[Carl Johnson]

"The Club Liar" thread (http://www.golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php/topic,56730.0.html) mostly talks about "handicap" or "I shot a ____" remarks.  You and I both know why golfers like to cite their handicaps, and why some of us ask others what their handicaps are (other than in the context of playing a match where it's relevant), but doesn't this seem a little strange when you sit back and think about it?  Maybe if we made a concerted effort to get away from this kind of talk, golfers would feel less of a need to lie about their handicaps.

Not long ago when I was having my annual physical my doctor asked about exercise.  Among other things, I said I walked playing golf.  She immediately asked, "What's your handicap?"  My answer, "It varies from time to time."  (Not for this reason alone I'm changing doctors, but it's indicative.)  If I told her I tried to keep my mind sharp by playing the piano, I don't think she'd have asked "How good are you?"  (Actually, she might have!)

I just finished Brad Klein's Wide Open Fairways, an excellent book, by the way.  However, in several or more places he refers to someone's handicap (his, once) or what they "usually shoot," or the like.  In no way could I figure out how any of those references added a thing to the book.

I know there are some folks on this site who evaluate a member's comments on architecture based on the commentator's handicap.  That's their right, but in my opinion that's the kind of attitude that gets us all unnecessarily worked up over handicaps.
On this site a solution might be a continuing separate thread on handicaps (like Ed Oden's course maps thread).  Every member who wanted to could post their handicap there, and keep it undated.  Then, for any reason, e.g., when that person makes a comment on architecture or anything else, we could check his (or her?) handicap if that might make a difference to us.

[Bill Brightly]

Gee Mark (Carl, sorry!), maybe she was just trying to be friendly and start a conversation about your interest.

[Carl Johnson]

Gee Mark, maybe she was just trying to be friendly and start a conversation about your interest.

That would be Carl, not Mark.  And, she's been my doctor for about 10 years and I know her too well.

[John Percival]

C'mon. You've got to know what's coming....
   ...Carl (or Mark  ), what's YOUR handicap?

[C. Squier]

Because some people treat golf as an actual sport, not just a hit and giggle.  

It takes considerable work and commitment over a lifetime to become a single digit handicap, especially for those who started playing later in life. A guy who has worked hard to finally break through his own handicap barrier, he has every right to proclaim it and be proud of what he has achieved.  

Or, you can just measure golfers by height

[Carl Johnson]

Because some people treat golf as an actual sport, not just a hit and giggle.

Not worthy of a response.

It takes considerable work and commitment over a lifetime to become a single digit handicap, especially for those who started playing later in life. A guy who has worked hard to finally break through his own handicap barrier, he has every right to proclaim it and be proud of what he has achieved.

I feel sorry for this guy if he's got to broadcast it.

Or, you can just measure golfers by height

No.  At the tour professional level the measurement is entertainment value.  At the amateur (and club pro) level the measurement is class.

 

[Scott Warren]

Carl,

If an amateur pianist told me that Prokofiev's 8th Sonata was too difficult or a guitarist criticised the solo in Stairway to Heaven, I'd want to know what level they were at as a player so I knew the context to process their comment.

The same goes for golfers and their perception of a course.

I'm not saying a scratch golfer's appraisal of a golf course is necessarily better or more valuable than a 25-handicapper, but it's certainly different and knowing how well someone plays can help to contextualise their opinions.

I tend to find the opinions of 5-9 handicaps the most broadly, reliably valuable - those golfers are good enough to hit the shots that are demanded, but not so good as to get shitty about the "random luck" that good architecture, especially quirky architecture, often provides.

[Josh Tarble]

To me, what someone answers tells me how serious of a player they are. It doesn't matter if you're a +2 or a -20 but if you immediately know your index, I assume you are likely to take your game pretty serious.

[Jason Thurman]

You and I both know why golfers like to cite their handicaps, and why some of us ask others what their handicaps are (other than in the context of playing a match where it's relevant), but doesn't this seem a little strange when you sit back and think about it?

