Handicapping - Why not a rolling average?

At the back end of 2009 I had a couple of good rounds close together and got cut to 12 (11.5 act). My average score for the year was 16.0 over par. In 2010 it was 14.6 and 2011 it was 16.62. Over this period my handicap has drifted out to a current 13.0. These stats are based on over 40 rounds per annum and I enter as many comps as I can.
Therefore every time I stand on the first tee I am giving the course 3+ shots and consequently come nowhere near to winning anything.
Is this really how the powers that be want handicapping to work?
Why not just have a rolling average which takes into account the way you are actually playing and not a couple of blinders from 2 years previously?

To get cut to that you must have played better than 11.5. Sounds like you're off the right handicap but your head is telling you different....

I've never understood why some people want to be higher. My ambition has always been to be as low as possible, and if I've been having a bad spell its been about getting out on the practice ground and working on my game.

Mind you, I could do some damage if I was given 4 shots back.
 
I did look at this recently as part of seeing whether full handicap is fair in match play, and its pretty much the case that everyones average round is about 4 above handicap. Like others have said, its meant to be potential round not average. From what I've looked at, sounds like your handicap is about right :)
 
As everybody is treated the same, any handicap system should work pretty fairly in the area in which it is administered. Neither the Congu nor the Slope systems handle rapidly improving players/scores very well - though the new Exceptional Score guideline should help (if Handicap Committees apply it! :mad:.

The Slope system, used in almost every other country, does use a rolling average, of sorts, to produce an 'Index' rather than a 'Handicap' and there is a formula to find a 'Handicap' on a particular course - using the course's Slope Rating. As the Index is calculated against a relatively easy course, the resulting number is quite low - a little over 2 for a consistent 10-capper.

I've actually played in different clubs in both England, Scotland and elsewhere in the world. My Slope Index (in New Zealand) was 9 when I played of 12 here. When my handicap moved from Surrey to Scotland, from a course whose handicaps 'travelled well' locally, it took 4-5 months before I shot > 35 points in a comp - and I'd been cut 2 shots ('on observation') when I came from Scotland (where my handicap started) to Surrey previously. I also play with a number of guys who maintain their handicaps through Golfshake etc. Being pretty stable (not improving/deteriorating rapidly) both handicaps equate pretty on the courses we play.

Both systems are open to abuse! Guys who abuse the system are not Golfers in my book! Perceived abuse may also not actually be the player's fault - as Handicap Secretaries can be inconsistent (and it is a difficult role at times) and consistency between clubs is a necessity of the Congu system.

Oh and remember that as soon as you consider applying a single Index/Handicap to pure Strokeplay, Stableford Strokeplay and/or Matchplay to Singles, Pairs, Foursomes, Greensomes and all the other formats, you should realise the magnitude of the 'problem'!
 
Your handicap can never match your best score because u are only getting cut .3 0r .2 not the full difference.
Homer was it cut full shots at some stage or .7 or .5 i think it was more than the .2 and 3 now.
Mike
 
Top