[archie_struthers]

 




Okay okay but it’s a tradition for me ! 


Just shot five bad scores in a row even though yesterdays was brimming with promise 🤪


With those five scores reported to GHIN my handicap did not move even .1 up staying at 7 index (yikes) despite not breaking 80 any time .


So how is that indicative of the current state of my game remembering we play for $ every time we play .   


If anything the new system with only eight scores out of twenty is worse.   


Please 🙏 don’t tell me that it’s a potential thing …that’s a given …but it’s really a bad system

[A.G._Crockett]

Archie,

Keep playing badly and your index will adjust, I promise.  Until then, the system is impacting you EXACTLY the same way as every other honest golfer that keeps a handicap.  And the reality is that the five bad scores that you've just shot might very well not have counted toward your index when it was 10/20, either.  You could pretty easily look at you GHIN page and see if any of the five would have counted and what that would have meant to your index in bygone 10/20 days vs now; I'm betting it would very, very little if anything.  Good rounds change your index FAST; bad rounds rarely do unless it pushes an especially good round out of the last 20 rounds you've played.

We'd ALL like to get more strokes, or give fewer, as the case may be.  The only possible solution to being dissatisfied with the way the system works is to simply not play net events, whether or not money is involved.  If that sounds at all harsh, you misunderstand.  The handicap system in golf is unique in sports, but it is EASILY avoided, as is losing money on net bets.

[archie_struthers]

 


My dads initials were AG and he was wiser than almost all the time . But he didn’t play golf for money lol


Say I shoot a couple scores in the low 70’’s  soon which I will my handicap will plummet. Potential is a bad way to go.


67-67-81-82.   Doesn’t beat 72-72-72-74-  but the former has to give the latter shots when they tee it up in their Monday game

[A.G._Crockett]

My dads initials were AG and he was wiser than almost all the time . But he didn’t play golf for money lol


Say I shoot a couple scores in the low 70’’s  soon which I will my handicap will plummet. Potential is a bad way to go.


67-67-81-82.   Doesn’t beat 72-72-72-74-     But he’s giving honor her shots in this system

Fwiw, your index doesn't represent your "potential", at least according to the USGA.  It represents your "demonstrated playing ability".  We all understand that the numeric representation of demonstrated playing ability can go down a LOT faster than it goes up, but again, it WILL go up just so long as you continue to play crappy rounds long enough to get rid of the good ones.
As to the two numeric examples you give, I think we'd need to see the other scores that count for each player before we'd know what to make of this.  That said, I don't think there are very many golfers out there shooting 67-67-81-82 in consecutive rounds on the same golf course in the same conditions, and we'd need to see all 20 scores to know if the 81 and 82 would even count toward their index.
 

[Daryl David]

Archie,
Is it possible you have the dreaded soft cap being applied? It doesn’t take many unusually high scores for that cap to kick in.

[archie_struthers]

🥸🤪


nah Turbo…but I argued this with Dean Knuth for years to no avail !


Here’s a game that’s all about consistency to be really good , where your lack of bad shots at the highest level are the difference maker nine out of ten times . 


But we throw out the bad scores in fact a majority of scores are thrown out.  Why ?   They are trying to legislate against people that manipulate the system by not turning in the right score . 




In my particular case there are times when I play really well for whatever reason but it certainly isn’t a barometer of my true game .  Back when I started improving playing the local pro would ask me how did you play today?   When I started to say I drove it good or made a bunch of birdies he would say please “ just the score “.  He was trying to get me to understand at the end of the day that’s all that mattered , the number .


If you add up all your scores divide them by the number of rounds that’s your average .


In even ok with equitable stroke control ..:but ignoring all but the best days is ridiculous

[Erik J. Barzeski]

If anything the new system with only eight scores out of twenty is worse.

Handicaps for the vast majority of people didn't (and wouldn't) change more than 0.2 or so when you take 8/20 versus 10/20 * 0.96. People seem to forget that EVERY score was lowered 4% before, including your 8 best ones… and the next two lowest ones.

