[Tom Huckaby]

Pete, isn't it about time you just get on with it and move to the UK?  On second though, you better not.  Within ten years they will have adopted our way of handicapping.  It's already starting.  Sorry, my friend.

 

In any case back here in the US of A, if tournament results only were posted for handicap, the field in Tom's event likely would have been 1/4 the size, if not smaller, because the vast majority wouldn't play in enough to bother getting a handicap at all.  

I know you think that's a good thing.  I'm kinda happy with the situation we have, where all who want handicaps have them, and easily 98% treat them honorably and correctly.

But we can argue about this again if you like.  What will this make, round 55?

 

[Tom Zeni]

David,

Thanks for the thoughts.  This out-landish score of -18 was announced for all to hear. That number, as known by all in attendance, was unreachable by any account.

Due to the weather, no one played more than 9 holes and two par 3's. All three nine's are par 36's. Hypotheticals are nice, if we had more known factors to surrround it with. But recall, 3 of the 4 players are guests. Only one member in each foursome. So if there are horses for courses, or in this case nines, how many times could the guests play all 27 holes?

It was a shotgun start, but the scoring was for your first full nine holes only. Too many facts, regardless how hard they played on the par 3's, since none of them won any of the closest to the pins, and the closest was better than 10 feet by those who did win. And, believe me, the last thing you want to pin your hopes on would be to score on those long treacherous par 3's, regardless of which nine you were playing. Ain't no 27 hdcp'er coming anywhere near the ones 187 to 205, or the ones over water or sided by water.

The way the greens were double cut and rolled, average handi's would have been hard pressed to play -18 if all they were playing nine par 3's !

[Adam Clayman]

Sean, Handicaps for scrambles?

Blind Peoria is the fairest way to set the team handicaps and payout. All other attempts seem to give an edge to somebody.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - same question as Adam.  And note the 54 my beer-drinking team achieved was a gross score.

[Kalen Braley]

Sean, Handicaps for scrambles?

Blind Peoria is the fairest way to set the team handicaps and payout. All other attempts seem to give an edge to somebody.

Not to sure about that Adam.

http://www.popeofslope.com/scramble/handicapping.html

I've also seen it work well when everyone tosses thier handi in the hat, and then the teams are setup balanced.

So a team is setup with 1 player with a low handi, 1 with a mid-range, and perhaps 2 high handicappers.  Or it can be modified depending on how many good or bad players that are in the group.

[Tom Huckaby]

Handicaps for scrambles can be done, but the scores are usually so low to begin with - and the handicaps you end up getting are never more than a stroke or two - so why bother?

Of course the balancing thing you mention Kaylen is a fine idea.  But that's just setting up fair teams.  You play gross after that of course.

[Kalen Braley]

Handicaps for scrambles can be done, but the scores are usually so low to begin with - and the handicaps you end up getting are never more than a stroke or two - so why bother?

Of course the balancing thing you mention Kaylen is a fine idea.  But that's just setting up fair teams.  You play gross after that of course.

Exactly, set up fair teams and play gross.

I played in a company event a couple of weeks ago, and some of the prizes were nice, Drivers, irons, golf bags.  So I asked how teams were going to be setup??  And the answer was huh?

So I knew we were going down in flames when I, as a 13 handicapper, was the best one on the team.  We used up all my alloted tee shots on the front 9 and it went downhill from there.  

[Tom Huckaby]

 

Well, at least you weren't fleeced by sandbaggers.

TH

[Tom Zeni]

Upon further review of this -18 in 9 holes based in this format....

1 best score from each par 5
2 best scores from each par 4
3 best scores from each par 3

Let's ASSUME, and you know what assume does - it makes an ASS out of U and ME. But let's assume each player was an 18 hdcp.

Someone would have to net eagle each of the two par 5's. That would give them 4 points.

Two players would have to net birdie each of the four par 4's. That would give you an additional 8 pts.

And now, for the hat trick, 3 players would each have to net birdie both par 3's for the final 6 pts.

If only one player was a 17 hdcp, the par 3's would have to be net birdied by the same three players both times. If two players were any less than an 18 hdcp, it would be mathematically impossible to reach -18.

You see the degree of difficulty, right? Theoretically, four 18 hdcp's would have to play "Perfect Golf" for nine holes on double cut rolled greens at a 13.1 stimp, including 4 halts in play due to lightning.

