Comments on: NCGA Net Score Database

By: Tom K

Tom K — Sun, 24 Jan 2010 19:12:36 +0000

I am one that also believes that the handicap should reflect the tournament/club events posted scores the most. I play a lot of scratch events and have no problem with my competitors. I also belong to an associate club that seems to have the same winners much to often. They seem to score under their handicap too often. A for instance was this last Sat. at Roddy Ranch where 3 players scored net 65’s. I have suggested that our club have it’s own handicap system which reflects the scores we have for our tournaments. That would bring those guys in line.
We should be able to post scores that have the ability to be directed to a club handicap as well as a general handicap so that clubs can control there own.

By: Jim Cowan

Jim Cowan — Tue, 20 Oct 2009 16:03:10 +0000

Joel, thank you for your comment. Suppose the NCGA makes a golfer with a Handicap Index of 15 play to a 10 in our events based upon previous low scores in NCGA play. Suppose they record a differential of 12 in the round. We feel very strongly that it is important to record the round as a strike against the golfer. After all, if the NCGA action had not been in place the golfer would have recorded yet another score three strokes under his handicap. Secondly, what score a golfer posts for handicap purposes has nothing to do with our number, it is completely dictated by their Handicap Index. If the real Handicap Index would have generated a stroke on an unplayed hole whereas the NCGA does not, you would give yourself, for score posting purposes, a bogey on the hole. Lastly, you post the score you most likely would have made. If you normally make about half your 6-8 footers, you would probably award yourself one or two of the conceded putts based upon their difficulty. Thanks again – Jim Cowan

By: Joel Tyrus

Joel Tyrus — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:54:12 +0000

Hi Jim,

I agree with the net database but I believe there are 3 errors in the calculations.

1. For players with restricted handicaps, their NCGA scores are compared against monthly index not against restricted index. That 1 or 2 stroke difference impacts the “YES” answer.

2. The net par for unfinished holes are based on restricted index and not the actual index.

3. For match play, its the 1-3 putts per rounds conceded from 6-8 foot range once the hole is decided – either you winning or losing the hole.

Thanks, Joel

By: Jim Cowan

Jim Cowan — Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:36:32 +0000

Jerry, thank you for your comment. The USGA estimates that the odds of teeing it up today and playing 3 strokes better than your handicap (differential is three strokes lower than Handicap Index) are 1 in 57 for 0-5 handicappers; 1 in 51 for 6-12 handicappers; 1 in 43 for 13-21; 1 in 23 for 22-30 and 1 in 15 for 31 and up. So if you are a 25-handicapper that posts 70 rounds a year, you could be expected to record such a score about three times a year. You can find the complete odds table at: http://www.ncga.org/2007/06/18/fit-to-a-t/
In general, high handicappers still only play to their handicap around 1 in 5 rounds, but when they do, they can go lower. Most clubs recognize this and employ flights to spread out the competition and, thereby, not require the low to compete against the high directly in a net competition. Thanks again – Jim Cowan

By: jerry marheine

jerry marheine — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 01:41:58 +0000

What are the odds of a player shooting 3 or more under their handicap per year? Our club seems to have this happen way to often and the legit single digit handicappers have little to no chance of winning our all net events. Our club will not play anything gross as everyone has an established handicap. The 13 to 22 handicaps have this biggest advantage in our club. They always seem to play their best in our bigger events. Just as you mentioned in your article.

By: Jim Cowan

Jim Cowan — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 16:30:43 +0000

Steve – thank you for your comment. Remember, a handicap is intended to represent a golfer’s “potential” ability. If a golfer is able to raise the level of his game in tournaments, his handicap should be closely alligned with these tournament scores, not the non-tournament scores where the golfer apparently is not properly motivated. As to the subject of using T-scores exclusively, I cannot see where it will ever happen. Most golfers do not play in formal tournaments or play in them seldomly. Suppose you have a golfer who plays in two tournaments a year. What is a better indicator of his potential ability, a tournament score from five or six years ago or a round of golf from last Saturday where he played with his buddies for a few bucks? I’ll take the recent score. Thanks again – Jim Cowan

By: Steve H

Steve H — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 21:32:57 +0000

Sounds like a solid plan and well researched. I applaud the effort and support this!

I might however disagree with the idea that some shouldn’t play better in tournaments. I’ll cite TWoods 72 hole Torrey Pines 2008 U.S. Open. If Tiger was playing in a casual round with some buddies on a Thursday afternoon, he probably wouldn’t have made that putt. The fact that it was to tie for the U.S. open, and a must make situation, it went in. This is an extreme case, but there is truth to the notion that some ppl rise to pressure and their games are elevated. I only wish this would apply to myself. :( Personally, I think only tournament scores should make up one’s handicap. Posting should only be done by tournament scorekeepers not individuals. All other golf rounds should be inconsequential.

By: Jim Cowan

Jim Cowan — Wed, 20 May 2009 22:10:17 +0000

Stan, thank you for your comment. Our database is constantly changing as new scores are added and old ones expire. Sadly, I would certainly expect some golfers to appear year after year, but the “number” we assign to them will probably vary a little bit each season. Thanks again – Jim Cowan

By: Stan Hackett

Stan Hackett — Wed, 20 May 2009 00:12:58 +0000

Jim thank you for all the time and effort you have put into this much needed mousetrap. Is there any hope that the “number” given to the sandbagger could stay with him for several years.

By: Jim Cowan

Jim Cowan — Fri, 15 May 2009 18:24:15 +0000

Don, thank you for your e-mail. The score average displayed is based on the current calendar year. Thanks again – Jim Cowan