It's a measure of your demonstrated ability. Tour players can have a few bad rounds in a row, and then shoot 63. If you're a 7, you can shoot a 6 differential tomorrow.

[A.G._Crockett]

🥸🤪


nah Turbo…but I argued this with Dean Knuth for years to no avail !


Here’s a game that’s all about consistency to be really good , where your lack of bad shots at the highest level are the difference maker nine out of ten times . 


But we throw out the bad scores in fact a majority of scores are thrown out.  Why ?   They are trying to legislate against people that manipulate the system by not turning in the right score . 




In my particular case there are times when I play really well for whatever reason but it certainly isn’t a barometer of my true game .  Back when I started improving playing the local pro would ask me how did you play today?   When I started to say I drove it good or made a bunch of birdies he would say please “ just the score “.  He was trying to get me to understand at the end of the day that’s all that mattered , the number .


If you add up all your scores divide them by the number of rounds that’s your average .


In even ok with equitable stroke control ..:but ignoring all but the best days is ridiculous

I understand 100% your preference for an average of ALL rounds.  I play a ton of competitive golf, and I track my competitive rounds throughout the year and compare the average of those rounds against my average for ALL rounds; I'm always pleased when my competitive average is close to the overall average.  (I'm able to do this because I play a much longer yardage at my home club than the courses I play in 70 and over tournaments.)  The USGA provides the averages right there on the GHIN app, so it's not like they don't get the value of that.


But the purpose of the handicap index itself is to facilitate competition between players of unequal abilities, including from different tees, and I'm not sure you'd be as happy as you think you'd be if your index was simply an average of ALL scores in terms of what might happen to you in competitions where a few dollars are involved. 

You're assuming that because YOUR index would be higher that way (and therefore more accurately reflect your "demonstrated ability") you would compete more evenly with other golfers; I see absolutely no reason to believe that to be true.  If everyone's index went up, wouldn't you be right back where you started? 

Perhaps more to the point, you'd likely be losing ground to certain golfers whose scores come in very wide ranges.  (I'm putting aside the issue of easier manipulation of the system, which I think would be a real problem.)  You might be gaining ground on lower indexes whose scores typically are in a fairly narrow range, but they in turn might opt to just not enter net competitions at all, which would defeat the very purpose of the handicap system. 

[Matt Schoolfield]

The handicapping rules are, intentionally or not, weighted to reward consistency. If you're an extremely consistent player, you'll get all the strokes you need to net par every round. If you're inconsistent, you'll only get the strokes you need to net par every 5 rounds on average. If you want to de-emphasize consistency, just use the average of all your rounds you've ever played. 

we play for $ every time we play .

I think this may be your primary issue. There's nothing in the handicapping rules about that. If you want to improve your chances, never take any hero shots, ever, or just play match play.

[Jason Thurman]

Complaining about the handicapping system is truly a tradition unlike any other.


Archie, I get that you think the current system sucks. But how would you improve it?

[MCirba]

Complaining about the handicapping system is truly a tradition unlike any other.


Archie, I get that you think the current system sucks. But how would you improve it?

I also started a handicap rant some time back and I believe the first step is to require hole by hole gross entry of all scores as I doubt many higher handicap golfers understand much less employ ESC leading to the kind of competitive discrepancies Archie is complaining about.  Such a system would also allow for more creative calculation methods but I don't have time to jump into that at the moment.

[archie_struthers]

 


When you say the system rewards consistency Matt , I agree with you. The best golfers just don't hit the bad shots or have lapses of concentration that cause you to waste them. So if you are saying the better golfer tries harder and should be rewarded for same I might be,as a fairness issue. Work hard , get rewarded. 


But, and it's a big one , it's harder to concentrate than most people realize, and to do it at tournament level daily would make for  a bad time on the links as in our weekly games. When you play in the club championship it's acceptable to be a little less caring about your playing partners game or feelings . It's more serious for me at least.


