[Tom Yost]

  A low handicapper once told me that he thought Pacific Dunes was unfair to the low handicapper because the greens were too big. He said after a long drive he could find himself on the green in the same spot as a lesser golfer who drove the ball 40 yards less after the approach shot. I never loked at it that way before. Do I agree. I do not know. But at TOC which has large greens the better players seem to prevail.

The longer golfer is not necessarily the better golfer.  Conversely, the shorter golfer is not always the lesser golfer.

Many golfers find it vexing that the missed 2' putt counts exactly the same on the scorecard as the towering 295 yard tee shot.

 

[Scott Warren]

In truth, I thought integral was the best word by definition, but didn't like it's other meanings, so I took some artistic license.

That's one thing about GCA that often leaves me scratching my head - the use of flamboyant language that sacrifices clarity. Why not just type "whole number scoring" instead and allow 100% of posters to understand from the get-go exactly what you mean?

On the matter, I regularly find the rough and a bunker en route to an arsey one-putt par, so I love that putt being worth the same as my opponent's long, straight drive.

This new CONGU deal whereby singles matches are played at full difference is rather painful and doesn't really work when there are large differences in caps.  I had to give a guy 16 shots this weekend.  IMO, this is too many no matter how a cap system works.  With the old 3/4s I felt I had a chance, but in calm conditions with the oppo getting shots on the par 3s I knew I was in trouble.  But thats life. 

Agreed. My society's matchplay knockout this year is full difference. In rd 1 I was filthy that I had to give 16 shots, but given I am up against a pro in rd 2 and will be getting all 8 shots difference, I think for now I quite like this "full difference" business

[astavrides]

In truth, I thought integral was the best word by definition, but didn't like it's other meanings, so I took some artistic license.

That's one thing about GCA that often leaves me scratching my head - the use of flamboyant language that sacrifices clarity. Why not just type "whole number scoring" instead and allow 100% of posters to understand from the get-go exactly what you mean?


'Whole numbers' excludes negatives, and 'natural numbers' excludes 0 as well.  I suppose you could score a net -1 on a hole if you were getting 2 strokes on it and made a hole in one.

[George Pazin]

In truth, I thought integral was the best word by definition, but didn't like it's other meanings, so I took some artistic license.

That's one thing about GCA that often leaves me scratching my head - the use of flamboyant language that sacrifices clarity. Why not just type "whole number scoring" instead and allow 100% of posters to understand from the get-go exactly what you mean?

Long-time posters know that you can almost tailor your audience by the title you choose. I thought my opening post explained everything clearly, but apologies if it didn't.

[Tony_Muldoon]

Rich, I've never really understood the point of playing with handicaps, but can't say I care much what others do. One of my few steady playing partners from 10 years ago and I always play even up, despite the fact that he's a good ten strokes better than me. I figure the match play thing helps me enough, any more and I'd feel like I was begging. Of course, I pretty much always lose to him, but it makes the occasional win that much sweeter.

Good thread.

George have you considered "Sunningdale Rules" which are now my preferred rules of engagement in 'friendly' matches?
Strokes are only given to a player who is two holes down.  Then they get a stroke on each succeeding hole until they get it back to one down.  At the least it usually means matches go to somewhere near the whole 18.  There is also an undeniable thrill that having played a hole where you have given your opponent a stroke and whilst walking to the next tee you casually enquire "So ...3 down?"

[Charlie Goerges]

George,

I love this thread. And I love the "Ordinal/Integral" aspect of the game. I've been on both sides of the equation (i.e. the one beaten by an "inferior" player and the one beating a "superior" player). I only wish that I got to play more quasi-competitive rounds these days because with my distance and accuracy losses combined with greater patience and willingness to be creative with shots, I'd love to be giving long-hitting, superior players some heartburn.

While the importance in putting is huge in this aspect of the game, I think that the importance of course management, expectation management, and "picking one's spots" cannot be overlooked. The ability to "play to one's strengths" is as important as knowing one's limitations. And it's a fun, proactive, an non-defensive way to play the game. (I think instructors and magazine articles focus way too much on playing defensively rather than focusing on one's strengths) Everyone should be going out there trying to kick some ass, rather than to stop the bleeding.

[Jim_Kennedy]

We play several games where the need for strokes is mostly unneccessary, but you'd never see Sunday morning nassaus, member guests, fund-raisers, and other outings if strokes weren't given. It's quite a different situation when you're playing with a buddy who is better than you and you're always trying to get to him straight up, but that's a small fraction of play.

There is a sea of difference between winning with strokes and winning without them, but I've never felt bad about losing a match to someone who I gave strokes to, and I've never fooled myself when the shoe was on the other foot.





p.s. Thank you Peter

[Sean_A]

Rich, I've never really understood the point of playing with handicaps, but can't say I care much what others do. One of my few steady playing partners from 10 years ago and I always play even up, despite the fact that he's a good ten strokes better than me. I figure the match play thing helps me enough, any more and I'd feel like I was begging. Of course, I pretty much always lose to him, but it makes the occasional win that much sweeter.

Good thread.

George have you considered "Sunningdale Rules" which are now my preferred rules of engagement in 'friendly' matches?
Strokes are only given to a player who is two holes down.  Then they get a stroke on each succeeding hole until they get it back to one down.  At the least it usually means matches go to somewhere near the whole 18.  There is also an undeniable thrill that having played a hole where you have given your opponent a stroke and whilst walking to the next tee you casually enquire "So ...3 down?"

Tony

I am a big fan of this system, but its hard to convince folks of its merits. 

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

For head-to-head matches I've been routinely proposed Sunningdale Rules the last couple years. It has the advantage that the better player (lower handicapper) will almost always win but the matches will generally be close. To me that's like a description of the ideal game and there can be no feelings of being pencil-whipped.

[Andrew Mitchell]

Rich, I've never really understood the point of playing with handicaps, but can't say I care much what others do. One of my few steady playing partners from 10 years ago and I always play even up, despite the fact that he's a good ten strokes better than me. I figure the match play thing helps me enough, any more and I'd feel like I was begging. Of course, I pretty much always lose to him, but it makes the occasional win that much sweeter.

Good thread.

George have you considered "Sunningdale Rules" which are now my preferred rules of engagement in 'friendly' matches?
Strokes are only given to a player who is two holes down.  Then they get a stroke on each succeeding hole until they get it back to one down.  At the least it usually means matches go to somewhere near the whole 18.  There is also an undeniable thrill that having played a hole where you have given your opponent a stroke and whilst walking to the next tee you casually enquire "So ...3 down?"

Tony

Is that your proposal for BUDA 2009 and the annual thorny issue of the differences between the US/UK handicapping systems?

It would be simpler to follow than Mark's Behr handicapping theory

[Wade Whitehead]

His point was that the couse played like a putting contest because the grrens were reseptive to long approaches. And both players would two putt.

If Player A is much farther from the hole than Player B and both two putt, hasn't Player A established that he's better and/or should win?

WW

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()