If your skiing were golf...

what would your handicap be?

Phil,

Do you mean handicap as in the USGA handicap index (for example as a profesional mine is 0) or a specific weakness (mine-golf-accuracy off the tee; skiing-need to improve inside ski usage)? Either way the responses will be interesting.

If my skiing were like my golf, I'd still be having trouble getting on the lift. If my golf were like my skiing, I'd probably be shooting in the high 70s.

Ahhh... something I can relate to. Two sports I love.

Phil, you started this topic what's your skiing handicap?

I'm definitely a better skier than I am a golfer. Funny thing is I've been doing both for about the same amount of time (25 plus years) and spent countless bucks in the pursuit of perfection through instruction, practice, and new equipment. In golf my best handicap was a 12 (from the tips) and that was playing and practicing several times a week. Today, since I have not been playing much, I'd be lucky to be better than an 18.

Now, if people say they equate their skiing ability to low handicaps or, God forbid, a negative index, are we going to say they are delusional? I love playing these games on this board. So, in skiing, I'd be a low single digit handicapper (2 to 5)while breaking par on my best days.

Tee it up folks!!! Let it rip!!!

For the sake of comparison, Tiger Woods is said to be a -6. I guess Herman Maier, Stefan Eberharder, and Seth Morrison would be the ski world's -6's.

I play golf like I ski, i'e' always in them damned woods. opp's there goes that 'snap' hook again. :-(

Rusty,

You got the idea. My skiing game sounds like yours. low single digits, with breaking par from time to time, when I am "on". Golf, while kist starting a few years ago, I am about a 17. I shoot high 80's, low 90's, but not from the tips . I am hoping to get my golf game to my skiing game sometime.

That is a great question.

My skiing handicap would have to be 7-9 I guess - sometimes good sometimes bad but always (like my golf) a little bit exciting!! I just wish I could carve down really hard runs like I can hook the ball on really hard holes!!

Well, my golf handicap was around 14 last time I played. But the big difference is that being under par at golf is good, but my skiing is frequently under par, which is bad. I don't like bunkers (sand traps), which I suppose is like ice. I do spend a lot of time playing to get out of the trees (at golf). I prefer teh natural links courses to many of the designed courses.
Most of all, I like getting in the hole before the rest, and then getting to the 19th...

S

would I still lose my balls? [img]graemlins/evilgrin.gif[/img]

Well, my USGA is 11 and knowing how difficult scratch is...I'd put my ski 'cap at about 6-8. If my bump game was smoother, maybe a 3-4. I definitely lose strokes in the bumps :

Conversely if my short game were better, I'd be about an 8 in golf...working on that.

I see that modesty still prevails in this thread. A whole lot of people "in the single digits". Correct me if I am wrong Ski&Golf, but my guess is that less than 1% of the golfing public has handicaps less than 10. If that's so, then as a skier who rates themselves "in the single digits" then you are saying you are in the top 1% of skiers.

But, we do have a way of measuring your ski handicap, at least from a racing standpoint, and that is NASTAR. It's not a bad proxy to rate your overall skiing. It's not perfect, but it's pretty good.

In NASTAR there is a national pacesetter who by definition has a zero handicap. Every other pacesetter is rated against him. So, when you go to your local hill your pacesetter runs the course and using his handicap a "national" time is computed.

Your handicap is simply the percentage you are of the standard time. If that national, or standard time is, say, 30 seconds and you run the course in 33 seconds then your handicap is 10. If you run it in 36 seconds, then you are a 20. If you are a 10 then you are a damn good skier.

A PSIA Level 9 skier (the highest level) might have a NASTAR handicap of 6-10.

That said, my lowest ever NASTAR handicap is a 7.2, but more recently I am in the 10-12 range.

Excellent topic,

Bob

If skiing were like golf I'd be bored enough to think about something like this.
Golf=slow, boring game for non-athletes wearing the world's worst clothing.

my handicap would be pretty high as I am always in the rough when I ski and never putt the greens ...

Oz

Being an ex racer, I can honestly say there's more to grading a skier than NASTAR. How one runs the gates is only one facet in the huge sport of skiing.

And actually, only a very small percentage of the golfing public can even *legally* break 100 let alone be in single digs. That said, being a fairly competent skier, let's say a "mid-capper" that can link turns and handle blues and some easy blacks is MUCH easier than being a mid cap golfer that can *actually* shoot in the mid to upper 80's on any given day.

Golf is MUCH harder than it looks and to the nay sayers that say it's boring and for the un-athletic...I urge you to attempt to break 100 by the rules. I know you can't do it.

I'd be willing to bet most any instructor who is also a golf pro could have Joe Average (that's never skied or golfed) skiing competently on blues much faster than he could have them shooting in even the low 90's consistently.

True, there is much more to it. But if you tell me someones NASTAR handicap, I have a pretty good idea how they will ski the expert chutes at Jackson. Like WV skier said, its not perfect, and there is almost no way to draw a parallel with golf. Really the only way to "measure" skiing ability is racing. Not all good skiers are good racers, but I guarantee - all good racers are good skiers. (does that make sense?)
As for Powdermaggot..... You'll have to excuse him, he got mixed up and somehow ended up on the wrong discussion board.

