Skiing ability levels compared to golf handicaps

Interesting comparison. My golf handicap hovers around 12, and I'd say my ski handicap would be somewhere in the low single digit range. Perhaps a 2-3?

The main difference between my golf handicap and ski handicap would be consistency. I am one of those guys that can go out and shoot in the 70's, but a week later can shoot 95. My skiing ability stays pretty constant.

I don't play golf so I don't have an exact comparison to golf, but I would probably have a handicap in the low teens like maybe a 14. I ski steep stuff and ski off piste, but doing so slowly. On piste I can ski most trails the mountains out east have to offer.

Never having played golf, how exactly is a handicap computed in the sport?

I think Tiger has done some skiing, but doubt he is a +8.  However, I am sure that he would be more than happy if some of the gossip shows, etc. would start speculating about this instead of the current topic.

In all seriousness, I have played to as low as a 4 (although it is much higher now) and expect that my skiing handicap is probably also single digits- much better than your average gaper, but far behind the top pros.  I prefer skiing off piste with a good amount of turning, but haven't done much of it yet this year.

It seems to me that a Nastar handicap would be the closest analog to the golf handicap. 

It's kind of a fool's errand, because:

- Golf, unlike ordinary skiing, is a game, in which people compete, and can win and lose
- More-or-less following from that, golf has a score. The handicap (as I understand it ... I'm not a golfer) represents the difference between your typical score and a "standard" (or "par") score.

Since it's not a game, there's no set idea of what "better" means in ordinary skiing - or, at the very least, one can be better or worse in multiple different dimensions.

Since there's no score, even if there were a clear notion of better and worse, and even if you define what range of values people's handicaps should fall along, you lack a notion of how the scores should be distributed. Is the difference between 0 and 10 a huge difference that requires enormous effort to change? What about the difference between 60 and 50? Is that smaller and easier to overcome? Are handicaps distributed normally (in the statistical sense of the word)? Golf handicaps, I suspect, aren't, but probably have a tail on only one side. Even if you figure they're normally distributed, what's the standard deviation supposed to be? When you're measuring other things (like various mental abilities), you can devise all sorts of scoring systems, some of which go from 1 to 4, 80 to 100, 90-something to 150, 200 to 800, 120 to 180 ... and which may or may not draw big distinctions between people in various areas of the range.

Obviously, ski racing is a game, and does have a score. And, indeed, there are something akin to handicaps: NASTAR has explicit handicaps, and FIS (or USSA) points are also handicaps (though their scale is adjusted). If you want to turn an FIS-point figure into a percentage handicap, divide it by the F-value for the relevant event. For example, a person with 100 points in GS would have a percentage handicap of 100 / 880 = 11.4%. You can, of course, turn it into a time handicap by multiplying it times the approximate length (in time) of the relevant race course. A male racer with 100 FIS points in GS should lose to Didier Cuche by about 6.8 seconds in a 1-minute GS run. Ted Ligety (0.60 points) should lose by about 4/100ths of a second. Marco Sullivan, say, should lose by 2.14 seconds.

The golf handicap is easy to compute; the ski handicap, not so much.  Either way, I spend alot of time in the trees.

Golf - currently a 22, has been as low as 16.  Ski - 9.  Or so I've been told.

I'm a 2 handicap in real life (golf).  Skiing though, I'd say I'm a 5 handicap since I can handle just about any course (line), but is it always pretty?  I can best most people on the mountain (the average golfer does not break 100 the way the average skier never seeks dangerous terrain [not necessarily the average skier here i'm sure]), but am a good distance away from being a pro. 
Do you guys think golf is a lot like skiing in the sense that going from beginner to decent is not that difficult, but getting from really good to amazing is VERY difficult?  i.e. going from a 36 handicap to a 20 handicap is easy in golf, going from a 2 to a +2 is incredibly hard and time consuming.

