Golf Digest; What's a 6-handicap, really?

[Pepperturbo]

12 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

You sure you're not toking ?

 

2) The writer was only talking about golfers with indexes - so those who don't are a  problem why ?  

 

and

 

a) Less than TEN golfers out of a club of 500+ were single digits ?  

 

Or did only 40 members at each club even keep a handicap ? 

Me toking... pulling a Chamblee??   

 

I have never trusted anything from Golf Digest... thus didn't read the article.  Just because someone puts it on the internet does NOT mean it's the truth or fact.  But you're welcome to see it, however.   I look at what I've seen first hand with my own eyes...that's my truth.

 

Remember the purpose of such articles, pretty much like listening to Brandel Chamblee hoping to get everyone's attention.  LOL 

[Pnwpingi210]

15 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

 

 

The question by @Newby was in the context quoted above and had nothing to do with play in the US.  dave

You would be correct.  I don’t have the world golf numbers off the top of my head, so I used the US numbers as context for a response.

 

[nsxguy]

32 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

Me toking... pulling a Chamblee??   

 

I have never trusted anything from Golf Digest... thus didn't read the article.  Just because someone puts it on the internet does NOT mean it's the truth or fact.  But you're welcome to see it, however.   I look at what I've seen first hand with my own eyes...that's my truth.

 

Remember the purpose of such articles, pretty much like listening to Brandel Chamblee hoping to get everyone's attention.  LOL 

 

On 7/8/2024 at 11:52 AM, Pepperturbo said:

IMO That Golf Digest author is hoping to feel good while blowing smoke after toking...  There are many people that play golf but don't have an index.  Interesting charts at the link.

 

This is from the USGA and I don't believe the numbers.  Each of my last two clubs had 500+ members, "single digit" were less than 2% at each, and aligned pvt clubs in SOCA had even less.  I know that from Interclub match play against other pvt clubs.  Most clubs didn't have low single or "+" digits, so those most of us were playing people in the 10–16 index range.  That number is even lower at each of the three memberships I currently hold at upscale clubs.

https://bit.ly/3RVuUdG 

 

 

 

You likely didn't get to my post where I called it a "puff piece".

 

Nevertheless, you haven't read the article yet you say "IMO That Golf Digest author is hoping to feel good while blowing smoke after toking". 

 

And you say "I look at what I've seen first hand with my own eyes...that's my truth"  

 

You claimed "single digits" (not even 6.x or better) were about 2% at your clubs of 500+ members.

 

So are you the one blowing smoke ? Even "only" the 25% in the article would give 125 members 6.x or less (nevermind "single digits"). And your club(s) have TEN ?

 

Did you actually look/add up the players on the Handicap List of the 500+ members ? Or is that your "best guess" ? 

 

Hence my question about you "toking". 

[Pepperturbo]

13 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

 

You likely didn't get to my post where I called it a "puff piece".

 

Nevertheless, you haven't read the article yet you say "IMO That Golf Digest author is hoping to feel good while blowing smoke after toking". 

 

And you say "I look at what I've seen first hand with my own eyes...that's my truth"  

 

You claimed "single digits" (not even 6.x or better) were about 2% at your clubs of 500+ members.

 

So are you the one blowing smoke ? Even "only" the 25% in the article would give 125 members 6.x or less (nevermind "single digits"). And your club(s) have TEN ?

 

Did you actually look/add up the players on the Handicap List of the 500+ members ? Or is that your "best guess" ? 

 

Hence my question about you "toking". 

You must have nothing to do... analyzing my post sentence by sentence is impractical, especially since I am not wasting my time reading your form of argument.  Not interested in arguing either, but you have fun. 🙂

 

[nsxguy]

6 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

You must have nothing to do... analyzing my post sentence by sentence is impractical, especially since I am not wasting my time reading your form of argument.  Not interested in arguing either, but you have fun. 🙂

 

 

Well, for a change you've gotten something right. Got nothing better to do right now. Apparently you as well.

 

So typical........... but thanks for being so consistent........ 👍

[Golferpaul]

Here is a chart from Golf Magazine.  They say the percent of indexes for 6.9 and below is 16.13%

 

That's quite different from Golf Digest's 25% and much more believable.

