Players tees

[Brent Hutto]

Jon,
All you need to know is that a UK 10 handicap will kick a US 10 handicap all day long.
One is real, the other is a bogged down hypothetical mess of statistics and assumptions

That is definitely real.

For 99% of USA golfers the handicap index reflects their "scoring" as long as they don't have to play it down, putt it out or finish a blowup hole. Works fine when comparing like to like.

P.S. I have run across a couple of double-digit handicappers over the years who absolutely insist on taking every drop strictly legally, going back to the tee to replay whenever necessary, putting out their 6-inchers and just generally treating every round (even when playing on their own) exactly like they were playing on TV in the US Open. Their idea is by dotting every i and crossing every t they will achieve the highest possible legitimate handicap index. And they are correct. Personally, I'd rather spend my Saturdays cleaning out gutters and grouting the bathtub than grind out my quadruple-bogey putts after dunking two in the pond on a Par 3 but each to his own. Golf's a big tent or so I've heard.

[Carl Johnson]

Jon,
All you need to know is that a UK 10 handicap will kick a US 10 handicap all day long.
One is real, the other is a bogged down hypothetical mess of statistics and assumptions

That is definitely real.

For 99% of USA golfers the handicap index reflects their "scoring" as long as they don't have to play it down, putt it out or finish a blowup hole. Works fine when comparing like to like.

Without doubting that a UK 10 will kick a USGA 10 all day long (and here I assume both are established by play under the rules of golf and the respective handicapping systems), neither is "real."  They're both man-made constructs within the confines of a game.  What's real is playing scratch -- no handicap. 

[jeffwarne]

Carl,
I understand the demand for all of that, and cater to most of it as well, that's my job.
I draw the line at cluttering the card further, and I can see you agree with that.
But I'm confident a wonderful course setup for all players could be played daily by having two, max three sets of tees played in a different order by some for variety when practical when the occasion rose.

Brent,
 It goes further than that.
The UK handicap is computed from competition scores, played on longer tees than the players usually play.
You can add 10 to anyone's medal score in a tournament, to say nothing of putting everything out, longer tees,nerves from competition, no equitable stroke control adjustment. Think there's any difference between pumping 3 out of bounds and making a 12 vs. writing down an ESC 6?

[Brent Hutto]

Hermeneutics of the word "real" aside, the thing that UK handicapping has going for it (that makes it "more real" or "more truly reflective of the golfer's ability") is the fact that multiple rounds of stroke play is the best way we know of to separate slightly better golfers from slightly worse ones. To the extent that a UK handicap is all or mostly based on scoring during stipulated stroke play rounds, it would be a true a reflection of ability as one can wrap up in a single number don't you think?

Now in reality [pun intended] those UK handicaps sometimes have Stableford or other non-strict-medal scores in them. But most USA handicaps are entirely derived from situations that we all know are not reflective of actual ability. They reflective of ability to perform in settings that have been dumbed down.

P.S. To Jeff.

Think there's any difference between pumping 3 out of bounds and making a 12 vs. writing down an ESC 6?

Absolutely. It's the same as the difference in punching a heavy bag vs. punching something that hits back.

[Carl Johnson]

Hermeneutics of the word "real" aside, the thing that UK handicapping has going for it (that makes it "more real" or "more truly reflective of the golfer's ability") is the fact that multiple rounds of stroke play is the best way we know of to separate slightly better golfers from slightly worse ones. To the extent that a UK handicap is all or mostly based on scoring during stipulated stroke play rounds, it would be a true a reflection of ability as one can wrap up in a single number don't you think?

Now in reality [pun intended] those UK handicaps sometimes have Stableford or other non-strict-medal scores in them. But most USA handicaps are entirely derived from situations that we all know are not reflective of actual ability. They reflective of ability to perform in settings that have been dumbed down.

P.S. To Jeff.

Think there's any difference between pumping 3 out of bounds and making a 12 vs. writing down an ESC 6?

Absolutely. It's the same as the difference in punching a heavy bag vs. punching something that hits back.

Here's what I wonder, and I'd like to have UK players chime in.  Are you happy with how your handicap system works when the handicaps are used for daily play in match play competition?

