HANDICAPS & Architecture

[Sean_A]

I understand that back in the old days, handicapping was off the lowest players in a club rather than off the course.  For instance, player Y may get 5 shots from Alpha Player to be competitive.  This way, only the best players need to be assessed from the PoV of a real handicap, but this makes sense as these guys would be playing flat against the other best amateurs around the area and country.  

I wonder if this old system isn't better for a few reasons.

1. It saves folks having to post scores.  Only the best players scores are of any mind and these are recorded in the events where more accomplished players compete without shots.  

2. It eliminates the ambiguity of length going a long way to determine the par of a hole.  

3. This length ambiguity may also be leading to a standardization of our courses - par 72, 7000 yards - for example.  

4. For those that truly believe that golf is not a mathematical endeavour this change of handicapping system could help to eliminate the "standards" of par set these past several decades.  

5. For the friendly games the tried and tested method of negotiation would still take place, but in the sense that it is more earnest if using the old system.  

I realize that a great many folks are wedded to the idea of pencil and card (and thus the modern handicapping system), but could a view back to the old days actually be beneficial in terms of creative architecture?  

What say you folks?  

Ciao

[Bill_McBride]

Almost anything would be better than what we have now, I think I would prefer the UK system where only competitive medal rounds count toward one's handicap.  There are way too many vanity handicaps under the US system.

[Jason Topp]

I see some flaws in your system. 

-  The best players at my club are 5 strokes worse than the best players at many other clubs.  Thus, I would be playing matches even with guys that are much better than me.

- length is so important to course rating because length has been shown to very accurately correlate to scoring.  Thus, there is a good reason to have course rating tie closely to length.  (see Search for the Perfect Golf Swing for one reference).

I do not see vanity handicaps as a significant problem.  If a person chooses to have a vanity handicap - that person also lives with the consequences.

Those that decry pencil and scorecard mentality forget about the maximum scores allowed under the US system - which eliminates a large percentage of the situations where a person is finishing out a meaningless hole.  I do not think the pencil and scorecard mentality in the US has much to do with the handicap system.  It existed long before the current handicap system in the US as writings from the 20's indicate.

Where I think the US System works poorly is on a links course or a course with extremely variable weather conditions.  If I posted all of my scores from a Scotland trip where I played in heavy winds for the week my handicap would double.

[archie_struthers]

 


In the old days and at many gambling golf courses instead of shots they gave you "ups"   so for instance if you were a five and player x was a scratch  A starts plus five ....obviously the better players like this more ...but as the "Nassau" became more popular this didn't work out right...

On alternate years  "handicap police " extol the virtues of the current system and explain how it actually favors the better player ...it's not the case as in forty plus years of watching member guests (better ball typically) that are played at net I have never (not once) seen two low handicappers win first prize ...it's just a fact  ... typically scores of 55-60 win , and for two scratch players to do so would be almost impossible ....see the scores of this weeks pro tour event ....they would lose better ball of partners to two higher handicappers all the time

luckily we have some great PGA pros's out there working at our clubs who find a way to make it fair most of the time ...Merry Christmas to all of these guys  

[Jud_T]

Jason,

I think it's a stretch to say that the U.S. system is not a major contributor to the pencil and scorecard mindset...Are we even ALLOWED to go out and play an 18 hole match without posting a score?  I do think the U.S. system does a better job of adjusting for different course difficulties and making handicaps travel better....I think the UK system is preferrable in the context of this thread....

[Jason Topp]

Jason,

I think it's a stretch to say that the U.S. system is not a major contributor to the pencil and scorecard mindset...Are we even ALLOWED to go out and play an 18 hole match without posting a score?  I do think the U.S. system does a better job of adjusting for different course difficulties and making handicaps travel better....I think the UK system is preferrable in the context of this thread....

Jud:

Go play with some high school kids that do not have handicaps.  I will guarantee you they play stroke play.

[Sean_A]

I see some flaws in your system. 

-  The best players at my club are 5 strokes worse than the best players at many other clubs.  Thus, I would be playing matches even with guys that are much better than me.

- length is so important to course rating because length has been shown to very accurately correlate to scoring.  Thus, there is a good reason to have course rating tie closely to length.  (see Search for the Perfect Golf Swing for one reference).

I do not see vanity handicaps as a significant problem.  If a person chooses to have a vanity handicap - that person also lives with the consequences.

Those that decry pencil and scorecard mentality forget about the maximum scores allowed under the US system - which eliminates a large percentage of the situations where a person is finishing out a meaningless hole.  I do not think the pencil and scorecard mentality in the US has much to do with the handicap system.  It existed long before the current handicap system in the US as writings from the 20's indicate.

