year so their handicap is made up from just 4-5 rounds per year. This is the case with me so I will go through chunks of the year hitting or beating my hc the majority of time as I am playing quite a bit then times like now where if I get into the buffer zone I am chuffed to bits.

So maybe a system where qualifiers weight more heavily but you stick in your card every time and then average the last 20 rounds. Possibly ditch the worst 5. This would mean that your hc will vary more through the year but is probably a more realistic representation of how you are playing at the time. You could still say that there has to be 4 qualifiers in there for your hc to be active.

You will never stop someone protecting your hc as there is nothing to stop the same set of mates playing together and just agreeing to help each other out so it is all down to integrity whether its a bounce round or qc.

Of course the difference if you decide to submit a supplementary card...there is no CSS just the SSS. So if you shoot a really good score on a difficult day then whatever the cut ...it could have been more in comp due to an elevated CSS. Whilst I can understand why they have a CSS it is subjective to a bunch of other players form on the day and so not necessarily reflective of your own form.

Wondering if I should have put a supplementary in today, 38 points around North Hants could translate to a 0.4 cut.

Doc wrote:Barragan for your information not all club members want to play in medals constantly, some of us just like to play bounce games. For those of us who want an accurate handicap, rather than one thats been engineered, handing in supplementary cards from general play works well, because it reflects how you played, and in most cases will actually penalise you more because you tend to score better in general play as there's no pressure. Its not like cards are handed in every round, its more a case of doing it once per month or 8-weeks max depending on how many games you get it. As long the pro' is made aware prior to going out that the round is a counting round. No harm done.

just re-read my earlier post - it was rushed and didn't really carry the tone meant - here is what i meant (see below) - and i agree with you.

the general purpose of supplementary cards appears to be, in my experience, that they are only used when a player is unable to complete 3 medal rounds in a year - to top-up the number of cards submitted to 3. there is no encouragement for players to submit supplementary cards in general play in addition to playing an adequate number of medals - i.e. 3 (apparently 3 rounds per year is an adequate indication of ability...shame on CONGU!).

personally, i'd far rather the system allowed you to submit a minimum of around 8-12 supplementary cards from general play each year even if you didn't bother playing any medals, than only playing the minimum number of medals to keep your handicap. to me, submitting a dozen general play cards will give a far clearer indication of what your handicap should be, than submitting 3 medal rounds in a year.

it would also solve what i believe is a serious problem with the current handicap system - namely, that there is less respect for golfers who don't wish to play lots of medals like yourself, as, many fellow competitors would probably only take anyone's handicap seriously if you were playing quite a few medals each year. i'd like to see CONGU address this by encouraging more cards be submitted each year - be that by general play rounds, medal rounds or a combination of the two. the minimum of 3 cards is laughable as it is.

JAS, I think you can only have a supplementary at your home course? I was refused one earlier this year even though properly signed up etc!

Really? I'm sure one of D4S's mates at Porthcawl a couple of years ago shot 40 points in the Winter Team Open and put his card in.

No worries either way, I'll save the cut for a comp