Architecture, match play and gross score posting

[JohnV]

Rich,

In the UK is there a minimum number of scores that must be posted for a valid handicap?  If you only post scores from tournaments, how does a new golfer play in tournaments and get a fair shake?  Seems like you would have to play in at least one as a scratch golfer before you can get a handicap.

I played with a guy yesterday who didn't have a handicap but wanted to get one so he could play in our club events.  Here, he could just start posting until he gets 5 scores in for a temporary handicap.  There I'm not sure what he would have to do.

[Richard_Goodale]

John

In the UK, if you move from club to club, you carry your handicap with you.  If you are a complete newbie, you post 3 (I think) scores, played with a member, under strict rules of golf, signed and verified card, etc.  Then your in like Flynn!

[TEPaul]

AkaB:

When I mention that the USGA should get with present technology it's true, they should, as they've always been about ten years behind, but not GPS hole by hole posting on a real time basis as you might have suggested---that's a bit too far out in front of technology.

Rich:

TomH is absolutely right about the UK system over here. It might be a better system in effect but it just ain't gonna happen over here by having it mandated! They don't play golf here the way they do in the UK and they may never whether the USGA tells them to or not! The governing body of any country has gotta go with the way a country plays or it will never be effective.

You gotta get over this UK system transplanted here--you've been saying it for a few years now and as well as it works in the UK it just ain't gonna happen here--period--not by being mandated!

There's probably nothing wrong with OFFERING it as an option but they can't mandate it totally. Again, the problem with the USGA is it's always one thing only--it's possible with today's technology to offer golfers many ways of posting but all to the same basic end--in other words if somebody wants to do a little of it then let them do a little of it and if they want to do a lot let 'em. As long as what they do shows up in data, after awhile the system will evolve to what's best and what people are willing to do. But you'll never find out what they're willing to do until you offer it to them first--and offering it is not the same things as forcing it on them!

[THuckaby2]

I think we've hit on the solution here, for us poor US golfers:

1. USGA needs to offer hole-by-hole posting as an option.
2. Tournament organizers need to be more aware of the "T" scores already in the system, use such "T-based index" for handicaps for their events.

Am I missing anything?

So the next question is how do we make this happen?

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom P

As Tom H has noted above, even Doyens (and Muccis and Armenians, etc. etc.) rarely post their scores under the current USGA system, except (maybe) when tournaments are involved.  Why should we ask any different from the peons?

Respectfully

Rich

PS--modified for tyops only....

[THuckaby2]

WHOA!  Is that a touche or what?  Way to cut to the chase, Rich!

TH

[JakaB]

TEPaul,

I was as always joking...I hate anything electronic on a golf course.

Tom H,

Seriously, Why do you need a handicap...your game stands on its own so I know you don't need strokes...I am sure if you want you could find a course to play enough rounds to qualify for the mid-am...3.2 index.  I am learning more about the special problems faced by people in urban areas that play public golf...but I have no use of a handicap and I just can't see why honest able bodied golfers like yourself do.  Of course I also don't understand why this league you play in plays by winter rules in conditions we midwesterners are lucky to find 12.5 percent of the time.   I think the Barona outing is a perfect example of fun competition without the use of handicaps....Easy for me to say being on the winning team.

oops...I should have said loaded team.

[TEPaul]

TomH:

How do we do it? Not easily--I've been trying for about 4-5 years now--and it may not be so much what you propose but how you propose it.

You don't go to the USGA and says; "Hi guys, I've got a better way", that's for sure.

You have to have a bullet proof system and it has to be explained in such a way that it overcomes and solves things that THEY see as obstacles not necessarily you or me.

There's a lot more to this that hasn't been mentioned on here that is complex--things like non-profit status, anti-trust matters, vertical integration, regional differences, and just the old structure that has worked so far but it's been patched, supplemented and added to create a particular result that actually works OK--but if you look at it carefully it's antiquated as hell and that causes problem of effectiveness in today's world.

But it can work better and they and all of us have to take a look at where we've come from in the last 50-100 years and where we want to be in 10-20 and 50 years. Our ruling body doesn't do enough of that, in my opinon, and they have to now. Very few people look at it that way and they should, but you have to understand how we got here first!

But this isn't easy although almost everyone thinks it is! But it can be done!

