Combining back and middle tees

[Brent Hutto]

This past Sunday I hit a wedge out of the rough into a lateral hazard near the green.

Hang on Brent!  I thought you had those wedges dialed in with that machine of yours which calculates yardage.  

Ciao

I haven't yet posted the result of my no-GPS weekend to compare with the GPS-using results from the previous week. Through a combination of bad breaks, bad ballstriking and bad course management all but a handful of wedge shots this past weekend were recovery shots out of trouble. I was behind trees, playing out of hazards, in deeper rough than I knew existed on our course, you name it.

I had not one, not two but three situations (out of 36 holes) where the ball hung up on a near-vertical downslope in thick Bermuda rough on the short side of the green. Then again, with a 64-degree wedge I managed to get the ball 18 feet, 15 feet and 35 feet (and 3-putt!!!) from the hole so that wasn't so bad. But I also had tree trouble and all sorts of situations where my target wasn't the hole but instead the other side of the green or even a spot just off the green.

There was one situation where no-GPS hung me up. I had a shot of 50+ yards but with no marked sprinklers and no ability to see the 100-yard or 150-yard plates. I guessed 55 but sort of flinched and deccelerated at the last minute and hit it fat not wanting to hit it past the hole. I paced it off on my way to the green and it 58 yards so my eyeball was right on but the GPS sure gives me more confidence that I'm hitting the correct shot. But then again I hit a couple wedges within 8 feet after eyeballing the yardage so it must work pretty well most of the time.

OTOH, I hit the flagstick twice in the space of seven holes with a 4-hybrid from 150 and 155 yards. So maybe I ought to just work on hitting flagsticks and putting rather than counting on my wedges  

[JohnV]

Actually, any time you pickup you should use the score you were most like to make for posting.  If that is higher than your max ESC, then you use the ESC.

So, if you think it was legitimate to expect that you would make the next putt for a triple, put that on the card.  Otherwise take the quad.  Obviously it is not normal to expect to make a 30 footer so you should have put down the 8.  Tell the guy who complained to see the Decision 4-1/1 in the Handicap Manual on page 28.

Obviously we all play differently when we are playing match play vs stroke play vs Stableford, but the USGA still assumes you are trying to make the best score possible for the conditions of the competition and wants you to post based on the way you played, not how how you would have played if it was a different format.

This is the part that gets me.  "Assume" a score.  What on earth does an assumption have to do with a real score and therefore a handicap?  This is the part where peer review is necessary and why only competitive rounds should be used - the ball is holed out.

Ciao

As Tom said, we've been over this many times.  I do prefer the way things are done in Britain in that only competitive rounds are used, but, the fact is that many US golfers don't play in events, but still want a handicap.  The USGA has a policy that all rounds should be posted.  If picking up on a hole was grounds for not posting, how easy would it be for a sand bagger to pick up on the 18th hole of any round that might lower his handicap and then not post it.

If clubs were using the Tournament scores correctly, there would be an additional check on people who don't post correctly.  Unfortunately, almost every time a guy gets his score reduced for exceptional tournament scores, we get a call from the club asking us to override it.

If you want to know why everyone in the US should have a handicap even if they don't play in events, the answer is simple.  It pays my salary.

[Tom Huckaby]

JV:

Thanks.  Perhaps the detractors will see reason this time, but I'm not holding my breath.

In a perfect golf world, we all play 2-3 monthly medals, and those are used for handicap purposes.  Our golf world isn't perfect, so we do what we do.

TH

[Sean_A]

Actually, any time you pickup you should use the score you were most like to make for posting.  If that is higher than your max ESC, then you use the ESC.

So, if you think it was legitimate to expect that you would make the next putt for a triple, put that on the card.  Otherwise take the quad.  Obviously it is not normal to expect to make a 30 footer so you should have put down the 8.  Tell the guy who complained to see the Decision 4-1/1 in the Handicap Manual on page 28.

Obviously we all play differently when we are playing match play vs stroke play vs Stableford, but the USGA still assumes you are trying to make the best score possible for the conditions of the competition and wants you to post based on the way you played, not how how you would have played if it was a different format.

This is the part that gets me.  "Assume" a score.  What on earth does an assumption have to do with a real score and therefore a handicap?  This is the part where peer review is necessary and why only competitive rounds should be used - the ball is holed out.

