Handicap query

[mcbroon]

I've seen it said more than once on here that your handicap is meant to reflect the best golf you're capable of, and the result of our most recent comp have got me thinking.

It was won by a guy off 11 who shot 73 gross (CSS 71). His handicap has gone down to 9.3 as a result and, while I understand the reductions etc. I was wondering why he wasn't just cut to 2? He may obviously find it difficult to do that regularly but it is his best golf - he's proved that he can do it.

Is it simply that the system is designed to prevent wild swings in h/c, or am I missing something else that's really obvious?

 

[Imurg]

My view of the Handicap is that it should reflect what you can score on a good day - not necessarily your best.
I once shot a 66 (3 under SSS) - does that mean I should play off +3?
Hope not - probably never do it again so would be completely uncompetitive in comps....

 

[mcbroon]

My view of the Handicap is that it should reflect what you can score on a good day - not necessarily your best.
I once shot a 66 (3 under SSS) - does that mean I should play off +3?
Hope not - probably never do it again so would be completely uncompetitive in comps....

I agree that if your h/c was set at the level of your best ever round, it would very probably just go up 0.1 every time you played until it levelled off around your average performance level.

I suppose that's what I'm getting at, although I may not have explained it very well. I've seen people say that your h/c is reflective of your best golf but that's not actually true, is it?

 

[HawkeyeMS]

That would have me playing off of 4. I have only played to 10 twice in the last 8 months and have just gone up to 11

 

[beggsy]

That would leave our scratch captain playing off +8 hahaha

 

[duncan mackie]

I've seen people say that your h/c is reflective of your best golf but that's not actually true, is it?

no

you get lots of comments on threads about such issues, clearly they can't all be correct.........

part of it is that the only full answer would be rather long, and exists in documents already - so people shorten things; then stretch things a touch to emphasise....etc etc

Imurg's definition is a much better working one, but even then this will need tempering in relation to difference handicap levels. Statistically you are pretty much looking at a normal distribution curve centred on 0 for Scratch but as you go up the handicap the handicap won't represent the centre of the curve eg for an 18 handicap it will centred around 21.

 

[mcbroon]

no

you get lots of comments on threads about such issues, clearly they can't all be correct.........

part of it is that the only full answer would be rather long, and exists in documents already - so people shorten things; then stretch things a touch to emphasise....etc etc

Imurg's definition is a much better working one, but even then this will need tempering in relation to difference handicap levels. Statistically you are pretty much looking at a normal distribution curve centred on 0 for Scratch but as you go up the handicap the handicap won't represent the centre of the curve eg for an 18 handicap it will centred around 21.

Ah, I hoped you'd come along to explain this duncan. Thank you.

 

[Jumboross]

And of course all of the above assumes that your ability is constant. If you are improving then you may well shoot your best ever round twice in a row.....I think the CONGU system works pretty well.