Figuring out your Disc Golf Handicap

[mSchmoe41]

If you wanted to do it yourself, what type of formula do you use?

 

[Dan Ensor]

Course difficulty is a pretty big factor. But handicap is just the number of strokes over par you typically score.

 

[sisyphus]

If you wanted to do it yourself, what type of formula do you use?

If you want, you'll get a rough 'rating' here by using the score book feature. Need to choose a tee (that fills in a hole distance for each hole on the course played), and a score for each and every hole. The dgcr ratings are similar to, but not exactly, what you'd have generated from playing a pdga sanctioned event.
It'd give you a ballpark estimate, anyway, and you can figure that every ten points is roughly equivalent to a stroke. So if you and a friend want to play with a 'handicap', the one with a 930 rating (for instance) should give four strokes to one with an 890.
Now I don't know anybody who really does this. Usually, ratings give you a fair idea of what division best fits your skill level.

 

[brutalbrutus]

Disc golf needs a slope rating, then it would be easy. The only trouble is, who is gonna go around and give each course one? Im not sure that all, or even most, designers can be impartial enough(as we see with all the course ratings manipulation you see here) to set the slope themselves.

 

[Cgkdisc]

Slope does not seem to exist at least in disc golf based on 10s of thousands of rounds gathered over the years for ratings, even though some math wizards like GRodney have tried to find it. Speculation is that it doesn't exist in ball golf either but they can't discover it from the data they have available and the way they do course ratings.

 

[Consult20]

If he just needs to calculate a handicap for his home course, that's no biggie.

 

[kevdiv48]

If you want, you'll get a rough 'rating' here by using the score book feature. Need to choose a tee (that fills in a hole distance for each hole on the course played), and a score for each and every hole. The dgcr ratings are similar to, but not exactly, what you'd have generated from playing a pdga sanctioned event.
It'd give you a ballpark estimate, anyway, and you can figure that every ten points is roughly equivalent to a stroke. So if you and a friend want to play with a 'handicap', the one with a 930 rating (for instance) should give four strokes to one with an 890.
Now I don't know anybody who really does this. Usually, ratings give you a fair idea of what division best fits your skill level.

For the simplest, ballpark answer, this.

 

[DavidSauls]

All good advice, but I have to ask---What do you want a handicap for?

They aren't used in tournaments. Some local leagues use handicaps, but they base them on league play on a particular course.

If you're doing it for friendly competition, you can do the same---track your own scores on your regular course, and calculate the handicaps.

Otherwise, the ratings approximation is the best you can do, but with very limited application.

 

[filobedo]

Slope does not seem to exist at least in disc golf based on 10s of thousands of rounds gathered over the years for ratings, even though some math wizards like GRodney have tried to find it. Speculation is that it doesn't exist in ball golf either but they can't discover it from the data they have available and the way they do course ratings.

The USGA would differ on whether slope exist as it factors into handicap. What are your thoughts on stimp ratings? Many private courses do not reveal details such as Augusta National.

 

[Cgkdisc]

The USGA would differ on whether slope exist as it factors into handicap. What are your thoughts on stimp ratings? Many private courses do not reveal details such as Augusta National.

USGA needed slope as a fudge factor to make their numbers work out so it does exist in that regard. We believe it wouldn't be needed if they were able to set their course scratch ratings a different way. They don't have the process to do it the way we do with disc golf. I met with some USGA handicap experts back in 2000 when we were developing the rating system and they were testing some similar calculations. However, they were already locked into their traditional process, sort of how our keyboard layout remains the same after 100 years.

 

[olkok]

We do an 80% handicap for our leagues.

Add up scores and figure out your average round score.
Course Par - Average round score = 100% handicap
100% handicap * .8 = 80% handicap
Round (up or down) 80% handicap = Adjusted handicap

Example: Round scores 60, 54, 55, 57, 62
Average round score = 57.60
54 - 57.60 = -3.60
-3.60 * .8 = -2.88
Round up = -3

We have it all in an excel spreadsheet so all we have to do is plug in the round scores each week.

 

[Steve West]

Slope does not seem to exist at least in disc golf based on 10s of thousands of rounds gathered over the years for ratings, even though some math wizards like GRodney have tried to find it. Speculation is that it doesn't exist in ball golf either but they can't discover it from the data they have available and the way they do course ratings.

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that, as far we can tell, all courses have the same slope?

