Is the handicap system the double edged sword

[Patrick_Mucci]

that's responsible for so many alterations on golf courses

We need it to establish a sense of relativity such that golfers of widely different abilities can compete on an equal basis for match and/or medal play.

But, the focus on medal play, in order to obtain and calculate a current handicap places an undue emphasis on score, even if the competitors are engaged in a match.

As such, unique and/or quirky holes and features have an excessively bright spotlight of scrutiny shone upon them, typically resulting in modifications to soften or eliminate the feature/hole that produces scoring aberations.

One would think that equitable stroke control would address this issue, however, scoring a 9 and writing down a 6 doesn't soothe one's eqo or the fact that a big number was taken due to a unique or quirky feature, and as such, the feature/hole becomes a target for criticism and change.

If the hole has a highly contoured green it only exacerbates the problem.

The handicap system seems to work so well in terms of equalizing the competitors, but, what can be done to help avoid the modification of features/holes due to high scores ? 

[Tom Huckaby]

I assume this is a US-centric question, as the handicap system in the UK (competition rounds only are posted) would seem to have little effect on their architecture.

But here in the US, I think the answers to Pat's questions are relatively simple.

1. If people used the handicap system correctly, none of this would be any problem.  In regular, non-competitive rounds (which have to be 95%+ of all postings), just pick up when ESC limit has been reached.  That is don't write down anything but an X; pick up and move on.  If you have to finish due to some game you are playing, fine.  But outside of that, pick up and move on.

2.  The questions to me appear to be moot anyway.  Are that many courses being altered in terms of softening?   Pat says:

As such, unique and/or quirky holes and features have an excessively bright spotlight of scrutiny shone upon them, typically resulting in modifications to soften or eliminate the feature/hole that produces scoring aberations.

In how many instances has this occurred?  Is it really that large of a problem?

 Perhaps a few are, I don't know... But on the other side, regarding new courses being built, they sure aren't being built to be soft or easy.. high slopes seem to be all the rage.

TH

[Adam Clayman]

Don't base architectural evaluations on individual performances.

What that means is if some bozo without any objective understanding of golf, it's game, spirit, or, fields, objects to some aspect of a design without an articulated justification, should be ignored first and foremost because his reasons are likely based on their play, not the quality or uniqueness in that aspect. 

[Tom Huckaby]

I think Adam makes a hell of a good point.  Those who object to certain features do tend to do so because it somehow ruined their score far too often.  It would have to be best to take these objections with an ocean of salt most of the time.

And shivas illustrates the problem also.

BUT... I still wonder how much of a problem this really is in terms of architecture/design.  Are courses being routinely softened?

[John Kavanaugh]

It is really this simple.  I am a young baby boomer being born in 1960.  I am not as strong as I was ten years ago nor have the nerves or wish to play courses as difficult as a young man may.  Millions have come before me and aged even faster.  No one stands to take our place and golf will continue to be modified to suit our aging games.

[Tom Huckaby]

It is really this simple.  I am a young baby boomer being born in 1960.  I am not as strong as I was ten years ago nor have the nerves or wish to play courses as difficult as a young man may.  Millions have come before me and aged even faster.  No one stands to take our place and golf will continue to be modified to suit our aging games.

OK... that makes sense...

But where is the evidence of these modified/softened older courses, or easier newer courses?

I sure don't see the latter... and I just don't know about the former.

So again I ask:  is this really happening?

TH

[John Kavanaugh]

The first evidence I saw was when golfers refused to go back to the tee on a lost ball and started to take make believe lateral hazard drops.  Red stakes appear overnight on courses from coast to coast.  Even in our own beloved US Open the left side of 13 was painted red to the delight of even Tiger himself.

[Tom Huckaby]

The first evidence I saw was when golfers refused to go back to the tee on a lost ball and started to take make believe lateral hazard drops.  Red stakes appear overnight on courses from coast to coast.  Even in our own beloved US Open the left side of 13 was painted red to the delight of even Tiger himself.

OK, this is is evidence of golfers taking an easier road, or courses being set up to play easier under the rules.  I get that.  It is common.

But where is the evidence of the "alterations" (which I take to mean architectural changes) that Pat is referencing?