Brent - here's where you and I differ.  I don't look at the purpose of a handicap as being to reflect actual ability.  The easy way to reflect actual ability, if you talking about ability to play medal play, is simply play at scratch.  If you want a bragging number, then just average the medal score for X number of rounds.  Obviously this would work for the "I'm better than you" argument only if you're playing the same tees.  My view is that handicaps are to help less-skilled player have a chance to compete on a more equitable (not completely equitable, however) basis against the more-skilled player.

[Sean_A]

Carl,
I understand the demand for all of that, and cater to most of it as well, that's my job.
I draw the line at cluttering the card further, and I can see you agree with that.
But I'm confident a wonderful course setup for all players could be played daily by having two, max three sets of tees played in a different order by some for variety when practical when the occasion rose.

Brent,
 It goes further than that.
The UK handicap is computed from competition scores, played on longer tees than the players usually play.
You can add 10 to anyone's medal score in a tournament, to say nothing of putting everything out, longer tees,nerves from competition, no equitable stroke control adjustment. Think there's any difference between pumping 3 out of bounds and making a 12 vs. writing down an ESC 6?

Jeff

Its worse than that.  It is entirely possible to score above one's handicap because of one blow up hole.  That hole will get adjusted and the score can then adjusted to a situation where a guys cap is cut!  Don't ask me how I know.  This is why clubs want players to properly finish rounds even though they may be out of the comp...its keeps the stats in order.  Mind you, a lot of guys will try get in the buffer zone to stop the cap from rising anyway...its just how most Brits play.  

BTW - a lot of Brits have caps calculated on mainly Stableford scores.  In fact, I think meal scores are translated somehow into Stableford scores for handicapping purposes...but I may be wrong about that.  In any case, I rarely play medals...when I do its usually not on purpose.

Carl

Generally the cap system works for matchplay.  Although, the less competitive rounds one plays the more chance the matchplay capping won't work very well.  I have a mate who is a 14 an a devil to beat giving away 5 shots.  He doesn't play many comps and when he does he doesn't play as well as in matches.  So in his case, the system is flawed.  The system also doesn't work very well when the handicap disparity is huge. For instance, its very possible to have to give 2 shots on a hole sometimes.  This is obviously in the realm of guesswork when that many shots are given. 

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

Carl,

Well of course that's the purpose of a handicap. But I don't have any doubt that a more skilled (i.e. 2 HCP) golfer playing a match against a less skilled (10 HCP) golfer in the UK system can't have a perfectly equitable game.  What leads you to believe that a monthly-medal-based handicap is going to lead to erroneous handicapping of a match-play game?

In which direction do you perceive an inequity? Would basing handicaps on medal play make the 2-HCP and 10-HCP appear more or less disparate than their presumed match-play handicaps?

Let's be real here. The reason the USGA system is based on something other than stipulated stroke-play rounds only is that the USGA wants the 90% of USA golfers who have zero interest in entering stroke-play tournaments to maintain an index anyway. Which is a perfectly cromulent design requirement for a national handicapping system. But nobody at USGA has any illusion that the mish-mash of pseudo-scores they use is actually superior in equity or any other way except for acceptability to hackers.

Sean,

If I were you, I'd obviously prefer to just play longer tees rather than giving a second stroke on several hole. Just kidding with you...

[jeffwarne]

There was a time when handicaps alone were used to "handicap" players.
Now a player has to pick form a assortment of tees and combos and make all the adjustments.
Years ago, when there was much less distance difference between scratch players and mid-higher handicappers, courses didn't max at 7500,fairways weren't endlessly narrowed and flanked by penal hazards, and  one set of men's regular tee's sufficed.
and that's what the non rollback proponents miss.

[Jason Thurman]

Remember that a USGA handicap is supposed to reflect a player's POTENTIAL to score on any given day. In that light, ESC is just one of the ways that system prevents any single outlier hole from unduly influencing a player's overall differential for the day. Shooting to your index in the US is supposed to be fairly difficult - something that you pull off about once every four rounds, statistically. I'm not sure if that's the expectation in other parts of the world or not.

