Architecture, match play and gross score posting

[TEPaul]

How many people have ever thought that gross score posting for handicap purposes just does not translate well at all into the match play format?

It doesn't take much more than to appreciate just how different the two golf formats of match play and stroke play are to start to understand! Stroke play being a single 18 hole round relating to a number but match play relating to a number in so much more of a "fractionalized" way that it's actually not much more than "mano a mano" in the broader scheme of the format. MacKenzie called it "flesh and blood" golf (match play) vs "card and pencil" golf (stroke play). In my long campaign to make "The Honor" optional, Joe Dey (who disagreed), explained to me that match play is more or less 18 little mini-matches each with a distinct beginning and a distinct end with no reward given or intended with "The Honor". The most brilliant man on all things on golf rules, that Joe Dey!

There is a way to change posting for handicap purposes to be totally compatible with the match play format but the ruling bodies, or at least the USGA, does not seem to be inclined to adopt it any time soon.

So we have a "stroke play" mentality becoming more and more entrenched in the mind's of all golfers, no matter which format they play the most! And it's a fact that match play is the format used by probably 95+% of all golfers worldwide--and not something that's likely to change.

How much has this "stroke play mentality" crept into how people look at every aspect of the game? Things like "par", "course rating", GIR, even the voluminous stats people have become transfixed with, and even the common answer to the question, "How'd you play?" has devolved into a "stroke play mentality" and a number.

How much has this "stroke play mentality" that seems sort of necessary for handicap purposes effected architecture itself over time? A helluva lot, in my opinion! Probably much more than anyone realizes or is willing to admit.

If golf could remove the "stroke play mentality" from golfers' minds would architecture benifit? I think so! The idea of "fairness" might not be half so important or taken so seriously! The whole idea of Dey's "more or less 18 little mini-matches of match play" would probably inherently "fractionalize" the fixation on "fairness" too.

So many good things might happen and the modern "formulaics" of architecture might give way to more of the adventurous, quirky aspects of golf and the architecture it use to have!

I could see architecture changing if the format of match play was becoming obsolete or losing popularity but it isn't, it's proabably almost as strong and popular as it's always been.

It's just being obscured by a "numbers game", and architecture may have been effected far more than we realize because of a "number's game" too!

[THuckaby2]

These are all good thoughts, very true, right on.  The answer to "how did you play?" requires a numerical response these days, most definitely.

And IF this weren't true, architecture would benefit most definitely, in exactly the manner you say, oh Doyen.

But to me it's like wishing a basic house didn't cost $500K where I live.  Sure, that would be great, but it ain't gonna happen any time soon, no matter how depressed things are in Silicon Valley!

So my question is more that what you say, TEP, is a GIVEN.  And the situation today is sad, and I am very skeptical it can change.

So just what can be done to get people to think "match play"?

And even if they do, they are always gonna need handicaps... so how would you change the course rating system, if at all?

I am full of questions and zero answers, I know.

TH

[Bob_Huntley]

TEP:

The current system of handicapping is laughable in its complexity.

What is worse than playing in a fourball, with friends, the hole already won with a par and one of the group standing over a putt of three feet for a bogey or worse so that he can record his score?  This, forgetting always that he took a Mulligan on the first hole and, because of inclement conditions, 'winter rules' are in effect.

Played here about three weeks ago with a former club champion at Troon. Giving a bunch of strokes he was not likely to win many holes, but not once did he attempt to putt out if the hole had been decided. That's why they get around in three hours.

[Richard_Goodale]

As I understand it, the USGA's argument is essentially:  

"Since hardly any golfers in the USA play competitive golf, strictly under the rules, let's adopt a handicapping system which enables as many people as possible to get a handicap, WHETHER OR NOT THEY PLAY BY THE RULES, OR EVEN KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE!"

In an altrenative universe, where reason rather than fear, uncertainty and doubt reigned, the USGA would be arguing:

"Since hardly any golfers in the USA play competitive golf, strictly under the rules, let's adopt a handicapping system which only gives handicaps to those people who play competitive golf, under the rules.  The rest of the "golfers" can play whatever game they wish, with whatever rules and scoring system, but they can't get a USGA handicap.  This will promote better golf, better understanding of the rules of golf, and faster golf."