 

How your handicap index stacks up against golfers in the United States

[GoGoErky]

2 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

Here is a chart from Golf Magazine.  They say the percent of indexes for 6.9 and below is 16.13%

 

That's quite different from Golf Digest's 25% and much more believable.

 

How your handicap index stacks up against golfers in the United States

I don’t think the article is saying 25% of people playing golf are 6 handicaps but as a 6% your on top 25 which would be 6 handicaps and below. 
 

so your chart and their chart when you add 6 and below it’s 25% or more

[skim4]

Over half the people I regularly play golf with don't have a handicap. And they play often and aren't terrible. They shoot 80 to 100.

[Bushwood Country Club]

On 7/7/2024 at 1:48 PM, Golferpaul said:

Golf Digest just published an article with this statement;

 

"As a 6-handicap, you're in the top quarter of male golfers—top 3 percent for females—according to the United States Golf Association."

 

What's a 6-handicap, really? | Golf News and Tour Information | Golf Digest  by Max Adler.

 

In my experience over decades of playing golf, nowhere near a quarter of all male golfers have a six or less.  I would guess the number is more like 5%.

Gotta say, like most of the folks commenting I thought this was way off base.  Our Member/Member is this weekend and thanks to Golf Genius, I was able to review everyone's index.  200 Players (10 flights with 10 teams of two).  Number of players with a 6.0 or less = 41... that's 21%.  Looks like the data is pretty solid.

 

[SNIPERBBB]

6 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

Here is a chart from Golf Magazine.  They say the percent of indexes for 6.9 and below is 16.13%

 

That's quite different from Golf Digest's 25% and much more believable.

 

How your handicap index stacks up against golfers in the United States

Article was 4 years ago so the numbers arent current.

 

 

 

As for the original article, it's mainly just a response former vice president claiming he has a 6 handicap. I did look it up for funzies and he does have a 6.7 index but hasn't posted a score since 18.

[SBGolferMichael]

On 7/7/2024 at 4:22 PM, bobfoster said:

Yes. Gotta understand the stats here. Numbers are real.

 

There are now over 26 million people in the US alone that play golf (about 66 million in the world).

 

Of the 26 million, slightly over 3 million bother to keep a formal GHIN handicap. Almost by definition, these are the most serious golfers. Very few weekenders and casual golfers would even think about entering every score. 

 

So of that 3 million or so, I think the average index is around 14 or something. So I can easily believe that a 6 cap would be in the top 25% in that sample set. 

 

But if you expand it to the entire golfing world, less than 5% will every break 80. 

Great answer contextualizing the stat.

[naval2006]

21 hours ago, Newby said:

Does no one ever just go and play 'for fun' or to get some exercise/fresh air without playing in a competition? Are there competitions every day for women and men?

The thing here is you show up on a Saturday and you pay for the tourney and they hand out your scorecard. It may be up to you if you tell your partners I’m not competing. But nobody does that because golf is golf. You may have your round of the year and win. And that’s how people get addicted to tournaments. 
 

Sometimes a player may start and they feel it’s not their day so they just complete the round sticking to the ROG since the rest are competing but you just play for fun. Which is highly uncommon because good golf comes and goes so after a bad first step you can go back on track on 7 or 10 and the round gets activated all of a sudden. 
 

Overall it’s a competitive atmosphere. One day stroke play comps at clubs are mostly very informal but as everybody plays by the rules it’s commonplace to at least try to beat your partners, if there’s a fourball comp there’s always a bet at stake. 
 

There are some weekdays when there’s no tournament and people just tee off. Some have a match fixed, some people just play for fun or to practice for the weekend. 
 

In the end, all weekend competitions are with hdc so anyone can win their bracket. Every Saturday when golfers receive their scorecard at the Secretary they all know deep inside that “this can be the day.”

 

Finally, if you want to play on any given weekend they will ask your hdc registration number. That’s reason #1 to get a hdc in my country. Most tournaments are mixed but bigger events ar club level have a women’s bracket. Regional and national is all men’s and women’s. There’s no age limit so you often see high school teenagers playing with golden warriors. If you’re a visitor to our country you will definitely play even without a hdc. This is the only exception. You won’t be in the field but you’ll hit anyway. 

[Mr. Bean]

On 7/8/2024 at 6:53 PM, iacas said:

If ~13% of people with handicaps are 6 or below, then I could see a 6 as being in the top 25% of all golfers.