Ciao

As Tom said, we've been over this many times.  I do prefer the way things are done in Britain in that only competitive rounds are used, but, the fact is that many US golfers don't play in events, but still want a handicap.  The USGA has a policy that all rounds should be posted.  If picking up on a hole was grounds for not posting, how easy would it be for a sand bagger to pick up on the 18th hole of any round that might lower his handicap and then not post it.

If clubs were using the Tournament scores correctly, there would be an additional check on people who don't post correctly.  Unfortunately, almost every time a guy gets his score reduced for exceptional tournament scores, we get a call from the club asking us to override it.

If you want to know why everyone in the US should have a handicap even if they don't play in events, the answer is simple.  It pays my salary.

JV-B

Can you lot name a perfect golfing world?  I can, but it doesn't involve handicaps!  

It is a problem with guys not having handicaps, but it is easily overcome.  If you don't play in comps you don't need a cap.  Caps are for guys who play in comps - everybody else can figure it out as they go along.  I know folks will say what about when you meet a stranger for a friendly?  I say its a friendly so don't put a load of dosh on the game.  Besides, its to the point where nobody trusts each other's cap or there is always some excuse to "trend" a cap.  Anyway, who cares if you lose a fiver?  It doesn't get any more simple than this.  Perhaps the reason why American caps tend to be 2-3 shots out (in my experience anyway) is because the guy doesn't have a card in his hand (a big difference having that added pressure) AND there is no peer review.    

Anyway, the day somebody becomes that concerned about posting a score (especially those which are fictional) is the day that guy can play alone.  It doesn't matter because peer review is a non-issue anyway (according to the USGA anyway).

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

That's all quite interesting... but it doesn't refute anything JV nor I have said.  Which to me is a good thing - perhaps it means we're finally coming to some understanding on all of this.

Just one clarification I think is needed.  When you say US handicaps are "2-3 shots out" I assume you mean guys don't quite play to what you think they should, correct?

Well... that's typically not because of the handicaps being ego-sandbagged low, but rather because of how US handicaps are computed.  Remember, we only count the low 10 differentials out of the last 20 played.  So the handicap is based only on one's GOOD scores and are not indicative of what any golfer should shoot any given day.  For example a US 5 handicap doesn't mean he's gonna shoot 77 as a basic average ho hum round... that 77 rather is pretty much one of his best 10 out of the last 20... so a GOOD round for him.

Now compare that to CONGU, where it's all medal rounds, all count... it's only normal that a CONGU 5 is going to be a much better player than a US 5 - just due to how each is arrived at!

But we've covered that several times before too.  My standard line is US players playing UK players straight up based on each's handicap are just making donations to their overseas brethren.

TH

[Brent Hutto]

Sean,

I think you are not acknowledging the elephant in the room...the true reason that the majority of USA golfers with handicaps maintain them. For a lot of people, you are that number. People speak of their golf acquaintances as "Joe's a decent player, seven or eight handicap over at Dogpatch Country Club". An awful lot of USGA Handicap Indices exist in order to calibrate that golfer's self-image and the image he believes he projects to other golfers.

Hence the numerous on-line services that allow people to maintain non-USGA "unofficial" handicaps by typing in their scores on a web page after every round. Even folks who have no interest in joining a club or "peer review" want to have that number. It ain't to play in comps and it ain't to handicap their Nassau with their buddies. It's to define and precisely (remember that spurious precision after the decimal point) enumerate their level of golfing attainment.

As it happens, the USGA Handicap System is a highly evolved, darned near optimal way of computing numbers for that purpose. It's done with stroke-play affectations but allows plenty of leeway for creative estimation of scores during non-medal-comp situations. So a golfer can pretty much achieve (within a broad range) a higher or lower index by finessing the system. So if he wants to sandbag a little for help in pick-up matches he can probably squeeze a couple extra strokes in there without doing anything too heinous. Or if he want to shave a few strokes for vanity purposes all he needs to do is accept a few 10-foot "gimmes", estimate double bogey on a hole or two where he picks up and his best rounds get substantially better.

So my conclusion is that the system's designers created a way of giving the majority of people what they want.

P.S. to Tom H.

And if 90% of a golfer's rounds are informal match play with his buddies, it's no surprise that the 10% of rounds with a scorecard in his hand are not going to figure at all in the computation of his index. So he can honestly shoot in the 95-103 range every time there a stroke-play event while honestly estimating 88-91 every Saturday and Sunday in the Nassau and the handicap will be off by several strokes for medal-play purposes, no?

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent - that's a rather cynical view, my friend.  You did describe what SOME American golfers want, but I have to believe that the majority who carry handicaps do so honorably and maintain and use them honorably.

