• Welcome To ShotTalk.com!

    We are one of the oldest and largest Golf forums on the internet with golfers from around the world sharing tips, photos and planning golf outings.

    Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon!

Equitable Stroke Control. What are your thoughts?

limpalong

Mental Ward Escapee
Supporting Member
Oct 18, 2006
13,821
13,653
I forgot!
Country
United States United States
The one poster (Loop) stated the handicap system should be representative of actual scores, not a golfer's potential. USGA says just the opposite! (And I agree with USGA on this one.) To be fair to the field... your fellow competitiors... the handicap system MUST indicate the score you have the potential to shoot.

Handicapping has two possible "evils". First is the ego cap. The ego cap is for "braggin' rights". There are those who would only record their best scores so they could brag about their single digit cap. Then is any type of competition would shoot considerably higher because they did not record EVERY score. The other "evil" is sandbagging. Without the ESC adjustment, single digit cappers could easily maintain a double digit cap by making sure the last hole of the day had high enough a score to keep them there. In a competitive round, their potential would be to shoot considerably under what the recorded cap would be. They would leave with their pockets full of stolen cash!!! Hence the ESC.

When I enter a tournament, I don't want to know what my competiton shot in the best round of their life, the worst round of their life, or the round they shot last Saturday. I want to know the score they have the "potential" to shoot! They will competing against me and my potential score. Either one of us can have a good round or a bad round. But, to be on level ground, we MUST know what each has the potential to score.

The dates, I agree, are somewhat ambiguous. The USGA does encompass the entire U.S. which is subject to radically differing climates. With the changing course conditions through the winter months, a large segment of the country's courses would not play close to their USGA rating. So, some dates are pulled from collected data which determine the October 15 to April 1st dates.

If you do not agree with the dates or the ESC, petition the USGA. Until such time the USGA does modify or change their rules, any handicap system that is kept outside of their strict guidelines is simply not a legitimate USGA handicap. In your weekly competition, there should be an agreement between the participants for the time beyond October 15. As a group, agree to continue calculating caps... or as a group... hold the USGA dates. Jayhawk comments the USGA does not set rules for on course wagering. That is correct. That exactly is the reason that the criteria for on course wagering does need agreed upon by those participating before the competition.
 

Pa Jayhawk

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
7,196
62
Country
United States United States
This is a big part of the problem. The ESC is viewed as a way of policing the "Evils" in the golf handicap system, and at that, it is a failure. In an ideal system, this may work. If you think it will straighten out people who try and manipulate their index by whatever method for whatever reason, the USGA is sadly mistaken to think this would resolve that issue. Unfortunately the easiest way to manipulate your index is with a pencil, and not with your golf game. To assume someone who would go so far as to tank the 18th hole of a bad round for the sake of sandbagging, would be so honest as to not manipulate the pencil on every other hole to bypass the ESC just seems ludicrous. Simply put, by putting in safeguards to deter people from cheating is taking away from what makes this game great.

Now, on terms of accurately determining potential makes sense. But again, this ignores the fact that you may have a person who no longer plays to that potential. If the person has gone from being Single Digits to a casual golfer, it can take several years for this to be reflected on his handicap. I think this is one of the "Evils". The handicap system was set up in an effort to make the game more enjoyable and allow people to compete on an even keel. With the ESC in place, it make this less of a possibility for "honest" golfers. I actually think it in turn can drive people away from the game. If you are constantly reminded of how poorly you are playing over your prior potential, it may drive you away from the game. On the other hand, if your index is more easily manipulated by current trends, you have a better gauge of your actual "Current" potential.

