What does your handicap mean?

Given that a golf handicap defines the standard at which you play, where do handicaps rank in terms of ability in other sports.

For example, would a scratch golfer be compared with a footballer of a standard commensurate with Havant and Waterlooville, or a 15 handicapper with a social tennis club member.

Anyone can any ideas?

USGA Men Hdcp Idx Percent of Total Cumulative
+1 or better 0.13% 0.13%
0 0.55% 0.68%
1 0.57% 1.25%
2 0.85% 2.10%
3 1.15% 3.25%
4 1.56% 4.81%
5 2.02% 6.83%
6 2.56% 9.39%
7 3.17% 12.56%
8 3.68% 16.24%
9 4.20% 20.44%
10 4.66% 25.10%
11 5.02% 30.12%
12 5.41% 35.53%
13 5.58% 41.11%
14 5.67% 46.78%
15 5.54% 52.32%
16 5.36% 57.69%
17 5.02% 62.71%
18 4.64% 67.35%
19 4.23% 71.57%
20 3.88% 75.45%
21 3.46% 78.91%
22 3.12% 82.03%
23 2.78% 84.81%
24 2.44% 87.25%
25 2.11% 89.36%
26 1.81% 91.17%
27 1.54% 92.71%
28 1.30% 94.01%
29 1.10% 95.12%
30 0.91% 96.03%
31 0.75% 96.78%
32 0.61% 97.39%
33 0.51% 97.91%
34 0.42% 98.32%
35 0.34% 98.66%
36+ 1.34% 100.00%

Very well Mac, I was more thinking about plotting golf ability against ability in other sports. For example just how bad is a 15 handicap footballer?

I thought the scale would be useful in comparing how many people reach each handicap.

What are the best 0.13% of people playing football doing?

Sunday league or better?

Very enlightenting it was too Mac.
That's the point I'm trying to ask. If for example you were the equivalent of a 15 handicap at tennis, running, football, swimming etc, would you bother doing it?

GOt to be better than Sunday League though, I've played at a decent level at football, but nowhere near the top 0.13%
I'd say Sunday league is more like top 10%.

Have seldom been much better than a 15, but can't imagine ever feeling (for what I want out of the game at any rate) I wouldn't "bother doing it". Have probably been slightly better than that at tennis and about an 8 or 9 at cricket, but have had so much fun playing every sport I've tried that can't imagine ever not wanting to bother.
Sunday League on a windswept Purley Way in a hailstorm not quite so attractive; not sorry to give that up.

The thing about most other sports, you compete against others of similar ability since competition is nearly always divided into leagues. So the "15 handicappers" play against others of similar "handicap" and have competitive games off "all flat". If they get much better they progress through the leagues and play with better "handicappers". When it comes to tournaments (cup fixtures), the handicaps are all thrown together and the better players invariably win.

the concept of a bandit would be hilarious in soccer! running the pitch and intentionally hitting the corner flag

My handicap is 5. I was a better squash player (the older i get the better i was) than I will ever be a golfer. I know it was far more painful being run ragged by good county standard squash players than it is playing with scratch and better golfers! In fact it is quite pleasant playing with and observing good golfers in a way it never was with squash players!!!

So how bad is a 15 handicap footballer?

So about 50% of people are better than them and 50% are worse.

The type of player I imagine they are is one who often makes poor decisions and tries to hold onto the ball for an inexplicably long time while their brain catches up with there feet.

The sort of payers the gets in a muddle either through a series of poor touches or just not quite able to do what they want.


For comparison a 22 handicap footballer would be unable to control most passes and show almost no movement into space. I imagine many shots would be total fluffs and they would rarely manage to get a pass away.

Ha ha ...interesting debate. Being a 7 handicapper at golf with a pretty good feel for where my handicap is/should be I look at the other things I do...Karate? I'd have to put myself at least scratch (4th Dan). On the other hand..Surfing? probably about a 20-24 handicap.

There was an interesting stat in the the Times a few weeks ago. They reckoned that, in the UK, one in 4000 male children had sufficient talent and the mentality and the motivation to go on to become a professional footballer. Given that nearly every kid plays football, that must be a pretty reliable stat.

So, according to McLaren's chart, that would relate to golfers playing off +2 or +3 perhaps.

McLaren wrote:So how bad is a 15 handicap footballer?

So about 50% of people are better than them and 50% are worse.

The type of player I imagine they are is one who often makes poor decisions and tries to hold onto the ball for an inexplicably long time while their brain catches up with there feet.

The sort of payers the gets in a muddle either through a series of poor touches or just not quite able to do what they want.