As for the PS, you completely lost me.  A statistician I am not.

 

[Brent Hutto]

Let's say I play 50 rounds a year with my buddies. A very friendly Nassau on Saturday mornings. Two off the first tee, generous gimmes, no real pressure. I average shooting 90.

But I also play 5 rounds a year in various club stroke-play events. Strict RoG, play 'em down and putt 'em out and the pressure of having a scorecard in hand and the number posted on the big board at the end of the day. I average shooting 100.

How many of those 5 medal rounds will be in the computation of my handicap? Approximately zero. My handicap will be 19-ish based on the friendlies and I will virtually never come within six strokes of it i a medal comp.

So someone like Sean might observe that my 'cap is off by five or six strokes. Depends on whether he sees me on Saturday with my mates or in stroke play, innit?

[Tom Huckaby]

Aha.  Got it.

Yes, your handicap is not going to reflect how you play in tournaments, and Sean is going to thus observe that it's "off."

But that's more a function of how you play in these friendly games than any indictment of the system.  The system assumes you try your hardest and there are no such things as gimmes.  It's your own fault if your handicap is too low.

I am not doubting that this occurs, and this is indeed another reason why handicaps might be seen as "off".  But again, one should never expect that one "plays to his handicap" in competition... for this reason, but mainly because only the low 10 count.

In any case the main reason I think handicaps might be seen as off - as compared to a CONGU handicap - is because of the very different manner in which each is calculated.

TH

[Phil Benedict]

Another reason players don't mix and match is that its one more thing they have to agree about at the start of round.  It's not worth the hastle.  

[Brent Hutto]

The system assumes you try your hardest and there are no such things as gimmes.  It's your own fault if your handicap is too low.

I subscribe to the theory that everything has a function for which it is completely suited. Maybe not the intended purpose but if it exists at all it serves some purpose. So that's why I say that the "purpose" of our handicap system is exactly the thing it does best. It lets people influence their index so as to best describe the game they usually play.

It also provides handicaps for comps but I'd argue it's less than perfect for that function. No system, CONGU, USGA or whatever is going to do much about sandbagging and so forth, alas.

[Tom Huckaby]

Brent:

Well, again I'd say the vast majority of golfers who have handicaps here do correctly follow the rules of the system, and do so honorably.  Again I don't doubt there are those who tweak it for their own purposes, but to say that the actions of these means that the real purpose of the handicap system is to allow these miscreants to influence their own indices is taking it way way too far.

In my opinion.  But I am indeed a generally optomistic and trusting sort.

 

In any case in the very bottom line you are correct:  no system can prevent those who want to sandbag from doing so.

That's why if and when I play non-flighted net events, I do so with no competitive fire... the chances of an honorable person winning being about zilch.

But get me in a flight and let me play straight up and we have no issues.



TH

[Sean_A]

Brent:

Well, again I'd say the vast majority of golfers who have handicaps here do correctly follow the rules of the system, and do so honorably.  Again I don't doubt there are those who tweak it for their own purposes, but to say that the actions of these means that the real purpose of the handicap system is to allow these miscreants to influence their own indices is taking it way way too far.

In my opinion.  But I am indeed a generally optomistic and trusting sort.

 

In any case in the very bottom line you are correct:  no system can prevent those who want to sandbag from doing so.

That's why if and when I play non-flighted net events, I do so with no competitive fire... the chances of an honorable person winning being about zilch.

But get me in a flight and let me play straight up and we have no issues.



TH

AwsHuckster

I think a system which requires peer review has a better shot at eliminating variances of truth and hence controlling sandbagging or vanity caps then one that doesn't.  Also, I will bet you a tenner, that on average, guys would shoot 1 -1.5 shots higher a round with a card in their hnad compared to guestimating a score at the end of the day.  I have said it before, you cannot count scores for handicap in which a player doesn't hole out.  Not holing out is in essence a lie because people don't mark themselves down for missing 3-4 footers when we all know that most players miss one or two of these a game - on average.  

Now, when you add up the best 10 of 20 deal (which for the life of me I can't figure out in terms of handicapping someone), not holing out and no peer review, its a pretty shakey system.  Because all these muckups are more less effecting everybody in the system equally doesn't mean the system is good. It means the system more or less equally applies to all.  Hence the reason why I say Americans are generally 2-3 shots out on their true handicap.