[THuckaby2]

JakaB:

Unfortunately, I don't play very often with many golfers like the guys you met out here, guys from whom I sure as heck don't take strokes and to whom I sure as heck can't give any!  So I need a handicap because 95% of my golf is indeed played with friends in the 12-18 range, and they won't play me straight up.  I also belong to a monthly tournament group in which I give the entire field too many strokes as it is.  That's all on net - there's no sandbagging, we know each other too well - but I can't afford to go scratch there.

I do play in the occasional serious event, just to keep in touch with the big boys.  And yes, those are GROSS ONLY, obviously... but as the 4-5 handicapper I am, my purpose in those is just to have fun and see how the other half lives - I have no delusions of grandeur that I can compete with the scratches of the world.  

If all I wanted was to play events like these - serious ones - than no, I don't need a handicap really other than to just make sure it's low enough to meet the qualifying standards.  You're right on there.  But as you see, my golf world runs FAR beyond such things, and I am happy for it.

Rest assured the Barona event will be played at gross.  Scoring is going to be on a "holes won" system that Rich recommended - thus if I am playing a scratch like Mr. Eckenrode, a "victory" could be finishing 5-6 holes down!  This will be explained later and it will be very fun.  Just rest assured that handicaps won't be an issue there.

TEP:  keep fighting the fight, you have all this right on and I can't think of anyone better to get the USGA to listen.  Just don't have them ask to see your personal score posting sheet (sorry, couldn't resist, trying to beat Rich to this).

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom P

The UK system is bullet-proof, ridiculously so vis a vis the USGA/GHIN "Pope of Slope" designed abomination.

Think about it.......seriously.........

[THuckaby2]

Rich - weaknesses I see in the UK system:

1. Not a big enough sample to give a "real" handicap in many cases.  One score can determine your handicap for an entire year if that's the only tournament you play.

2. Whaddya do about a guy who plays in a few events one summer, then practices like heck and just plain improves over the winter?  He'd have a very unfair handicap until it "catches up" with him.

3. Aren't there at least SOME golfers over there that want an index for regular matches againts friends and others, but don't play actual "tournaments"?  Seems to me an official index is always gonna be the coin of the realm there unless you know the opponent very well...

4. Slope works FAR better than SSS in terms of rating actual difficulty of a course, and the handicap a player should receive at such course.  Get used to it also - it's coming your way before long....

All in all, I do like the UK system and it works damn well for regular tournament players.  I like it a lot.  I wouldn't call it bullet-proof, though!

TH

[TEPaul]

Rich:

I have thought about it! It's just not gonna happen here no matter how good it is!

We're just not as smart as they are in the UK--or at least that's the way the UK perceives it!

But one thing that both the UK and the US do agree on is "We got the money" and it's just been pissing the UK off for nigh onto 100 years and messing with their sense of national worth and well being.

But we're a kind hearted lot who muddle through somehow and are actually very supportive. Maybe we should send Dr. Katz their way for a while--I think they need him now!

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom H

1.  You HAVE to play at least 3 tournaments a year to keep your UK handicap (remember, ther are at least 2-3 "tournaments" every month at most UK clubs.

2.  Bogus handicaps are very quickly "caught up" in the UK system, if the person plays in a tournament.  If they are only playing with stupid sheep who accept "I'm a 6!", God bless the sheep, for they (or its it the Greeks?) shall inherit the earth.

3.  If you want an "unoffical" index, you negoitiate it, on a case by case, day by day, basis, with your friends. or the pro  How simple could that not be?

4.  Slope is for wimps.  The UK is adopting it, to their detriment.

[THuckaby2]

Tom H

1.  You HAVE to play at least 3 tournaments a year to keep your UK handicap (remember, ther are at least 2-3 "tournaments" every month at most UK clubs.

Three is still a damn small sample and can lead to very skewed handicaps indeed.

2.  Bogus handicaps are very quickly "caught up" in the UK system, if the person plays in a tournament.  If they are only playing with stupid sheep who accept "I'm a 6!", God bless the sheep, for they (or its it the Greeks?) shall inherit the earth.

For the first tournament, this guy RULES.  Not much UK system can do about this!  And 6's aren't the problem.  If a 6 shoots under par, more power to him - he deserves to win anyway, likely wins on gross.  It's the 12-15's shooting 75's that are the ones to watch...

3.  If you want an "unoffical" index, you negoitiate it, on a case by case, day by day, basis, with your friends. or the pro  How simple could that not be?

That works fine with friends, as I say - but whaddya do when you don't know the opponent very well?  Negotiation is one thing, what it says on a card speaks louder.

