Why have handicaps...

« **on:** January 21, 2007, 08:38:28 PM »

I believe there has been some talk on this subject, but had a tough time with the search.

I was recently speaking with a well respected golf professional and he proposed the question;
Why haven't handicaps improved over the years?

He believes it’s the teachers. He believes that Golf Professionals have simply been teaching, and studying the wrong things. I find this very interesting and partially agree with this hypothesis.

So do you guys agree, disagree?

Could it have something to do with the architecture, time, maybe even money (for equipment, lessons, amount of play etc.)?

« **Reply #1 on:** January 21, 2007, 08:59:34 PM »

What % of US golfers take a serious course of lessons, ever? I'd guess less than 5%. Whatever those guys are teaching it seems to help plenty of folk who apply themselves...
Why take a lesson when you can buy the driver(s) that won the Masters anyway?

« **Reply #2 on:** January 21, 2007, 09:10:51 PM »

I have always said 95% of all handicap scores are not allowable under rule 33-1.....
33-1. Conditions; Waiving Rule
The Committee must establish the conditions under which a competition is to be played.

The Committee has no power to waive a Rule of Golf.

Certain specific Rules governing stroke play are so substantially different from those governing match play that combining the two forms of play is not practicable and is not permitted. The results of matches played and the scores returned in these circumstances must not be accepted.

« **Reply #3 on:** January 21, 2007, 09:38:46 PM »

Two reasons:

1. New equipment and technology still haven't made the game any easier.

2. The growth of the game. You have new people starting to play the game everyday. I'd presume they are mostly high handicaps (never met a scratch who just started playing) and that affects the overall average.

« **Reply #4 on:** January 21, 2007, 09:52:52 PM »

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/othersport.cfm?id=106772007

« **Reply #5 on:** January 21, 2007, 10:31:51 PM »

But courses getting harder and longer should be dealt with in the handicapping system, at least in North America - I don't know the specifics of the rest of the world, by courses having higher ratings and slopes.

« **Reply #6 on:** January 21, 2007, 11:06:54 PM »

Mike Young-

Interesting idea can honestly say I have never heard that before.

Brian-

Good article but a lot to debate. Courses ARE getting longer but the golfer can always play the appropriate set of tees. So that’s why I don’t necessarily agree with the distance idea. I watched some of the worst golfers I have ever seen play a 7400 yard course this summer, however they played from much less than that. The membership was awful but did not have that 'macho' mentality. They just wanted to enjoy themselves, playing the correct tees allowed them to do this. This obviously also allowed them to play the golf course in fewer strokes.

As for golf courses with tighter fairways tighter, longer roughs, well where is the USGA on this one. Can't wait to see what the fariways look like at Oakmont.
Is conditioning hurting or helping the golfer? The fairways on the PGA tour roll faster than the greens did in the 60s-70s.

As for the ball-go-far issue---short game. The average golfer is always going to say "Hey Pro, make it go farther." They don't want to practice the 4ft putts they are missing 9 times a round.

« **Reply #7 on:** January 21, 2007, 11:12:04 PM »

"Native" grasses
Out of bounds
water
narrow fairways
longer courses
super slick greens
tight,soft fairways

The 8 handicap player from a long tough course will always beat the 8 from a shorter more open course. (the slope and course ratings are never great enough to offset this)

Most older courses featured less or few of these conditions.
yes the conditions were less pristine,but not enough to offset these factors.

-New driving equipment is merely helping poor players to hit it farther into the trees.(as well as causing courses to get longer.)
-new equipment does little for short game (ever seen a high handicap use his lob wedge? L stands for lost shot)
-Most modern sand wedges are awful and lack the bounce the average player needs.
-those 3 -ball putters don't help a lot when all three balls are aiming a foot left.

the real equipment advances (hybrids and cavity back irons)
aren't enough to offset the others.
besides, most high handicappers are hitting the wrong club anyway so a forgiving club still causes them to miss the green. (and then the L wedge comes out)
repeat sequence....

« **Reply #8 on:** January 22, 2007, 09:57:32 AM »

Looking at handicaps, averaged over the population of golfers who maintain a handicap, and comparing them over time is ridiculously invalid when applied to questions like:

Do teaching pros create better golfers?

What are the net effects on scoring of modern equipment and course design and conditioning?

For starters, "golfers who maintain a handicap" is not the same as "golfers". It is a fairly small and self-selected unrepresentative sample of all those who play the game. And we have no way of knowing if those self-selected golfers have become more or less representative of "golfers" as a whole over time.

More importantly, that's not what the handicap system was designed for and it's not what it is used for. A USGA Handicap Index is designed to allow fair competition between golfers of varying abilities. If you wanted a system for mesauring aggregate "scoring" of golfers over time you would not come up with anything like the USGA handicap system formula.

For the first question, if you want to know whether teaching pros help golfers score better then you're best off comparing the same golfer with and without teaching pros.

For the second, Jeff W. is onto one possible approach. You might look at scoring on courses with older style design and conditioning versus more modern ones. But IMO you're going to need something better than handicap indices to do the comparison. You really want the same set of golfers or a (known to be) comparable group of golfers playing the two different kinds of courses.

Tournament scores are an obvious source of data. They suffer from the huge drawback of only applying to tournament players but in return you can be assured that the scores come from rounds conducted under the RoG and in the preponderance of cases they will represent the best effort of the players (unlike USGA handicap rounds which suffer from sandbagging as well as approximation rules for unplayed or unfinished holes, etc.).

« **Reply #9 on:** January 22, 2007, 10:20:49 AM »

I think because the vast majority of golfers that play 20+ rounds per year, year after year, will only get so good. Everyone has a ceiling. They will reach a level and fluctuate between a slight range of handicapp. Then, as they sometimes get slightly better over the years, they get older...

« **Reply #10 on:** January 22, 2007, 11:04:44 AM »

Quote from: Brian_Ewen on January 21, 2007, 09:52:52 PM

http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/othersport.cfm?id=106772007

Seems Haney is pretty uninformed for someone of such a high status.
He expresses the belief that rolling back the ball 40 yds for the big boys, rolls it back 40 yds. for everyone.

« **Reply #11 on:** January 22, 2007, 11:13:44 AM »

Quote from: M. Shea Sweeney on January 21, 2007, 08:38:28 PM

...
Why haven't handicaps improved over the years?
...

I guess I don't get it. Why should handicaps have improved over the years? Has someone been doing a mass golf gene breeding program that I am unaware of?

Contrary to all the marketing lies propagated by the club manufacturing companies, there really has been no improvement of the club the typical golfer uses to try to apply his particular swing to.

« **Reply #12 on:** January 22, 2007, 11:41:53 AM »

Golfers may actually have average higher scores for another reason.
Earlier in the century the majority of people who played golf learned it at private clubs i.e. grew up in the game.
A smaller amount learned it as adults on daily fees.

as daily fee play has increased on a percentage of overall play, this bring more people into the game who had no background as a child and opportunity to spend a lot of time doing it.

Like anything else, golf is easier learned young.(if for no reason other than more time is available)

I don't know if golfers are better or worse as a whole, but there are many hundreds more professionals qualified to teach effectively than there were in the past.

« **Reply #13 on:** January 22, 2007, 11:51:16 AM »

Quote from: Garland Bayley on January 22, 2007, 11:13:44 AM

Contrary to all the marketing lies propagated by the club manufacturing companies, there really has been no improvement of the club the typical golfer uses to try to apply his particular swing to.

I disagree. If you get the proper club and shaft it can improve your driving distance - I saw this myself last season. That should (and did) lower my handicap.

This came about after trying several drivers and analyzing swing rate, launch angle, etc. But how many golfers do this, even those who are buying $400 drivers? They usually just buy the "hot" driver with the loft that they think is best.

« **Reply #14 on:** January 22, 2007, 11:59:18 AM »

Quote from: jeffwarne on January 22, 2007, 11:41:53 AM

as daily fee play has increased on a percentage of overall play, this bring more people into the game who had no background as a child and opportunity to spend a lot of time doing it.

Like anything else, golf is easier learned young.(if for no reason other than more time is available)

Exactly my thinking. If you wanted to know about the summary effect of secular changes like the growth of the golf-instruction profession, modern equipment and current course design and conditioning a good place to start would be by comparing the scores of what we might term "traditional country club golfers" who grew up playing the game in a way that's remained fairly similar for the last several generations. That would be a good apple-to-apples comparison.

Imagine two golfers:

1) One of them spent a decade or so as a child and adolescent hanging around the golf course several days a week and as an adult shows up at the course to play golf once or twice a week but never practices or takes lessons. Same clubs he's had since 1987.

2) The other played his first round of golf at age 30 but is now an avid golfer who takes lessons twice a month, practices every chance he gets and plays 120+ rounds a year. Uses the latest and greatest custom-fitted everything.

If that's all I know about each golfer I know which one I'm going to bet on in a head-to-head match. It is very hard for lesson and equipment and dedication as an adult to make up for not having been immersed in golf during those formative years. Doubly so when it comes to getting the ball in the hole from 100 yards in...I'll take the short game of guy with the wasted childhood every time.

« **Reply #15 on:** January 22, 2007, 12:04:31 PM »

Quote from: Clint Squier on January 21, 2007, 09:38:46 PM

Two reasons:

1. New equipment and technology still haven't made the game any easier.

2. The growth of the game. You have new people starting to play the game everyday. I'd presume they are mostly high handicaps (never met a scratch who just started playing) and that affects the overall average.

XClint is right, another factor is more people who occasionally play golf (2x a year) are being counted as golfers and with all the new golfers some of the older golfers are not playing as much (too expensive and too crowded with hackers), so their handicap goes up.

« **Reply #16 on:** January 22, 2007, 12:10:29 PM »

I think RJ Daley has it pretty close up above, but on top of that. HAVE YOU SEEN HOW THESE PEOPLE PRACTICE? There is very little hope for anyone to get better if you don't back away and plan a shot at the range. If you warm up with driver and never hit a sand wedge, your handicap is not going to go down. Also, never hitting the putting green and short game area doesn't help. Teachers need to explain how to practice more than anything.

« **Reply #17 on:** January 22, 2007, 12:17:38 PM »

Quote from: Wayne_Kozun on January 22, 2007, 11:51:16 AM

Quote from: Garland Bayley on January 22, 2007, 11:13:44 AM
Contrary to all the marketing lies propagated by the club manufacturing companies, there really has been no improvement of the club the typical golfer uses to try to apply his particular swing to.
I disagree. If you get the proper club and shaft it can improve your driving distance - I saw this myself last season. That should (and did) lower my handicap.

This came about after trying several drivers and analyzing swing rate, launch angle, etc. But how many golfers do this, even those who are buying $400 drivers? They usually just buy the "hot" driver with the loft that they think is best.

Wayne,

This is what we call a sample size of one.

Our current president is the son of a former president. From this sample size of one, I predict that all future presidents will be sons of current presidents.
My sample of one is a friend who went through a whole day of fitting with the latest computer analsis, and hitting hundred of balls. The result: a higher handicap.

Also, please note that the typical golfer does not get fitted. The typical golfer goes to the golf shop and is sold a set of clubs based more on what the shop has in overstock and the ignorant salesman needs to push, than on the real needs of the customer (ref. Tom Wishon)

« **Reply #18 on:** January 22, 2007, 12:51:00 PM »

A few months ago I was playing with a GCA'er, and he was a pro, so he gave me a few strokes.

He didnt want to give me strokes though, and he told me he didnt want to.
I asked why, and he said it was dumb. He thought that golf was the only game where the good players were penalized.
And, I agree.

Is it not true that, by using handicaps, the better players are, in a way, penalized for being good?

« **Reply #19 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:00:51 PM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on January 22, 2007, 12:51:00 PM

A few months ago I was playing with a GCA'er, and he was a pro, so he gave me a few strokes.

He didnt want to give me strokes though, and he told me he didnt want to.
I asked why, and he said it was dumb. He thought that golf was the only game where the good players were penalized.
And, I agree.

Is it not true that, by using handicaps, the better players are, in a way, penalized for being good?

Anyone crying about being penalized by the handicap system doesn't understand that the system has a built in advantage for the better player or is a cry baby.

« **Reply #20 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:04:04 PM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on January 22, 2007, 12:51:00 PM

A few months ago I was playing with a GCA'er, and he was a pro, so he gave me a few strokes.

He didnt want to give me strokes though, and he told me he didnt want to.
I asked why, and he said it was dumb. He thought that golf was the only game where the good players were penalized.
And, I agree.

Is it not true that, by using handicaps, the better players are, in a way, penalized for being good?

Quite the silliest thing I've heard on this board.

The very best players in the world play off scratch with no handicap allowance on the various major, minor and sub-minor tours. The best amateurs have dozens of competitions where handicaps are an irrelevance, except for the purpose of qualifying, perhaps. Even your local club championship will be a scratch competition.

Handicap golf is to allow players of different abilities to enjoy competing with each other. It has a natural place in club competition and makes golf almost unique amongst sport in allowing players of all abilities to compete with each other.

Does it mean that Tiger Woods is penalized? No, of course not because at that level handicaps are so irrelevant that the players don't have them. Does it mean that the result of the US Amateur is unfair - again, no, because it's not a handicap competition. Does it mean that the result of the Berkshire Trophy is unfair? Again, no. Does it mean that the better players are penalized in the Northumberland Golf Club Championship? Yet again, no.

If you were playing a pro I guess this was a social round. If he felt unfairly penalized for giving you shots he was severely lacking confidence in his own ability, in poor form, had a warped sense of right and wrong, a greatly exagerated sense of the importance of that match, thought you were a bandit or a combination of all of these things.

« **Reply #21 on:** January 22, 2007, 01:31:32 PM »

Quote from: Mark Pearce on January 22, 2007, 01:04:04 PM

Quote from: Jordan Wall on January 22, 2007, 12:51:00 PM
A few months ago I was playing with a GCA'er, and he was a pro, so he gave me a few strokes.

He didnt want to give me strokes though, and he told me he didnt want to.
I asked why, and he said it was dumb. He thought that golf was the only game where the good players were penalized.
And, I agree.

Is it not true that, by using handicaps, the better players are, in a way, penalized for being good?

Quite the silliest thing I've heard on this board.

I would agree here, its the whole point so players of varying levels can comepete against one another, or more commonly bet against each other.

I was playing with a 3 handicapper and at the time I was a 16. He wanted to bet straight up so I said fine, you give me a stroke on the 13 hardest holes and we'll do it. He refused and didn't know why I wouldn't agree to this. I said I may as well just give you the money now because its not even a fair bet. Its like vegas putting odds on the super bowl and giving equal money for either winner. Its ridicolous.

« **Reply #22 on:** January 22, 2007, 02:06:25 PM »

Quote from: Jordan Wall on January 22, 2007, 12:51:00 PM

A few months ago I was playing with a GCA'er, and he was a pro, so he gave me a few strokes.

He didnt want to give me strokes though, and he told me he didnt want to.
I asked why, and he said it was dumb. He thought that golf was the only game where the good players were penalized.
And, I agree.

Is it not true that, by using handicaps, the better players are, in a way, penalized for being good?

The giving of strokes according to handicap differences is one of the things that makes Golf work - a very good tennis player cannot play a reasonable game against a bad tennis player, in golf we give our shots and both can have a game.
I'd be pleased to give you your shots Jordan!
The Pro that you played with-maybe he wasn't scratch, I know quite a few Pros who keep a handicap record- in fact I remember Dave Stockton saying he was a 2 handicap when he played the Chairman of IBM (who was an 18).

« **Reply #23 on:** January 22, 2007, 02:18:06 PM »

There are handicaps in bowling...

so golf is not the only sport where handicaping is used.

« **Reply #24 on:** January 22, 2007, 05:36:12 PM »

Since pros don't keep handicaps how do you allocate strokes when playing against a pro? I am a 10 handicap (index of 8.5) - if I were to play Tiger would I only get 10 strokes?

That doesn't seem fair as he should have the lowest handicap in the world. I found a couple of articles on the web over the last few years that estimate his handicap of +8 in 2003 and +10 in 2000.

Could a pro choose to just play off of scratch?

News:

M. Shea Sweeney

Lloyd_Cole

Mike_Young

C. Squier

Brian_Ewen

Wayne_Kozun

M. Shea Sweeney

jeffwarne

Brent Hutto

RJ_Daley

Garland Bayley

Garland Bayley

jeffwarne

Wayne_Kozun

Brent Hutto

Gary Slatter

Glenn Spencer

Garland Bayley

Jordan Wall

Garland Bayley

Mark Pearce

Kalen Braley

Gary Slatter

Brian Noser

Wayne_Kozun