Where I think the US System works poorly is on a links course or a course with extremely variable weather conditions.  If I posted all of my scores from a Scotland trip where I played in heavy winds for the week my handicap would double.

Jason

Just as in your own club, once you know the best in your clubs are 5 shots off the pace of members of another club, the caps are adjusted - not much different from a friendly really - is it?  Players get around enough to know what is what and caps (if used) are adjusted regularly.  We must remember that for the vast majority of golf, the capping system is for friendly golf and not for proper competitive golf.  This is an important distinction.  Proper competitive golf is flat.  These club comps are just a bit of a folly.  

My point about the card and pencil is that one wouldn't need them unless entered into a medal/stableford.  The handicapping system works poorly on any kind of course which is in anyway unconventional - including wind because there is no good way to make non-mathematical criteria fit into a capping formula.  

If the system works, why are folks always trying to ignore and talk about "trends" or the sun being in their eyes?  

Ciao

[Mike Wagner]

Jud,

You can certainly go out and NOT keep score......just don't sign up for the GHIN system, play any organized net tournaments, or expect any strokes when playing for money with better players.

[Bill_McBride]

I do not see vanity handicaps as a significant problem.  If a person chooses to have a vanity handicap - that person also lives with the consequences.

It can be a big problem at my club when we have our Wednesday and Saturday dogfights.  The pro takes the sign up sheet and makes up teams of 4 or 5 depending on turn out.  It's each foursome against the others, matching cards, full handicaps.  A couple of vanity handicapped guys can cost you some serious money.

The vanity handicaps come from the mulligan off the first and all the 5'ers where somebody says "Pick it up."  I'm all in favor of "pick it up" to those out of the hole, until I break my handicap and somebody says I owe $65.  This has happened.  I don't play in those games as much.

[Jason Topp]

Jason

Just as in your own club, once you know the best in your clubs are 5 shots off the pace of members of another club, the caps are adjusted - not much different from a friendly really - is it?  Players get around enough to know what is what and caps (if used) are adjusted regularly.  We must remember that for the vast majority of golf, the capping system is for friendly golf and not for proper competitive golf.  This is an important distinction.  Proper competitive golf is flat.  These club comps are just a bit of a folly.  

The reason I know the difference is because of the handicapping system.  I regularly play friendly matches for small wagers against people that play at other courses.  Relying on an established system rather than negotiation results in a competiitive match and eliminates any whining that negotiations stacked the deck.  The strokes vary considerably from month to month and year to year.

The least enjoyable matches I have played have been in situations where one person does not have a handicap.  We guess as well as we can and often guess wrong.  

Also - many people hate playing in competitions and simply do not play.

My point about the card and pencil is that one wouldn't need them unless entered into a medal/stableford.  The handicapping system works poorly on any kind of course which is in anyway unconventional - including wind because there is no good way to make non-mathematical criteria fit into a capping formula.  

I can't think of a factor other than wind that causes handicapping to get out of whack.  In my experience, the biggest problem is differences in rating results from region to region.

If the system works, why are folks always trying to ignore and talk about "trends" or the sun being in their eyes?  

Human nature.  I suspect that those complaints exist under every system

Ciao
[/quote]

[Jason Topp]

I do not see vanity handicaps as a significant problem.  If a person chooses to have a vanity handicap - that person also lives with the consequences.

It can be a big problem at my club when we have our Wednesday and Saturday dogfights.  The pro takes the sign up sheet and makes up teams of 4 or 5 depending on turn out.  It's each foursome against the others, matching cards, full handicaps.  A couple of vanity handicapped guys can cost you some serious money.

The vanity handicaps come from the mulligan off the first and all the 5'ers where somebody says "Pick it up."  I'm all in favor of "pick it up" to those out of the hole, until I break my handicap and somebody says I owe $65.  This has happened.  I don't play in those games as much.

Bill:

I agree as to the cause of vanity handicaps.  Technically those scores should not be posted or should be adjusted to reflect the "likely" score on a given hole but it is human nature to assume a putt will go in.

I'm surprised that people causing others to lose that much money do not get beaten into a more accurate handicap. 

One advantage of those types of results is that it encourages people to play by the rules.  If they do not, they lose money.

[Bill_McBride]

I do not see vanity handicaps as a significant problem.  If a person chooses to have a vanity handicap - that person also lives with the consequences.

It can be a big problem at my club when we have our Wednesday and Saturday dogfights.  The pro takes the sign up sheet and makes up teams of 4 or 5 depending on turn out.  It's each foursome against the others, matching cards, full handicaps.  A couple of vanity handicapped guys can cost you some serious money.