Most of the flaws with the handicap system in the US aren't actually flaws with the system, but flaws with golfers. It's not the system's fault that golfer's don't putt out their four footers, count all their penalty strokes, and play the ball down. One of the best things about the system is that it rewards honesty over ego. I played with a guy last summer who took great pride in telling me he was a 10 handicap. He proceeded to shoot an ESC-assisted 104 on a very penal course. In reality he didn't break 120, but thankfully the system let him just write down a triple-bogey and move on after hacking a few balls into the woods on any given hole.

I took a glance into GHIN the next day and saw that he posted it as a 95. I also saw that he had played a few tournaments in the last few years and hadn't broken 90 in any of them, despite the fact that he hadn't played a course with a rating above 70 in those tournaments either. If it makes him feel better to lie to himself and everyone else in the hopes of impressing his playing partners with his index, I'm more than happy to let him do so and take his money. I knew he was full of crap when I saw him fail to reach the fairway for the third time on the front nine, and I suspect everyone he plays with figures him out in time to press the bet before the turn as well.

[Brent Hutto]

Jason,

Now you are delving into hermeneutics after all. For the majority of golfers I've ever met, the REAL purpose of a handicap is to put a number on "how good you are" and compare that number to other people. So it's no surprise the system that everyone ends up using is one that turns a blind eye to all manner of vanity compensations, limits maximum scores and just generally happens to work out to give lower numbers that what they nominally purport to represent. It's a case of being careful what you wish for, lest you end up getting it.

[Jason Thurman]

I know those guys too, Brent. I just don't understand why you seem to be so bothered by them. Playing against them is like counting cards without needing to be smart or do any work, and with faster returns. They're the reason my wife gets excited when I tell her I'm going to play in a money game - she knows I'm playing with a stacked deck simply because I'm honest with myself about what I score.

[Sean_A]

I took a glance into GHIN the next day and saw that he posted it as a 95.

Jason

Not to jab at ya, but imo, not requiring scores to be attested is a serious fault with any handicapping system.  In the UK, if there is no scorer signature, the golfer is DQed.  

Ciao  

[Jason Thurman]

Sean, I do think there are some issues with the peer-review system. I don't think most golfers know the responsibilities of peer-review. I didn't know them until I saw that ridiculous situation above earlier this year, when I gave them a quick once-over. My understanding is that I'm not obligated or really even able to report someone who isn't a member of my own club, and I'd rather not be a snitch anyways when the only person the guy is hurting is himself. If he were a member of my own club, I'd probably have called him out over drinks in the grill room before I ran behind his back to a handicap committee. I'm just a confrontational jackass like that...

I think we all know that golfers lie a bit here and there. They pick up a four footer and card a par instead of putting it out. Or they allow themselves a mulligan or two each round. Or they roll the ball in the rough or rake and place in bunkers when they catch a buried lie. While I find all that stuff sad and a little pathetic, I generally don't find that it's malicious or deliberately shady. It's more ego-protection than anything else. However, I had never before seen someone just straight up take strokes off his score when he entered it. Being off by a stroke or two when you shot a 104 could be an honest mistake, but seeing he posted a 95 made me laugh so hard I almost got thrown out of my hotel. I can't for the life of me figure out what goes through someone's head when they pull a stunt like that - it seems odd to have so much pride wrapped up in a number that you know is a complete lie.

[JMEvensky]

Do more guys cheat up on their handicap to sandbag or cheat down for vanity?

[Brent Hutto]

I know those guys too, Brent. I just don't understand why you seem to be so bothered by them.

Those guys don't bother me at all. The lameness of the handicap system we're saddled with and its pretense of being about "golfer's potential" bugs me. It is no such thing. I detest hypocrisy couched in psedo-scientific mumbo jumbo. 

[Carl Johnson]

Carl,

Well of course that's the purpose of a handicap. But I don't have any doubt that a more skilled (i.e. 2 HCP) golfer playing a match against a less skilled (10 HCP) golfer in the UK system can't have a perfectly equitable game.  What leads you to believe that a monthly-medal-based handicap is going to lead to erroneous handicapping of a match-play game?