BTW, my experience has not shown golfers outside of competition EVER playing anything but "everything is lateral."  The next time I see a golfer on a crowded public course - outside of competition - march back to the tee after a lost ball will be the first time.  Check that, make it the second.  I did it myself at Harding a few years ago as I wanted to achieve an honest score - you should have seen the looks on the faces of the group on the tee.  They were rather freaked.  But this is a digression... back to my question, which is also honest...

[Charlie Goerges]

Maybe it doesn't result in easier courses so much as less quirky courses. I did this thought experiment for the courses in my area: Can I imagine a well struck shot that is simply aimed at the "middle" of the fairway or green that does not end up there? For the vast majority of holes around here, the answer is no. Now, can I imagine a hole where a less than well-struck shot (or even a well-struck shot for that matter) that uses or avoids a clever or quirky feature gets rewarded? The answer is yes, but very few indeed. Those type of features just don't get built all that often anymore.

[TEPaul]

"The handicap system seems to work so well in terms of equalizing the competitors, but, what can be done to help avoid the modification of features/holes due to high scores ?"

Patrick:

One way would be to do away with single round gross score posting, and institute hole by hole posting for handicap purposes. That way Equitable Score Control calculation by a poster could be done away with completely and ESC could simply be embedded in the computer application and become automatic. This would all serve to diminish a fixation on a single round gross score. There was a lot of discussion on this a few years ago on here.

[Kalen Braley]

Tom,

You make a great point about how average joes play everything as a lateral hazard.

While I can certainly understand why few if any make the walk of shame, I've always wondered why more don't take advantage of the provisional ball. I use it anytime I think my ball has a decent chance of being OB.  If nothing else even if you don't end up using the provie, it gives one another "free" practice shot to work out the kinks.

[Tom Huckaby]

Tom,

You make a great point about how average joes play everything as a lateral hazard.

While I can certainly understand why few if any make the walk of shame, I've always wondered why more don't take advantage of the provisional ball. I use it anytime I think my ball has a decent chance of being OB.  If nothing else even if you don't end up using the provie, it gives one another "free" practice shot to work out the kinks.

I'd say a lot of your average joes have little clue what a provision ball is also.

Knowledge of the rules seems to be far more the realm of the competitive player, and at least at the courses I am talking about, those are rare indeed.

TH

[Michael]

All that said...this begs  the question..

 is high volume/slow play watering down golf? and indirectly... golf course design?

[Jason Topp]

I think the handicap system has the opposite effect.  It encourages people to pick up rather than play out a hole.  I find it pretty rare for anyone to finish out a hole on their way to a big number unless it is in a competition.

If you lament the elimination of severe hazards that can cause high scores, I think you should blame it on the popularity of Tom Fazio courses.  I think Fazio was successful as an anti-Dye designer.  In other words - pleasant, more pleasing to the eye, relatively gentle bland features that are playable.  The fact of the matter is that many people really enjoy such courses.

[Phil Benedict]

Actually one could argue that the handicap system makes medal play more tolerable, because of equitable stroke control.  X's become doubles, enabling some to believe they are better than they are without being dishonest at all, since they are posting the correct score.

Jason:  I hadn't seen your post, which appeared while I was writing this, but I think we are making the same point. 

[Patrick_Mucci]

But here in the US, I think the answers to Pat's questions are relatively simple.

1. If people used the handicap system correctly, none of this would be any problem.  In regular, non-competitive rounds (which have to be 95%+ of all postings), just pick up when ESC limit has been reached. 

It's been my limited experience that golfers don't "pick-up" when they reach the ESC limit, or for any other reason.  They want to "finish" the hole.

The ESC calc, which many are unfamiliar with, usually occurs at the completion of the round.

That is don't write down anything but an X; pick up and move on.  If you have to finish due to some game you are playing, fine.  But outside of that, pick up and move on.

It ain't happening.

2.  The questions to me appear to be moot anyway.  Are that many courses being altered in terms of softening?   

Yes.

I'm hard pressed to name a course that hasn't been altered/softened.

Pat says:

As such, unique and/or quirky holes and features have an excessively bright spotlight of scrutiny shone upon them, typically resulting in modifications to soften or eliminate the feature/hole that produces scoring aberations.

In how many instances has this occurred? 

I believe that it's been almost universal.

I don't know of any clubs that I'm familiar with that haven't altered/softened features/holes over the last 4 or 5 decades.

Is it really that large of a problem?

In terms of the number of courses that have done it ?  YES.

Perhaps a few are, I don't know... But on the other side, regarding new courses being built, they sure aren't being built to be soft or easy.. high slopes seem to be all the rage.

