Stroke Play’s Negative Influence on Course Design

[nels]

MatthewM,
Alister MacKenzie wrote often that Match Play was the only golf that he considered when he designed his courses.   Consequently MacKenzie usually had his most interesting, and challenging holes in the 15, 16 and 17 possitions, with often a fairly average 18th.  This of course was because most matches finish before the 18th hole is reached.  This is true of Cypress Point Club, Pasatiempo, Royal Melbourne, Meadow Club, and even that one he designed with the help of Bobby Jones. Modern architects, especially when designing a possible television venue strive to finish with a spectacular finishing hole, that the stroke play champion would have to survive.  Is this bad?  Most rounds, at least my rounds, have some sort of a match, so I guess when I play on those courses with my friends, it is.  You can always allow the bets to be pressed on the 18th, which basically lets you play a wonderful one hole match.
Pat, TEPaul, you guy's really give strokes?

[ForkaB]

Matthew M

Don't bother trying to use the crack GCA search engine to find previous threads.  For one, you could spend the rest of your life using that "tool" and still come up empty-handed.  For another, anything that was ever said on any of those threads has already been said here, by largely the same people.  Finally, each of those threads fizzled out fairly early when it was obvious that nobody could make any convincing argument that there were in fact such things as "match play" or "medal play" golf courses, or even golf holes which "favored" one or the other forms of golf.  If you look at this "issue" in any depth, with any objectivity, you will find that golf holes are golf holes and have interest and quality irrespective of what form of golf is played over them.

Finally, there is a long-standing belief on this board that golfers "used to play match play almost exclusively" in the "golden age" and that "golfers in the UK and Ireland predominantly play match play."  All of the evidence that I have ever seen tells me that statements such as these are complete myths, based on some sort of starry-eyed nostalgia or selective memory loss and not on any real attempt to find out the "facts."

Nels

By your 18th hole standard, there are a helluva lot of "bad match play" courses, including Merion, Carnoustie, NGLA, Dornoch, Birkdale, TPC Sawgrass, etc.  Reversing the "standard," TOC, Olympic, Cypress, Ballybunion, etc. must be "bad stroke play" courses.  Am I missing something?

Dan

Thanks for supporting my campaign to replace the USGA handicapping system with the UK one, which you describe elegantly in you're "if I ruled the world" post.

[Matthew Mollica]

Rich - thanks for your answer.

nels -

I understand what you mean, but I surely doesn't hurt to have a great 18th as well. Why not have 18 great holes ?
Also, I think your description of the 18th at several of those courses, (Royal Melb in particular) as fairly ordinary, is a bit harsh.

Lynn S, you said -

I think stroke play has definitely influenced golf design.

A. Holes deemed quirky or unfair are not built on courses where someone someday may want to play a tournament.  Can you imagine Rees Jones putting some quirk into a hole when he "doctors" a course.

B. Holes where there is something fun to be had, but may result in triple bogeys are not built often.  A quote from Fazio to a builder one day, "we don't want controvesy here."

C. The conception that to "test a golfer" we need to tighten fairways to "identify the straightest hitters" is prevalent.

D.  Finally I find the need to test a golfer"s mettle, his ability to handle misfortune, or to judge a prudent path is overlooked in today's designs.

Thank you for a great reply. This was the kind of thing I was looking for.

Pat Mucci - thank you also. Your succinct answer was also really appreciated. You typed - Stroke play accelerated the implementation of "more fair" features and designs.

No matter what one scored, you could only lose one hole at match play, but the idea that one could take a 10 on a hole, and "ruin" their round, contributed to the neutering of features and designs in the name of fairness.


Mark Fine - your comments on course setup re: rough and so on, using Merion as an example, was an excellent point, which I hadn't considered in my posting. Thanks !

Matthew

[C.B. MacDonald]

Rich,

Starry-eyed. Well said. Basically what I was getting at. Only it sounds like you have had this particular discussion a time or two and have already heard all the "facts".

Matthew,

The best thing regarding this subject (and all others in which the "Golden" architects are compared in some way to the "modern" architects) is to be careful about broad generalizations and exaggeration. Try to find examples of where golf architecture has taken a turn and then see if those examples are isolated cases or if they really do represent a real difference between that work found in "older golf books" and that work found in today's world. And be careful not to jump to any conclusions. I used to think that the Golden guys would have turned up their noses at moving soil and changing the lay of the land. But on occasion, if the budget was there, some of them did just that. MacDonald at Lido is a good example. It made me realize that people of all eras have often taken advantage of whatever opportunities are afforded them. I think if there were shot swinging holes back then, there are shot swinging holes today. But that is just my opinion. Take it for what it is worth.

[THuckaby2]

Just as starry-eyed is Rich's (and now Dan's) advocation of the UK handicap system, which has many faults as well and would never work here in the US, outside of small private clubs where everyone knows each other and they play regular stroke play events.  But Rich knows this, and Dan does as well!  I sure as hell wish people actually would play in these stroke play events, and we had enough of them to give a meaningful sample to arrive at the handicaps we'll use for the 99% of the rest of our golf... it's just not gonna happen here and these fellows know it!

That being said, I wouldn't mind living in a world Dan King ruled... I wish all this would happen...

Given that's never going to, we live with the realities we face...

TH

[ForkaB]

Tom IV

Repeat after me:

The Pope of Slope is not Infallible.
The Pope of Slope is not Infallible.
The Pope of Slope is not Infallible.

Now, don't you feel better?

Promote tournament golf for the little people and the little people will come.  Trust me.

Rihc

BTW, anybody who would wish to be ruled by Dan King needs an appointment with the good doctor Katz.  Stat!

[THuckaby2]

I didn't say I wished it.  I said I wouldn't MIND living in said world.  

And also, the pope of slope is most definitely not infallible - never said he was.

He just came up with a damn good system, one that helps us a lot here in the US.  No system is ever going to be perfect.  But it works here pretty damn well...

But no hassles - we certainly have beaten this to death already!

TH

[TEPaul]

Dan King says:

"TEPaul writes:
'Actually combining the two formats of match play and stroke play within a single round is not the same thing as posting a score (gross or adjusted gross) for handicap purposes.'

So you'd play by match or medal play rules? I assume match, and then use the handicap guidelines for deciding what you would have scored? All this in the name of getting as many numbers as possible, regardless if they are legit or not? I know when I play a match, there are numerous times I don't hole out, which means I just guess what I would have made. Why not just stay home and also guess what I would have scored?

All this guessing, and confusion of the rules is resulting in a lot of people having no clue what it means to play by the Rules of Golf. I bet more than most golfers aren't aware of the significant differences between match and medal play rules.

The USGA should be promoting, not disparaging the Rules of Golf. This will be much easier on them when they get out of the lucrative handicapping business."

Dan:

You ask; “So you’d play by match or medal play rules?”

I’m surprised you of all people don’t know the answer to that. Or maybe you’re just asking a rhetorical question to indicate, again, how little you like the USGA’s Rules of Golf and related handicapping procedures.

But the answer is quite simple. You play by the rules of golf and it’s not recommended that you play match play and stroke play simultaneously. Why do they recommend that? Because there are various rules in the Rules of Golf that are different between the match play format and the stroke play format.

If you’re playing the stroke play format the handicap posting procedures are fairly obvious as are the stroke play rules of golf. If you’re playing match play you post your score after following the handicap posting procedures for match play golf that involves using the handicap procedure for adjusting hole scores which is found in the USGA’s handicap manual under section 4 which is called “Adjusting hole scores”. In both formats for handicap posting you’re expected to apply ESC (if need be) to create an “adjusted gross score” (AGS).

Of course there’s a certain degree of guesswork involved in the “adjusted hole score” procedure but it’s clearly spelled out in the procedure. It’s not an exact science and probably doesn’t need to be particularly with the supporting “peer review” process. To say something, as you did like, “Why not just stay home and also guess what I would have scored?” is basically a stupid remark, in my opinion.


Maybe most golfers aren’t aware of the differences in the rules between match play and stroke play and maybe even less are aware of the handicap posting procedures but nevertheless it’s all clearly there for any golfer to avail themselves of and it certainly isn’t rocket science to understand. Some people feel that golfers have a certain responsibility to play by the rules of golf and also to post scores by the proper procedure but clearly there may be plenty of others that don’t feel that way. You might be part of the latter group. So what? No one’s telling you not to play golf if you don’t feel like playing by the rules of golf or handicapping. The whole thing is really just there for the convenience of golfers everywhere (in the USGA’s purview) to play by uniform rules and procedures should they choose to want to do that.

And you go on to say; “The USGA should be promoting, not disparaging the Rules of Golf.” Why do you say that? The USGA is promoting the USGA’s Rules of Golf. Maybe you think they should be promoting what Dan King thinks the rules of golf should be or some set of rules from 1850 but that’s not going to happen.

And you end by saying; “The USGA should be promoting, not disparaging the Rules of Golf. This will be much easier on them when they get out of the lucrative handicapping business.”

I would suggest you have no idea whether or not the handicapping business is lucrative to the USGA. Their own books and accounting show the USGA’s GHIN system to be basically a break even entity for the USGA now after a number of years of costing them money. Essentially the GHIN system was conceived and is run by the USGA as a way of allowing the regional golf associations to offer a unified handicapping service provider and to provide the regional associations with an income from it to continue to operate as effective regional associations. I believe the GHIN system has done that well.

But on this issue you and I might have some agreement. It’s been my recommendation that the USGA look into subsidizing the entire GHIN system and pass that cost savings on to the regional associations so that they might pass that savings along to the clubs and the golfers and offer a good handicap service providing system for less.

This kind of recommendation would probably cost the USGA about $6 million a year but I feel they can afford it now and I think it should be considered one of their responsibilities to do so. In my opinion it would also solve their perceived problems of “anti trust”. A good lawyer could make a very good case that the USGA is not in the business of business if they aren’t charging anything for their product (the GHIN system)!

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
Just as starry-eyed is Rich's (and now Dan's) advocation of the UK handicap system, which has many faults as well and would never work here in the US, outside of small private clubs where everyone knows each other and they play regular stroke play events.

And the current system does work?

Why would it never work? Your argument is that American golfers don't play in regular tournaments like UK golfers. But the USGA handicap says they should. You are suppose to participate in official club events to maintain your handicap. This is how they currently work peer review.

Members of a golf club must have a reasonable and regular opportunity to play golf with each other. They must be able to return scores personally, and these scores must be available for review by fellow club members.

Click here for USGA definition of a golf club

The golfers that don't play in tournaments are suppose to be weeded out. But they aren't. The handicap committees are weak, the golfers get to post scores in all the machines all over the country, and they get mailed a handicap card. The regional associations continue to make money off the 4.5 million golfers with a USGA handicap.

The USGA isn't about to remove people who don't play by the rules. Do that, and fees are drastically reduced.

I just looked up my handicap on GHIN. There is not a single T score on my card, and it goes back to 9/19/01. Has anyone contacted me about this? When I renewed with my club this year did anyone say anything? Has my handicap chairman gotten a notice from a computer program saying there should be concern here?

Looks like in this small anecdotal case, peer review is failing miserably. Wonder if others are maintaining handicaps without playing in periodic events?

My solution has trivial little differences from the current system. I just don't believe more is better. I don't believe all these golfers guessing what their score would be serves a purpose. I don't believe all these golfers earning handicaps without a clue about the Rules of Golf is in the best interest of American golf.

Play in club tournaments, medal play according to the Rules of Golf, or go and get a Yahoo handicap. Save USGA handicaps for those willing to play by rules. Make the USGA handicap something that matters, that it is somehow more meaningful than a Yahoo handicap.

TEPaul writes:
how little you like the USGA’s Rules of Golf and related handicapping procedures.

When did I ever say I didn't like the USGA Rules of Golf. I've said I don't always play by them and I think there are more enjoyable ways to play golf, but I still think they serve a valuable purpose for running a tournament. I do question some of the rules, but just like questioning my country, it doesn't mean I love it any less.

Of course there’s a certain degree of guesswork involved in the 'adjusted hole score' procedure but it’s clearly spelled out in the procedure. It’s not an exact science and probably doesn't need to be particularly with the supporting 'peer review' process.

What peer review process is that? Lets' say you want to peer review your buddy you played golf with last weekend.  You go to www.ghin.com, and look him up. Oops it takes a month to get the score from the box at the course to the database. Who knows why it takes that long? Guess they must use Pony Express. So a month later, you decide to look him up. GHIN doesn't do anything as simple as tell you what course the person played, they tell you date and course rating/slope. There's some useful information. I just have to remember for a month this information, along with what score my buddy posted, and then compare. Yeah, like that is ever going to happen.

What would be so terrible about doing away with the Pony Express system and use a system that updates the numbers immediately, or at least within 24 hours? If you want peer review, why not go toward active peer review rather than the current passive method?

Why is quanity, despite the fact that many scores are guessed, better than quality?

The USGA is promoting the USGA’s Rules of Golf.

Many golfers are clueless on the Rules of Golf because the USGA puts no pressure on them to ever learn the rules. You can play this mixture of medal and match play, ignore almost all rules and still post as many scores as you want. What if they required you to play by the Rules of Golf to post, wouldn't that result in people making the effort to learn? Those that didn't want to learn would get a Yahoo handicap. A USGA handicap would become something to work towards.

I would suggest you have no idea whether or not the handicapping business is lucrative to the USGA.

It is lucrative to the regional associations. Wonder why the USGA is so worried about maintaining the 4.5 million USGA handicap participants, follow the money.

Dan King

"Where large sums of money are concerned, it is advisable to trust nobody."
 --Agatha Christie
 

[THuckaby2]

Dan:  I've battled this way too much already with Goodale during your school-enforced absence in the last year.  I don't have the energy to cover it again.  Let's just say the system we have works just fine for the vast majority of people, most of whom never play in tournaments ever and who want a handicap with which to compete against their friends in what Rich would call "bounce rounds".  They also want something to use if and when they do play events that require such... scrambles/best ball/other types of outings.  So many never do stroke play tournaments....

But that's enough.  I'll do my best to disagree and leave it alone, as I don't have the energy to fight this again.

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
They also want something to use if and when they do play events that require such... scrambles/best ball/other types of outings.  So many never do stroke play tournaments....

And these people are important to the USGA because...?

What would be so terrible, beyond the buckets of money the regional associations get, if the number dropped from 4.5 million golfers, to just those that are willing to play by the rules? When you are constantly changing a system to make it more lax so it doesn't put any strain on your members, you are making the system more and more meaningless.

Let those that just want a handicap get a Yahoo handicap or any of the other large number of handicap services willing to calculate handicaps for a fee. The USGA should be above all that. The USGA should be promoting the game, not making it into something that will appeal to the largest number of people.

What would be so terrible about making the USGA handicap card something of value?

Dan King

"Golf is a nice game, but that's all. It's never going to be an exciting game to watch on TV. It's not a circus and never will be one. The audience for golf is not going to change significantly. It's always going to be people who play it, understand it, and love it."
 --Jack Nicklaus

[THuckaby2]

These people are important because they play the game and they want to have an "official" handicap, given many events they are either required to do (for work or other purposes) or want to do, require an "official" handicap, and the yahoo one is not accepted for such.  If the yahoo one becomes accepted, then I agree with you, down with the USGA version.  But I truly don't care if the USGA does this or not, as you seem to... I have no dog in that fight, as they say.

The USGA card DOES mean something, Dan.

TH

[Dan King]

Tom Huckaby writes:
These people are important because they play the game and they want to have an "official" handicap, given many events they are either required to do (for work or other purposes) or want to do, require an "official" handicap, and the yahoo one is not accepted for such.

I didn't ask why it is important to these people to have a handicap, I asked why is it important to the USGA that they have one of theirs?

The USGA motto is "For the good of the game" All these people getting handicaps without understanding the rules, is the game advanced in anyway? The USGA often state they want people to learn the rules. Here they have this wonderful opportunity with the carrot of handicapping, and instead they do their best to appeal to the lowest common denominator.

If the yahoo one becomes accepted, then I agree with you, down with the USGA version.

You're misunderstanding. I never said down with the USGA version. Make the USGA version mean something. Make it more valuable, not less.

The USGA card DOES mean something, Dan.

What is that?

Does it somehow mean this is a valid handicap, based on tournament play, knowledge of the Rules of Golf, peer review? Or does it mean the person is able to pay their fee every year and knows how to enter scores into a computer at the course?

Dan King

"I used to play golf with a guy who cheated so badly that he once had a hole in one and wrote down zero on his scorecard."
 --Bob Bruce

[THuckaby2]

Interesting how you are missing my intent, Dan.  I'm not sure who's fault this is, but I'll accept that it's mine, for now.  Let's try again.

1. "Tom Huckaby writes:
These people are important because they play the game and they want to have an "official" handicap, given many events they are either required to do (for work or other purposes) or want to do, require an "official" handicap, and the yahoo one is not accepted for such.

I didn't ask why it is important to these people to have a handicap, I asked why is it important to the USGA that they have one of theirs?"

I have no freakin' idea, nor do I care.  As I said before I have no dog in that fight. All that truly is important (to me anyway) is the bottom line, which is that for the events so many people do, "official" handicaps are required.  At this point in time, "official" means USGA/GHIN authorized.   Nearly all golfers who care enough to get a handicap at all would want the "official" version, also, whatever that is.


2. "If the yahoo one becomes accepted, then I agree with you, down with the USGA version.

You're misunderstanding. I never said down with the USGA version. Make the USGA version mean something. Make it more valuable, not less."

Fair enough, understood.  I don't see the worth of having two separate handicap systems, but you do, so more power to you.


3. "The USGA card DOES mean something, Dan.

What is that?

Does it somehow mean this is a valid handicap, based on tournament play, knowledge of the Rules of Golf, peer review? Or does it mean the person is able to pay their fee every year and knows how to enter scores into a computer at the course?"

All it means is that as of this writing, it is an "official" handicap.  Ask yourself how many people who play the game actually have a USGA handicap, and then perhaps re-think this.  It does mean a LOT, as it is today.

TH

[JakaB]

Points of fact:

1.  I love Huckaby...who doesn't
2.  Huck rates for Golf Digest
3.  Golf Digest raters must have a handicap no more than 3.
4.  Just practice and play him straight up cause he is always   a gracious winner despite his 5 handicap in friendly games.
5.  When a system prostitutes even the loveliest of men it should be purged from a civilized society.

[THuckaby2]

JakaB:

I appreciate the sentiments, well... #1 anyway.  Just do understand that the rules for GD raters are that you have a 3 handicap at one point...When I submitted my application to GD I was 3.4 index and that was accepted - they ask for a copy of your handicap card.  My index generally ranges from 3.0 to 5.5 or so, depending on how the putts fall, as it does for most people.  PLEASE REST ASSURED I HAVE NEVER TAKEN MORE STROKES THAN I AM ALLOWED TO AND NEVER, EVER WILL.

No prostitution here, and if I didn't know you a bit and like you from our shared times together, I would really resent the implication.  As it is, I am taking it for what it's worth.

TH

ps - you need to play with me more often... oh man do I lose way way way more often than I win.

[TEPaul]

Dan King:

After this, on this subject, I'll certainly have no more to say to you. All you are, as far as I'm concerned, is one big massive complainer--almost totally negative.

Most everything you said in your last post to me is just garbage, in my book--a whinner's litany! It appears you really don't have much idea how the US Handicap System works, nor the GHIN System, nor "peer review". "Pony Express"!? How much more of a ridiculous remark can you make?

Earn the "Right" to have a handicap, the way you suggest?! This is a game, a sport for Chrissakes, not something run by an overbearing government or police state!

I just can't imagine what your problem is exactly. Of course the USGA can continue to improve the things they do and the things they offer and they continue to do that and try to do that.

I can't count the people I know, have always known in golf who seem to get along just fine in golf with the way things are, and the way things have been in golf through the USGA, the regional associations and down through the clubs and other entities.

And you don't think the regional golf associations should earn money to try to stay afloat and be the effective regional associations they are?

I've been serving on one for years now, and I've done it all for nothing. Do you expect me to pay my own money to do that so my association can stay afloat?

I can't believe some of the continually negative things you constantly say. It's ridiculous to me! Why do you even bother with this game at all?

[THuckaby2]

Mr. Schmidt:  as a great man once said:

YOU'LL GET NOTHING AND LIKE IT!

But if you can live with yourself taking two from poor lil ole weakstick me, than that's ok.. I'll take my richly deserved whuppin' and some fine stilton cheese with my whine.  

TH

[JakaB]

Tom H,

I am so misunderstood....for one thing no 5 or 6 handicap ever takes more strokes than they should...but they just might give too few...sorry.  

Seriously...you are everything I would want to be if I wasn't so used to being who I am....and even a person who I have no doubt is honest to a fault...never intentionally harms anyone emotionally or physically....prostitutes themselves by the very nature of the handicap system.   Play winter rules, take putts, enjoy a round with friend or family...its all good...but its not in the context with whatever use you may find for your handicap that day.  A fudge here and a fudge there be it to lower or raise a handicap because of the circumstance of a given day....differs little from the use of a vagina by a prostitute or housewife.   It all stinks the same regardless of the angle you do the smelling.

[THuckaby2]

JakaB - ok, fair enough, that strangely makes sense to me.  I know with great personal knowledge how handicap fudging goes, and it's exactly as you say.  BUT... rest assured, I also know that the only one that gets hurt by this as me, which became painfully clear to my pocketbook many years ago as my index just wasn't enough to match my opponents... Oh yes, I did fall trap at one time to the artificially low handicap.

That's why for as long as I can remember, quite a few years now, I really try only to post those rounds played by the rules... And if the rules are fudged, I allow for it....

So ok, I understand this better and I do appreciate the clarification.  I guess I am prostituted by the system, the way it works.

Let's just make one thing clear though:  I sure as heck did not artificially jigger my handicap to get low enough to become a GD rater.  Damn, if I was going to do that, I definitely could have gotten lower than 3.4, which seems to be technically over the limit!

Not sure if you implied this or not.  I don't think so.  I'm just in the mood for full disclosure.  

TH

ps:  I fully acknowledge I am not following the strict USGA dicta re this.  But what I am following is personal integrity - I post what is fair.  If too many liberties are taken, the round doesn't get posted at all.  That happens a lot... just do the nature of how I play the game (95% non-competitively, just enjoying the round, barely keeping score and then only if someone wants to have a friendly game.)

[THuckaby2]

You NEED to do another great line whilst standing next to me....

How do you judge yourself against other golfers?

By height.

I swear they make Ty look 3 feet taller than Smails when he says that....  

Now as for their being a better way... well, the greater Tom (Mr. Paul) has long advocated hole by hole posting and I'd agree that would be a big improvement.  He can explain why far better than I... It does make a lot of sense to me, though.  Beyond that, I don't see throwing out the baby with the bathwater as helping.  For those who want to steal, they'll always be able to.  You hit it perfectly with integrity being the key... There really is no way to stop those who wish to sandbag, even in the UK system (as Rich and I have battled over before and DON'T need to again)...

Handicaps can be whatever one wants them to be.  For my money, the idea of an official handicap, at least making those who want to bag go to some trouble to do so, and giving those of us who are honest some "weight" behind us, makes sense.  How this gets done... well... to me having the USGA do it seems logical, but I bet Dan King could sway me.  I don't know.  Whoever does it, however it gets done, it does have worth.

TH

[TEPaul]

Dave:

If I referred to a police state in golf I only did that because I feel that's about the type of thing that a guy like Dan King seems to think golf needs.

I could not disagree with that more. Golf doesn't need a police state, it doesn't need the USGA to act like a police force!

The USGA is there to serve us--the golfers of America! It's not there to have us serve it! If there's a lack of integrity amongst some American golfers then look to American golfers, not the USGA. The USGA has given us the mechanisms to use to play this game with integrity and all that needs to happen is for us to do that. There's nothing more they can do or should do. That responsibility is ours!

If the USGA as an association, America's ruling body of amateur golf and the rules of golf and handicapping et al is all that bad in the opinion of someone like Dan King, then he should make every effort to start another association he believes in and administer it how he sees fit.

The one we've had and have may not be perfect, there're always things that need improving but it works just fine in my opinion, and in the opinion of most everyone I've known in golf all these years.

But maybe someone like Dan King or someone who thinks the way he appears to should just start another one. I certainly know I won't be joining it or playing by its rules, its dictates  and its administration and I doubt anyone else I've known in golf will either.

[THuckaby2]

Dave:  LOVED the setup - obviously!  

I also kinda like your idea and I'd guess that's not far from what Dan King would want.  The problems with it, as I see things, are:

1. That's a lot of work for the handicap chairmen and committee... I know, I am on such for my club and we have a hard enough time doing it as is.

2. That's a very small percentage of clubs that could make this happen... you're talking active management, people who know each other really well, etc... It works when these things are in place, but how many could make this happen?

3. Two levels of handicaps just seems problematic.  I know what you're saying, screw my issues 1 and 2, those who can make it happen deserve to have a "gold" handicap... But if that's the case, is this the only one that's official for regional / other non-club events that require handicaps?  That would make it really tough on the vast majority of golfers, and really ALL public course players....

It's an admirable thought and does make some sense.  I just don't see it working, not in practicality, not for far too many people - like me, for instance!  

TH

[Dan King]

TEPaul writes:
After this, on this subject, I'll certainly have no more to say to you. All you are, as far as I'm concerned, is one big massive complainer--almost totally negative.

Cool, that means I'll get the last word.

Most everything you said in your last post to me is just garbage, in my book--a whinner's litany!

Wow. Pull the claws back in Tom.

Let's review.

Patrick Mucci asked me what I would do to create a better handicap system. I responded with specific changes I would make. You corrected me on one point I made, I asked for clarification. You claim I disliked the Rules of Golf. Not sure if you were joking like when you called me un-American? When I respond with the problems I see with the USGA current system, a valid point when offering alternatives, you call me a whiner. Hey, you don't have to respond to everything. Instead of attacking the messenger, you are more than welcome to ignore the message if you have no valid response.

"Pony Express"!? How much more of a ridiculous remark can you make?

If you were responding, I'd love to hear you explain why it takes a month to update handicaps. Since you seem to know so much more than us peons, it could be information that might be worth sharing.

Earn the "Right" to have a handicap, the way you suggest?! This is a game, a sport for Chrissakes, not something run by an overbearing government or police state!

If you are still checking in, but not responding, please re-read what I wrote. Can a police state be entirely voluntary? Is having any criteria the same as forming a police state? Is the Northern California Golf Association currently a police state because they won't let me remain a member unless I pay dues?

If the USGA as an association, America's ruling body of amateur golf and the rules of golf and handicapping et al is all that bad in the opinion of someone like Dan King, then he should make every effort to start another association he believes in and administer it how he sees fit.

Is the idea you must love everything the USGA does or leave the organization anything like "America, love it or leave it (Unless there is a Democratic party President?)"

I love getting the last word.

Dan King

"I have always been a grumbler. I am designed for the part -- sagging face, weighty underlip, rumbling, resonant voice. Money couldn't buy a better grumbling outfit."
 --J.B. Priestley

[TEPaul]

Dave:

Neither the USGA nor the regional associations are ever going to get into setting much more of an established criteria for  peer review (which is local in that it's always been at the club level exclusively) than they always have.

In recent years there've been a few more procedural mechanisms offered by the USGA for "peer review" to use, like the "Knuth tournament procedure" in handicapping. But that's just for the clubs and their particular committee (handicap) to use if they want to. No regulatory body has ever told them they have to.

But other than that the USGA and the regional associations look at the whole thing as basically founded on a "culture", probably far more than most of us realize. In this sense most everything about golf is far more about personally understanding what the game's culture is about than anything else--and of course that's all underpinned by the idea of integrity throughout the game. The word "cheat" or "cheater" has never really been mentioned (in writing) by any regulatory body or it's rules and procedures.

It's up to golfers to police themselves--all the regulatory bodies have ever done is supply some mechanisms that CAN BE used for that purpose.

There's no reason to turn golf's regulatory bodies that administer some of the things about golf into something that has "laws". The rules and procedures of golf are only "procedures" to be followed if golfers choose to. And the reason for that is uniformity is looked at by the regulatory bodies as something that's offered for the convenience of the game and those that play it.

There really is no more nor should there be. It's interesting to look through C.B. MacDonald's book in this vein since he more than any American I can think of was responsible for both our regulatory body and creating its structure as well as our primary messanger of how to transport the "culture" of golf from Scotland to the United States.

As opinionated a man as MacDonald may have been he was actually for less regulation on the part of the American regulatory body, not more! He was also a very clever man and in an odd way he so much believed in the "culture" of golf almost sans regulation that it's almost touching to read and feel how he looked at the transition of the game from Scotland to America.

You can see he only HOPED it would catch on the way he believed it should be and was in Scotland. He didn't think some regulatory body should tell golfers what to do, he thought golfers should learn the lessons taught by the Scotish game which somehow was basically in a golfers bones, learned only from golfer to golfer. He could not even understand that it should be any other way although contradictorily it appeared he was pessimistic that teh "culture" would or even could translate well to this country.

And unbelievably he actually fought very hard as the USGA was organizing for them (the USGA) to do less not more in this way.

It's pretty fascinating really and only tells me even more that a lot of all this is not the regulatory bodies' responsibility--its the golfer's.