I don't know anything about golf.
Probably I wouldn't even be admitted into a ground.
(despite living for 2 years on the borders of one)

at my peak (college years) I was a 7 handicap golfer.

at the time, I was about a 10-12 handicap skier, but thought I was about a 3 handicap skier.

currently I'm about a 12 handicap golfer -- that's what no practice does to me. I have played 2x in the past 5 years. Areas needing work: swing practice; short game.

as to current skiing ability, I'd give myself a 6 handicap. Areas needing work: short turns, especially in steep icy conditions.

When I was running Nastar alot, I was down to a 7 handicap. I am sure with some time in the gates I could get back there.

Golf swing vs. a carved turn? You can skid a carved turn for a nano-second...Skid your downswing with the driver, you are looking in the woods for you ball or taking a drop.

Aw c'mon Gonz, : as a 7 handicap you know that you were one hell of a good golfer. As a 6 or 7 handicap in golf you are shooting mid to upper 70s which means you are parring two out of every three holes at least. Saying you need work on your short turns...

is like saying you need help with the accurace of your mid irons which means you're shooting 85 not 77. (You are missing a lot fo greens that you should hit.)

Golf is a game, not a sport. There's a difference. It requires a whole lot more finesse than skiing and far less athletic ability.

Each brings me joy and happiness, but in different ways. It's kind of like having a hot fudge sundae for dessert or a piece of decedent chocolate cake. Each sweet and tasty but much different experiences. I like them both.

The NASTAR handicap thing is an interesting way to look at it.

It seems that some skiers are able to post pretty good NASTAR handicaps while concentrating on gate skiing, but they might not ever develop the skills to ski off-piste all that well. By the same token, some excellent all-mountain skiers find themselves very disappointed with their times when they jump into a race course. Overall, though, I think NASTAR handicaps are a relatively good, relatively objective indicator.

Back when I was racing a fair bit, my NASTAR handicaps averaged right around 5. Now, I'd probably have a hard time breaking 10 or 15.

On my overall skiing, I'm probably around an 8 handicap.

Bob

Last USGA handicap was 10.2, but I haven't played much for years and I'd likely have a very hard time shooting 90 today.

You want to see modesty, here it is.

Sorry Bob.Peters but you are without question a "scratch" skier. For those of you who don't know, "scratch" is an USGA index of 0. Pretty darn good. Teaching or many club professionals along with top amateur and collegiate golfers typically carry this handicap or better. Touring professionals are all in the negative numbers. So, that being said, your top ski instructors, collegiate racers, local bump and extreme competitors along with powder 8 champions and back country guides could be equated to being a "scratch" or better skier. Skiers with the lowest negative handicaps would be your movie stars, World Cup racers and mogul skiers.

A ski racer who is 5 percent behind the top racers or pacesetters in the world, would only be a few strokes behind those guys if you equate it to golf. If you move the best skiers to a negative 6, like Tiger Woods and Phil Mickelson in golf, someone who is 5 percent behind them would still have a negative handicapp. So Bob, if you're now 10 to 15 percent behind the best racers you would be a 0 to 4 handicap in golf terms (-6=66, 10%=72, 15%=76). I've never seen you race but I've seen you off-piste and your a "scratch".

As far as single digit golf handicaps go, I don't think they are as rare as many seem to believe. Just like I don't think "expert" skiers are that rare. Many country club members and many golfers who play at their local "munie" are 5 or better. These are your hardcore players who love the game and play as often as possible. People who live near the mountains and have the opportunity to ski twice a week or more throughout the season could easily become a single digit skier if they have the ability to do so. Granted, I live in the Mecca of golfdom, much like Utah is to skiing, but there are a lot of great golfers in this town. Augusta holds a dozen amateur tournaments a year that are open to local single digit handicappers. There are hundreds of guys who play in these every year. Charles Howell III played in and won his first and only appearance at the age of 16. That tells you how good he is. Now, Charley is probably a -5.

I have too much time on my hands I should go practice my swing. It's SPRING TIME!!!

If I skied like I golf I'd quit and take up bowling.

I have golfed for many years, but I don't golf often - certainly not as I often as I'd like. Despite the fact that my golf game is well over par, I really do enjoy the game. It's been several years since I had a USGA handicap, but it was in the low twenties. I'm no threat to Tiger.

I make it down the hill when I ski . . . . I would like to think I would be a single digit skier. Maybe if I were to golf as much as I ski, now there's a thought.

IG

Here is a little data from the USGA relative to handicaps and the "reported" percentages:

Only 0.13 % of men have a handicap of 0 or less, the percentage of women reporting a 0 or better handicap is 0.03%. 25.10% of men report a handicap of 10 or less while 2.7% of women are a 10 or less.

I use the term "reported" because one of the cornerstones of the handicap system is peer review. Your recorded scores have to be available to other members to review. Also, once you have reported more than 20 scores the handicap system will only utilize your 10 best scores, throwing out the rounds that do not reflect your true potential-which is the goal of the system.