I just want to have a fair match when we tee off. Not just for me but for everyone. WE all know the vanity handicap guys who don't put out their three and four footers regularly , but that's their choice.


Mike C , so nice to hear from you ! continuing respect for all you guys have accomplished at Cobbs Creek!


Don't have the answer to the issue, but the new system is worse in that it uses less data in making the daily correction. Maybe the average of your last five scores stroke adjusted might give a more accurate portrayal of your current ability

[Chris Hughes]

Archie,

Keep playing badly and your index will adjust, I promise.  Until then, the system is impacting you EXACTLY the same way as every other honest golfer that keeps a handicap.

What's the definition of an "honest golfer", from a handicap perspective that is?

Archie, I get that you think the current system sucks. But how would you improve it?

Reinstate the old system where sandbaggers actually experienced ramifications from an exceptional tournament score.

[archie_struthers]

 


Chris, i'm with you as bad as the old system was it's better than this mess they developed. We need to get some bookies and Vegas odds-makers involved. Surely they would figure it out. In the meantime will just have to man up and play better.




end of rant


as Buddy Holly said   "RAVE ON"

[Michael Felton]

If anything the new system with only eight scores out of twenty is worse.

Handicaps for the vast majority of people didn't (and wouldn't) change more than 0.2 or so when you take 8/20 versus 10/20 * 0.96. People seem to forget that EVERY score was lowered 4% before, including your 8 best ones… and the next two lowest ones.

It's a measure of your demonstrated ability. Tour players can have a few bad rounds in a row, and then shoot 63. If you're a 7, you can shoot a 6 differential tomorrow.

0.96 doesn't necessarily lower differentials - it brings them closer to zero. A +4 index previously would likely get a lower handicap after the change because removing the 0.96 makes their handicap lower and then making it 8/20 also makes it lower. For most people though yes agreed.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

it brings them closer to zero.

I appreciate the pedantry… Archie isn't a + index, and that's why I said "for the vast majority of people." The vast majority are not +s.

[Chris Hughes]

 


Chris, i'm with you as bad as the old system was it's better than this mess they developed.

1000% agree.


The soft/hard cap provision is described in USGA documents as tool to "assist Handicap Committees as an anti-abuse safeguard".


"...an anti-abuse safeguard..."



Ludicrous.


Sandbaggers are managing their handicap 24/7/365 (always inflated) -- unlike the previous system where an "extraordinary tournament score) had real ramifications -- there is literally nothing in the "new" system to hold sandbaggers accountable.


On the flipside, the "soft/hard cap" provision is an indiscriminate seine-net scooping up "honest golfers" at a pace hitherto unknown to the people of this area but destined to take the place of the mudshark in your mythology.   


All joking aside, I'm aware of a club where I estimate 98% of the rounds are played by 50% of the members.  There are fewer than 10 known/legitimate sandbaggers yet over 70 members are caught up in the "soft/hard cap". 


Put another way -- 28% of the of the active golfers at the club are caught up in the "anti-abuse" seine-net know as the "soft/hard cap" -- the USGA has unfairly slapped a scarlet "S" on the chest of a LOT of "honest golfers"!!!


Absurd.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sandbaggers are managing their handicap 24/7/365 (always inflated) -- unlike the previous system where an "extraordinary tournament score) had real ramifications -- there is literally nothing in the "new" system to hold sandbaggers accountable.

I don't understand what y'all are saying.

First, there is still: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/topics/exceptional-score-reduction.html.

Second, any handicap committee can adjust a player's handicap in either of two ways:

[Ian Mackenzie]

My handicap rant is always the same: EVERYONE is a Democrat (or a socialist..;-) when it comes to golf...;-)


- especially country club members in financial services who, after waxing on about the efficiencies of "free markets", then shamelessly ask their opponents to "give them strokes" so that they may be better able to compete on a fairer footing...;-)


- Just because I work harder at my game, just because I work harder at my own physical fitness, why do you feel I must GIVE YOU some of my strokes so that you can compete with me?