I see one of the main premises of the system seems to be "we must keep people happy".  Handicaps are not meant for that purpose.  They are meant to be a true reflection of how a player will score compared to the course rating - which in turn means that an accurate allowance of shots can be given/received in matches.  Happiness or satisfaction has nothing to do with it.  True or not, for a 5 capper in the US, would you expect him to play to 5 shots over the course rating?  If the answer is anything other than yes, then there is something amiss with the system - SEE PARAGRAPHS 1 & 2.

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

Peer review is built into and required by the USGA handicapping system.  Again, if applied correctly, it works.

And I have no clue where you get that handicaps are "meant to be a true reflection of how a player will score compared to the course rating" - the way we do things here, they are absolutely NOT meant to do that at all.  There also remains a combination of reasons why US handicaps would be 2-3 shots "off" as you see things.  I've explained why several times.  

Oh well, big sigh.... we'll chalk this up to another thing that you and I will never find common ground on.  We do have our share of those.

Perhaps it's foolish... but I do have hope for you though.  Maybe this will help.  This is the very first definition in the USGA handicap manual:

1-1. Purpose

The purpose of the USGA Handicap System is to make the game of golf more enjoyable by enabling players of differing abilities to compete on an equitable basis. The System provides a fair Course Handicap for each player, regardless of ability, and adjusts a player’s Handicap Index up or down as the player’s game changes. At the same time, the System disregards high scores that bear little relation to the player’s potential ability and promotes continuity by making a Handicap Index continuous from one playing season or year to the next. A Handicap Index is useful for all forms of play, and is issued only to individuals who are members of a golf club.

Two basic premises underlie the USGA Handicap System, namely that each player will try to make the best score at every hole in every round, regardless of where the round is played, and that the player will post every acceptable round for peer review. The player and the player’s Handicap Committee have joint responsibility for adhering to these premises.

A Handicap Index, issued by a golf club or authorized golf association (through its member clubs), indicates a player’s skill and is a number taken to one decimal place, e.g., 10.4.

A Handicap Index compares a player’s scoring ability to the scoring ability of a scratch golfer on a course of standard difficulty. A player posts scores along with the appropriate USGA Course Rating and Slope Rating to make up the scoring record. A Handicap Index is computed from no more than 20 scores plus any eligible tournament scores. It reflects the player’s potential because it is based upon the best handicap differentials posted for a given number of rounds, ideally the best 10 of the last 20 rounds.

A Handicap Index is portable from course to course, as well as from one set of tees to another set of tees on the same course. A player converts a Handicap Index to a Course Handicap based on the Slope Rating of the tees played.

A USGA Course Rating is the USGA’s mark that indicates the evaluation of the playing difficulty of a course for a scratch golfer under normal conditions based on yardage and other obstacles that affect scoring ability. A Slope Rating is a measurement of the relative difficulty of a course for players who are not scratch golfers. Each course is rated from each set of tees for both the scratch golfer and the bogey golfer. The USGA Course Rating reflects the difficulty of the course for the scratch golfer. The USGA Course Rating and Slope Rating together reflect the difficulty of the course for a player who is not a scratch golfer. The greater the difference between the scores of the scratch and bogey golfers on a certain course, the higher the Slope Rating will be and the more strokes players will receive. Conversely, the less the difference, the lower the Slope Rating will be and the fewer strokes players will receive.

Each player locates the Handicap Index on the appropriate Course Handicap Table and finds the corresponding Course Handicap. A Course Handicap Table can be found in the clubhouse or near the first tee of a golf course. There will be a Course Handicap Table for each set of tees used by men and by women. The number of strokes a player receives (Course Handicap) is based upon the relative difficulty (Slope Rating) of the course.

Use of this manual, which provides a detailed description of all aspects of the USGA Handicap System, will make all competitions more enjoyable.


Does this help you understand better how our system works, and why it is how it is?

You have to put it all together Sean, and if you do, it does work.

I hope this does help.

If not, well then if and when we play, I'm going to want at least 7 shots, because USGA system tends to get me to a 4 at most courses and you know how "off" my handicap must be.

 

TH

[Sean_A]

But if our handicaps are so worthless and no one can play to them, feel free to give me 7 if and when we play.  And make sure to bring lots of money.

Huck

What, and let you lose the opportunity to prove your system works?  For money, not a chance.  Its you who believes the numbers don't lie.  I would be glad to give you the chance to prove it.  BTW, CONGU is now recommending that singles matches now be played with full handicap difference.  

I don't know how peer review works in the States.  Does someone other than yourself sign the card before posting a score?  

It sounds like you are saying that a score minus one's handicap should not equal the course rating (give or take).  Thats a new one on me.  What should a score minus the handicap equal if a player "played to his handicap"?  

