Average handicap on the forum

[FairwayDodger]

Before getting there myself, I would always have said that a single figure handicap was the sign of a good golfer. However, playing off 7 at the moment I am no more than a decent player. The gulf is class is immediately apparent whenever I play girls just a few shots lower than me.

I'd say you need to be cat 1 before starting to consider yourself a "good" golfer; someone in the mid-teens isn't even close!

Depends on what you mean by "good" though, I suppose, and as displayed in the thread this is very subjective and largely based on your own playing ability.

 

[ArnoldArmChewer]

Thinking along a slightly different tack here. A handicap of whatever level is there to help the player who cannot otherwise post a 'good' (Par) score. Therefore if you need a handicap to help you achieve this you are not a 'good' golfer, if your handicap is 0 you are 'good', if your a + handicap you are better than 'good'.

Doesnt stop the rest of us enjoying ourselves tho'

 

[Canary_Yellow]

In my opinion, if you are achieving better than the average result of the population at anything then you are good at it, if worse, then you are not than good yet.

The key is to first define the population you are choosing from; if it is all golfers with handicaps, then the average is about 16 I believe, and anything better than this for me is what should be defined as a "good" standard of golf for that reason.

If the population is expanded to include everyone that owns a set of clubs and plays more than 6 rounds per year, then the average score would be a lot higher than posted by a 16 handicapper and the scale would move accordingly.

If the population were shrunk to just those on this forum, then no doubt the average handicap and my scale of what is good would drop.

I can see an argument to suggest that if the population being considered were limited to only those with handicaps, then 16 is average and good is a bit lower, say 12, but I can't see any merit in any argument that suggests that you are only good at golf if you are category 1.

Surely, if you're better than average, you are good, and if you are worse than average, you are not good yet. The only debate should then be around what population is included in determining what the average is. For me it is this latter point that is skewing peoples views - people only considering a population made up of people that play a standard similar to theirs or better.

To anybody that thinks I'm wrong (I'm not saying I'm not, this is just my opinion), particularly those that consider only category 1 golfers to be "good", I'd be very interested to understand your position based on the population that you are considering and what you consider to be the average standard of golf amongst that population.