[Tom Huckaby]

TZ:
Were they each 18 handicaps?  My assumption was one or more were a lot more than that.  It's gonna be very hard to believe - just as you describe - if there are no two stroke holes.

TH

[Tom Zeni]

TH-

No, that was just a hypothetical of how outlandish the hdcp's would have to be to achive a -18.  I honestly don't know what their hdcp's were.  However, one would reasonably think the "member" would be less, if not far less, than an 18.

Hell, if I was a member with an 18, I doubt I'd bother plunking down $100, let alone finding 3 others of the same ilk to blindly do the same...and then play a perfect 9 holes of golf. Add to that, how many 18's would know about sandbagging and use it to win prize money? Most 18's are just trying to figure out what club to use and how to chip and putt! lol.

As a scenario,  -18 only gets more far fetched as it progresses.

[Tom Huckaby]

TZ:

I don't know... I've played a lot of events like this and seen a LOT of handicaps greater than 18.  But you are right about one thing - they're not typically active sandbaggers... those tend to be players with 3 true ability but 12-15 handicap.  In fact 12 seems to be the number to watch out for.

In any case, make it one 12, one 18, two 24s and the -18 total moves into the universe of reality.  Oh, it's still not bloody well likely, but at least it could happen.

TH

[Tom Zeni]

TH-

I don't know if it moves it into a reality universe, or a parallel universe where everyone plays perfect golf!  

[Tom Huckaby]

Well, not to beat a dead horse, but make the handicaps what I say and it allows imperfection....

[Pete Lavallee]

Pete, isn't it about time you just get on with it and move to the UK?  

Actually I am planning on spending half the year in the UK when I can quit working for a living; as you know my lovely bride is a subject of the Queen. A side benefit would be they do hold the Buda Cup each year!

I am changing my crusade somewhat. Rather than implement the CONGU system here, I am now willing to lobby the USGA to implement some sort of tournament handicap, in addition to the regular one. The computer would just crunch the numbers for rounds posted as "T rounds" and then the home Club could choose which handicap they will use for their events. The sheer beauty of its' simplicity should make it quite an attractive system.

[Tom Huckaby]

Pete:  good for you.  As I say though, don't get too wedded to CONGU.  I am not kidding, it's on the way out.

As for your suggestion for your soon-to-be-adandoned-half-the-time country, it exists now.  T scores are always there, set out separately - any club could calculate an index based solely on these.  I've heard of some clubs that do so - the math isn't hard - it just takes a little effort.

You know what's funniest about all of our battles here though?  I have to believe that in the end we both believe that playing gross (and I don't mean that as an adjective) is the best way to go.  So all of our battles are really just rhetorical/hypothetical/choose your word meaning "it's not really how we want to play, but a necessary evil for others."

True?

[Pete Lavallee]

True?

Agreed.

But don't get me started on the T score issue. Ther SCGA strongly advises Clubs to not count every tournament as a T score! Why, well to keep the automatic handicap reduction for T scores from kicking in and autoadjusting perpatrators. That's just plain crazy. We have a medal each month and the sanctioning body wants us to not count these as T scores. Our handicap director was told this at the SCGA meeting:

SCGA: Who won the April tournament?
HD: I don't remember.
SCGA: Who won the Club Championship?
HD: Oh, that was Joe Blow.
SCGA: Well, see that's what we consider a tournament!

[Tom Huckaby]

Pete:

Here's the definition, from USGA Handicap Manual:


Tournament Score
A “tournament score” is a score made in a competition organized and conducted by the committee in charge of the competition. The competition must identify a winner(s) based on a stipulated round(s), and must be played under the principles of The Rules of Golf.

Using the above definition as a guideline, the committee (preferably the Handicap Committee in consultation with the committee in charge of the competition) must determine in advance if these conditions are met and announce in advance whether the score must be identified by the letter “T” when posted.

Routine events, such as regular play days, normally are not to be designated as T-scores because they are not significant in the traditions, schedules, formats, and membership of the club. (See eligible tournament score.)

Examples of inter-club competition scores that may be posted as tournament scores when they meet the above conditions are: competitions restricted by age, member-guest competitions, team matches, qualifying rounds for city, state, and national competitions, and competitions conducted by golf associations.

Examples of intra-club competition scores that may be posted as tournament scores when they meet the above conditions are low gross-low net competitions, four-ball match or stroke-play competitions, Stableford competitions, and club championships which are stroke or match play, scratch, or with handicap.