 

[Cgkdisc]

Wouldn't it be more correct to say that, as far we can tell, all courses have the same slope?

More like: "All courses with the same SSA have the same slope."

 

[filobedo]

USGA needed slope as a fudge factor to make their numbers work out so it does exist in that regard. We believe it wouldn't be needed if they were able to set their course scratch ratings a different way. They don't have the process to do it the way we do with disc golf. I met with some USGA handicap experts back in 2000 when we were developing the rating system and they were testing some similar calculations. However, they were already locked into their traditional process, sort of how our keyboard layout remains the same after 100 years.

The USGA system is more fair (and over 100 years old) it seems to me as a person who has played traditional golf for 41 years. 5 rounds minimum and your best 10 out of last 20 rounds determine handicap. In dg, inconsistent am tournament players like myself that play numerous tournaments seem to be penalized because for me around 95% of the rounds are calculated which is normally 35 - 45 rounds per each rating update. If the PDGA used the USGA system I would have a 916 rating based on my most recent 10/20 rounds played instead of a 893 rating based on my last 44 rounds.

 

[Cgkdisc]

USGA handicap is about your potential, not your actual performance which is why they only use your best 50% of your rounds. Statistically, you should only be able to beat your handicap about 1 in 4 rounds versus being able to match or beat your PDGA rating in tournaments about half the time. Handicaps are also suspect since they mostly include self reported scores versus only tournament results used for PDGA ratings. What the USGA told me they discovered when doing the tests I referred to was around 10% of golfers seem to report scores properly for handicaps. From their calculations, 45% seem to report their better scores some which may be shaved and 45% report their worse scores some which may be padded. Those who regularly play handicap events perhaps pad their scores to get a better handicap. Those who don't play handicap events perhaps want a lower handicap simply for bragging rights. I'm guessing USGA never published this test info except internally.

 

[filobedo]

USGA handicap is about your potential, not your actual performance which is why they only use your best 50% of your rounds. Statistically, you should only be able to beat your handicap about 1 in 4 rounds versus being able to match or beat your PDGA rating in tournaments about half the time. Handicaps are also suspect since they mostly include self reported scores versus only tournament results used for PDGA ratings. What the USGA told me they discovered when doing the tests I referred to was around 10% of golfers seem to report scores properly for handicaps. From their calculations, 45% seem to report their better scores some which may be shaved and 45% report their worse scores some which may be padded. Those who regularly play handicap events perhaps pad their scores to get a better handicap. Those who don't play handicap events perhaps want a lower handicap simply for bragging rights. I'm guessing USGA never published this test info except internally.

The USGA must have had a summer intern to discuss their system with you. Etiquette and rules are much more observed by amateur traditional golfers than casual/rec disc golfers. There is no way 90% of traditional golfers are cheaters and liars. A higher handicap is an advantage in traditional golf in terms of am tournament play many times and more frowned upon than baggers in disc golf. If you ever revise the system, I suggest discussing the way the Myrtle Beach World Amateur is run with people that understand the game better than the USGA evidently. http://myrtlebeachworldamateur.com/fair-handicaps/#2

 

[Cgkdisc]

The USGA must have had a summer intern to discuss their system with you. Etiquette and rules are much more observed by amateur traditional golfers than casual/rec disc golfers. There is no way 90% of traditional golfers are cheaters and liars. A higher handicap is an advantage in traditional golf in terms of am tournament play many times and more frowned upon than baggers in disc golf. If you ever revise the system, I suggest discussing the way the Myrtle Beach World Amateur is run with people that understand the game better than the USGA evidently. http://myrtlebeachworldamateur.com/fair-handicaps/#2

I visited USGA HQ in Far Hills, NJ and met with senior handicap experts. They were very clear about their test results using a significant set of data. Although some of the "errors" may have been actual pencil whipping or padding scores by making extra putts during an already bad round, more of the skewed results were likely due to players simply not reporting their good or bad rounds to the club maintaining their handicap depending whether they wanted to raise or lower their handicaps. If self-reported scores were actually reliable, they wouldn't need 20 rounds and have to reject half of them to produce a number.

 

[Karl]

While the USGA system has its misgivings so does ours (PDGA). The thing about each is that while advocates for each can argue which is 'more precise' or 'better', dg has the added 'bummer' of having more diverse course types. Some courses 'suit' some players more than others while bg courses are much more homogeneous.
Example: If Rory McIlroy or Jordan Spieth play any regulation bg course, odds are they're going to be favored as will any 5hcp'er over any 10hcp'er on any course. But in dg - due to that certain players are 'made' for certain courses (MUCH more than in bg) - many times will someone "5 shots better" lose to someone "5 shots worse".
Add this aspect into the dg hcp / rating mess and it really muddies the waters.

