In the spirit of avoiding controversy, I chose to remain neutral on the subject of Handicap for several years. Simply, the value of any one golfer’s handicap, when expressed numerically, exists/functions as a unit of measurement/measuring device that represents/determines an individual’s playing ability relative to or against scratch or 0.0.
In less competitive, friendlier settings, applying the value of one’s handicap against the value of another player’s handicap and/or the values of multiple players’ handicaps is a mostly adequate exercise from the standpoint of ensuring quality, fair competition among players of different abilities.
The absence of handicap would effectively eliminate numerous events on most private/public clubs’ tournament schedules. The 2-man better-ball net match play events, the net club championships, and a slew of other fun events would no longer exist.
Embed from Getty Images
Also, there’s an abundance of individual/team events using net/gross scoring at the local, sectional, and national levels of amateur/open competition whose respective fields require its contestants to provide proof of handicap in order to meet that event’s specific eligibility requirements. Currently, tournaments with handicap-eligibility stipulations/requirements include numerous high-profile qualifiers, such as those for the US Amateur and even the US Open.
In order to play in a US Open local qualifier, for instance, you must possess a handicap that’s no higher than 1.4. Although the USGA hasn’t changed the existing 1.4 handicap requirement in over a decade, the association reserves the right or has the authority to alter its eligibility requirements with respect to handicap if such action is deemed appropriate/necessary.
Year after year, contestants meeting the handicap requirements bestowed upon them by the USGA show up to local US Open qualifying sites with absolutely no chance of qualifying for the US Open. While there’s a certain beauty in allowing any amateur to potentially compete in the world’s most democratic golf tournament, the US Open, the handicap system’s design encourages too many unproven/unskilled players to make their way into local qualifying fields.
Of these golfers, a handful will intentionally post inaccurate scores in order to fabricate their handicap in a manner that satisfies the USGA’s handicap requirements. Most of these unfit players, however, simply play under false pretenses because they haven’t obtained enough tournament experience.
Embed from Getty Images
Unlike seasoned tournament golfers, the near-scratch country club golfer who rarely, if ever, competes at a competitive level is simply not equipped with the tools one needs in order to navigate the added stressors inherent to tournament golf.
An unprepared contestant playing in a US Open local qualifier, for instance, may play to a 1.0 handicap that strictly derives from the casual rounds (non-competitive rounds) he plays and posts. He also rarely plays competitively and therefore isn’t used to the challenges presented by tournament golf.
When he does, he rarely (if ever) breaks 80. Also, he has recently logged an ample amount of lower scores so that his higher competitive scores have zero impact or bearing on the numeric value of his handicap when he officially enters the local qualifying field. To meet the basic index requirements set forth by the handicap system, your handicap index is contingent upon a minimum of 20 18-hole scores.
From there, your index is determined by averaging the best 8 out of your most recent 20 rounds. Believe it or not, over half of the rounds we play fail to be reflected by the digit, which represents the value of every player’s handicap.
Embed from Getty Images
Admittedly, this method certainly has its advantages in determining the handicaps of players who play/practice sparingly. The less golf you play, the easier it is to post/shoot inconsistent scores that all fall within a larger, hardly definable range.
The larger that range is, the less precise the value of your handicap will often be. To mitigate the potentially damaging implications/consequences of larger ranges in scores posted, the handicap system only accounts for the previously mentioned top 8 out of 20 scores.
Again, the method used in calculating one’s handicap exists as it does for multiple viable reasons/purposes. But, the method itself strikes me as an incomplete assessment. For serious players, most rounds they play in-season are at least somewhat important. Knowing that, it’s my contention that a higher percentage of rounds played should be used in calculating the numeric value of your handicap.
Playing with someone laying claim to an inaccurate score is commonplace in amateur golf. Often, such inequities in scoring result from simply not knowing the rules. Or, these imprecise results derive from failing to hole everything out. Other times, the value of their handicap doesn’t permit them to post a certain number on a certain hole.
Embed from Getty Images
Depending on the value of your handicap, for instance, a 10 handicap may not be able to post an accurate score of 8 or 9 on the par 4 they played that day. Instead, their handicap will only allow for a maximum number of, say, 7 on that same hole. In essence, this is the handicap system’s way of protecting against the effects of abnormally high scores with respect to an individual’s handicap.
In other words, a high number that cannot be posted presents itself as a statistical outlier. These statistical outliers each have a profound impact on the numeric value that represents a player’s handicap. Outside of standard stroke play/gross events, the existence of these outliers impacts handicap in a fashion that’s most unfavorable as it relates to upholding quality competition.
From the standpoint of adequately applying one’s handicap to future non-stroke play competition(s), posting a 6 when you really made a 7 (offered as an example) makes sense in such instances.
In other words, let’s say a 5 handicap plays to that number, thanks to twenty posted rounds. During each of these 20 rounds, he recorded one triple bogey and seventeen other scores nearer to par (1 triple per round). In match play, that same 5 handicap reaps the benefits of playing better golf for more holes than your typical 5 handicap performs on a hole-by-hole basis.
In match play, losing a hole by 5 shots or 1 shot amounts to the exact same result (loss of hole). The 5 handicap who records/posts a triple bogey every time he plays gains an unfair advantage over other typical 5 handicaps as well as other golfers in both a standard match play setting and net match play setting.
Embed from Getty Images
The handicap system designates a maximum allowable number of strokes per hole with respect to the value of your handicap. Obviously, an 18-hole course possesses eighteen maximum scores. Every one of those resulting 18 scores is expressed by a numeric value that’s computed with respect to the corresponding hole’s handicap (1-18) and the player’s handicap.
