Golf!!!2!

[chedder]

Originally Posted by GomerPile

The whole handicap debate became a huge issue in our Men’s league about a decade ago. So, we bought a new computer track the scores and you now have a mens league handicap, that is filled out on the score card prior to the round. There was just as much issue with vanity handicaps as there was sandbaggers. Now, the league is very competitive. (It’s a team league, where each hole is worth a point, match play style)

Same with ours. Match play and men's league only handicap. Uses equitable stroke. Shoot net 35-37 and handicap doesn't change. Can drop as many as 3 strokes or rise 2 week to week. Also max 2 putts inside half the flag length if your opponent gives you the putt.

This has made men's league way more competitive and fun.

[Slava]

For us the course puts the scores in for you for leagues and tournaments. They also monitor whether you're putting in all of your scores and try to keep on top of that aspect. It's so ridiculous to me that people will purposefully boost their index to get a few strokes and win these things, but that's just what people do.

And the vanity handicap is no issue to me. Like if you want to put your scores in and have a single digit index but then actually shoot 95-105 when it comes down to it, that's your problem.

[bossy22]

I'm played golf with buddies 30 years ago. