[Garland Bayley]

...
Mr. Bayley you still did not answer my simple question, which book takes precedence The Rules of Golf or the Handicap Manual?

I think you question has been repeatedly answered here by me and others.

If you have a car and a motorcycle, and you are going out to change the oil on the car, are you going to use the car manual as a reference or the motorcycle manual?
Same question for when you go out to change the oil on the motorcycle.

[Brent Hutto]

One of the things about the handicap system that most bugs me is the occasional well-intentioned person I'm playing with who takes offense at my picking up and declining to attempt to chip in for my double-bogey when the game of the day counts zero (team) points for anything worse than (gross) bogey. They insist that if I "count" that for handicap purposes as a double-bogey I am reverse-bagging and if I "count" it as a triple-bogey or quadruple-bogey I'm sandbagging. To some people's way of thinking your handicap is not valid unless you treat every hole as medal play until either a) you reach your ESC limit or b) an opponent in match play concedes a short putt.

For my part, at that point on a hole I pick up and count it as one stroke if it's a putt and count it two strokes if it's a chip, pitch or bunker shot. If they don't like it that's too bad. It sure looks at times like the reason we're out there in the hot sun for four hours is to generate numbers for the computer, not to play a game.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

...
Mr. Bayley you still did not answer my simple question, which book takes precedence The Rules of Golf or the Handicap Manual?

I think you question has been repeatedly answered here by me and others.

If you have a car and a motorcycle, and you are going out to change the oil on the car, are you going to use the car manual as a reference or the motorcycle manual?
Same question for when you go out to change the oil on the motorcycle.

No, you nor anyone else have definitively answered my question, but alas, it doesn't matter, I won't get a straight answer anyway.

Mr. Hutto you bring up an excellent point. I have played in numerous leagues where they had their own handicap using league rules. Often times a Stableford league, pick up once you reach double-bogey, that goes for everyone. Roll the ball, NO GIMMES, etc. But everyone played the same and it was the same all the time. However, under the magnificence of the USGA system, players are forced to stop at some magical number for scoring purposes, handicap determines how high the number is. But, but, when playing in an event, the player must hole out on every shot, oh wait, but still subtract when necessary in order to post the score. Contradictions galore. 

[Garland Bayley]

One of the things about the handicap system that most bugs me is the occasional well-intentioned person I'm playing with who takes offense at my picking up and declining to attempt to chip in for my double-bogey when the game of the day counts zero (team) points for anything worse than (gross) bogey. They insist that if I "count" that for handicap purposes as a double-bogey I am reverse-bagging and if I "count" it as a triple-bogey or quadruple-bogey I'm sandbagging. To some people's way of thinking your handicap is not valid unless you treat every hole as medal play until either a) you reach your ESC limit or b) an opponent in match play concedes a short putt.

For my part, at that point on a hole I pick up and count it as one stroke if it's a putt and count it two strokes if it's a chip, pitch or bunker shot. If they don't like it that's too bad. It sure looks at times like the reason we're out there in the hot sun for four hours is to generate numbers for the computer, not to play a game.

Um, Brent, I was under the impression you were familiar with the concepts of statistics.

[BDuryee]

Jamie,

regardless of what you think of how ones handicap is calculated, as someone who at one time played to a +3 under the current systems do you really want to be playing many matches or medalist events with a 30 handicap?

[Jim_Kennedy]

JVG,

You're correct  in 4 ball stroke play. I had been thinking individual stroke play as that was the example you provided.

Four-ball scores(mostly) aren't used for calculating handicaps in the UK, but it's such a standard form of play here in the states that it's use was inevitable.

[Garland Bayley]

No, you nor anyone else have definitively answered my question, but alas, it doesn't matter, I won't get a straight answer anyway.

...

Alright Mr. Mucci. You have been found out! Give up this alias before we have to report you to the moderator.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Jamie,

regardless of what you think of how ones handicap is calculated, as someone who at one time played to a +3 under the current systems do you really want to be playing many matches or medalist events with a 30 handicap?