4.  Slope is for wimps.  The UK is adopting it, to their detriment.

Hey, it doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of difference for 6 hdcps or less, very true.  But for the 95% of the rest of the golf world that isn't of this skill level, it helps a LOT.  Slope is a great invention.  I worship Dean Knuth!

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom H

You are severly misguided on this issue.  We shall try to resolve this over several 10's of pints of Guinness and Glenmorangie at Barona.  In the interim, let me ask you a qeustion:

Would you wish that your beloved Pope of Slop(e), Dena (sic)Knuth "handicapped" your beloved "Final Four?"  Christ, I could do damage as a 5' 7" 55-year old out of shape power forward if the NCAA officials would just give me enough "strokes."

Cheers

Rich

[THuckaby2]

You'd need a lot more strokes than the slope system would give ya there, Rich!  Either that or you find 4 fine teammates from that alma mater of yours.

I look forward to the discussion.  I don't feel strongly about many things re golf, and am usually very "pliable", especially with the wise minds in here like you!

I think you have your hands full re this one though.  Knowing what I know about how course rating and slope is derived, I am even MORE of a believer in slope these days.  You're gonna have to really work hard to convince me SSS is anything less than a fine version of "course rating", just like ours (ie your 72, our 71., that severely fails the vast majority of golfers who play more than one course.

Should be a fun discussion in any case.  And heck, I'll talk about Lithuanian sculpture if it means Guinness and Glenmorangie!

TH

[Dan King]

This is a subject near and dear to my heart. I believe the U.S.’s obsession with stroke play, and all those damn ‘puters in pro shops has been a huge detriment to golf and especially golf architecture.  

Medal play has introduced the term fair, a term totally foreign to golf. Golf isn’t intended to be a fair game, and golf architects should never try to design fairness into the game. I once read the fairest possible architecture would be a total lack of architecture. Cross country golf is the ultimate fairness, treating each golfer exactly the same. By doing any architecture, you are introducing the concept of unfairness.

The UK system works better. The U.S. system is so worried about all these golfers that don’t play tournaments that they’ve allowed an inferior system. What logic is that? Why does the USGA care in the least about non-tournament golfers? If they want a handicap, let them rely on Yahoo or one of the other hundreds of casual handicap systems. If you play in tournaments your handicap should be based on tournament rounds, played according to the Rules of Golf.

And stop this mixing of medal and match play. They are two different games and should never be combined. The USGA rules makers understand they are different, but they never got the message to the handicapping folks.

This "getting your money's worth" idea is silly. How much fun is it to grind over a 5-footer for a nine? I tell you, I enjoy the game much more when I learned to pick-up and stop grinding over terrible holes. Is it really that much fun for everyone to beat themselves up? Do you occasionally enjoy slapping yourself silly?

If casual rounds are to continue to count, you can easily get people to post hole-by-hole scores by giving them something they want in return. Make the system able to analysis peoples’ rounds, so that they are getting something in return. Tell them their scoring average on different types of holes, their ringer score on their home course, their stroke average late in the round compared to early, etc…  People will want to post hole-by-hole if you give them that sort of information.

Also want real peer review, let the internet help. If I go out and play a casual round with Rich, Tom and Bob, when I post my round, in the comfort of my own home, I will also say who I played golf with that day. The system will figure out if the people I played with are also in the system, and if they have email. If they do, it will send Rich, Tom and Bob an email saying Dan claimed he shot 108 today. If you disagree, respond to this email stating what you think he shot. If you agree Dan really shot 108, no response is necessary.  If someone always seems to play with golfers not in the system or without email, then there will be a message sent to the handicap chairman showing what percentage of the scores were not played with in-system golfers.

"There are multiple good reasons for playing the game in the true spirit bequeathed to us by our Scot forbears and many bad reasons for turning golf into some other game."
 --Frank “Sandy” Tatum, Jr.

[Richard_Goodale]

Dan

I think that this internet "peer review" system of yours might just work, IF you want the USGA system.......  It's damned-anti-Libertarian, however, isn't it?

Tough shit!

Rich

[THuckaby2]

I'd agree with nearly all of that, Dan... though I do like the slope system and DEFINITELY favor the computers in the pro shop!

Bottom line though is I really think TEP has this correct, and you amplify this:  make MORE options available, not yes.  Give us hole-by-hole posting, with your GREAT improvements.  Encourage tournament organizers to required "T-based" index for use in events.  Leave the current system in place for those very many people who want it and use it.

