Avante Garde Golfer

The survey also asked two most fascinating questions:

• "Do you think your USGA handicap (or your average score that you reported) fairly reflects all penalties that should accrue during a round?" If not, the survey asked how many strokes should be added to the score ("Please provide your best estimate. Also, please note that even though mulligans may be allowed on your home course, when you take a mulligan that should count as your third shot for the hole.").
• "Do you ever post a higher score than you actually shot, in order to give yourself a higher handicap for competitive advantage in tournaments?"

* * *

RESULTS: First, Paine and Sebastian show that the private club responses and the national survey gave statistically similar results for USGA handicaps. They also show that the USGA men and women handicap indices are statistically the same as the e-mailed responses. These two correlations indicate that the national survey is a valid one, and not statistically skewed (as might have happened, for example, if just the better golfers responded to the survey).

Paine and Sebastian obtained 423,345 responses from North American golfers (out of an estimated 30,000,000 potential responders, although there is no estimate of how many people were reached by the advertisements). Of the private club group, there were 5,032 responses (41% return rate). Without going into all the statistical jargon, suffice to say their results are convincing, and can be summarized as follows:

1 The single most significant correlate (in the statistical sense) of golf handicap was age at which the player took up the game; the younger the age, the lower the handicap. This correlation kicked in after playing golf for 8 years, and continued at all ages and for both sexes. Below is a graph for male golfers age 40-50 (the largest demographic group, at 138,322 responses).

Figure:
Male Golfers age 40-50: Age at which game taken up vs. Handicap Index

2. The second most significant correlate of handicap was number of rounds played in the previous 10 years. (See Figure.)

Figure.
Male Golfers age 40-50: No. rounds played previous 10 years vs. Handicap Index

3. The third most significant correlate was athleticism, which the authors quantitated as follows: two points for every year or part of year the golfer played a sport professionally; 1 point for every year or part of year the golfer played a varsity sport from 11^th grade of high school through college (e.g., soccer, baseball, basketball); ½ point for every year or part of year the golfer played a non-varsity sport, including intra mural collegiate activities; and ½ point for every year that the golfer regularly engaged in aerobic sports (tennis, jogging, etc.). The authors agree this is not ideal way to measure athleticism, but believe it does tend to select out people who have reasonably good hand-eye coordination and physical conditioning.

Figure
All golfers: Athleticism vs. Handicap Index

Interestingly, not correlated with golf handicap was the estimated number of private or group golf lessons taken in a life time. In fact, the more lessons taken, the higher the handicap tended to be. The authors believe this is not cause and effect, but simply a reflection that high handicap golfers tend to take more lessons than better golfers, who tended to learn the game through trial and error and a lot of playing when young.

Figure
All golfers: No. Lessons (private & group) vs. Handicap Index

The authors explain the difference between causal and resultant effects by citing the obvious fact that club professionals have lower handicaps than club members. They don't have lower handicaps because they're paid as club pros (which would be causal), but are paid as club pros as a result of their lower handicaps (among other attributes). In other words you won't lower your handicap by becoming annointed club pro. Similarly (they point out) there is no evidence that taking lessons, buying new equipment, or reading golf books will lead (by themselves or collectively) to lower handicaps; they do not appear causal of better playing.

Fully 57% of respondents said their handicap did not reflect all penalties that would accrue in their typical rounds; the average additional strokes that would accrue per round was 3.3! The majority of this comes from the time-honored club practice of taking a mulligan a round (or a side, in some cases). This discrepancy in real vs. posted scores agrees with the long-held impression among club pros that handicaps are notoriously inaccurate, because penalties are not assessed (or are assessed incorrectly).

The opposite of posting lower than real scores is sometimes called sandbagging; this is done so as to give oneself competitive advantage in tournaments where strokes are awarded to equal the playing field. Sandbagging seems to be rare, or at least not admitted to. Only 0.7% of people stated they posted higher than actual scores. Paine and Sebastian believe this is because the ego of most players mandates that they post better, not worse, scores.

Finally, what about the 42% of respondents who did not report any variance in posted and real scores? Are they more honest for counting all penalties; or are they more dishonest for not reporting their own fudging of the numbers? Are there a lot of sandbaggers in that 42%? Impossible to know, state Paine and Sebastian.

So what does all this mean? First, the best golfers started playing when young, hit a lot of balls, and have an above normal amount of athleticism. Second, it's unlikely that the majority of golfer's handicaps are honestly reported. Club championships are one thing, and not much is on the line except bragging rights. But in the real world of amateur and professional competitive golf, there is no such thing as giving strokes based on handicaps. At least then you can always be sure the winner is the best golfer, period.

Return to Avante Garde Golfer