Depends. Sometimes they are pretty cool guys, but in general, yes, I would rather play a better player. However, I generally don't like giving up strokes, even 2 or 3, so my attitude for a handicap event doesn't change depending on number of shots being given, its just not my preferred type of play.

Mr. Kennedy I have to think given the ability to use estimated scores for 4-ball stroke play, in which the rules are of course exactly the same as in standard stroke play, would allow for the estimated score to be used in a non-competitive medal round. Section 5-1a deals with this in how to work the score if you do not finish a round depending on number of holes finished. Considering the paragraph above that one says that all rounds must be posted, I have to assume this applies to stroke play.

Mr. Bayley, I'm no Senor Mucci, he's played far more golf and knows much more than I likely will. But thanks for the compliment. 

[Jim_Kennedy]

.....and to answer your question, the rules of golf are paramount. Other than Stableford, there is no occasion in a singles stroke play event where a player who does not hole out isn't DQ'ed, thereby making his round unacceptable for posting.  

You said: Now, on to Section 4-2. This again uses most likely score, but brings handicap into the picture. Par plus handicap shots is applicable. There are two parts to this rule, one is holes not played, one is holes not played IAW the rules. Now, for the first part, assuming you are not playing match play, in which case the only way to not play a hole is for your opponent to concede you a 1 on the tee, you are playing stroke play. Well, Rule 3-2 says "If a competitor fails to hole out at any hole and does not correct his mistake before he makes a stroke on the next teeing ground or, in the case of the last hole of the round, before he leaves the putting green, he is disqualified." So, simply put, any round in which the player does not hole out, other than in match play, is an invalid round, therefore ineligible for handicapping, or so says the rules.

That's not the case when playing a fourball, match or stroke play, as the rules for that game allow picking up before holing out.
  
  

[Scott_Burroughs]

Mr. Bayley, I'm no Senor Mucci....But thanks for the compliment. 

I'm not no sure it was.  


Saw an interesting document on the Carolinas Golf Association's website on the handicapping of Scramble events....neither they nor the USGA endorse the methods inside, but list them for 'informational purposes,' I guess.  I haven't read through them to comment...to me, scramble events are Hit-and-Giggle boozefests.

http://www.carolinasgolf.org/handicap/Scramble.pdf

[Mark Pearce]

Mr Van Gisbergen,

You keep repeating a question that demonstrates clearly that you are missing the point.  Neither takes precedence, since they address different things.  If you are playing a competitive medal play round then you comply with the rules.  You never pick up, since that DQs you, so you record an actual score for each hole.  In a format that does not require holing out on each hole then for handicap purposes only you enter an estimated score.  It isn't difficult, it isn't rocket science and it should be obvious.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

.....and to answer your question, the rules of golf are paramount. Other than Stableford, there is no occasion in a singles stroke play event where a player who does not hole out isn't DQ'ed, thereby making his round unacceptable for posting.  

You said: Now, on to Section 4-2. This again uses most likely score, but brings handicap into the picture. Par plus handicap shots is applicable. There are two parts to this rule, one is holes not played, one is holes not played IAW the rules. Now, for the first part, assuming you are not playing match play, in which case the only way to not play a hole is for your opponent to concede you a 1 on the tee, you are playing stroke play. Well, Rule 3-2 says "If a competitor fails to hole out at any hole and does not correct his mistake before he makes a stroke on the next teeing ground or, in the case of the last hole of the round, before he leaves the putting green, he is disqualified." So, simply put, any round in which the player does not hole out, other than in match play, is an invalid round, therefore ineligible for handicapping, or so says the rules.

That's not the case when playing a fourball, match or stroke play, as the rules for that game allow picking up before holing out.
  
  

Mr Kennedy I would most respectfully request that you explain your top sentence in regards to disqualification with respect to posting scores while also looking at Section 5-1 of the Handicap Manual, most specifically paragraphs A and E. Thank you.