There seems to be no reasonable argument against this... or is there?

TH

[Dan King]

Sure there are arguments against.

Slope is a joke perpetuated by Mr. Knuth. When I was at GolfWeb, we wanted to come up with a handicap system. The USGA said we could not use slope, that it was their property. So we came up with our own number, entirely dependent on the yardage of each hole. Our number ended up to match slope almost exactly. We didn’t send raters out to courses, we didn’t try and figure out hazards, etc… It was based only on distance of each individual hole.

The SSS changes depending on weather. Doesn’t that seem to make more sense than a consistent slope?  For a tournament the committee can change the SSS.

The ‘puters in every pro shop has encouraged the idea that every round needs to have a number at the end. Regardless of the type of game, what was your final number? Some golf games don’t finish with an individual number, but we American’s can’t play those games because then we don’t have anything to post. The damn ‘puter is dictating the game we play. Post only tournament scores, played according the rules of medal play. When not playing tournaments, we are free to play whatever type of golf suites our fancy at the time.

No ‘puter needed in the pro shop. Leave it up to the handicap chairman to post tournament rounds, therefore giving the handicap real peer review.

"As the game is now evolving there are two elements that are missing: one is the element of chance, the other is the related element of whimsy. The existence of those elements in the old courses like North Berwick make the game a lot more fun."
 --Frank "Sandy" Tatum

[THuckaby2]

Dan - in rebuttal:


Slope is a joke perpetuated by Mr. Knuth. When I was at GolfWeb, we wanted to come up with a handicap system. The USGA said we could not use slope, that it was their property. So we came up with our own number, entirely dependent on the yardage of each hole. Our number ended up to match slope almost exactly. We didn’t send raters out to courses, we didn’t try and figure out hazards, etc… It was based only on distance of each individual hole.

SO YOU CAME UP WITH AN ADJUSTABLE RATING, LIKE SLOPE GIVES YOU?  VERY WELL DONE!  BUT PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT DISTANCE IS INDEED WHAT DETERMINES A HUGE PORTION OF COURSE RATING, BOGEY RATING, AND THUS SLOPE.  JUST USING RAW DISTANCE YOU WILL INDEED COME QUITE CLOSE TO THE ACTUAL NUMBER - THAT'S JUST HOW THE MATH GOES!  HAZARDS AND TARGETS AND THE LIKE DON'T MATTER NEARLY AS MUCH AS DISTANCE.  I CAN SPEAK TO THIS QUITE WELL, I JUST COMPLETED THE NCGA COURSE RATING SEMINAR.  IN ANY CASE I SEE NO GOOD ARGUMENT HERE AGAINST SLOPE - IT'S A GREAT SYSTEM, USING TWO "GOLFERS", AND MAKES THINGS QUITE MORE EQUITABLE FOR THE PLAYERS OF LESSER SKILL.  NOTE HOW I DIDN'T SAY "FAIR"?    AND COME ON MAN, YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE SENDING TEAMS OF PEOPLE TO RATE COURSES NOW, RIGHT AFTER I FINALLY GOT ON SAID TEAM AFTER THREE YEARS OF WAITING?

The SSS changes depending on weather. Doesn’t that seem to make more sense than a consistent slope?  For a tournament the committee can change the SSS.

NOW THAT I DIDN'T KNOW - THAT IS A DAMN GREAT IDEA.  WE NEED THAT MOST DEFINITELY HERE.  STILL, AS A BASIC CONCEPT SLOPE STILL DOES A MUCH BETTER JOB THAN SSS AT GIVING A RATING THAT WORKS FOR EVERY PLAYER, DAY IN, DAY OUT.  BUT HELL YES LET US ADJUST IT FOR WEATHER!

The ‘puters in every pro shop has encouraged the idea that every round needs to have a number at the end. Regardless of the type of game, what was your final number? Some golf games don’t finish with an individual number, but we American’s can’t play those games because then we don’t have anything to post. The damn ‘puter is dictating the game we play. Post only tournament scores, played according the rules of medal play. When not playing tournaments, we are free to play whatever type of golf suites our fancy at the time.

No ‘puter needed in the pro shop. Leave it up to the handicap chairman to post tournament rounds, therefore giving the handicap real peer review.

AGREED, OK, VERY COOL.  BUT NEARLY ALL PUBLIC COURSES DON'T HAVE HANDICAP CHAIRMAN...AND YOU'VE SEEN THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST TOURNAMENT ONLY SCORING.  WE'RE NOT CLOSE TO AGREEMENT ON THIS ONE!  