Karl
Ps: USGA HQ is actually in the town of Bernards, NJ (I used to live 2 miles from them); they (the USGA) use a "Far Hills" address because the post office in that town is closer.

 

[Puckstopper]

While the USGA system has its misgivings so does ours (PDGA). The thing about each is that while advocates for each can argue which is 'more precise' or 'better', dg has the added 'bummer' of having more diverse course types. Some courses 'suit' some players more than others while real golf courses are much more homogeneous.
Example: If Rory McIlroy or Jordan Spieth play any regulation bg course, odds are they're going to be favored as will any 5hcp'er over any 10hcp'er on any course. But in dg - due to that certain players are 'made' for certain courses (MUCH more than in bg) - many times will someone "5 shots better" lose to someone "5 shots worse".
Add this aspect into the dg hcp / rating mess and it really muddies the waters.

LMAO at this nonsense! You can't tell me that traditional golf does not have way MORE variety than disc golf when it comes to obstacles and challenges. In disc golf we have to worry mainly about whether a course is tree-lined, and how heavily. For proof, look at the PDGA's woefully inadequate SSA system. Other, less important, factors include whether a course is hilly and whether it has water.

Traditional golf has all of those factors. Additionally sand traps, waste bunkers and cart paths all create obstacles to your swing that would have no significant effect on a disc golf throw. In disc golf the grass can be waist high and have no effect on the throw, whereas in traditional golf the length of the grass you're hitting off of is a huge factor. Not only the length, but the species affects how the ball flys. Bentgrass courses feel totally different than Bermuda grass courses. And that's not even getting into the many different ways a green can be set up by a skilled greenskeeper. When you compare putting, disc golf is simply child's play when compared to traditional golf.


OP, sorry to go so far off your original question. If you're interested in a more in depth handicap system, PM me your email address and I'll send you a spreadsheet I've been working on for the last couple years. It's not perfect, and requires some work on the part of the user, but it factors in more than course length and tree cover like the PDGA model. Because of the course rating system, it can be used to establish a cross course handicap that has proven to be reasonably accurate among both the group I play with in Ohio and my brother's friends in Michigan.

 

[filobedo]

LMAO at this nonsense! You can't tell me that traditional golf does not have way MORE variety than disc golf when it comes to obstacles and challenges. In disc golf we have to worry mainly about whether a course is tree-lined, and how heavily. For proof, look at the PDGA's woefully inadequate SSA system. Other, less important, factors include whether a course is hilly and whether it has water.

Traditional golf has all of those factors. Additionally sand traps, waste bunkers and cart paths all create obstacles to your swing that would have no significant effect on a disc golf throw. In disc golf the grass can be waist high and have no effect on the throw, whereas in traditional golf the length of the grass you're hitting off of is a huge factor. Not only the length, but the species affects how the ball flys. Bentgrass courses feel totally different than Bermuda grass courses. And that's not even getting into the many different ways a green can be set up by a skilled greenskeeper. When you compare putting, disc golf is simply child's play when compared to traditional golf.


OP, sorry to go so far off your original question. If you're interested in a more in depth handicap system, PM me your email address and I'll send you a spreadsheet I've been working on for the last couple years. It's not perfect, and requires some work on the part of the user, but it factors in more than course length and tree cover like the PDGA model. Because of the course rating system, it can be used to establish a cross course handicap that has proven to be reasonably accurate among both the group I play with in Ohio and my brother's friends in Michigan.

Your assessment of different greens, grass, rough, environment and putting is spot on and what dgers who have no sense of the difficulty in traditional golf will ever understand. I have learned over the past 10 years that many dgers (including some decision makers) absolutely hate traditional golf and golfers no matter how much you try to have a civilized conversation with them. Many dgers feel all golfers were raised at private country clubs and are trustafarians for some strange reason. Dgers could learn plenty from traditional golf if it was not for huge egos but refuse to be open minded. I have been asked numerous times what the biggest discrepancies between dg and traditional golf is by friends and family and many are shocked that most courses are free, you can have more than 14 discs in your bag at tournaments and it only cost about $50 to play a tournament.