Any wonder why they play so quickly and with such high regard for both etiquette and the rules of golf over in Great Britain and Ireland?  It's pretty obvious to me.......

[THuckaby2]

It's VERY obvious to me too, Rich.

And Bob, I apologize profusely if I am one of those laboring over the 3foot non-needed putt, as I have indeed been known to do that!  In my defense I only do this if things are slow to begin with and we're gonna wait on the next tee anyway.  I am VERY red-faced thinking back that I might have done this with you... I don't think I have - moving things along is always a bigger priority than score for me that's for sure... but if I have, rest assured it will NOT happen again.  Jeez I would HATE to be the slow one in a group... I don't think I ever am, but maybe I didn't realize....

In any case, Rich and Bob have the weaknesses of our handicapping system quite well articulated.  As a new member of the establishment working to facilitate such, all I can say in our defense is we are giving the people what they want.  Remember that I'm a new course rater - setting policy is WAY beyond our scope!

"Tournament-based" handicaps, as they do in Scotland, are so far a better way to do this it's laughable to even discuss.  The problem here is, however, that way way way more people want to have an index, for defining and bragging and games against friends purposes, than ever play in actual tournaments... Thus the USGA gives people a way to establish such.

As for the rules used in recording scores, if you're gonna allow posting scores from any round, which is what the people want here, than creating odd rules for such just becomes part of the package.  

It's not the best way, it's not the right way, but it is the way people want things, for better or worse here.

TH

[JohnV]

Having recently moved from the world of private country club golf to the world of public golf, I can say that most people don't play match play.  Most of the time that I go out to play golf, I'm playing by myself or with a group of people I don't know and who don't want to play any kind of competition with me.  Because of this, I can't play match play.  I'm not playing against anyone except myself.  For this reason, I doubt that 95% of the world plays match play with any regularity.

Even my usual group at Pumpkin Ridge always played stroke play.  This was mainly because one member of the group wanted the entire round to matter and didn't like presses and the like.

But, the USGA doesn't require you to hole out when playing match play.  The handicap rules say that you can pick up at any time and record the score you are most likely to have made.  So, if you have 3 footer, the hole is decided and you make most of them, give it to yourself and move on.

Even when playing a match, Bobby Jones still played against "old man par" so blaming stroke play for it creeping into the game is somewhat disingenous.  GIR and the like are still measures of testing your own play, which would still be there regardless of the form of play.

Not posting scores when you play match play would give sandbaggers an even bigger opportunity to pad their handicaps while improving their game.

[Richard_Goodale]

John

I personally don't give a f**k about sandbaggers, because I never play for anything but "sweetie money" when giving or getting strokes, and in fact play most of any matches I play in bounce games without any strokes gien or taken.  Why do we and the people in Far Hills care at all about these idiots?  They're not playing golf, why should we pander to them?

[THuckaby2]

Rich:  I know I do, and I believe JV does, play in far too many "net" tournaments and games.  Thus sandbagging is indeed an issue... Oh man, go look at the scores of the NCGA Net Individual championships... and that's a GOOD ONE where bagging is at least monitored!

I don't think any of us "pander" to sandbaggers.  Often they are foisted upon us with no choice.  This is why I NEVER EVER EVER take "seriously" any NET event.  But such are still golf though, and I'm in no position to turn such events down when they occur - I just like to play the game too much!

It still is frustrating though when net 61 seems to be the standard.  As a 5, you can understand how that makes victory just a little tough!

TH

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

It wasn't you I was accusing of "pandering" to sandbaggers, it was the USGA.  What better system could a sandbagger have than one which allows you to post your own scores, using your own interpretation of the rules and of reality ("oh I never would have made those 4 2-foot putts I was 'given.'") with no verification and virtually no "peer review.  The UK system is not perfect, but sandbaggers get outed very quickly, and, because the system tracks players nationwide, it is far less easy to switch clubs and serially recommit the crime, than it is here.

[THuckaby2]

Understood, Rich.  Which brings us back to the initial "problem" here - far more people here in the US want handicaps than play tournaments.

I completely agree the Scot way is superior.

I just don't think it will work here.

Thus my feeling is the USGA does the best it can with the realities of US golf.  And unfortunately, sandbagging is a fact of life in the US.  The way to deal with it is to either not play net events at all, or just not take them seriously.