Reported scores are supposed reflect the score for rounds which are played strictly according to the rules of golf.

The handicap system is complex but it does allow golfers of all abilities to play each other.

[ March 19, 2003, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Ski&Golf ]

Judge Smails:Ty, what did you shoot today?
Ty Webb: Oh, Judge, I don't keep score.
Judge Smails: Then how do you measure yourself with other golfers?
Ty Webb: By height

Having never skied a NASTAR thingy the only way I can work out a completely subjective number is to use an objective starting point. So I started with my handicap at golf which is 15 decided that I was much better at skiing than I am at golf and then tried to work out how much better. It was a tough call but I reckon half as bad or twice as good just about covers it.

Next time you bring the NASTAR to Surrey look me up and I'll be happy to ski it whatever it is

Not to nitpick with you, but these guys are "plus handicaps", not negatives. CH3 is about a +5, Tiger last I heard was around a +8, meaning he basically starts out 8 over par on the card before even teeing off of #1 and gets no strokes on any hole.

Now go practice your game! Spring is here. Augusta? You lucky dog you, must be neat during the Masters.

Ski&Golf, I am quite surprised that 25% of men who have handicaps are a 10 or less. But, that begs a question, what percentage of all golfers actually have a handicap? A quarter? A tenth? What's your guess?

My guess is that it is the serious golfer who has a handicap, or a member at a private club. The average guy I see at the public courses doesn't have a handicap.

Bob

I am not a member of a club but I did keep track of my Handicap on-line for the last 2 years (only have been playing 5 years) and thats where I got my guesstimate from.

Rustyedge:

Thanks (again) for the compliments. In the interest of accuracy, let me walk you through how I arrived at my estimate.

Back when I raced quite a bit, Pepi Steigler, who was SS Director at Jackson *and* a former Olympic champion, was the 0 Nastar pacesetter. As I gradually (far too slowly) improved in gates, I got to where I could usually ski around 5% slower than Pepi. Of course, Pepi skied about a half-hour a day and showed up for Nastar races, ran the courses, and disappeared, while I was skiing all day every day and running as many gates as I could along the way.

Anyway, during those years there was a US Team racer from Jackson named Andy Chambers. Andy was primarily a downhiller but also raced GS. At his best, he was ranked in the second seed in both disciplines, meaning he was the 15th to 30th best racer on the Cup tour.

Every spring after the World Cup ended, Andy would come home and show up on "our" hill. Back then, recreational racing was a much bigger thing than it is now, and we used to have a big end-of-the-season race between the ski patrollers and the ski instructors (we guides worked for the ski school). The race was always set up as a fairly long GS, with the winning times being close to 70 seconds. Pepi was *always* the fastest local (and always beat me by my usual margin), but Andy won those races by as much as six or eight SECONDS over Pepi's time.

Now here's where the math starts in. If Andy beat Pepi by at least 10%, and Pepi beat me by 5%, that puts me a minimum of 15 points back of Andy. HOWEVER... Andy typically lost to the best World Cuppers (Mahres, Giaredelli{sp?}, Stenmark, etc) by at least 5-7%. So, now I'm up to at least 22% behind the best racers, and that doesn't even take into account the fact that the conditions they skied were infinitely more difficult than the courses we raced.

So, even taking into account the negative (or positive) handicap for the very best people (Tiger being a +8 for example), I figure my number relative to that scale is at least a 15.

That's why I'm kind of stubborn about the whole "expert" thing. I do honestly feel that I'm a pretty good skier (particularly in junk) and I'm proud of that, but I also know from personal experience how much better a whole boatload of people are.

Andy and I have become good friends and I ski with him quite a bit (AltaSkier and Fred made a few turns with him last weekend). He hasn't skied competitively in fifteen years and actually doesn't ski very much anymore because of all the knee damage he incurred. In his "normal" mode, I can kind of hang with him but every now and then he just kicks on the skills and leaves me gaping.

I'd call *him* a "scratch" skier, which would put me up around 8. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Bob

This is a great topic since we are the fulcrum point, at least in NE, between the golf and ski seasons. I have been golfing much more recently than skiing (though that is changing), and am now carrying a 17 handicap. While I do believe that golf by the rules is a very difficult game to really go low, if we want to really put the two sports side by side, how do you decide which aspects of skiing to rate? In golf, while there are many aspects to the game, there is a single, supposedly objective measure - your score. Last I checked, there is no single, objective measure for skiing. Is it racing? How about moguls? Aerials? Halfpipe/terrain park?

Not meaning to be offensive, just trying to add another perspective to the discussion. Overall, if I were to rate my SKILL in skiing relative to my skill in golfing, I'd say that I have a handicap in the low 20s. If I were to rate my ability to mostly handle whatever I find on any given mountain reasonably well, I'd say that I'm higher, though the aesthetics wouldn't necessarily always be pretty. But as they say in golf, it doesn't matter how, just how many!