I don't know how many prior Single digit handicaps I have played with that regularly shoot the same scores as I, on the other hand, they come around 6-8 strokes lower simply because of the ESC. Again, my big question. Why is a single digit index comparable to a "Double Bogie", where as any other is relative to a set score. This makes no sense to me, and is not a level playing field. How is a Quad bogie for a par 3, comparble to a double bogie on a par 5 for one who can take a 7? What is to stop that sandbagger from taking a 7 on every par 3, makes for a meaty score. From my experience, the ESC comes into play much more the lower level that you reach. This doesn't more accurately reflect their potential, it simply keeps you at you prior potential for a longer period of time. It would be ideal if everyone is constantly improving, but this is just not the case with every golfer. You play with a guy that played to a 9-10, everytime you play he shoots in the 90's because he just doesn't play that often any more. He logs a score in the low 80's because of his blow up holes that went along with the birdies. How does this correctly reflect his current potential? He's a fairly honest guy, after a couple times you label him a vanity handicap. How does this make the game more enjoyable. He follows the rules and it reflects poorly on his character. How is this good for the game.

I agree, it seems like this was set up for people who try to falsly manipulate their handicap, unfortunately they still have their pencil. On the other hand is done at the expense of the character of the honest people that made this game what it is.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not believe the R&A ever inducted this into their system. Why is that?
 

Pa Jayhawk

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
7,196
62
Country
United States United States
Adding another thought to this with an example, and kind of harping on my prior biggest concern about different criteria between handicaps.

At what expense is this to hole handicaps and par for the hole. The #2 rated hole on our course, par 5. A 1 index can take, let's see, a 7. A 19 handcap can take, let's see, a 7.

Explain how this is fair, how the second hardest hole (or any par 5 for that matter) really makes much of difference when the most a 19 handicap can take is the same as a 1 handicap. In the same sense, they can conceivably only take the same score on say the #1 rated and #18 rated hole.Seems kind of flawed. Seems like the system would be more effective if they required course to only have par 4's, and drop the hole rating scale to accomodate this system, but then I guess you wouldn't know which holes to give strokes.
 

limpalong

Mental Ward Escapee
Supporting Member
Oct 18, 2006
13,821
13,653
I forgot!
Country
United States United States
You offer some extremely valid arguments that DO point our many of the discrepencies in the ESC system. Yet, for the sake of argument, I will continue to play Devil's Advocate. Please understand, I harbor many of the same feelings as you, especially, relative to the October 15/April 1st issue. You see, our course has the past couple of years gone to temporary tees on all Par 3's on October 16th and "allowed" us to return to the tee boxes on March 30th. This stinks!!!!! Why should I pay my annual membership to hit off temporary tees for almost half the year???!!!! Their excuse is that we aren't recording scores for handicap purposes so they can move us off the boxes to keep them nice for the "real" season. Don't get me started on our greenskeeper!!!!!! LOL

I, again for the sake of argument... continuing the discussion, do take issue with your analysis of ESC and how it pertains to the #2 handicap hole on your course. Yes, on a Par 5, the highest score a single digit capper can take is a double bogey... a 7. The highest score the double digit capper can take is a 7. Sound fair? Not on the surface. But, let's take it a step further. Let's remember the earlier discussions relative to potential scores vs. actual scores.

If I have to play the single digit capper in competition and he has recorded a quad on that Par 5, his "potential" score against me will not include that 9. His potential score against me will be no more than 7. If he is allowed to record the 9, yet shoots a 4 or 5 against me... far closer to his potential... I'll take it in the shorts!

If I have to play the double digit capper in competition and he has recorded a quad, or worse, his potential against score against me is still probably no worse than a 7... a double bogey. There are few Par 5's that even the worst player could not hit four 125 yard 8 irons to and still be able to 3 putt for double. His "potential" is certainly well within the realm of a 7. If the double digit capper bangs his driver into the trees, slashes his 2-iron into the water, then skulls his wedge 15 yards over the green in regular play to record his 11... his "potential" is much better than that! And, if in his competition against me, he plays to his potential I don't want that 11 as his handicap for that hole!!!!

Are there flaws in the system? You betcha!!! Are there flaws in simply recording the exact score you shoot on each hole? You betcha!! Again, the USGA has developed what they deem the fairest to level the playing field. And, a Methodist/Presbyterian style discussion will continue for the forseeable future. (I do relish an answer to your question as to the R&A. How do they handle the handicap system? I'll look forward to some enlightening on that or do some research when I have time.)
 

Pa Jayhawk

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
7,196
62
Country
United States United States
I will serve this up for others opinions.

Speaking from my own statistics that are calculated from my entered scores on Intelligolf tracking software on my rounds over the course of the entire year, I would likely disagree that it is fitting to actual potential score. These statistics are in fact based on actual scores, and not with ESC corrections. Over the course of the year, my index fluctuated from a 24.9 to a 16.3 current. My average scores per Par designation are as follows.
Par 3's - +1.31 over par
Par 4's - +1.56 over par
Par 5's - +1.75 over par

My GIR %, which is fairly low, but average for my handicap are practically double on Par 3's over par 5's

This would make my yearly average 27.3, which reversing the calculation for Course handicap on my home course with a slope of 135 off the whites would account for an average index of roughly 23.5 on the year.

So, I can't say this is support to conclude I am correct, as I may in fact be the acception. But solely based on my experience, their criteria seems backwards. Curious if others see similar results.

To me it seems more of a matter that they were concentrating on single digit handicaps with "Double Bogie", then realized going to Triple, quad, and 5 over was unrealistic. So for the sake of not creating to much of a hassle by saying 7,8 and 9. The only problem is that it probably doesn't match the actual mathematical trend for par 3,4 and 5 holes. So again. IMO, I think this possibly serves single digit players well assuming they are always improving. But outside of that it likely doesn't serve 90%+ of the golfers very well, and is obviously not based on any mathematical average for those golf. Probably the main reason I give it little credit, I find it hard to believe the potential on a par 3 for any level golfer is a 7-9. To me the scale seems backwards. The USGA probably just figured the only golfers that would even know what ESC was, and take advantage of the scale or spend a great deal of time in tournaments are Single Digits, so why spend a great deal of time breaking it down any further.

Again, I may be the exception, so if I see the majority of people showing statistics that meet the criteria they established, I am more than willing to change my opinion. But trying to attribute "Potential" without taking into account statistics or law of averages is a mistake in my book.

edit 1 - I would also draw into question why a birdie or eagle for many golfers count. I likely shoot as many birdies as I do holes over 7-8. Should I adjust these to a par to better reflect my potential? Or should single digits adjust eagles to at least birdies? Seems like a smart @$$ question, but legitimately it is greater than my potential. So it skews the reflection of my true potential. Again, I really doubt true potential on all golfing levels is behind why they inducted the ESC based on the lack of support from statistics and averages, or if it was, the USGA was just unwilling to admit their mistake. Either that or they did want to tarnish the name of Golf by saying it was to curve cheating, which is noble but makes it no more valid for all other golfers.
 

limpalong

Mental Ward Escapee
Supporting Member
Oct 18, 2006
13,821
13,653
I forgot!
Country
United States United States
There, certainly, is validity to your argument. You have the stats to prove it. Your premise is, evidently, what is followed by the RCGA (Canadian Golf Association) with their version of ESC. The RCGA format utilizes a certain number over par for each skill level... not a maximum number of strokes whether par 3, 4, or 5 like the USGA.

A cut and paste from the RCGA handicapping manual...


4-3. Equitable Stroke Control
Top


Equitable Stroke Control (ESC) is the downward adjustment of individual hole scores for handicap purposes in order to make Handicap Factors more representative of a player's potential scoring ability. ESC sets a maximum number that a player can post on any hole depending on the player's Course Handicap. ESC is used only when a player's actual or most likely score exceeds their maximum number based on the table below but is applied to all scores for handicap purposes, including tournament scores. There is no limit to the number of holes on which a player may adjust their score. Note: In other countries, the system of ESC may be different than the RCGA system, (i.e., USGA system). When a score is made under a system of ESC different to the RCGA ESC system, that score must be adjusted to the RCGA ESC system before it is entered as an adjusted score under the RCGA Handicap System.

A Handicap Factor determined from scores to which ESC has not been applied may not be termed an RCGA Handicap Factor.


EQUITABLE STROKE CONTROL
Course Handicap


Maximum Number On Any Hole​
0 or plus
1 over par​

1 through 18
2 over par​

19 through 32​
3 over par​

33 and over
4 over par​
The table did not cut and paste well, but I think you will get the idea. The RCGA website has it in better table form.