I could live a "don't post match play" scores, though.  I'm kinda with JV here, dubious at how much match play public course players actually do.  Thus this might help a little, and at the very least would be a step in the right direction...

TH

[Jim_Kennedy]

Any handicap system depends first upon the honesty of the poster. Our system in the US might be improved by using the flagstick as a guide for ESC, i.e. outside the length, add 2, inside the length, add 1 stroke. Additionally, tournament scores posted at below a players handicap should be weighed more heavily into their number, not at the present 6 shot differential. Tournament scores higher than a players existing  handicap should be looked at as ordinary scores.  

TEPaul,
Maybe we would see some more of the quirk and the adventure if golf wasn't such a snobbish game at it's inception in this country. 93 of the top 100 classical courses in this country are private. By the time a vast number of the home folk embraced it the era of quirk was long gone and courses were being built in large numbers, and more to formula, to accomodate the uninitiated.    

[JohnV]

Rich,

I've played in too many member/guests and other events like that where guys obviously have pushed their handicaps way up to enjoy it.  While posting scores can be done with almost no peer review (contrary to what the USGA says), there are ways to fight sandbagging.  Handicap committees that actually do something, club pros who don't allow proven cheaters to play or adjust their handicap to reflect reality, members that turn in others they see posting incorrect scores, and the use of the tournament scores for handicaps.

Usually everyone in the club knows who the sandbaggers are.  At Pajaro I commented on how I was impressed that the net scores weren't usually very low and one person was mentioned by more than one member as being one who almost always cashes in on the Saturday game.

Essentially all the British system does is only use tournament scores.

[nuzzo]

Rich,

I'm not familiar with the UK system.

How do sandbaggers get outed quickly?

Cheers
Mike

[THuckaby2]

JV - our peer review works pretty well at Santa Teresa as well.  There are a couple known baggers, but they are ridiculed to death, and in fact each has had his handicap reduced (as the hdcp. chairman has a right to do).  In a tight club, it works well.

Where it will NEVER work is "open" events.  Just plain no way to combat if baggers want it badly enough.

TH

[Mark_Fine]

Interesting post and interesting to hear the different views.  I happen to think quite a number of people play match play formats all the time.  Isn't one of the most popular betting games is the Nassau (front, back, total) with automatic one down or two downs or presses.  That's generally match play isn't it and we know the majority of all golfers gamble on the course    But everything does start with the handicap and I don't see any workable way to get around that.  

I always do my part though to eliminate the handicap problem by stating on the first tee, "let's forget the damn handicaps and just all play even up".  Unfortunately I never get any takers  
Mark

[Richard_Goodale]

Mike

There is a rule there, (Rule 19, I think) that allows Match and Handicap Commitees (which are VERY powerful) to immediately cut players who return unusually low scores, by as many strokes as necessary.   Because of the nature of the UK system, someone cut from a 13 to 8, for example, will take several years to work himself back up to 13, if he is so nefariously inclined.  They are also in the process of issuing "smart cards" which track handicaps on a real time basis.  I have even seen players disqualified from tournaments they have "won" because the committee checked into their handicap at their home course and have found something awry.  The Brits (and Irish) take honesty seriously when it comes to playing golf.

[Rick Shefchik]

I'm interested in Tom P.'s original point about course design being influenced by scorekeeping.

The lengthening of older courses and the building of new monsters seems almost wholey inspired by how often we play for score as opposed to enjoyment (or to win a match.)

Before I saw this thread today, I was thinking about how often the tyranny of the scorecard has spoiled my enjoyment of a round. What if we played without keeping score at all? I don't know if the courses would change all that much, but I think our enjoyment of them might. A "tough" or "unfair" course would not tend to get under our skin as much if we didn't feel it was battering our handicap. I'm not much of a skater, but it occurs to me you could make an analogy between playing a hockey game on an indoor rink vs. playing a game of shinny on an outdoor pond. If I were really concerned about how the score turned out, I'd want to play inside; if I were interested only in the experience of playing hockey with some friends and getting exercise, I think I'd rather play on the pond.