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

I greatly revised my post in a hope you can gain greater understanding of how our system works.

Please re-read and then comment, particularly the parts in bold, added by me.

Thanks.

TH

ps - as for peer review, each club must have a handicap chairman who can and should change indices based on discrepancies he sees.  On top of that, there's a whole function with Tournament Scores being set out and causing automatic reductions in the case of crazy low scores.  So no, no one does sign each card, that would be impossible to monitor.  But peer review does exist.  It's up to the clubs to make it work.

pss - as for a match between us, we'd have to be gentlemen as our respected handicaps are computed so differently as to be meaningless against each other.  I'd say a fair equivalent to CONGU would be to use my Tournament scores, and they are set out in my index.  Then I'd take these scores and compute a handicap however CONGU does it.  That would be fair.

[Sean_A]

Sean:

I greatly revised my post in a hope you can gain greater understanding of how our system works.

Please re-read and then comment.

Thanks.

TH

ps - as for peer review, each club must have a handicap chairman who can and should change indices based on discrepancies he sees.  On top of that, there's a whole function with Tournament Scores being set out and causing automatic reductions in the case of crazy low scores.  So no, no one does sign each card, that would be impossible to monitor.  But peer review does exist.  It's up to the clubs to make it work.

Huckster

Thanks for the set of rules, but it still doesn't answer my question.  If a player is a 10 handicap, is it not an expectation that he should shoot around 10 shots higher than the course rating (taking into account all the adjustments etc - which I think are a load of b%*&&^&*cks anyway)?

As for peer review, you seem to be talking about adjustments and adding up scores.  I am talking about peer review legitimizing the score per hole.  

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

Please read the rules.  It is absolutely not the expectation that a 10 handicap would score 10 shots above the course rating... precisely because of how that 10 handicap is arrived at - low 10 out of last 20, that gives an index, that is applied to slope chart, that gives a handicap.  It's all their Sean... USGA handicaps represent potential, not expectation.

As for peer review legitmizing score per hole, that's what playing partners are for.  Of course groups who want to abuse this surely could.  There's no answer for that.  But the answer for all of them lies in overall peer review as I explained in the previous post.  When applied correctly, it does work.

And on that note, I am off to soccer practice... so the floor is yours until tomorrow morning!

TH

[Brent Hutto]

Sean has it close to correct. You take the players course handicap and add it to the course rating to get an expected score (i.e. "playing to ones handicap).

But here's the thing. That gives you score he's expected to equal or beat just one time in four. His average score will be somewhat higher of course.

It's the "best 10 of 20" thing that does it.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean has it close to correct. You take the players course handicap and add it to the course rating to get an expected score (i.e. "playing to ones handicap).

But here's the thing. That gives you score he's expected to equal or beat just one time in four. His average score will be somewhat higher of course.

It's the "best 10 of 20" thing that does it.

I don't see what Sean has correct; that is unless one out of four is something one expects in life.  You have it right Brent - one only "plays to his handicap" one out of four times more or less.  So how is that to be expected?

Me, I'd expect a US 5 handicap to shoot around 80-82 any given round on a 72 rated course.  Sean seems to expect 77, and that's just not right, simply due to the way that 5 handicap was calculated in the first place.  And yep, it's all about the low 10 out of 20.

This has been the point of my last few posts.  Glad you get it, Brent... hopefully Sean will.

TH

[Sean_A]

Sean has it close to correct. You take the players course handicap and add it to the course rating to get an expected score (i.e. "playing to ones handicap).

But here's the thing. That gives you score he's expected to equal or beat just one time in four. His average score will be somewhat higher of course.

It's the "best 10 of 20" thing that does it.

I don't see what Sean has correct; that is unless one out of four is something one expects in life.  You have it right Brent - one only "plays to his handicap" one out of four times more or less.  So how is that to be expected?

Me, I'd expect a US 5 handicap to shoot around 80-82 any given round on a 72 rated course.  Sean seems to expect 77, and that's just not right, simply due to the way that 5 handicap was calculated in the first place.  And yep, it's all about the low 10 out of 20.

This has been the point of my last few posts.  Glad you get it, Brent... hopefully Sean will.

TH

Huckster

If a guy is expected to shoot 80 on a 72 rated course, why isn't he an 8 capper?  This is why I say you are out.  I don't understand a system in which a guy isn't expected to play to his handicap.  Seems to me that the the further one drifts from SCORE - Handicap = COURSE RATING the more chance the cap has of being incorrect (as in the player won't even play to the arbitrary number the US system seems to apply and hence the reason for this ridiculous idea of "trending").  How often does a 5 capper shoot above the 80-82 range?