 

It is this simple. A 6-capper is in the top 25%, but not all top 25% are 6-cappers.

[Pnwpingi210]

19 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

It is this simple. A 6-capper is in the top 25%, but not all top 25% are 6-cappers.

Agreed. 
 

my experience playing public golf courses with many many random golfers (mostly play as a twosome getting paired up with 1-2 people I don’t know is I have been paired with one person who was single digits in the last 4 years, he was a seven.

 

most people we get paired up with don’t keep a handicap and shoot 90-110.  There are some 85-90s in there be they are rare.

 

this is 60-90 rounds per year.

[Golferpaul]

After all of this analysis, I still think the Golf Digest statement is misleading.   

 

GD: "As a 6-handicap, you're in the top quarter of male golfers"

 

Yes, that is mathematically true, but it implies that 25% of all golfers have a handicap of six or less. 

 

But it's as misleading as saying "Scottie Scheffler is in the top quarter of male golfers".  True, but misleading or silly.

[GoGoErky]

41 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

After all of this analysis, I still think the Golf Digest statement is misleading.   

 

GD: "As a 6-handicap, you're in the top quarter of male golfers"

 

Yes, that is mathematically true, but it implies that 25% of all golfers have a handicap of six or less. 

 

But it's as misleading as saying "Scottie Scheffler is in the top quarter of male golfers".  True, but misleading or silly.

Have you added up the percentages in the charges post in this thread for 6 or below including the one you posted?

 

im guessing now otherwise you would see it’s actually pretty accurate 

On 7/9/2024 at 2:07 PM, Golferpaul said:

Here is a chart from Golf Magazine.  They say the percent of indexes for 6.9 and below is 16.13%

 

That's quite different from Golf Digest's 25% and much more believable.

 

How your handicap index stacks up against golfers in the United States

To help out I’ll use your post

 

 

[Pnwpingi210]

1 hour ago, Golferpaul said:

After all of this analysis, I still think the Golf Digest statement is misleading.   
 

GD: "As a 6-handicap, you're in the top quarter of male golfers"

 

 

 

Yes, that is mathematically true, but it implies that 25% of all golfers have a handicap of six or less. 

 

But it's as misleading as saying "Scottie Scheffler is in the top quarter of male golfers".  True, but misleading or silly.

I think if they said 

GD: "As a 8 -handicap, you're in the top quarter of male golfers" + “ that keep an active handicap” it would be a more clear statement.

 

 

 

 

 

[GoGoErky]

18 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I think if they said 

GD: "As a 8 -handicap, you're in the top quarter of male golfers" + “ that keep an active handicap” it would be a more clear statement.

 

 

 

 

 

Why do you say 8 because it sounds more realistic. Show data because the data presented in this thread shows GD to be right.

 

[Pnwpingi210]

5 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

Why do you say 8 because it sounds more realistic. Show data because the data presented in this thread shows GD to be right.

 

 

8-8.9 is 24.52 percent.  Round up you get 25.

 

6 - 6.9 is 16.13 percent.  While technically true that a 6 hc is inside the top 25 percent so is a 7hc as is an 8hc, as is a +6, its a bit unclear or misleading.  I didn’t dispute its factual nature, just suggested it could be more clear.

 

[GoGoErky]

4 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

 

8-8.9 is 24.52 percent.  Round up you get 25.

 

6 - 6.9 is 16.13 percent.  While technically true that a 6 hc is inside the top 25 percent so is a 7hc as is an 8hc, as is a +6, its a bit unclear or misleading.  I didn’t dispute its factual nature, just suggested it could be more clear.

 

Thats is one group again read what they said. They didn’t say 25% of golfers are a 6 handicap. They said if you have a 6 handicap you are in the top 25 of golfers and means all golfers 6.9 and below or even 6.0 and below.

 

 

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, GoGoErky said:

Thats is one group again read what they said. They didn’t say 25% of golfers are a 6 handicap. They said if you have a 6 handicap you are in the top 25 of golfers and means all golfers 6.9 and below or even 6.0 and below.

 

 

I understand man.  Most people would assume that the authors would more closely correlate the hc they are referencing to the actually percentage it represents.

example  In this case a 6 hc would be in the top 17% of golfers.  Why choose 25%?  Why not choose 50% or 33%.  Both are equally as true?