As such, a scratch golfer’s maximum allowable score on any given hole will be lower than a 20 handicap’s corresponding maximum allowable score. Upon inputting any score you make that’s above that threshold into the handicap system, these scores will be reduced automatically so that each score matches or reflects the corresponding hole’s designated maximum score.
In 2022, White Manor CC was one of several US Open local qualifying sites. Its field of contestants consisted of 105 golfers who all did what they could in efforts to advance to the next stage of qualifying (sectional qualifying). Out of the 105 players, less than half (48) shot 6 over (77) or better.
Having played White Manor in a competitive setting multiple times, I’d say it’s a challenging test of golf without rising to a level of extreme difficulty. At 7,000 yards, it’s fairly long without being what’s considered “long” for pros and strong amateurs. “Long” in today’s modern era of high-level amateur/professional golf is north of 72-7300, and “really long” is north of 75-7600 yards.
White Manor’s par 71 layout from these back tees has a course rating of 74.1. In other words, a scratch golfer who plays their normal game during a typical round should shoot 3 over 74 or very near it. In a tournament, that same player with their typical game should fire a 75 or very near it.
Embed from Getty Images
Again, 57 out of 105 players failed to break 78 during last year’s qualifier. Although 1.4 is the highest allowable handicap among US Open local qualifying contestants, there are probably more players in these fields with handicaps below (better than) scratch than players with handicaps above it (0.0-1.4).
In the interest of conveying a point in a conservative fashion, let’s just say that the field at White Manor played to an average handicap of 0.0 (although it definitely falls below this value). Applying the course rating under tournament conditions, the average score for your typical scratch player should fall very near 75. Of 105 total players, the majority shot 78 or higher, one posted a low score of 68, and another was responsible for a high score of 94.
With this in mind, it’s safe to say that the mean or average score among those 105 golfers is considerably higher than 78 while probably being closer to 80. Factoring in the field’s average handicap of scratch, an average score of 80 would reflect a score that’s inconsistent or well above what represents the corresponding handicap’s (0.0) average score (75) on a typical day (the adjusted course rating).
While this sample set of data accounts for just one of several possible data sets via other local qualifying sites, I’d be willing to bet a larger or more sufficient data set would reflect a similar pattern when comparing handicap to scores. In essence, this all points to the fact that, on average, these golfers play to handicaps that are lower or better than what they really ought to be.
Embed from Getty Images
To be clear, these conclusions have not been offered for the purpose of criticizing golfers with imprecise handicaps. In fact, they’ve been offered to shed light on the pros and cons of the handicap system’s design. Sometimes, we are quick to blame existing issues on the handicap system’s design rather than our over-reliance on the system itself.
With that being said, to suggest that we should rely on something outside of today’s handicap system would also imply replacing it via an alternate solution. To date, there exist precisely zero plausible/possible replacements for the current handicap system. But I certainly believe that modifications can be made to improve what we’re currently working with.
Ideally, weeding out imprecise scores would be best achieved by having more golfers play more tournament golf. But getting people to play more competitive golf probably won’t be easy. Alternatively, placing more significance on the golf we already do play thru the inclusion of more rounds in the aforementioned calculation is a change that can be implemented quickly and easily.
Doing so will also reward players who are more consistent. Consistency is often a reflection of a more refined approach to playing the game as well as a greater passion for it. The stakes are simply too high in handicap-relevant tournaments to not place more value on the figure that represents a golfer’s playing ability (handicap).
Embed from Getty Images
Along similar lines, imprecise scores are always going to negatively affect handicap one way or another. But, we will mitigate its presence by aligning our behavior in accordance with the rules. When you’re the guy posting more legit scores than everybody else is, you’re the same guy who shows up at a buddy’s net member-guest tournament playing to a more accurate handicap than most of the players in your flight.
Also, you’ll be playing golf no differently than you always do. You’ll play the ball down, putt out everything that’s not conceded, and do other things in accordance with the rules of golf that many golfers don’t. Ultimately, your willingness to stay true to the rules every time you play golf, and not just sometimes, will pay dividends during the moments when everyone is held to what shouldn’t be an unfamiliar standard.
What’s unfamiliar to your opponent(s) will be familiar to you. As such, you will be more comfortable and play noticeably better golf.
At many country club net-scoring tournaments, there’s often lots of talk/debate about the one ringer or sandbagger who played well better than the value of their handicap. Sometimes, all you can do is tip your cap when it’s obvious a golfer simply had a career day.
Other times, a golfer who possesses a better swing than what their handicap indicates will also post a score that doesn’t reflect their handicap. Oftentimes, deciphering/debating the validity of the value of a certain player’s (sandbaggers) handicap can be a futile exercise that’s too oft entertained by golfers who find themselves on the less attractive side of a match/tournament’s outcome.
Embed from Getty Images
Rather than driving yourself nuts on the course, allow the club’s golf professionals to do the heavy lifting when it comes to potentially penalizing an amateur for posting a score that doesn’t align with the value of their handicap. Also, if you find yourself harboring resentment toward a player/opponent who may/may not be a sandbagger, it’s time to examine your own mindset.
Don’t waste energy focusing on your opponent’s game when you have your own ball to golf. You have no control over your opponent’s game/handicap, and if this sandbagger continues to play well during your current match, you better match that intensity by buckling in, manning up, and playing well yourself. You have your own game to play. Golf is hard enough as it is. Don’t make it harder.
Nevertheless, every average amateur golfer that plays every single round of golf by the Rule Book will be playing to a handicap value at tournament time that may very well be mistaken as if you’re a sandbagger when you’re really not.
If you play by the rules every time you play golf and post those scores accordingly, you have nothing to fear in the event that one of your opponents calls you out for sandbagging.
Plus, adding to your trophy display isn’t a bad perk, either.
Cover Image Via Twitter