Brent,

Nothing.  I have no idea.  That's why I asked the question for those with actual experience using it.  I'm interested.

In which direction do you perceive an inequity? Would basing handicaps on medal play make the 2-HCP and 10-HCP appear more or less disparate than their presumed match-play handicaps?

Again, I have no idea -- no perception at all.  Just looking for help from those with experience with the UK system, as a matter of interest and expanding my understanding.

Here's Sean's answer, from above . . . exactly the kind of on-point response I was looking for:  

"Generally the cap system works for matchplay.  Although, the less competitive rounds one plays the more chance the matchplay capping won't work very well.  I have a mate who is a 14 an a devil to beat giving away 5 shots.  He doesn't play many comps and when he does he doesn't play as well as in matches.  So in his case, the system is flawed.  The system also doesn't work very well when the handicap disparity is huge. For instance, its very possible to have to give 2 shots on a hole sometimes.  This is obviously in the realm of guesswork when that many shots are given."

Other UK players may have different opinions.  I'd like to hear as many as I can.

Carl

[Carl Johnson]

Do more guys cheat up on their handicap to sandbag or cheat down for vanity?

My sense (anecdotal, not scientific) is that more cheat down for vanity, which is o.k. unless they're your four-ball teammate, or on "your team" in some sort of competition.  Though vanity handicappers can be a problem, they've not as bad as the sandbaggers, for which some players/clubs are notorious.  I can forgive vanity, but not cheating to win.

[David Ober]

Jeff

I still enjoy matchplay where the man with honour chooses the colour.  Its really fun when guys give the decision some thought.  One never knows which course will be played.  I have learned some cool things about Burnham this way.

Ciao

love it-great game
just don't make me print it on the permanant card

We do that as well from time-to-time. Great fun. I like to choose the ladies tees on our par-3 sixth hole when the pin is on the right. It's 70 yards to a tiny sliver of green with a hazard in front and a bunker behind. So many good players have trouble with the shot.

[David Ober]

I know those guys too, Brent. I just don't understand why you seem to be so bothered by them. Playing against them is like counting cards without needing to be smart or do any work, and with faster returns. They're the reason my wife gets excited when I tell her I'm going to play in a money game - she knows I'm playing with a stacked deck simply because I'm honest with myself about what I score.

Soooo funny. And true, of course.

Golf used to be a steady, yet very modest, second income for me, and that was back when I played anywhere from a +1 to a +3 every single month of the year.

1) I turned in ALL of my scores

2) My 10 worst scores out of 20 were usually not much different than my 10 best, therefore I was at a HUGE starting advantage over most casual players, as their 10 worst scores of our 20 would vary widely, but they do not count at all for handicap purposes.

3) We played in a group of 12 to 20 guys and you had to have a $5 Nassau with 2-down auto-presses with each player in the group plus all kinds of side action and bigger bets with anyone who wanted to play for more $$$.

That was a recipe for disaster for the inconsistent mid-handicap player and a recipe for $$$ for a steady low-handicapper. I didn't win every bet every week, of course (though there were weeks I did), but I almost never lost $$$ on any given day. The course was 6,560/72.0/132, and if I shot 75 or higher, I would lose $$$, but if I shot 74 or below, I would almost invariably come home a winner. And back in those days, I pretty much lived between 68 and 72, so I would drop what ever I was doing (including work!) to play with "the group."

Those were the days.... LOL

[Carl Johnson]

I know those guys too, Brent. I just don't understand why you seem to be so bothered by them. Playing against them is like counting cards without needing to be smart or do any work, and with faster returns. They're the reason my wife gets excited when I tell her I'm going to play in a money game - she knows I'm playing with a stacked deck simply because I'm honest with myself about what I score.

Soooo funny. And true, of course.

Golf used to be a steady, yet very modest, second income for me, and that was back when I played anywhere from a +1 to a +3 every single month of the year.

1) I turned in ALL of my scores . . .


