The Truth about Handicapping

What do golfers love more—the game or the gambling?

Probably the game itself. But no less an authority than “Slammin’” Sammy Snead once said, in essence, “A golf game without a bet is nothing more than a walk in the park.”

And, of course, there is the old golf gambler’s adage, “Most bets are won on the first tee.”

But what does that old adage really mean? The reference is, of course, to handicap strokes, one of golf’s many arcane and murky underlying components. When a 4-handicap player sets up a match with a 10-handicap player on the first tee, they might agree to the better player “giving” six shots during the round, or “three a side.” Alternatively, there may be some negotiating. The better player may have recently shot some very low rounds not yet reflected in his or her handicap. This phenomenon is called a “handicap trend.”

The higher-handicap player might argue, “You shot 73 last week. You are playing more like a 2-handicap right now, so in all fairness you should ‘give me’ eight shots this round.”

That player may be seeking a fairer match, or he may be looking “to win the bet on the first tee.” What a surprise—he may be looking to get an edge toward winning. Shooting a 73 last week is no sure indication of shooting a 73 this week, as all golfers know.

But that example is only the tip of the iceberg. Structuring a fair bet can involve many additional factors, such as:

• The game being played (a stroke play match; a match play match; a two-person best ball; a “skins” game; a Scotch game; etc.)
• The number of players involved
• The range of handicaps of the players involved
• The recent play, or “trend,” of the player
• Recent bets between the players, where perhaps one player has dominated, notwithstanding handicap adjustments

In golf groups with which I have been involved over the years, I’ve often heard the argument (particularly from the higher-handicap players) that regardless of the game, regardless of the number of players involved, “the handicap system is designed to make things fair.”

While that idea is no doubt true as a broad statement about the handicap system, I believe it is not always the case. And this concern goes in both directions. Sometimes handicaps need to be adjusted, whether up or down.

This is supported by no less of an authority than the United States Golf Association (USGA), which recommends in its tournament guidelines that two-person best ball events “be played at 80% of full handicap.” This is rooted in the notion that the basic handicap is designed to equalize players squaring off in direct competition, one on one. And further, that in team games sometimes handicaps need adjustments to be fair.

How does the 80 percent rule work? Let’s say there is a club tournament involving 100 golfers—50 two-person teams playing a traditional two-man best ball. Let’s take two sample teams from the event, a 5-handicapper teamed with a 30-handicapper, and a 10-handicapper paired with a 16-handicapper.

Typically in this format, the 30-handicapper would receive two handicap shots on the 12 most difficult holes, and one handicap shot on the other six holes. Many experienced observers believe a match like this favors the team with the low-handicap/high-handicap combo.

In a typical best ball tournament, the teams are striving to make “net” scores on individual holes that are under par while seeking not to ever have a net score that is higher than par. Typical best ball tournament winning scores over two days (36 holes) might range from a few under par to 18, 20, 22 or more under par.

The perceived advantage of the 30-handicapper is based, surprisingly, on his erratic play. If the 30-handicapper makes a gross score of par on a hole where he is receiving two strokes, he earns a “net eagle” on the scorecard. Even if he makes a bogey on such a hole, his team scores a “net birdie.” 

On the other hand, if the 30-handicapper suffers a “blow-up hole,” taking, for example, a nine on a hole, his 5-handicap partner will often make a good score and protect the team’s overall score in the tournament.

When I have discussed such a matchup (the 5- and 30-handicap team vs. the 10- and 16-handicap team) with experienced competitive golfers, they have expressed a belief that the 5 and 30 combo will win far more than 50 percent of the time. Even with all players playing at 80 percent of handicap, most competitors give the nod to the 5 and 30. 

A similar controversy arises in a game that the members of one of my golf groups play. This is a “net” skins game with “carryovers.” Sometimes our group plays this in a threesome or foursome, but (and even worse from my perspective as a 4- or 5-handicap) my friends sometimes ask to play this game on a golf trip where there are up to 12 golfers with handicaps ranging from 4 to 30. The more golfers involved, the more likelihood there will be carryovers and that a hole will only be won with a very low score.

An unscientific sampling of scorecards in larger groups (such as 12 people) shows that when a hole is won (a “skin”), it almost always happens with a birdie or eagle (or a “net birdie” or “net eagle”). A low handicapper often needs to make those birdies or eagles “scratch”—without handicap strokes. Intuitively, and supported by the informal sampling, net birdies, net eagles or even net double eagles are much easier to come by.

As an example, let’s say 12 players agree to a skins game—one dollar per hole per person, with carryovers, so each skin is worth $12. Let’s say the low-digit handicapper makes par on the first nine holes of the day, and someone from the remaining 11 players makes a par or a net par on those same holes, but nothing better. No skins so far. All holes were tied. The wager on those first nine holes is “carried over.” 

Next, on the tough par-3 10th hole, a 28-handicapper makes a par while getting two handicap shots. That is a “net 1,” essentially a hole-in-one. That’s probably a winner! The high handicapper now wins that hole plus the nine carryovers. That win is worth $120 out of a total pot of $216. Again, while this needs more scientific analysis, I’ve seen a lot more high handicappers make a net 1 on a par-3 hole than I’ve seen actual holes-in-one.

On the other side of the coin, a recent article in Golf Digest noted that in a straight-up match between a 5-handicapper and a 17-handicapper, the 5-handicapper will win more often due to a quirk in the USGA handicapping system that gives a “bonus for excellence” advantage to better players. According to Dean Knuth, former senior director of the USGA Handicap Department, who is quoted in the article, such a bonus is built into the handicap system. He calculates that because of this, a 5-handicapper will beat a 17-handicapper 53 percent of the time in a straight-up match. It is worth noting that the Golf Digest article did not specify if the match in question, was match play, stroke play, or something else.

One of my buddies, sports psychologist Jim Graves from Nashua, N.H., notes that his biggest beef with the handicap system is its failure to consider “variations” in how golfers play. His example is a series of matches between a 10 handicapper who is very consistent and a 10 handicapper who has wild fluctuations in the scores he shoots.

To simplify, let’s say the first of those two guys achieved his 10 handicap by shooting his last 20 scores all between 85 and 88. The second 10 handicapper has 10 scores between 85 and 88 but also has posted the following scores in his last 20 rounds: 89, 91, 94, 95, 95, 97, 97, 98, 99 and 100.

As Graves said, “If these guys play twenty five-dollar Nassaus over the summer, the second player is going to lose a lot of money. The handicap system can disguise variances in players’ games.”

The point is, the handicap system is not foolproof—and it doesn’t always make things fair.

(Gary Benson is a Chicago attorney, former journalist, and avid golfer who likes to write about the sport. If you have any thoughts on this article, email him at GaryBenson.Shot65@Gmail.com.)