You're probably confining your answer to destination or very high end golf courses.

How many member-owned golf courses are being built with high slopes ?

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

Wow, we surely live in different worlds.  In my world I see no softening and nothing but high-slope courses being built.  But that's likely because my world (outside of infrequent travels to your world) involves nothing but munis and CCFADs.  The munis are not being softened, and the CCFADs have pretty universally high slopes.

So perhaps the "problem" does exist in your world.  If it does, then it can be solved by people picking up and moving on.  And I don't doubt it's not happening now - but you asked for what might be done, not what IS being done.  There's your solution.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

Wow, we surely live in different worlds.  In my world I see no softening and nothing but high-slope courses being built.  But that's likely because my world (outside of infrequent travels to your world) involves nothing but munis and CCFADs. 

You've played Sand Hills haven't you.

Did you ever play from the abandoned upper tee ?

The munis are not being softened, and the CCFADs have pretty universally high slopes.

Are you sure that the muni's haven't already been softened ?

So perhaps the "problem" does exist in your world. 

If it does, then it can be solved by people picking up and moving on. 


Move on to where ?
Another local club that goes through the same process ?

And I don't doubt it's not happening now - but you asked for what might be done, not what IS being done.  There's your solution.
[color]
?

[TEPaul]

"It's been my limited experience that golfers don't "pick-up" when they reach the ESC limit, or for any other reason.  They want to "finish" the hole.

The ESC calc, which many are unfamiliar with, usually occurs at the completion of the round.

That is don't write down anything but an X; pick up and move on.  If you have to finish due to some game you are playing, fine.  But outside of that, pick up and move on.

It ain't happening."


Patrick:

Don't you see that the greatest reason most don't pick up when they are out of the hole is because they thinking in a single round score mentality because that is what the handicap system requires for posting?

If the handicap system just went to hole by hole posting instead of a single round score requirement, then when a golfer was out of a hole he could just put an X in that hole box in his hole by hole handicap posting and the ESC formula within the handicap posting application could automatically do the ESC calculation for him.

[Tom Huckaby]

I have indeed played Sand Hills, several times as you know.  And while I did once hike up to that abandoned upper 17 tee you so love to harp on, I never hit a shot from there as the tee was closed.  You see this as evidence of architectural softening due to handicap issues?  Interesting thought as Sand Hills has no course rating, thus one cannot post scores from rounds played there.  But nice try, and I get what you are TRYING to get at.  Note I don't doubt there are examples of softening; I just don't see it as a pervasive problem as you seem to.  And that is explained (I think) by our different worlds.

I know of no CA munis that have undergone softening, btw.  The ones that have been changed have been done so due to real estate necessities (Santa Clara), or to make the course harder or more interesting (Harding, Haggin Oaks).  

And by picking up and moving on, I meant on a golf hole, when one's ESC limit has been reached.  Again, I don't think many do that now. But if they did, your "problem" would be solved.

TH

[Patrick_Mucci]

I have indeed played Sand Hills, several times as you know.  And while I did once hike up to that abandoned upper 17 tee you so love to harp on, I never hit a shot from there as the tee was closed.  

You see this as evidence of architectural softening due to handicap issues?  

No I don't.
Could you cite where I stated that ?

Interesting thought as Sand Hills has no course rating, thus one cannot post scores from rounds played there.  But nice try, and I get what you are TRYING to get at.  

The concept of ruining or distorting a round because a feature/hole caused it, isn't limited to posting a score.

Note I don't doubt there are examples of softening; I just don't see it as a pervasive problem as you seem to.  

That may be because you're not familiar with the architectural history of the courses you play.

In addition, you can't look at the issue in the context of a single snapshot taken yesterday.  You have to look at the entire film.

And that is explained (I think) by our different worlds.


I know of no CA munis that have undergone softening, btw.  The ones that have been changed have been done so due to real estate necessities (Santa Clara), or to make the course harder or more interesting (Harding, Haggin Oaks).  

Weren't some changes made to some of the holes at Bandon Dunes ?

It's been a few years but, are you sure that Pebble, Spyglass, Pacific Grove and others haven't been modified/softened ?

And by picking up and moving on, I meant on a golf hole, when one's ESC limit has been reached.  Again, I don't think many do that now. But if they did, your "problem" would be solved.

I don't see that happening, it's too counter cultural.