EDIT: I'm a 5 handicap skier (but that usually includes a few penalty strokes for going for it!)
and I'm also not really sure that strictly skiers would be able to get a very good feel for this question, as a handicap in golf doesn't make sense to most people.  Unless you've been around it a long time, it can be confusing how a +5 and a 5 are not the same, as they ARE the same integer, yet describe very different golfers.  Even most golfers think that their handicap should get them back to an even par round, when really it's like %87 of getting you back to even par, AND that's with throwing out your worst rounds.  Anywho, just a thought.  I really enjoyed your question though. 
Now, what would my 5 handicap put me at in skiing levels, as I'm unfamiliar with how to grade myself skiing. 
Edited by guroo270 - 12/10/09 at 2:22pm

I agree. I think golf is a lot like skiing because they're both highly technical, finesse sports (by finesse I mean the manner of using the tools in a way that enables natural forces to do most of the work). They seem to attract the same type of person(ality) that enjoys games of applied physics. 

??? I could care less about games, applied physics or golf. But I don't really feel any kind of need to use a yardstick to compare myself against other skiers either.

I don't golf, but  I doubt if I'd even try to keep track of how many times I'd hit the ball to make it go in. Silly, if you ask me.

I am a competent hack at either sport.  My putting is much better while skiing though. 

Yes, getting from good to really good requires a lot time on the practice green or the greens.

 I go to 11

A few thoughts if you are unfamiliar with golf handicaps.

The important thing to remember about golf handicaps is that they only indicate your potential. Only about 20% of the time will a golfer play to his handicap. (I wish I had a quarter for every golfer who comes into the shop saying they didn't play to their handicap). And they are calculated for an "average" course then adjusted to reflect the specific course/set of tees you are playing. That is index vs. course handicap. So if you play a more difficult course your stroke allowance will increase and for an exceptionally easy course the inverse is true. The course ratings/slope ratings that handicaps are based on follow a pretty formal, systematic analysis by trained course raters.

The purpose of handicaps are to allow players of differing abilities to equitably compete and enjoy the game. So I am not sure how they would work for skiing.

That's actually somewhat consistent with how FIS/USSA points are calculated. How many points you have in seeding list and the like is based on your two best results, so they also reflect how well you do at your best, rather than on average. The F-value is something akin to an adjustment for different golf courses, though it adjusts event-by-event, rather than course-by-course (which wouldn't exactly be practical in ski racing). A person with 100 points in DH is approximately as good a DH racer as a person with 100 points in SL is a SL racer, though the DH racer's time would be closer to the world's best in percentage terms (7.6% slower) than the SL racer (16.7% slower).

Of course, you don't need a handicap in an ordinary ski race. The participants can do whatever they want with the results sheet. Indeed, it is the case that people often consider a performance more successful if it lowers their points, even if they place lower. So, I suppose, it works like a personal racer-by-racer handicap for determining what's a "personal victory." They could also be used to handicap a dual race, I suppose.

Ratings like the OP is talking about seem to have more in common with USTA ratings in tennis. Tennis is rarely* played with a handicap system, but people use their USTA rating to determine who they might enjoy playing with. I continue to think such a system wouldn't be particularly meaningful or useful in skiing (except for boasting purposes, which - judging from self-ratings - a rigorous rating system might actually do more to impair rather than encourage). People often happily ski with people of significantly greater or lesser ability; and people of the same ability often have no interest in skiing with one another.
______
* There is a clever "bisque" handicap system for tennis. I've never personally used it, but I've heard from people who played a tournament using it that it was fun.

Skiing Handicaps:

I don't think I'm ever going to be old enough to play golf!

Golf blows....skiing doesn't.....next question

Exactly, silly question.

Ya know, another thing that I hate about golf is that "corporate approval" mentality. How many times have those of you, out in the business world,have had some yahoo come up to you on a break in a meeting and say "so, how's your golf game?". Man, that pisses me off. It seems to be perfectly acceptable to blow off a workday in the interest of "customer relations" and go out on the links and chase the ball. OR, the ubiquitous golf league and end-of-season tournament/ banquet, take-the-day-off-while-the-rest-of-us-work, BS!!!!
This'll NEVER happen for skiing in the business world.

(I feel better now, thanks for listening to the rant!).

If it makes you feel any better, you can move to Hawaii where they have surf days.  Like just this week they held the biggest, rarest, big wave tournament and it was like a statewide, or island wide at least, holiday.  I thought that was pretty dope.

 Fun question.