- "Stroke redistribution" is nothing more than gifting the less-talented and the less-motivated golfers who could spend more time practicing, more time exercising, yet instead choose to receive charity from others gladly so that they may endeavor to save $5-$20.


I get it, i understand it.
I just ask that you be consistent in your views or receive the "hypocrite tag".....

Maybe if these golfers did not receive such gifts from others, they would seek to "pull themselves up" and learn to  better themselves so they, too, need not rely on "the system" to make them competitive....

[Buck Wolter]

Putt everything out when you're playing well

[Cal Carlisle]

My handicap rant is always the same: EVERYONE is a Democrat (or a socialist..;-) when it comes to golf...;-)

Well....almost everyone. There are still a few dictatorships out there. Your post elicited a chuckle on this end.


The former president said he played a strong round two days before the tournament, and decided that would count as his first round score.

[Carl Nichols]

Complaining about the handicapping system is truly a tradition unlike any other.


Archie, I get that you think the current system sucks. But how would you improve it?

I also started a handicap rant some time back and I believe the first step is to require hole by hole gross entry of all scores as I doubt many higher handicap golfers understand much less employ ESC leading to the kind of competitive discrepancies Archie is complaining about.  Such a system would also allow for more creative calculation methods but I don't have time to jump into that at the moment.

I agree that this can be a problem--I'm always amazed at the people who don't understand the basics around the score they should be entering.  But it doesn't get to Archie's point that the formula should be different. 

[Chris Hughes]

Sandbaggers are managing their handicap 24/7/365 (always inflated) -- unlike the previous system where an "extraordinary tournament score) had real ramifications -- there is literally nothing in the "new" system to hold sandbaggers accountable.

I don't understand what y'all are saying.

First, there is still: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/topics/exceptional-score-reduction.html.

Second, any handicap committee can adjust a player's handicap in either of two ways:

"We're" saying, while both systems had/have their pitfalls....the previous version was better than the new one.


The provision you link is backward looking and were there any impact/penalty (unlikely) on a sandbagger, it can easily be mitigated before the next tournament comes up on the calendar.  It also makes no distinction between a "tournament" score and any other score -- the "tournament" score provisions were much more stringent and breakers were tripped by scores 3.0 or better.  Exceptional tournament scores could also hang around for a long, long time.


That such a large % of active golfers are caught up in an "anti-abuse" handicap rules provision is indicative of a flawed system.


As for the Handicap Committee, in the wild sitting committees that are both diligent and willing to take action, are rare.  In fact, committees are given the leeway to lift soft/hard cap provisions for an individual, or an entire club, but they never do. 

[Matt Schoolfield]

I mean this sincerely, if we actually wanted to have a handicapping system that is effectively perfect, probably the most capable person we could have design it is Steven Levitt. His work on cheating in Sumo Wrestling is exactly the type of background you'd want from someone designing a system that's primarily used for gambling. He is a maniac for golf, and has been in the pages of Golf Digest.

The concept of getting Richard Thaler and Steven Levitt (who apparently play golf together) to hammer out an ideal handicapping system is the type of nerd shit I could see myself listing to an hour long podcast about.

I know there are some fairly well connected people in this forum, so maybe pitch this idea. I think it could really improve the game.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

The provision you link is backward looking and were there any impact/penalty (unlikely) on a sandbagger, it can easily be mitigated before the next tournament comes up on the calendar.  It also makes no distinction between a "tournament" score and any other score -- the "tournament" score provisions were much more stringent and breakers were tripped by scores 3.0 or better.  Exceptional tournament scores could also hang around for a long, long time.

Handicaps can be manually adjusted, too, so players can still be penalized for an exceptional tournament score.

IMO, people spend FAR too much time worrying about sandbaggers. They're not the problem I think many people perceive them to be.

That such a large % of active golfers are caught up in an "anti-abuse" handicap rules provision is indicative of a flawed system.

What % is that? You don't know, right? Just guessing?

As for the Handicap Committee, in the wild sitting committees that are both diligent and willing to take action, are rare.

GCA loves its anecdata.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()