Not at all.

Handicaps are meant to be publicized. That's the foundation of the peer review system. Also, sharing success and failure is a basic principle of building rapport. Talking about the state of our games is a way that golfers do that. A brief mention of handicap, how it's trending, and where we want it is an easy way to do so. It tells me a bit about someone's approach to the game and makes for an easy conversation starter.

It's also handy information to have when the occasional thread takes a turn down the road to swing theory or discussing strategy. In those situations, it's nice to know when a 25 handicap is arguing with a plus-4, not I have a specific instance in mind or anything like that.

And the truth is that handicap should have at least a small influence on how seriously we take someone's ability to evaluate strategy. I don't necessarily think someone with a high handicap is incapable of understanding strategy, but I do find that plenty of them either evaluate strategy as though good players can hit exactly the shot they want every time, or with a poor understanding of how much risk or reward is actually involved in a given shot. The game is ultimately about getting the ball in the hole in as few strokes as possible, and your ability to do that effectively certainly says SOMETHING about your understanding of the game's concepts, though it's certainly not the only factor.

[C. Squier]

Or, you can just measure golfers by height

No.  At the tour professional level the measurement is entertainment value.  At the amateur (and club pro) level the measurement is class.

 

Its a Caddyshack quote.

Whatever sport one plays, people are measured by their skill. Golf happens to have a very standardized way of doing so. If you meet a bowler, you ask their high game. A marathoner, their times. And on and on. It's a simple ice breaking question. Just because some have such low self esteem they feel they need to lie about it, doesn't make the question a bad one.

I don't care what your handicap is. Maybe I'll start asking new golf acquaintances if they can regularly play in 3.5 hours. That's much more relevant to my preferences.

[RJ_Daley]

I know plenty of guys with under 8 handicaps that work hard at their game, and are proud and competitive, that don't really give a crap about architecture of the course, unless they deem some aspect "unfair".  They tend to be purely aerial artists, that play a target game, like it soft and 'receptive' on the greens, and are good putters on unremarkably contoured greens.  They work at their aerial games and their sand saves, etc.  And, they are uninterested in GCA, its history, etc.  And, I know guys who rarely break 80 (cough, ahem) who are very interested in GCA, work at their game and just don't get better, but are passionate about GCA... and some even know a thing or two about it.  

Then again, there are low handi's that know plenty about GCA, and can play the ground and wind games, love firm and fast, and are as good as the aerial artists, but more creative in 'conditions'.  So, handi don't mean that much, yet it can indicate both ability to play, and understanding at a higher level of play.  I like to know people's handi, when discussing GCA.  For those that are not wizards of the game, but passionate about the GCA, or those that have high skills, it always has context to the discussion, IMHO.  

[Brian Colbert]

Or, you can just measure golfers by height

No.  At the tour professional level the measurement is entertainment value.  At the amateur (and club pro) level the measurement is class.

 

Its a Caddyshack quote.

Whatever sport one plays, people are measured by their skill. Golf happens to have a very standardized way of doing so. If you meet a bowler, you ask their high game. A marathoner, their times. And on and on. It's a simple ice breaking question. Just because some have such low self esteem they feel they need to lie about it, doesn't make the question a bad one.

I don't care what your handicap is. Maybe I'll start asking new golf acquaintances if they can regularly play in 3.5 hours. That's much more relevant to my preferences.

I can vouch for this.

For what it's worth, "what's your handicap" is one of my least favorite questions to answer.

[Mark Nieto]

Agree with Jason's point about the handicap being just one data point.  Sometimes it's helpful to know, sometimes it's not.  But it's always just one data point and shouldn't be the only thing to take into consideration when assessing the validity of someone's argument.

Carl, I'm curious...is your doctor a golfer?  I ask because I find that most "non-golfers" or "very casual golfers" ask me about my handicap at the get-go.  But most golf junkies (e.g. the people who play A LOT of golf and who are passionate about strategy/layout/etc) rarely ask me what my handicap is.  Instead, the initial questions go along the lines of "Where have you played? What did you think of those places?"