I think I'm a lot like Tom H. in that I have a tough time playing casual golf where I don't grind on every shot. Last year when I came down with a knee injury, I started playing more with my wife, I dropped out of a couple tournaments I normally play in, I took a few clubs out of my bag to lighten the load and I tried to enjoy the game for the game itself as opposed to what I shot. I hope that carries over this year; if it does, I think I'm going to see things on familiar golf courses that I've never seen before, and probably start liking some holes I never liked before.

One can try, anyway.  

[Gib_Papazian]

Look at it this way: Golf is too damned expensive in the country, and because of it, people feel ridiculous picking up their ball when a hole has been decided after coughing up big dough to play.

They play a lot of matches in Britain, but club memberships and public golf are both affordable. I am sorry to reduce this to a monetary issue, but I believe that the cost of the game and the concept of "getting your money's worth" might have contributed to slow play.

I'm with Brains, have 5 or 6 tournaments a year at stroke play and let that determine handicaps. Besides those rounds, play for fun and keep moving.

Handicaps are never going to be perfect, but that would straighten out most of the more egregious flaws in the system.

The average viewer has a bit of a "monkee see, monkee do" attitude about the professionals, so maybe that is the most compelling reason of all to start some new formats with the various Tours.

There is a reason that Europe routinely kicks our asses in alternate shot and foursomes - they are used it. It is part of the culture of the game there.

As for the obnoxious fees at CCFAD's, I have no suggestion.

[TEPaul]

I didn't really mean for this topic to devolve into a discussion of slow play but certainly a gross score (stroke play) mentality contributes to that.

I was trying to uncover ways of reversing the "stroke play" mentality inherent in handicapping posting of a "single score" (stroke play) when people play match play.

The simplest way to do it is to convert match play handicap posting to hole by hole posting! Since hole by hole IS the match play format (and not the single round, single score stroke play format) that should serve to compensate for the single score (gross score/stroke play) posting that's contributing to the "stroke play" mentality.

But people within the USGA and otherwise take the postion that it's hard enough to get people to post that single score and it would be counterproductive to ask them to post 18 hole by hole scores. I understand their point but I really don't agree!

They just aren't taking full advantage of available technology or ergonomics, in my opinion! They really aren't even thinking about it or even analyzing it! The fact is on ergonomically friendly hardware and software it would take all of about ten seconds to post hole by hole after you spent about three initial minutes getting used to it (like the first time you do it)! Is that really too much time to ask someone to spend after four plus hours of golf particularly if it could solve enormous problems?

And the fact is that hole by hole posting would solve almost every single problem to do with handicapping if the ruling bodies, clubs and players wanted it too. ESC would no longer need to exist in the minds of golfers (it would be in the software!). Clubs or golfers could do anything at all they wanted to with the collected data, like rate holes properly or even individually if they wanted to make technology work for them!

Eventually in a handicap posting format (hole by hole) which is the match play format, the stroke play mentality may recede!

RicKS:

The thought is that constant concern with a single score (stroke play and gross score handicap posting) over time can contribute to a concern for "fairness" in golf and consequently it's architecture! The old fashioned match play oriented course did not concern golfers that much regarding "fairness" as it was just a hole lost and not an entire score or round!

The thing that deflects the ruling bodies (or anyone else) from adopting this posting procedure generally is their modus operandi of looking at everything with an "either/or" mentality. The fact is they could do both! But eventually the reliance on hole by hole posting could begin to take over, particularly when they begin to use Internet posting (this spring) something they are about 10 years behind the times on.

You could actually put in a gross score at the club and later put in your hole by hole score in the convenience of your home on the Internet. It's just a matter of data collection which is not the big deal some people think it is!

But the old ways are hard to break away from, I guess. But they should not look at all this as a series of little obstacles but as a series of little solutions that may just overcome the overall problem that gross score posting does not work well in the match play format--never did and never will.

And that over time the "stroke play" mentality because of that has imbedded itself in golf with many negative results, probably even in architecture itself! Not probably--definitely!

[Richard_Goodale]

Tom

I've said it before, but I will repeat it for the folks that have joined this DG in the past year:

Hole-by-hole posting software and hardware does exist.  It is now just about universally used in the UK, even at the smallest and most poorly endowed clubs.  It takes about a minute to post, there is ample error checking software, and, as you say, a wealth of data is instantly available for both clubs and governing bodies.  It is, of course, used only for weekly competitions, but there's no reason it could not be used daily if the USGA still clings to their "post-em-if-you-got-em" philosophy.