The vanity handicaps come from the mulligan off the first and all the 5'ers where somebody says "Pick it up."  I'm all in favor of "pick it up" to those out of the hole, until I break my handicap and somebody says I owe $65.  This has happened.  I don't play in those games as much.

Bill:

I agree as to the cause of vanity handicaps.  Technically those scores should not be posted or should be adjusted to reflect the "likely" score on a given hole but it is human nature to assume a putt will go in.

I'm surprised that people causing others to lose that much money do not get beaten into a more accurate handicap. 

One advantage of those types of results is that it encourages people to play by the rules.  If they do not, they lose money.

It's way too ingrained into the culture of our club, at least among the 50+ crowd.  I don't think the younger guys have the same problem.  That's why I have started trying to organize the random 4 ball rather than taking the easy way and just show up for the dogfight.  It's also why I enjoy GCA events so much.

[Sean_A]

Jason

Just as in your own club, once you know the best in your clubs are 5 shots off the pace of members of another club, the caps are adjusted - not much different from a friendly really - is it?  Players get around enough to know what is what and caps (if used) are adjusted regularly.  We must remember that for the vast majority of golf, the capping system is for friendly golf and not for proper competitive golf.  This is an important distinction.  Proper competitive golf is flat.  These club comps are just a bit of a folly.  

The reason I know the difference is because of the handicapping system.  I regularly play friendly matches for small wagers against people that play at other courses.  Relying on an established system rather than negotiation results in a competiitive match and eliminates any whining that negotiations stacked the deck.  The strokes vary considerably from month to month and year to year.

The least enjoyable matches I have played have been in situations where one person does not have a handicap.  We guess as well as we can and often guess wrong.  

Also - many people hate playing in competitions and simply do not play.

My point about the card and pencil is that one wouldn't need them unless entered into a medal/stableford.  The handicapping system works poorly on any kind of course which is in anyway unconventional - including wind because there is no good way to make non-mathematical criteria fit into a capping formula.  

I can't think of a factor other than wind that causes handicapping to get out of whack.  In my experience, the biggest problem is differences in rating results from region to region.

If the system works, why are folks always trying to ignore and talk about "trends" or the sun being in their eyes?  

Human nature.  I suspect that those complaints exist under every system

Ciao

[/quote]

In my experience (in the UK), for good players, length is not an issue unless playing on a short course which often means the sss is less than par - often time two shots less.  For instance, a 2 capper would have to go round in par (probably 70) on a 6000 yarder on a regular basis to maintain his cap.  This is tough to do and most of these guys would prefer to play a 7000 yarder with an sss of 74 which means they can go round in 76 to maintain the cap.  Do you see where I am coming from?  When these flat bellies hit the ball 300 yards, is 1000 worth 6 shots?  Not in my book - length certainly skews the formula.  This is the type of unconvential deal I am talking about.  Now chuck wind and hills into the mix and the capping system can be miles off.  For instance, the sss rarely goes up more than 1 shot in a comp due to wind, but maost folks will swear the wind had a much higher effect than that even if its blowing only 15 mph. 

Ciao

[Mark_Rowlinson]

Sean, The third word of your title is Architecture. So far we've really only talked about the merits and demerits of handicapping systems and the length of courses. Do any other aspects of architecture have implications for handicaps?

[Jud_T]

Jason,

I'd say the high school players are playing stroke play because virtually all the junior tournaments are held at stroke play, one of my big pet peaves...but I'll grant you it's not due to the handicap system...

[Sean_A]

Sean, The third word of your title is Architecture. So far we've really only talked about the merits and demerits of handicapping systems and the length of courses. Do any other aspects of architecture have implications for handicaps?

Mark

I would say that Dr Mac was right.  His fear that handicapping players to courses rather than to players would encourage standardization of courses to make them be more formulaic has come to pass.  I think the modern idea of a championship course based on numbers rather than the quality of the design also points to formulaic design.  Of course, I don;t blame the handicapping system for it all, but I don't think it helped. 

On another note, I recall that Behr had the idea that since matchplay is the ideal form of the game, handicaps should be based on how well players can play holes rather than on the entire course.  For instance, if one could earn 10 pars and 9 bogeys he should be an 8 capper.  I wonder how honest people would be in assessing their expectations?  One thing is for sure, I am sure we would se the end of vanity caps.

Ciao

[Garland Bayley]

Vanity handicaps are a real problem when vane people get violent!

I played with a vane person at my club. When he took a 7 he told me to write down a 6. When I told him I was writing down a 7, he told me he was going to grab the card at first chance a rip it up.