[John Percival]

When someone asks me 'that' question, I say, "my putting."
When they ask Laura's handicap, I say, 'me!"

So, once again.
Carl.
What is your handicap?

Or, perhaps someone needs to break the ice.

John Percival is a four.

Next!?

[Brad Tufts]

It doesnt suck to be decent at golf, but I dont like the handicap question either.

Being a scratch always elicits the "oh so you should play with tiger," etc. and also blows you up whenever you hit a bad shot off the first tee.  Far from a woe is me here, just saying everyone has their reactions and pre-conceived notions.

My name is Brad, and i'm a +0.6.

(All together) "Hiiiii Brad"

[John Percival]

Seriously (or not), this topic is odd.

Your handicap is but one barometer of your game and playing companion potential.
Other important factors are your:
   pace of play - Laura and I enjoy a faster, but not fast pace. In a cart, 3:15 for a foursome. Walking would be about 3:45
   personality - nice to talk about life's varieties      nothing very serious       perhaps later at the 19th
   demeanor - only play with dicks when paired up (in a tournament)     otherwise, am there for a good time
   gambling - very modest      don't want to take friend's money and certainly don't want to pay
   their ability to take some teasing (sic) - you ARE gonna get razzed by me (or L) for something during our round
There are some great players who fail miserably at many of the above. Just 'cause they're a 2 doesn't mean I wanna play with them. Oooorrr, them with me (mostly the teasing intolerance).

I have friends of all handicaps who fill many, if not all, of the above categories very well and every round with them is a pleasure.

The only time hdcp could be an issue is if the course has large areas of savage land for ball hunting (Arcadia Bluffs, Ballybunion, etc) and the extensive hunting would diminish the experience. Or if I REALLY want to play back tees and it would make a playing companion(s) uncomfortable. 95% of the time, I will play whatever tees make the others comfy and help with pace. Often play Oakland Hills from the White tees (6400) for that reason. Also play Blue (6700) and Gold (7100) Tees. Even played the OH South Blacks/tips (7400) once each of the last few years so that some youngsters with game could enjoy the experience.

It wasn't about the hdcp, it was about the camaraderie.

Having said all that, Carl, "what's your handicap?"

[Scott Warren]

For all the criticism the GCA.com search function gets, it can turn up some good info.

Carl doesn't seem to want to talk about his handicap on here (or to his doctor!), but has previously reported... (For what it's worth, age 71, high handicapper.)

The best exact read I can get to answer the calls for Carl's index comes from 2010: Right now my index is 19.2...

That said, his position has been so for some time: "I don't care what my handicap is. It is what it is. I don't measure my enjoyment of the game that way."

Carl may well say this "what's your handicap?!" business is just a case of dick-measuring, but as Carl himself said back in 2009, Length itself is immaterial.

But ain't his first anti-handicap rodeo, either...



The above is intended in good fun, for the "Melvyn Morrow" reply to the above of "how long did you spend stalking me?", it's as simple as cross searching a search term with a user ID. Takes all of a minute to create a list of every time a certain person has posted a certain word. If you cross-reference Pat Mucci's username with the word "moron", there's five pages of results!

[Tom_Doak]

I am often interested to find out what someone's handicap is when they are discussing one of my courses, just because I'm curious to see what their perspective is.  2-handicaps generally find much different things to criticize than 15-handicaps do. 

Much of it is predictable, but when either of them says something that goes away from type, I start to listen much more closely.

[Sean_A]

I generally don't care about handicaps except when the difficulty of a course is mentioned.  Its useful to know if I am speaking with a 20 or 2 marker to bring context to the conversation.  If a guy is just talking about architecture in general handicap would not colour my impression of the conversation.  

Ciao  

[Ulrich Mayring]

I think Tom Doak has almost hit the nail on the head.