Mr Pearce my point is that all scores should be posted in strict accordance with the rules. 99% of them are not. It is obvious to me, I fully understand the mechanics of the system, I simply think it is wrong.

[SL_Solow]

Jamie;  As one who sits on the board of a golf association (CDGA, not USGA) the answer is not difficult.  The rules of golf govern the playing of the game and the scorekeeping for those purposes.  The handicap manual governs how handicaps are computed and for that purpose only supersede the rules.  Thus the example of score adjustments.  Thus the addition of scores for uncompleted holes in a match.  when you win a match 4 and 3 and turn in an 18 hole score, you didn't complete the last 3 holes pursuant to the Rules of Golf.  Yet you turn in a score to try and obtain a proper handicap.  Similarly, when conceded a 2 on a par 5, it is entirely appropriate to view that as a 2 in the match.  Candidly, that is irrelevant since the hole was conceded and "medal " scores are irrelevant.  But an "accurate" score or assessment of your game is relevant for handicap purposes so substituting the estimated score is appropriate for handicap purposes alone.  The logic is readily apparent.

This does not solve the other problems noted e.g. sandbagging and/or vanity handicaps.  For those purposes the system applied across the pond is probably better as the rounds are all stroke play and performed in competition.

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Jamie;  As one who sits on the board of a golf association (CDGA, not USGA) the answer is not difficult.  The rules of golf govern the playing of the game and the scorekeeping for those purposes.  The handicap manual governs how handicaps are computed and for that purpose only supersede the rules.  Thus the example of score adjustments.  Thus the addition of scores for uncompleted holes in a match.  when you win a match 4 and 3 and turn in an 18 hole score, you didn't complete the last 3 holes pursuant to the Rules of Golf.  Yet you turn in a score to try and obtain a proper handicap.  Similarly, when conceded a 2 on a par 5, it is entirely appropriate to view that as a 2 in the match.  Candidly, that is irrelevant since the hole was conceded and "medal " scores are irrelevant.  But an "accurate" score or assessment of your game is relevant for handicap purposes so substituting the estimated score is appropriate for handicap purposes alone.  The logic is readily apparent.

This does not solve the other problems noted e.g. sandbagging and/or vanity handicaps.  For those purposes the system applied across the pond is probably better as the rounds are all stroke play and performed in competition.

Mr Solow you hit the nail directly on the head. Estimating scores on a hole not played is incredible. Again, witness the 16 of Kevin Na, proof positive that anything can happen on the course. I agree that my "2" on the par 5 was irrelevant. I understand the system and all the concepts, that is not at issue. The general basis of the system in which ALL rounds must be posted, most of which will be played outside the rules, is not the best, in my amateur's opinion, that is.

[Jim_Kennedy]

No explanation necessary, I was wrong about the DQ score being eligible.

That doesn't change the fact that the rules govern the game.

[Garland Bayley]

...
This does not solve the other problems noted e.g. sandbagging and/or vanity handicaps.  For those purposes the system applied across the pond is probably better as the rounds are all stroke play and performed in competition.

I could really care less if I am playing against someone with a vanity handicap. As for sandbaggers, they are accounted for by tournament rounds being recorded and receiving priority.

[Jud_T]

Jamie,

All you're saying is that you strongly favor the GB&I handicapping system as it's based solely on tournament rounds.  I can't say I disagree with your conclusion, just perhaps the rationale....

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

Jamie,

All you're saying is that you strongly favor the GB&I handicapping system as it's based solely on tournament rounds.  I can't say I disagree with your conclusion, just perhaps the rationale....

To a certain degree, yes. I prefer a system in which only rounds played in strict accordance to the rules are allowed, which the USGA system halfheartedly tries to do, but for the most part does/can not. Match play is altogether separate, but my thoughts on that are spelled out here as well. And I do not like ESC for one second, no matter what the situation.