[Tom Huckaby]

Patrick:

You ask if softening has occurred due to handicap issues.  You then cite Sand Hills as an example.  Even you have to understand this.

And Sand Hills has no course rating, so handicap issues obviously do not apply.  Now if you want to change the question as to what other reasons would make softening occur, that is fine.  But you ask here about handicap issues.  So Sand Hills cannot be used as an example.

Being so much younger than you (hell, who isn't?)    I defer to your knowledge of such things as course pedigrees.  I speak for the last 35 years of golf in the State of California.  In my experience with such, I have not seen much course softening.  But for the third time now, I don't doubt that you have seen such.  I just don't see it as being as much of a problem as you do.  Fair enough, I'd think....

In any event, if this is indeed a problem, well I have offered you a solution.  It likely cannot occur.  But do you have any better ideas?

TH

[Jason Connor]

Good scores are a means to an end.  The end being winning vs. your opponent.  If they're taken for more than that, they've been taken too far, IMO. 

I enjoy playing alone, or with friends who aren't really into competing -- though I love a great nassau.

Anyway, much of my play is against myself.  And therefore a score, a measure of how well I consistently played over the span of 18 holes, is very valuable to me.  Just last week at Grande Dunes, I found myself standing on 17 with the chance to break 80 for the first time (it didn't happen of course) and so the total score is a valuable thing to me.


Back to the original question, I don't see it as contributing to altering golf courses.

The red stakes that are popping up at the edge of the woods is because people are lazy and clubs are catering to people's behaviors, i.e. when people should be walking back to the tee they're just  dropping as if they'd hit into a lateral hazard.  Even in match play, I bet people do this.  So I don't believe medal play isn't the cause.

And I have to believe green speeds are leading to the flattening of greens, not scores.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick:

You ask if softening has occurred due to handicap issues.  You then cite Sand Hills as an example.  Even you have to understand this.

No, that's not what happened.
You stated that none of the courses you played had been softened.
I cited # 17 at Sand Hills.
I'm sure you agree that it's a far more difficult hole from up top than it is from its present tee.

And Sand Hills has no course rating, so handicap issues obviously do not apply. 

The issue, if you read all of the related posts has to do with a feature or hole ruining a round, and the modification of the feature/hole to correct that perceived problem.

# 17 at Sand Hills is a good example.

Now if you want to change the question as to what other reasons would make softening occur, that is fine. 

The underlying principle is the ability of a feature to create aberrant scoring.
That gets reflected in the handicap system and in other areas.
There's been no change in the general concepts, only your inability to view them globally and individually.

But you ask here about handicap issues.  So Sand Hills cannot be used as an example.

Tom, you're constricted by your own tunnel vision and evidently don't see or understand the interrelationship between, features/holes that create abberant scoring, handicap and architecture.

Being so much younger than you (hell, who isn't?)    I defer to your knowledge of such things as course pedigrees.  I speak for the last 35 years of golf in the State of California.  In my experience with such, I have not seen much course softening.  But for the third time now, I don't doubt that you have seen such.  I just don't see it as being as much of a problem as you do.  Fair enough, I'd think....

In any event, if this is indeed a problem, well I have offered you a solution.  It likely cannot occur.  But do you have any better ideas?

If it can't occur, it's not a solution.

I don't know if there's a solution.
But, if people are aware of the problem, that's a good start.

[JohnV]

Less than 20% of all golfers have handicaps.  Of those, about 20% never or rarely post a score (0-5 posted scores per year.)

So, the approximately 16% of golfers who regularly maintain a handicap must have a huge influence over all golf courses if their desire to have a handicap is driving all these course changes.

Americans love to "know the score".  They like to compete against their personal bests just as much or more than they like to compete against other golfers.  This desire, not a handicap is what drives them to finish every hole.

Go play a muni any Saturday or Sunday and you'll see that almost everyone with the exception of some beginners (mostly female) finish every hole.  Ask how many maintain a handicap.  It will be a relatively small number.

Why is foursomes not a popular form of play in America?  Because they wont' have score or they won't be getting their money's worth.

The British are more interested in competing against each other than against themselves.  That is the nature of sport there.

The part of handicapping that is always good for a laugh is when you go to a course to do a rating and all the old guys will tell you how the course is much tougher than its rating.  I then would point out that if we raise the rating, their handicap will go down.  Immediately they tell me that the course is actually rated way to high.