For comparison a 22 handicap footballer would be unable to control most passes and show almost no movement into space. I imagine many shots would be total fluffs and they would rarely manage to get a pass away.

Mac, where would you rate an SPL player on the handicap scale?

36

George - good combination of stats available.

I'd have guessed that scratch or +1 would likely be League 2 (div 4) or so with incremental increases up to decent Premier League players being +4 or +5 with your Messi/Ronaldo etc up at +7. (home course handicaps!)

SPL (ex Celtic) would be +2/+3 (Upper League 1/Championship ish).

Of course there are trend buckers, I'm a QPR fan and either their handicaps are self certified or they got an Ishikawa Masters invite!

McLaren wrote:USGA Men Hdcp Idx Percent of Total Cumulative
+1 or better 0.13% 0.13%
0 0.55% 0.68%
1 0.57% 1.25%
....

I always knew I was close to the top...
But worrying signs lately that I'm starting to move down the slope the wrong way...

Spoiler:

super_realist wrote:Very enlightenting it was too Mac.
That's the point I'm trying to ask. If for example you were the equivalent of a 15 handicap at tennis, running, football, swimming etc, would you bother doing it?

GOt to be better than Sunday League though, I've played at a decent level at football, but nowhere near the top 0.13%
I'd say Sunday league is more like top 10%.

Assuming Mac's figures are %ages of people who actually play the sport rather than total population, there's no way Sunday league football is the top 10% of all people who consider football something they regularly play. Top 90% more like!

Kind of agree MPB if you are talking about the general population.

I actually played my first game of 11 a side on grass the other week since 1998, even though I am now 37 I was still quicker, fitter and more skillful than almost anyone on either side, and these chumps play all the time.

Easy game.

The standard of amateur football (as in you, me down the park type football, not semi pro) has gone downhill massively in the last 10 years. At least around this area.
I played a match not long ago, and i've not played or really done much exercise in truth for 5 years or so. We lost 5-2 to a really bad side, i scored both goals and almost everyone on the side was more unfit than me?! That's not right

I think the fact mortgages are more expensive etc means people work weekends more and don't take football so seriously has led to a real decline in standards

To many people you'd expect to play a bit of Football (judging by the athletic nature of their attire...and I don't mean 'sports casual' a la Alan Partridge) spend their weekends in Macdonalds or at the pool hall.

Stop following me!!

I think it's just people are in dreadful shape now. Nothing to do with mortgages, all to do with their glutony. Britain is a hugely fat country.

When I played their striker was like Billy Bunter, good touch but totally unable to run any distance or speed.

enjoy a couple of big macs from time to time mpb?

Super

What is the highest level you have played football at?

Like I say Mac, the game I had the other week was my first grass pitch proper league game since 98. Before that I only played for the firsts at Uni, which admittedly is not a very high standard.

Ironically I am a left winger.

Me too super, but right footed. I thought learning to use the weaker foot was a good thing but it just meant in the absence of a natural left footer I would be plonked on the left.


Do you prefer playing football or golf?

I play football for my competitive instinct. We've a very good league going up here for 7 a side and it's a good standard at a high fitness level.
Golf, while occasionally competitive, is more a social thing these days. Take it less seriously, enjoy both, but golf I enjoy more.

super_realist wrote:Kind of agree MPB if you are talking about the general population.

I actually played my first game of 11 a side on grass the other week since 1998, even though I am now 37 I was still quicker, fitter and more skillful than almost anyone on either side, and these chumps play all the time.

Easy game.

Just wondering, have you had sex in your 30's?

Of course I have, nowhere near as much as my 20's, but there you go, most people are probably the same.

Must admit, apart from that, my life is very good indeed. There are worse things in the world than not getting your leg over very often.

Ha ha Ban
Actually I'm not a big fan of McDonalds. Or most Scottish food......

Interesting stats from Mac! Is there any way of finding out the UK equivalent? This may put to bed (or raise a hornets' nest!) the question about whether the American slope system produces higher handicaps than our CONGU system. My instinct says it will.
Just as a quick exercise I looked at the handicaps from my own club and the breakdowns of my club V the whole of the USA are

5 and under 8.21% (USA 6.88%)
8 and under 17.16% (USA 16.24%)
10 and under 26.49% ( USA 25.10%)
14 and under 51.87% ( USA 46.78%)
18 and under 76.49% (USA 67.35%)
24 and under 96.15% (USA 87.25%

I have only included active handicaps so maybe that skews things a bit.

Make of it what you will but on this evidence I reckon my club could wop the USA in a handicap match!!!!