[SL_Solow]

  Jamie;   Putting aside your preference for the British system, given the US system there are good reasons for equitable stroke control and estimating scores for unfinished rounds.  They both relate to controlling sandbaggers.  ESC is designed to prevent the sandbagger from making one or two extremely high scores per round when playing matches or friendly rounds thus distorting his score well above his skill level without risking losing a match.  Similarly, estimating scores based on an existing handicap prevents the sandbagger from stopping a few holes short of completing a good round in order to maintain a high handicap.  Of course, the entire system is dependent on a player turning in accurate scores.  Absent peer review, a player can always game the US system.  I am old enough to remember circumstances before ESC when club committees reduced the handicaps of known sandbaggers prior to tournaments and told them if they didn't like it they could leave.  This doesn't help much in events outside of the sandbaggers club.

[Garland Bayley]

Jamie,

I have what will obviously become your favorite website:
http://www.popeofslope.com/

[Carl Johnson]

...
This does not solve the other problems noted e.g. sandbagging and/or vanity handicaps.  For those purposes the system applied across the pond is probably better as the rounds are all stroke play and performed in competition.

I could really care less if I am playing against someone with a vanity handicap. As for sandbaggers, they are accounted for by tournament rounds being recorded and receiving priority.

With vanity handicaps, the difficulty is playing with one or more such players on your team.  Of course, you can always say, "I don't care if I lose with a vanity handicapper on my team," or, "I won't play on a team with a vanity handicapper(s)."  However, I don't like to lose in any case, or to limit my ability to play on a team with others.  Although no system is perfect, I think the USGA handicap system does just about as good a job as possible for it's primary intended purpose, which is to let golfers of different skill levels have friendly, competitive matches together.  Education about how the system is supposed to work and what its purposes are is all important.  I remember one time at a league board meeting we got into a discussion about how scores should be posted for handicap purposes from our match play events.  I suggested that everyone simply read the USGA procedures and follow them.  My remark was met with gentle laughter, and the discussion continued about what various board members thought the rules might be, or what they should be.

[Matthew Sander]

While on the subject of vanity handicaps...

I just calculated the mean of the 20 scores from my most recent handicap revision (index 4.9) and it came out to 80.5. The median score was 79. Assuming typical par of 72, only four of the 20 scores (2 76s, 2 77s) show me playing to my handicap (round 4.9 up to 5). I would say my typical round is between 79-81 (In fact there are 4 79s in the sample and 3 81s), therefore I rarely play to my handicap. By definition, aren't ALL accurate USGA handicaps "vanity handicaps", since they only measure the better half of your sample? Or am I putting too much emphasis on my handicap and relation to par (typically 72)? I'd love some feedback from the statistical and handicap cognoscenti...thanks...

[Jamie Van Gisbergen]

While on the subject of vanity handicaps...

I just calculated the mean of the 20 scores from my most recent handicap revision (index 4.9) and it came out to 80.5. The median score was 79. Assuming typical par of 72, only four of the 20 scores (2 76s, 2 77s) show me playing to my handicap (round 4.9 up to 5). I would say my typical round is between 79-81 (In fact there are 4 79s in the sample and 3 81s), therefore I rarely play to my handicap. By definition, aren't ALL accurate USGA handicaps "vanity handicaps", since they only measure the better half of your sample? Or am I putting too much emphasis on my handicap and relation to par (typically 72)? I'd love some feedback from the statistical and handicap cognoscenti...thanks...

You are correct, somewhere, perhaps in this thread, I can't recall, but you'll read that you should only play to your handicap like 1 round out of every 5, which is exactly where you are in this 20 round sample. Yes, to a certain point it is a vanity handicap, but the handicap system doesn't measure an average, its a potential. I think the formula is like 95% of your best 10 scores in relation to course and slope. Bottom line is, any person who routinely (33% of the time or more) shoots at or below their Index is either sandbagging or trending downward.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()