There is no causal connection between handicap and knowledge. It's preposterous to suggest a Seth Raynor had no idea about golf architecture because of his high handicap (if he even had one).

However, while there is no causal connection, there is certainly a statistical connection. Usually people interested in golf architecture are deeply engrossed in the game and would therefore tend to become better players simply due to the time and effort they put into golf.

Therefore it is completely wrong to ask someone about his handicap, when you want to evaluate his knowledge. Instead you should ask a question that is actually part of the knowledge domain. Such as: "Have you ever heard about Seth Raynor? Which of his courses have you played?"

However, when you want to evaluate someone's playing ability, then it is very reasonable to ask for his handicap (or what he shoots). In some cases (like in Tom Doak's example) playing ability is actually relevant to how someone experiences golf architecture (but not to how much knowledge he has about it).

Ulrich

[David Davis]

If you are my golf coach, I'm interested to know more about your ability, hcp (even though pro's don't have an hcp). As an architecture enthusiast (in my opinion) what's important and brings relevance is to be able to understand the game well enough to look at a course from all perspectives (varying abilities) when making comments and analysis. Then just add your personal subjectivity as we all do. However, if you premise everything with, "in my opinion" I guess I'll let you get away with anything you like. It's your entitlement and everyone has one.

By the way HCP is directly related to the course you play. I'm high single hcp'er at my club and fight as hard as I can to lower it unsuccessfully, however, if my club were something like Sand Hills (for example, a course I played very good at) then I'm definitely a low single hcp'er.

[JR Potts]

Whether courses should be designed and/or redesigned strictly to test the best players in the world is a debatable topic, the fact that is that many are.   When golfers attempt to critique these courses, the playing ability of said golfer is directly relevant to the discussion and in my opinion, their credibility.

In most other cases, i find skill to be irrelevant.  In fact, I have found lower handicap players to have the least understanding of the nuances of golf courses.

[Jeff_Brauer]

Or as Ed Seay used to say, "Don't ask if they like the course, ask what they shot if you want the answer."

The old "What's your handicap" question is also a reminder from Sam Snead to some young pro.  Snead asked him how he played, and got the start of a detailed answer.  Snead told the kid he really didn't care, was just being polite.  Went on to say "Half the guys out on tour don't care what you shot, and the other half wishes it were worse."

[George Pazin]

For all the criticism the GCA.com search function gets, it can turn up some good info.

Nice investigative work, you must be a journalist.

It's easy to see why Mr. Johnson wouldn't like the question. The answer generally results in many presumptions which may or may not be true. Sure, someone might just be trying to be polite, ala Mr. Snead, but many aren't. I've seen many HHers on here dismissed out of hand. Sometimes we deserve it, and sometimes we don't.

But all of these things are true of most things in life. Almost everyone makes snap judgments based on minimal info, all the time. You just have to hope that people are thoughtful enough to reflect on their presumptions. Sadly, most aren't.

There is almost as much variation of types of each level of golfer as there is variation of opinions within any group of golfers. I personally don't believe most golfers understand how they or anyone else actually play the game, but maybe that's just a flawed presumption on my part...

[Carl Johnson]

Agree with Jason's point about the handicap being just one data point.  Sometimes it's helpful to know, sometimes it's not.  But it's always just one data point and shouldn't be the only thing to take into consideration when assessing the validity of someone's argument.

Carl, I'm curious...is your doctor a golfer?  I ask because I find that most "non-golfers" or "very casual golfers" ask me about my handicap at the get-go.  But most golf junkies (e.g. the people who play A LOT of golf and who are passionate about strategy/layout/etc) rarely ask me what my handicap is.  Instead, the initial questions go along the lines of "Where have you played? What did you think of those places?"

I can see I should not have brought my doctor into this!  I believe that she is in the "very casual golfer" category - I think I recall this from a discussion with her a number of years ago about the club she and her husband belonged to.  But today I don't remember the specifics.  So, seems like she would fit your profile.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()