That was a recipe for disaster for the inconsistent mid-handicap player and a recipe for $$$ for a steady low-handicapper. I didn't win every bet every week, of course (though there were weeks I did), but I almost never lost $$$ on any given day. The course was 6,560/72.0/132, and if I shot 75 or higher, I would lose $$$, but if I shot 74 or below, I would almost invariably come home a winner. And back in those days, I pretty much lived between 68 and 72, so I would drop what ever I was doing (including work!) to play with "the group."

Those were the days.... LOL

David, that's the way it should be.  I have a friend I play with a lot, age 70, who tells me he was once a low single digit handicapper (I did not know him in those days, but have no reason to doubt it).  Now he plays to an 11, but wins a lot more than average.  Why? He shoots in the low 80's consistently -- eliminating the high 10 doesn't matter for him.  Consistency matters, and it should.

[Sean_A]

Carl

One thing I wouldn't mind seeing trialed is a reverse of holes where shots are given.  I think there may be something to the idea that the tougher holes are bogey holes even for better players.  I think perhaps it is the easier holes where better guys have the advantage because they expect to par these holes, where as Mr 18 is still looking for a bogey...and a loss of hole even if he meets expectations. 

Ciao

[jeffwarne]

Carl

One thing I wouldn't mind seeing trialed is a reverse of holes where shots are given.  I think there may be something to the idea that the tougher holes are bogey holes even for better players.  I think perhaps it is the easier holes where better guys have the advantage because they expect to par these holes, where as Mr 18 is still looking for a bogey...and a loss of hole even if he meets expectations. 

Ciao

What individual holes the shots fall on isn't nearly as important as the spacing of them.
i.e. I'm happy to give a 9 a shot on every other hole, but don't want to give a shot on the last 3 in a row on a respective side or 4 out of the last 5 as is common on courses with a "big finish" who set up the handicaps based solely on difficulty, or even more accurately on difference between a bogey player and scratch. Just spread them out.
Presses are often part of the equation and also if the shots fall too late a match could be over before a player gets to use them

[Carl Johnson]

Carl

One thing I wouldn't mind seeing trialed is a reverse of holes where shots are given.  I think there may be something to the idea that the tougher holes are bogey holes even for better players.  I think perhaps it is the easier holes where better guys have the advantage because they expect to par these holes, where as Mr 18 is still looking for a bogey...and a loss of hole even if he meets expectations.  

Ciao

Sean, You may already know this, but others may not, so . . .

The club's decision where shots are to be given is based on a number of factors, and difficulty per se is not one of them.  The difficulty factor is the relative difficulty for the scratch player compared with the bogey player.  I don't have the exact numbers here, but this is an example from our course.  Our most difficult hole (if you look at it from the scratch player's standpoint) is No. 3, a par three.  The average score for the scratch player is 3.52 (0.52 over par), while the average score for the bogey player is 4.12, a difference of 0.60.  That's our number 15 handicap hole.  No. 4 is a par four.  It averages 4.03 for the scratch player (0.03 over par) and 5.45 for the bogey player.  That's a difference of 1.42 strokes, and it is our number 1 handicap hole.  The difficulty factor is based on the relative difficulty for the scratch and bogey player.  (These figures are derived from the same tees, toward the back.  The idea is that you give strokes where the lesser-skilled player needs them the most.  When you have two seniors playing from forward tees on our No. 4, with just one stroke between them, the stroke is given on this hole even though from the forward tees the relative difficulty of the hole is dramatically reduced.  So be it.)

The second factor is where the holes fall on the course.  Jeff mentions this factor just above.  If the hole with the greatest differential is No. 18, you don't want to make that the number 1 handicap hole.  In a perfect world, the number one handicap hole would be hole No. 5, the middle of the front 9, the number two hole would be No. 14, the middle of the back.  The number three handicap hole would be No. 4 or No. 6, and so on, working out from the middle to the beginning and end of each nine.

The third factor is the decision maker's (e.g., Golf Committee) gut sense of it.

The Golf Committee, or whoever, puts these factors into the pot, stirs and comes up with stroke assignments.

Caveat.  This is not my field and I am going by memory.  These factors are merely suggestions of the USGA.  You can look them up.  I have absolutely no idea what the approach is in the UK, of course.  That would be interesting for me to learn.