DaveM
Tour Winner
Interesting fact. Back in the 1970"s there were only 82 scratch or better amateur golfers in the UK. Now there are over. 3,200. Shows the improvement in equipment do you think.
Scratch or better
- Thread starter DaveM
- Start date
G
guest100718
Guest
no, id say more accurate stats and more golfers
Sports_Fanatic
Assistant Pro
I could just be repeating one of those "facts" people tell you but I thought the average handicap had remained petty consistent over that time, as such I'd expect it's probably more a reflection of an increase in the number of registered golfers, although that's just a guess.
DCB
Well-known member
The current handicap system is more favourable than the old system 
HawkeyeMS
Ryder Cup Winner
I'm pretty sure that scratch and plus handicaps were allocated by the local unions back then and to retain it you had to submit a certain number of cards under par each year. If you didn't, your scratch handicap was revoked. I don't remember exactly how it worked, I'm sure someone will enlighten us, but you couldn't get a scratch handicap in the way you get them now.
HomerJSimpson
Hall of Famer
Never going to be an issue for me and I won't be adding to those numbers.
Doon frae Troon
Ryder Cup Winner
In the 70's you would be selected for the County team playing off 2 or 3 handicap.
82 seems a very low number but there would only be a handful of + golfers in the UK in those days.
Nowadays there are many clubs with a handful of + golfers.
I got to within one shot of 1 handicap in 1975. If I remember correctly you had to score under your handicap 8 times a year on your home course and 4 times a year on an away course to warrant a cut. I think even then the county could veto it.
82 seems a very low number but there would only be a handful of + golfers in the UK in those days.
Nowadays there are many clubs with a handful of + golfers.
I got to within one shot of 1 handicap in 1975. If I remember correctly you had to score under your handicap 8 times a year on your home course and 4 times a year on an away course to warrant a cut. I think even then the county could veto it.
Stuey01
Journeyman Pro
A better measure (still flawed...) would be the proportion of club golfers that have a scratch or better handicap.
There are a lot more golf clubs and golfers now and the game is more accessible, so a comparison of absolute numbers is next to meaningless.
There are a lot more golf clubs and golfers now and the game is more accessible, so a comparison of absolute numbers is next to meaningless.
CheltenhamHacker
Journeyman Pro
No offence Homer, as I enjoy a lot of your posts on here, but what do comments like this add?! It seems very "me-centric". He asked about the number of scratch golfers, and whether you think this is down to equipment or not. He didn't say "does anyone think they will become a scratch golfer?" Don't mean to sound rude, but I have noticed this a couple of times...
Doon frae Troon
Ryder Cup Winner
Trying to think of the + players of that era.
Michael Bonallock, RDBM Shade, Charlie Green, Joe Carr. Stewart Murray, Bobby Cole etc.
Michael Bonallock, RDBM Shade, Charlie Green, Joe Carr. Stewart Murray, Bobby Cole etc.
OldMate
Head Pro
Interesting to hear how much things have changed. Only partly on topic but this is an interesting article on Jack Newton's views on the Australian/American/NZ handicapping system and how wrong he thinks they have got it:
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/g...988331831?nk=76f61edc1e49a98463197d7f73966c07
I don't know the stats but think it would be the case that there are proportionately far more scratch or better handicaps in those countries as a result of the rolling average/slop systems. I don't think any system is perfect but the current English approach is still far more accurate than in other parts of the world. My only gripe at the other end of the spectrum is that is should be easier to go up when struggling rather than gradually accumulating 0.1s, but I guess sandbaggers will always ruin that for everyone else.
G
guest100718
Guest
I'd say you're a perfect example for this thread...
http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?68920-Does-EVERY-thread-on-here-end-up-in-a-row
you mean 2 :lol:
CheltenhamHacker
Journeyman Pro
The forum would be boring without any arguments
I guess as a very uncontroversial poster, I should copy you a bit more :cheers:
woody69
Journeyman Pro
It was just self-deprecating humour. You could ask what does your response to his post add? Nothing, but it really doesn't matter. You could either chuckle, raise a smile or just scroll down past the post.
CheltenhamHacker
Journeyman Pro
But now we could argue what your response adds, ad infinitum
Don't worry, clearly I was out of line, ignore my above post!
DCB
Well-known member
Let's keep it on topic please gents
Ethan
Money List Winner
Can you show us the data that verifies those numbers? I find the 72 hard to believe.
If true, there are a variety of explanations, none mutually exclusive, including larger numbers of athletic kids choosing golf rather than other sports, beer teaching and practice, better course conditions, changes in the handicap system and standard scratch rating.
Another factor is the threshold factor. For any statistical parameter that is distributed across a range, a small change in the mean/average will have a much larger change in the numbers at the edge of the distribution. For example, if the average height rose by 1 inch (less than 2%), the number of people more than 6 foot 5 would go up by 5 or 6 fold. Small changes in the middle have big effects at the edges.
Doon frae Troon
Ryder Cup Winner
I was playing in Hampshire in October and I needed a par 5 at the last to be cut to 1.
Two smooth 3 woods and a lovely easy 7 iron covered the flag.
The ball ran a few feet through the green and finished on GUR. Nearest drop left me a virtually impossible chip.
finished with a six.
That really hurt. Won the comp though!
Went up to 3 in the review which made no sense to me.
The great Peter Deeble..