This person had horrific eyesight and spent most of his adult life officiating basketball games. Although I never had the honor of playing in a game that he officiated, I believe I did play in some games where his like minded brethern officiated.

[JohnV]

I'd say the high school players are playing stroke play because virtually all the junior tournaments are held at stroke play, one of my big pet peaves...but I'll grant you it's not due to the handicap system...

As someone who runs junior tournaments there are a few  reasons for that:
1) Match play takes more days.  Even playing 2 matches a day, you could only play flights of 16 for a two-day tournament.  How do you determine who is in which flight?  Well, you either use handicaps (oops kids don't have them) or your need a stroke play qualifier, there goes another day.  If you just assigned them, who really won, the kid in flight A or flight B.  Also, getting courses for more than two days for kids is problematical.
2) Rating systems such as Golfweek or Junior Golf Scoreboard won't take match play scores (or stableford for that matter).  Ratings matter a lot to kids and parents these days.
3) College coaches don't look at match play results.  At West PA, we couldn't get kids to play in the match play event we had for that reason.

[JohnV]

To follow up on my previous post, the NCGA is the only association in the United States besides the USGA that requires kids to establish a handicap to play in our tournaments.  We flight the players by handicap rather than age.  It has been very successful in our first two years of operation.  The kids like that they are playing against players of similar ability.

[Jud_T]

John,

Congrats on your success...It just seems a somewhat unfortunate state of affairs to me.  Only a couple of these kids are going to make a living in competitive golf and only those who are +3 or better have a shot at a full ride at a top college program.  Wouldn't it be better for the promotion of the game, including GCA, if the focus wasn't solely on stroke play? My kid's 10 and plays in junior tournaments.  He has a great swing, but is already getting disenchanted with all these kids grinding out scores.  I'd be thrilled if he simply learned to love the game.  If he could make his high school team, no small feat, it would only be a bonus....

[Andrew Summerell]

Australia is preparing to change over to the Slope system in about a year or so. The difference to many U.S. clubs is 99% of Australian courses that have membership (Private, semi-private, etc.) have a member’s competition every Saturday & a mid-week one as well. On top of that, most of these clubs have Sunday comps & some even have 2 mid-week comps. I know of a couple of guys who mostly only ever play at their respective home courses, yet still play around 120 comps a year.

I have always felt that this will stop many of the ‘vanity’ handicaps that may appear due to the adoption of the U.S. system.

With regards to Sean’s initial question, it would be difficult to change culture concerning par & the length of courses, as these things are so ingrained into golf culture these days. In saying that, I often play golf without scoring or having any idea of my score, & without any wagering involved either.

[Jim_Kennedy]

C'mon, what's not to love about a guy with a vanity handicap, especially if he likes to wager with abandon. You might even send a car to get him if he needed the ride. 

[Jud_T]

Andrew,

I love the idea of playing without scoring, but without wagering? Now that's heresy!!    and by the way, what's wrong with vanity handicaps?  I've been supplementing my income for years on 'em....

[Andrew Summerell]

Andrew,

I love the idea of playing without scoring, but without wagering? Now that's heresy!!    and by the way, what's wrong with vanity handicaps?  I've been supplementing my income for years on 'em....

Jud,

I have a couple of friends who are also into golf design & we often play (especially at a course we haven’t played before) without scoring. It allows us to consider the design & talk as if we know what we are talking about. I often do this at my home course with the chairman of the greens committee. We just pick a day when there will be only a few groups out, allowing us to stop & look at stuff that need to be fixed, cut, changed, added, etc.

I do have one friend that HAS to score. It’s hilarious! If we are having a social round & I hit one in the bush I’ll just keep walking (I refuse to look for balls) & not hole out. With an agitated voice he’ll ask every single time, “What should I put you down for”, to which I reply, “nothing”. So he makes up a score for me & tells me what I got at the end of the round. Now I do it on purpose just to annoy him.

[JohnV]

John,

Congrats on your success...It just seems a somewhat unfortunate state of affairs to me.  Only a couple of these kids are going to make a living in competitive golf and only those who are +3 or better have a shot at a full ride at a top college program.  Wouldn't it be better for the promotion of the game, including GCA, if the focus wasn't solely on stroke play? My kid's 10 and plays in junior tournaments.  He has a great swing, but is already getting disenchanted with all these kids grinding out scores.  I'd be thrilled if he simply learned to love the game.  If he could make his high school team, no small feat, it would only be a bonus....

Jud, that is part of the reason we are flighting by handicap rather than age.  A kid who isn't that good can have a good time competing with kids of similar abilities instead of feeling overwhelmed by the +3 players.