Bottom line here, Dan, is I still don't see a good argument against giving MORE choices - and most of these choices are made easier and better with a computer.  Why eliminate such for those of us it would help?

Sorry!

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby shouts:
AND COME ON MAN, YOU WANT TO ELIMINATE SENDING TEAMS OF PEOPLE TO RATE COURSES NOW, RIGHT AFTER I FINALLY GOT ON SAID TEAM AFTER THREE YEARS OF WAITING?

And there is why slope is done on the golf course instead of at home sitting in front of a ‘puter. It allows teams of golfers to go out and play all the courses in the state. Good job Mr. Knuth.

Tom continues to shout:
STILL, AS A BASIC CONCEPT SLOPE STILL DOES A MUCH BETTER JOB THAN SSS AT GIVING A RATING THAT WORKS FOR EVERY PLAYER, DAY IN, DAY OUT.  BUT HELL YES LET US ADJUST IT FOR WEATHER!

I don’t see how you can realistically do this on a day-by-day basis. I guess it could be done, but think it would fail due to it being left up to the pros and them having too many other priorities. Maybe technology could make it easier, connecting handicap software to weather software.

Anecdotal evidence isn’t always the best evidence, but close to 100% of the time I’ve played against UK golfers they have had handicaps more in-line with their ability than American golfers. I’ve heard enough others say the same thing to doubt it is just anecdotal.

If slope is so much better than SSS, why would that be true? Is there something inherent in the American culture to make them more inclined to sandbag? Or is it possible something within their system makes sandbagging less prevalent?

IMHO, the U.S. system encourages sandbagging.

Tom’s hollering continues:
AGREED, OK, VERY COOL.  BUT NEARLY ALL PUBLIC COURSES DON'T HAVE HANDICAP CHAIRMAN...AND YOU'VE SEEN THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST TOURNAMENT ONLY SCORING.  WE'RE NOT CLOSE TO AGREEMENT ON THIS ONE!  

I believe all clubs are suppose to have handicap chairpersons.

Tom quiets down to say:
Bottom line here, Dan, is I still don't see a good argument against giving MORE choices - and most of these choices are made easier and better with a computer.  Why eliminate such for those of us it would help?

What is the USGA’s incentive to track handicaps for people who don’t play tournament golf? Other than the money generated, what part of their charter gives them that task? Is something gained by the USGA legitimizing golfers who don’t play by the rules of the game? Are we better off having a whole generation of golfers who don’t understand there is a difference between medal and match play? Why not let yahoo or one of the other hundreds of handicap systems worry about those golfers and let the USGA worry about those that play by the rules?

If you want to step up from a Yahoo golfer to a USGA golfer you will join a club, learn the rules of the game and play in monthly or semi-monthly tournaments. Isn't that better than handing a handicap card to any yahoo (other meaning) who pays his dues and knows how to enter a score?

"To qualify for identification as a golfer requires a respect, if not reverence, for the rules of the game."
 --Frank "Sandy" Tatum

[THuckaby2]

Now Dan, there's no need to ridicule me - we are friends after all!  I only used the all caps so you could easily differentiate my thoughts from yours.  I absolutely did not use such for emphasis, and you know I've been doing this as long as you have, I know what caps typically denote.  Give me a little credit here, will ya!  OK, you did a rebutal far more gracefully, but hey, you're the writer, not me!

We're not as far off on this as you might think.  But again, I am far from giving up - this is one of very few golf issues with which I feel I have some expertise.  So in rebuttal again:

1.  Rating of courses simply cannot be done as well at home sitting in front of a computer as by humans actually seeing and playing a golf course.  Yes, this gives those of us who volunteer to do such access to some golf courses, but in the end it serves a good purpose.  Oh man, the people who do this certainly have better things to do with their time.  You have got to be kidding re this one.

2. You quietly state:

"Anecdotal evidence isn’t always the best evidence, but close to 100% of the time I’ve played against UK golfers they have had handicaps more in-line with their ability than American golfers. I’ve heard enough others say the same thing to doubt it is just anecdotal.

If slope is so much better than SSS, why would that be true? Is there something inherent in the American culture to make them more inclined to sandbag? Or is it possible something within their system makes sandbagging less prevalent?

IMHO, the U.S. system encourages sandbagging."