I, in no way, am attempting to paint the USGA as being a perfect organization. Yet, as thorough as they are with consideration of any changes/modifications to rules, I simply cannot believe the current USGA format was devised without complete and proper analysis. I have searched for some paper or disertation that would lend credence to support the USGA format. I find nothing that I can plagerize or provide. Hence, I will continue to argue... again, simply for the sake of discussion. You do present evidence and state excellent arguments against the current system. I am in no way making any attempt to dissuade your excellent statistical analysis and data retrieval.

Okay, why should there be a different system for the single digit cappers vs. the double digit cappers. Your statistics indicate you score very similarly between par 3's, 4's, and 5's as far as over par. But, you do mention that may be the exception. Let's assume, for the sake of this argument, that you ARE the exception.

Over the years I have played with a cappers of all skill levels. (To give some indication of the level at which I play, my USGA cap currently sits at 10.3. Over the years I have seen it as low as 8. With age, back knees, bad back... a body that is running out of the swings the Good Lord allows... I will probably only see my cap go up.)

If you maintain a single digit cap, you will see numbers over double bogey very occasionaly. One of the secrets to lowering your scores is to eliminate the big numbers. Even the pros will occasionaly have the bad hole. But, they will still shoot in the upper 60's to low 70's with a quad on the card. A single digit capper has the potential to shoot better than double on any and every hole on the course.

As the skill level rises, I really feel the propensity for high numbers is on the par 5's. A slightly less chance on 4's. And less yet on 3's. I just do not see a 19 capper carding an 8 on a par 3! Skull one off the tee. Take two more to get to the green. You can still 2 putt for a 5. The potential for any level golfer is to see nothing worse than double on a par 3.

It is another story on a par 5. Yes, as I explained in an earlier post, even a high capper should be able to hit irons to a par 5 and still card no more than a double. But, that simply does not happen. The high capper pulls out the driver and slices the first one into the trash on the right. Hitting 3 off the tee, he may find the right rough. Beat 4 out of the rough to the fairway and he's still 250 out. The fairway wood is swung way too hard and another goes into the trash on the right. With a penalty for OB, he rehits 7 towards the green. He hits 8 over the green, chips on in 9, and 2 putts for an 11. Again, the potential for trouble... the potential for high numbers is greater (in my opinion) on the par 5's than on the par 4's. Hence, the need for adjustment is on the higher number holes.

Your dedication to statistical analysis and your evidence of a very quickly descending handicap indicate a sincere commitment to the game. Many... I'd venture to say most... of the higher cappers simply do not display that same spiraling down of their handicap. There are numerous excuses/reasons. Time, practice, ability, patience, comprehension... I'd venture that a much larger percentage of high cappers would show a much more skewed spectrum of over par numbers than your example. (That is meant as a compliment!!!)

Whew! My fingers are tired. Sorry for the rambling!​
 

Sandpiper3

Golf Course Designer
Aug 9, 2006
5,058
2
A Handicap Factor determined from scores to which ESC has not been applied may not be termed an RCGA Handicap Factor.

Limpalong, these guys dont play by the same "rules" as we do, theyre governed by the USGA. What PA wrote about how the 1 cap and the 19 cap getting both doubles is wrong by our rules, but right by theirs.

This is one of the few differences between the USGA and RCGA rules. THEN you can go bring the R&A into it as well:p
 

Loop

Well-Known Member
Aug 27, 2004
1,418
3
If someone constantly shoots in the 20s and sometimes makes some nice rounds and shoots 14, does it make him an handicap in the 14-15s?
No. A handicap should reflect how you play regularly, not how low you could shoot.
Every stroke counts, whether it was an unintentional mishit, or a complete lack of focus.
BUT, I do recognize that for calculating hdcp, you would take the best half of the total scores. But those scores need not be changed on the basis of "He could have..." because NO, he couldn't have.
If you're assuming the contrary, then you are assuming that the vast majority of golfers are cheating sandbaggers.
 