[GoGoErky]

7 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I understand man.  Most people would assume that the authors would more closely correlate the hc they are referencing to the actually percentage it represents.

example  In this case a 6 hc would be in the top 17% of golfers.  Why choose 25%?  Why not choose 50% or 33%.  Both are equally as true?

You say you understand yet you are pointing out a single number and the percentage of that number.

 

They choose 25 because that’s the percentage of all golfers 6 and below and they expect their audience to have reading comprehension to understand what top quarter of golfers means.

 

They weren’t trying to call out a specific number but calling out a range. They could have made the 6 handicaps and even the 5s ( a lot of people seem to take this number as meaning playing good golf which it’s not) feel bad about how bad they are by saying as a 4 handicap you are in the top 10% of golfers

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

After all of this analysis, I still think the Golf Digest statement is misleading.   

 

GD: "As a 6-handicap, you're in the top quarter of male golfers"

 

Yes, that is mathematically true, but it implies that 25% of all golfers have a handicap of six or less. 

 

But it's as misleading as saying "Scottie Scheffler is in the top quarter of male golfers".  True, but misleading or silly.

 

So, if I would say "as a scratch player you would be in top 10% of male golfers" that would be misleading?

 

That would be misleading only to them who cannot understand what was written.

[Pnwpingi210]

6 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

You say you understand yet you are pointing out a single number and the percentage of that number.

 

They choose 25 because that’s the percentage of all golfers 6 and below and they expect their audience to have reading comprehension to understand what top quarter of golfers means.

 

They weren’t trying to call out a specific number but calling out a range. They could have made the 6 handicaps and even the 5s ( a lot of people seem to take this number as meaning playing good golf which it’s not) feel bad about how bad they are by saying as a 4 handicap you are in the top 10% of golfers

25% is the percentage for all golfers an 8 and below.  Why not uses that?  
 

Nobody is disputing the factual nature of the statement which is the crux of your arguement.  We agree the gd statement is factually correct.
 

Where we disagree is what the at statement will imply beyond its factual nature to the average reader.  If you disagree with this, that’s great.  That’s like your opinion, man.  You are entitled to it and nobody should be arguing an opinion is wrong.  Cause it’s….an opinion 🙂

Edited July 13, 2024 by Pnwpingi210

[Golferpaul]

3 hours ago, GoGoErky said:

Have you added up the percentages in the charges post in this thread for 6 or below including the one you posted?

 

im guessing now otherwise you would see it’s actually pretty accurate 

To help out I’ll use your post

 

 

The chart says 16.13%, cumulative. So there is no need to add anything.  

[Golferpaul]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

So, if I would say "as a scratch player you would be in top 10% of male golfers" that would be misleading?

 

 

It's useless and could be misleading.  Just like saying "Scottie Scheffler is in the top 50% of all golfers".  True, but useless.

 

A more useful statement would be "as a scratch player you would be in the top 2%"

[GoGoErky]

11 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

It's useless and could be misleading.  Just like saying "Scottie Scheffler is in the top 50% of all golfers".  True, but useless.

 

A more useful statement would be "as a scratch player you would be in the top 2%"

That’s no different than what was said about the 6 handicaps.

 

It’s very simple reading. If you are handicaps is anywhere from a tour pro to a 6 handicap you are in the top 25% of golfers.

 

 

[Pnwpingi210]

16 minutes ago, GoGoErky said:

That’s no different than what was said about the 6 handicaps.

 

It’s very simple reading. If you are handicaps is anywhere from a tour pro to a 6 handicap you are in the top 25% of golfers.

 

 

Tour pro to 8.9 is also a correct statement 😀

[nsxguy]

On the right day and right course, you'll break 80. Congratulations. As a 6-handicap,,,,,,,,,

 

Given the way this thread has gone,,,,,,,, I'm almost a little surprised nobody's said "Just because one breaks 80 doesn't mean he's a "6". 

[Mr. Bean]

9 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

It's useless and could be misleading.  Just like saying "Scottie Scheffler is in the top 50% of all golfers".  True, but useless.

 

A more useful statement would be "as a scratch player you would be in the top 2%"

 

Useless? Agree.

 

Misleading? No way.