Handicapping doesn't really have to be about witchcraft.  It can and should be a very simple process.

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

According to the handicap manual (and according to Dean Knuth) a decision was made early in the design process that the USGA handicap system would be calibrated to reflect how a player would score when he's playing his best. They refer to it as reflecting the golfers "potential" but that's what it means.

The only reasoning I can attribute to them is they want the handicapping to work well in a match between two guys who are each playing well, which they operationalize with the "best 10 of 20" cut. If one or the other guys aren't playing well (the other 10 out of 20 times) the system seems to pretty much not care about that result.

So here's where Sean's reasoning and that of the USGA handicap boys diverge. Sean thinks the fundamental relationship to par (or to the course rating which serves as a more precise version of par) should be paramount so that you can look at someone's handicap as a measure of how they score relative to the course. The USGA says their system is only intended for fairly handicapping matches or tournaments among players who all have valid USGA handicap indices.

To put it simply, the relationship between a players average score and the par/course rating is not the primary design principle of the USGA handicap system.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

Brent explains the system well.  That's how the USGA decided to do it, and it is what it is.  

I do understand better now why you consider it to be off.  But again, it's only off as compared to how YOU expect/want it to be.  I had thought your complaint was that the numbers were somehow wrong.

TH

[Sean_A]

According to the handicap manual (and according to Dean Knuth) a decision was made early in the design process that the USGA handicap system would be calibrated to reflect how a player would score when he's playing his best. They refer to it as reflecting the golfers "potential" but that's what it means.

The only reasoning I can attribute to them is they want the handicapping to work well in a match between two guys who are each playing well, which they operationalize with the "best 10 of 20" cut. If one or the other guys aren't playing well (the other 10 out of 20 times) the system seems to pretty much not care about that result.

So here's where Sean's reasoning and that of the USGA handicap boys diverge. Sean thinks the fundamental relationship to par (or to the course rating which serves as a more precise version of par) should be paramount so that you can look at someone's handicap as a measure of how they score relative to the course. The USGA says their system is only intended for fairly handicapping matches or tournaments among players who all have valid USGA handicap indices.

To put it simply, the relationship between a players average score and the par/course rating is not the primary design principle of the USGA handicap system.

Brent

I am no Dean Knuth, but it seems to me that a handicap should serve two purposes.  First, to make games between players fairly equal.  Second, in order to best acccomplish the first goal, approximate how many over the course rating a player usually shoots.  These two goals are not mutually exclusive so I don't understand why the USGA would not want to achieve both.  If a 5 is expected to shoot 80-82 then there is no relationship between that number 5 and the course rating.  What I am saying is that there should be and having this relationship doesn't have to effect how games are handicapped between players.  

I can recall a funny story somewhat related to handicaps and common language barriers.  I brought some boys over from my home club for a match against a Detroit club and to watch the Ryder Cup at Oakland Hills.  We hooked up with a few mates of mine during this trip and played Shepherds Hollow.  Potts, a cockney rhyming chap if there ever was asked my mate Craig "what do you play off?".  Craig replied "the blues".  Potts said "I know that, but what do you play off?".  Craig, looking a bit perplexed replied "the blues".  Potts said again, "I saw which tees you hit from, what is your handicap?"  By now Craig was thinking Potts a bit loopey - a fair assessment imo.  However, Craig persevered and said "why didn't you ask me that in the first place?".  By now Potts was laughing and comes back with "I thought I did!"  Doesn't our handicap discussion seem similar to this little story?

Ciao

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean:

Your take makes amazing sense to me.

But what I still don't get is why it matters.  The ONLY time this will ever matter at all is when US golfers play against UK golfers.  At those times, yes the systems are so different that it makes fair matches difficult.  But seriously, how often does it happen?  And in those limited times, how often will it be net?  And why can't it just be handled like gentlemen?  That is, if I go play Rich Goodale at Aberdour, he knows my US 3.4 equates to about a UK 6, so he's a gentleman and gives me 6.  

This really does seem like much ado about nothing.  And I still don't get why it's a big deal that a 5 handicap should be expected to shoot 5 over the course rating.  Seriously - who cares?  A US 5 plays against a US 5 and they play straight up.  A US 5 gives a US 8 3 shots.  Who cares what they are expected to shoot?

TH