Pa Jayhawk

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
7,196
62
Country
United States United States
Limpalong,
I agree with a large part of what you said in your last post, and actually prior ones, and thank you for the compliment. I should also add that although I do not agree with how the USGA has gone about this, it is more because I am an analyst by nature and simply do not fully understand how they came about their criteria. A big part of the reason why I have a problem with it is because I used to be a better golfer when I lived in my old area and played more. It is not until the last 3 years of my 6 years playing that my handicap went up. It is now finally this year only .5 over what it was at my best 3 1/2 years ago, because I again started playing around 4 times a week over the last few monts. During the time I was better, I really knew nothing about the ESC, had I known more about it I venture to believe it may not have gone up as much as it did, and likely would have been lower at the time.

Really though, I am not saying that the USGA rules on ESC should not be followed, it is simply something I disagree with probably because they have not provided enough information on why they changed this years ago. Definately something worth talking about, as most are even unaware of the ESC. Going back to your first post, I do agree that if you are playing in USGA events, you should infact follow their guidlines. I just opt not to always follow them to a tee in many cases because common sense steps in. If I lie 5 on a par 3, I am going to pick up my ball and log a 6 because I do not want to take away from the enjoyment of the other people I play with. This is likely at my expense in the end, but so be it. By logging a double par as I do, it conforms to the USGA in every sense with exception to par 3's. Again for the reason I mentioned above. Although this is fairly rare for me, I would hope.

On the flip side, my club takes my card and adjusts for ESC. So my 6 on a par 3 will show up as a 6 as opposed to a 7 or 8. Although my occasional 10 on a par 5 will show up as a 7. So I do not feel I am taking advantage of anyone but myself. Which is good, because I play mainly for fun. A big part of that is not taking advantage of others when betting. So even though we are into November, I will log my current handicap as opposed to that of Oct 15th. Since there are rarely USGA events after Oct, my friend will not complain that they are not giving me 5-6 extra strokes. Even with that I rarely if ever lose as of recent, but it is certainly more competitive

Really though, as you mentioned before, it is important to remember the fact that if you are playing in a USGA sanctioned event, you should in fact follow their rules even if in my case, I disagree with some of the criteria.

It provides for good conversation though, maybe at some point the USGA will provide more light on how they came about with their decision outside of simply saying it provide a better idea of ones potential.

Cheers!!!
 

limpalong

Mental Ward Escapee
Supporting Member
Oct 18, 2006
13,821
13,653
I forgot!
Country
United States United States
Off topic, but does the Jayhawk in your user name have anything to do with KU???
 

Pa Jayhawk

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
7,196
62
Country
United States United States
Off topic, but does the Jayhawk in your user name have anything to do with KU???
Yes, I started at The University of Kansas in 1983, and lived in Lawrence up until 1991.

Please insert your favorite Oral Roberts joke in memory of our basketball team at this point :)
 
OP
HighTopFade

HighTopFade

Well-Known Member
Sep 1, 2006
520
12
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #27
If the double digit capper bangs his driver into the trees, slashes his 2-iron into the water, then skulls his wedge 15 yards over the green in regular play to record his 11...

Sounds like one of my Par 5 holes. Knowing me, I would do it all the same in competition.
 

Pa Jayhawk

Well-Known Member
Nov 15, 2005
7,196
62
Country
United States United States
Sounds like one of my Par 5 holes. Knowing me, I would do it all the same in competition.
I would only add that I may be second to none in playing my 7i out of the trees and still be able to find the green in 3 or 4 with a chance at par. It comes from much experience. If the trees give me a 3 to 4 foot gap, I would likely consider it a good lie.:)
 

limpalong

Mental Ward Escapee
Supporting Member
Oct 18, 2006
13,821
13,653
I forgot!
Country
United States United States
Yes, I started at The University of Kansas in 1983, and lived in Lawrence up until 1991.

Please insert your favorite Oral Roberts joke in memory of our basketball team at this point :)

"...lived in Lawrence up until 1991..." You have my condolences!!!! LOL As much as I would like to bring up the ORU game, that would be tough after this past Saturday. You see, I live in Manhattan and the Hawks put a thumpin' on the Cats! Wait until next year!!!!!
 

🔥 Latest posts

Top