I think there's some guidance in there somewhere that fleshes this out even more, but I can't find it.

The bolding is mine - and is the key part of this.  As I recall the guidance we got was that since we only do these once a month, they aren't "routine", and thus count as T.  This was the guidance we got from NCGA.  So our monthly events are posted as T scores.

I guess if you do club events more often, they fall under "routine" and thus wouldn't go as T.

And that makes sense, given the purpose of T scores in the USGA system (really for automatic adjusting of handicaps when wild outlier competitive scores are posted).

I know this doesn't help your idea though.  

So, the situation you wish for really doesn't exist already - not perfectly enough anyway.  You would need more T scores to count for your idea to work best... and unfortunately that's not how the USGA system is currently set up.

BUT... in the end, it might have some worth to just try calculating T-score only indices anyway.  It would be interesting.  And I have indeed heard of clubs, or specific events, who do this.

TH

[David_Elvins]

But let's assume each player was an 18 hdcp.

Someone would have to net eagle each of the two par 5's. That would give them 4 points.

Two players would have to net birdie each of the four par 4's. That would give you an additional 8 pts.

And now, for the hat trick, 3 players would each have to net birdie both par 3's for the final 6 pts.

Thats only 8 holes Tom,

Going with your assumption that all are 18 handicappers, here is a scorecard where the team scores -18 and each player plays to his handicap.

The team would have to be lucky but to me it looks like a plausible scorecard.  Now throw in the fact that some of the players may hav been off handicaps greater than 18, and some of the players may have played better than their handicap, I don't think the score is as impossible as you make out.




All it requires is for one player out of four to get a birdie on a par 5 (I have seen plenty of 18 handicappers do that).  One player out of 4 to par the other Par 5 (easy), 2 players to par one of the par 3s (doable), 3 players to par the other par 3 (lucky) and 2 out of four players to par each of the 5 par 4s (doable if luck falls your way)  I don't think it is as hard as you make out.

I understand what you were saying about the course set up but the fact you had 7 pars in a row does indicate that it was playable.  

[Tom Zeni]

David, you're brilliant. I'm a dunce.

Just one caveat. While I did par 7 holes in a row, we had two gents in our foursome with single digit hdcp's who could not duplicate the same. Hence our -8. So with the hypothetical of 18 handicappers scoring birds and pars in such a fashion they are coming on command, when most players in that range are just trying to get the ball into the air, on line, and further than 100 yds... still statisically in the stratosphere.

However, I salute you for showing the error of my counting and your thorough preparation of your analysis. It also  tells me that I should never multi-task when one part has math involved.

Thanks again,

tom...

[David_Elvins]

Tom,

You are right, the thing I have no idea about is the condiiton of the course and just how tough it was.  You are right that the score is probably implausible. I must admit I am playing devils advocate to a degree here because it seems to me that in general whenever a team wins a nett event there is invariably bad sportsmanship from atleast one person (not saying that is you in this case because I wasn't there) yet no-one accuses David Duval of cheating when he shot a 59, or Tiger of cheating when he wins a Major by 12 shots.

However I think you underestimate the 18 handicap golfer if you think they struggle to get the ball in the air greater than 100 yards.  I play with plenty of high handicapped golfers who hit very good shots but their main problem is consistancy.  

I see high handicappers who drive it as far as pros, or who hit great iron shots for 3-4 holes in a row.  But every now and again they top one, shank one, cant get out of a bunker, or just can't putt.  Often the difference between an 18 handicap and a 9 handicap is how often you play, and how good your short game is.

For example, My dad is a legitamite 28 handicap.  He has never broken his hanidcap.  He hits the ball 220 off the tee.  Yet he regulary plays one nine 3-6 under his handicap and the other 5-10 over his handicap.  He can birdie par 5s, he can string a few pars together but when things go wrong, they really go wrong.  eg.  when he gets in a bunker, it is atleast 2-3 shots to get out.  He probably has atleast 1 nett eagle a round, 4-5 nett birdies and fairly regular nett albatrosses.  Put him in a team competition where his horrible holes don't count and he does alright.

Remember that you played a nine hole event.  Freakish things can happen over nine holes.  Pros have shot 27 for nine holes but none have ever come close to shooting 54 for 18.  Lets say their -18 was legit, it is entirely possible that luck would have caught up with them and they could have played the next nine in even par.  9 holes is a very small sample.  High handicappers can regularly play dramatically better than their handicap for such a short stretch of holes.  