To which I'd say, very true.  Just do remember that UK handicaps are indeed derived from tournament scores only.  So hell yes they more closely represent a players' ability!  And hell yes our system encourages sandbagging!  But do I need to restate again the problems with the UK system?  We've covered this many times already - it just won't work here.  Go read above, I'm getting tired of this circle.  My main point is to echo what Tom Paul offers - let's give MORE OPTIONS, not less.  I've said how this can work several times now.


3.  You then chide me:

"I believe all clubs are suppose to have handicap chairpersons."

To which I apologize, in my haste I slipped from political correctness.

4. Finally, you make the point that the USGA need not be in the business of assisting handicap calculation for those who don't play in tournaments.  I have no real strong argument against this, other than to reiterate what I've said several times above, that is that an "official" handicap speaks louder to me than any unofficial, self-calculated one - that is, I'm gonna trust someone who has gone to the trouble of getting an official handicap far more than someone who hasn't, unless I know him really well.  But again, my main argument is the benefits of this outweigh the negatives... But you make a lot of sense, and didn't I say I was pliable?  I am getting kinda wishy-washy re this last point indeed.

There.  No more shouting, far more eloquence (I hope).

TH

[Rick Shefchik]

Dan King writes:

"Post only tournament scores, played according the rules of medal play. When not playing tournaments, we are free to play whatever type of golf suites our fancy at the time."

Simply yet elegantly put. It will be my motto this season.

Rick

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
Now Dan, there's no need to ridicule me - we are friends after all!

Did not mean to ridicule, just to tease. I wouldn’t want to piss off someone on my own team prior to the King’s Putter.  Now if I could piss off Tommy. . .

but hey, you're the writer, not me!

Not me, just a humble freshman.  Though I have written a few pieces for the Evergreen Flyer

Rating of courses simply cannot be done as well at home sitting in front of a computer as by humans actually seeing and playing a golf course.

Why not? If I can come up with reasonably close to an identical number by just looking at a score card, what is the need to actually go out to the golf course to rate it?  What am I missing?

Just do remember that UK handicaps are indeed derived from tournament scores only.  So hell yes they more closely represent a players' ability!  And hell yes our system encourages sandbagging!  But do I need to restate again the problems with the UK system?  We've covered this many times already - it just won't work here.

The only problem I’ve heard about using the UK system is that not enough American’s play tournaments. Again, my question is why should the USGA give a damn about the golfers that don’t? Why not only have a handicap system designed for those that do play medal tournaments using the Rules of Golf? Why not make a USGA handicap something you earn, rather than something that you get for your $30?

My main point is to echo what Tom Paul offers - let's give MORE OPTIONS, not less.  I've said how this can work several times now

I’m all for good options. I see no reason to include bad options. Posting all rounds in a pro shop has resulted in a lot of sandbagging and a reduction in peer review. IMHO, neither of these are good things. Why settle for options that result in bad numbers? Why not go with a system that has proven to result in better numbers?

You then chide me:

"I believe all clubs are suppose to have handicap chairpersons."

I believe I chided myself, bringing up chairmen before you did. You mentioned some courses don’t have handicap chairmen, but don’t all clubs that fit USGA guidelines have to have a handicap chairpersons?  Is there some reason USGA should try to govern clubs that don’t fit their guidelines?

I have no real strong argument against this, other than to reiterate what I've said several times above, that is that an "official" handicap speaks louder to me than any unofficial, self-calculated one - that is, I'm gonna trust someone who has gone to the trouble of getting an official handicap far more than someone who hasn't, unless I know him really well.  

But wouldn’t it even have more clout if you knew it was someone who got their handicap by learning the rules and playing in medal tournaments using those rules? Right now all it means was it was someone who found a club willing to let them pay for the privilege to join. Yahoo and many others let you have a handicap if you pay them.  I don’t see anything wrong with a USGA handicap being something earned rather than paid for.

The USGA is trying to be all things to all people. They don’t need the money with their TV right’s bonanza, why bother? Let others deal with that and make the USGA handicap something special.

Straying a ways away from architecture. I sense Ran’s finger on the delete button.

(By my count, I've asked 12 questions -- mostly rhetorical -- in this post. Do you think I'm turning into Pat Mucci, asking questions to make my point? (Oops, that makes 13!))

"It is distressing to think how the Scots, to whom all of us hooked on golf are deeply indebted for creating this game, would view the concept that golf is a seasonal game only played in the summer and that in the winter players play some other game in which they move the ball to the best lie they can manage to find in the vicinity."
 --Frank "Sandy" Tatum