I play off anything from a 6.1 to a 9.2, depending on where I am in the season. Usually by autumn I'll be around a 7, and then after the winter layoff back up close to 9. I'm a little inconsistent with my driver, and very inconsistent with my irons - shortgame is what keeps me in single digits. If I KNEW I was going to get decent contact with my irons, even at my distances (155 7i) I'd be around a 3. If I always hit my driver 250+ I'd be at scratch (300 isn't going to happen at my age, except downhill/downwind). If I adapted quickly to different courses/greenspeeds I'd be around +2. If I'd taken the game up at 4 instead of at 44 I could certainly make a living at it.

Translating to skiing, I did start at 4, have made my living at it, actually do adapt almost instantly to changing conditions, I ski and ride much slower than when I was a kid but essentially never make a bad mistake on the hill, and can ski any terrain with confidence and style, on almost anything which slides from an old pair of Stratos to a real-deal GS ski to a carving snowboard. I'd say I'm a +2 or +3. If I ever start skiing as badly as i golf I'll have to quit.

Golf like skiing has many detractors.  Like skiing detractors are not always a bad thing, it helps keep the golf course a little less crowded. Like skiing many participants exaggerate their prowess.  Also like skiing most of its detractors have very little experience at the sport. 

Unlike skiing it has it roots in worthwhile history.
Skiing was developed by hairy smelly guys looking for an easier way to go kill something (be it animal or human).

Golf was developed to keep hairy smelly drunken shepherds busy and out of town.

Golf handicaps allow different skill levels to be competitive in the same game "except alot of golfers I know sandbag their handicap to try and get the advantage".
NASTAR ski handicap is trying to be the same type format, although it has never really taken of in the midwest, people just go for the Bronze, silver, gold pins, It's them against the mountain or against the pace setter. Race (ski) leagues "other than NASTAR" are age defined not handicap defined.
All Golf courses have a slope/handicap rating that is supposed to be standardized - "not so" with ski race courses or terrain parks.
So trying to compare skiing ability and golfing ability with some constant handicap measurement is pretty hokey. Golf is very defined, Skiing is not. JMO

Let's try this...

If I'm not mistaken, the average golf handicap is 18.  A golf handicap of 0 means "scratch player".

For skiing, the 4 levels might be described as follows:

* beginner - skis green runs in a wedge

* intermediate - open parallel turns on green & blue terrain

* advanced - can link turns down the fall line in bumps, powder, and crud on black terrain & skis dynamic parallel turns on groomed terrain

* expert - technically correct turns on double black terrain, any conditions

An intermediate skier is probably an average skier.  An expert skier is probably the equivalent of a scratch golfer.  So equating skiing levels to golf handicaps might look something like this:

- beginning skier == 36 handicap golfer
- intermediate skier == 18 handicap
- advanced skier == 9 handicap
- expert skier == 0 handicap

Do beginning golfers really have a 36 handicap?

It's my impression that beginning golfers don't really even have a handicap (aside from incompetence) that anybody bothers to calculate, and people don't have a real handicap until they're intermediate-ish.

The above evidence either: (i) that the conversion isn't that simple or (ii) that I don't know anything about golf handicaps.

This is a really tough question, unless you are VERY familiar with golf and handicaps.  Anyone can have a golf handicap, you just have to sign up for a golf association, i.e. I am a part of the NCGA (Northern California Golf Association, not the National Corn Growers Association).  When I started, I submitted at least 5 scores in the first year.  After your first 5 rounds or so, you get your handicap.  If your average was 130, your handicap is 36, if your average was 112, your handicap is 36, if it was 80, your handicap (actually it's called your index, handicaps are determined by each course based on your index) should be about a 5.8 (just a guess as it would change based on the course you are playing).  Beginners having a 36 handicap is not always the case.  My first handicap was 27 when I was 13 years old and I was a "Beginner" but that's just because I never was that bad at golf. 
FYI, you probably assumed that people don't have handicaps until they are "intermediate-ish" because most people over a 20 won't admit to having one, or are ashamed to tell you.  They are also the ones that always say, "Man!  That putt would have gone in if it was an inch to the left!" 
God I hate that kinda stuff.  "If I woulda started that drive out down the left side it woulda been PERFECT!"
Idiots.