One other thing, this format seems to dramatically favour high handicappers.  The team format covers their inconstancy and the fact that only one of their scores counts on a Par 5 favours them massively.  Low handicappers eat up par 5s, high handicappers struggle with them.  Conversely, a par 3 is a really hard net birdie for a scratch player, yet a relatively easy net birdie for a high handicapper (one good shot).  I reckon it was the format that beat you more than anything else.  

[Tom Zeni]

Tom,

You are right, the thing I have no idea about is the condiiton of the course and just how tough it was.  You are right that the score is probably implausible. I must admit I am playing devils advocate to a degree here because it seems to me that in general whenever a team wins a nett event there is invariably bad sportsmanship from atleast one person (not saying that is you in this case because I wasn't there) yet no-one accuses David Duval of cheating when he shot a 59, or Tiger of cheating when he wins a Major by 12 shots.

However I think you underestimate the 18 handicap golfer if you think they struggle to get the ball in the air greater than 100 yards.  I play with plenty of high handicapped golfers who hit very good shots but their main problem is consistancy.  

I see high handicappers who drive it as far as pros, or who hit great iron shots for 3-4 holes in a row.  But every now and again they top one, shank one, cant get out of a bunker, or just can't putt.  Often the difference between an 18 handicap and a 9 handicap is how often you play, and how good your short game is.

For example, My dad is a legitamite 28 handicap.  He has never broken his hanidcap.  He hits the ball 220 off the tee.  Yet he regulary plays one nine 3-6 under his handicap and the other 5-10 over his handicap.  He can birdie par 5s, he can string a few pars together but when things go wrong, they really go wrong.  eg.  when he gets in a bunker, it is atleast 2-3 shots to get out.  He probably has atleast 1 nett eagle a round, 4-5 nett birdies and fairly regular nett albatrosses.  Put him in a team competition where his horrible holes don't count and he does alright.

Remember that you played a nine hole event.  Freakish things can happen over nine holes.  Pros have shot 27 for nine holes but none have ever come close to shooting 54 for 18.  Lets say their -18 was legit, it is entirely possible that luck would have caught up with them and they could have played the next nine in even par.  9 holes is a very small sample.  High handicappers can regularly play dramatically better than their handicap for such a short stretch of holes.  

One other thing, this format seems to dramatically favour high handicappers.  The team format covers their inconstancy and the fact that only one of their scores counts on a Par 5 favours them massively.  Low handicappers eat up par 5s, high handicappers struggle with them.  Conversely, a par 3 is a really hard net birdie for a scratch player, yet a relatively easy net birdie for a high handicapper (one good shot).  I reckon it was the format that beat you more than anything else.  

David, I appreciate you playing devils advocate. I think what it did was highlight the inconsistancies between real and hypothetical.

Some points of inconsistancies are when you stated that high Handi's "struggle" with par 5's, but in your original post, you said "easy."  Also, the diff between an 18 and a 9 handi isn't only what you said, but there is "athletic ability" at the heart of a golf swing. Playing more is one thing, doing it better repeatedly is another.

I would say the format, as you correctly surmised, does favor higher handi's, and it is a small sampling, but a sampling none the less - played by all. Even if "luck" caught up with one, or even two of the foursome, we are talking "perfect storm" for all four golfers to find perfection for 9 holes with four interruptions in play - but none for the other 31 of 32 foursomes. Given the circumstances, odds makers would barely shake the line for 9 holes vs. 18.

We must also take into consideration two things. One, is the sampling of talent in each group, and two, that low handi's are that for a reason. The reason being, they can "play" to it. And while my definition of a high handi was a one lump broad brush generalization, your point of "consistency" is well taken. And don't you think consistency, or the lack of it given the nature of the game, as well as the law of averages, not to mention the statisical probability, was the reason for the outcry at the banquet that followed?

As for bad feelings, Al Geiberger, DD, and Chip Beck all recorded their 59's in a pro tourament in front of crowds and TV where people call in if they note an infraction. These 4 players toiled in anonimity. Was I appalled at the time? Certainly. Was everyone at the dinner, including the gent who jumped from his seat to lambaste the foursome in question appalled? Absolutely.

You can't have that. It makes a sham of the event, and a mockery of golf.

David, thanks for your intriging thoughts. They were well conceived and I appreciate your points of view.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()