[Jim_Kennedy]

TEPaul,
Hole-by-hole scoring is part of the newest GHIN software but it's use is geared towards hole rating. As you know 9-hole scores are saved and combined automatically. It shouldn't be too hard to go to H-b-H, as you say, and that could have a long term positive effect on architecture, but I do side with the USGA position that it's hard enough to get people to post as it is.
I take the other side of the coin from you about score posting and how it works for match play. I think it does a good job  and with a bit of tweaking it could even be better. No other system tries to account for match play scoring. Ours does thru the use of ESC. It keeps a player from running up his/her handicap, gives them scoring caps if picking up in match play and lets less than full rounds be posted. What more could any system do?

[TEPaul]

Rich:

Nice to know that hole by hole posting is nearly universal in the UK. I think I will be calling you about that and how it actually functions! Actually H by H has been in the GHIN software for some years but no one really knows it and clubs must convert from the gross score posting to use it! Another example of "either/or" thinking! They could have both at the tap of a button, I would think, but they don't!

JimK:

You may not have picked up my point about hole by hole posting regarding the concept and application of ESC. ESC USED PROPERLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY would in effect make gross score posting more compatible to the match play format. But ESC has never been and is not now used properly and comprehensively by golfers by the USGA's own admission!

The USGA has been struggling with one formula or another for ESC for over twenty five years all with the goal of making ESC more understandable and easy to remember for the score posting golfer! And after all this time ESC compliance may be around 45-50%, not more!

The reason for this is ESC is VOLUNTARY! It is not actually required when you post your so-called "adjusted gross score". Obviously the word "adjusted" means the inclusion of ESC adjusting but almost no one knows that! And of course if someone posts an unadjusted gross score there is not much peer review, in its present state, is likely to do about it!

The great benefit of hole by hole posting is ESC will no longer need to be voluntary! It will be AUTOMATIC since the ESC formula can be imbedded in the hole by hole posting software and any golfer can simply enter his "gross" hole score or even and "X" for that matter and the ESC formula embedded in the software will apply ESC automatically! No more need to understand ESC or the latest change in what the numbers are that have to be "voluntarily" applied to create the "adjusted gross score"! With hole by hole posting ESC will go from years of struggling with compliance to 100% instantly!

This is probably the biggest benefit of all! Also if a handicap chairman or any golfer, for that matter, wanted to check a potential sandbagger's score a hole by hole posting would be far more revealing than a single gross score which would be far more difficult to "unravel" where the sandbagging occured!

[TEPaul]

JimK:

I should probably not say that ESC is voluntary, that might be misunderstood. What I should say is that ESC basically depends on voluntary compliance!

[Ed_Baker]

While my clubs "official" handicap methodology is that of the USGA and GHIN system, the handicap committe monitors all score cards by Quota points, which is essentially hole by hole scoring.

The "quota system" is far more indicitive of a players competitive performance and potential in match play than ESC gross scoring. This system has identified many 15-18 handicappers that routinely post as many birdies as triples in a round. So far it has only effected the obviously overly handicapped and has returned parity to the fields of club tournaments. The system takes the last ten "highlighted" scores in the GHIN computer and calculates quota scores for those rounds and then an average plus or minus for the ten rounds, ideally a 0 average would indicate the players USGA handicap is correct for tournaments. Adjustments are made when the average is plus 2 or more, with one handicap stroke taken away for each increment of plus 2 quota average. Currently if the player had a plus 3 average, he/she would lose one shot on their handicap. The same adjustments hold for the negative side as well, although those adjustments are rare, because the USGA handicap is usually trending up by then through regular posting.

[THuckaby2]

Great stuff, all of this.

I'm VERY curious how hole by hole posting would work, mechanically.  Rich says it goes fast, but call me a doubting Thomas there.  Too many "less that computer-savvy" players I know try to post their scores AS IT IS NOW and they take forever.  I shudder to think how long I'd have to wait at the machine for them to make 18 more keystrokes.

If it is that easy, than bring it on.  It does make all the sense in the world and the obvious HUGE benefit is to make ESC happen automatically.

I just think the vast majority of people find the posting system too complex as it is....

I have very little confidence in the average golfer - correct.

TH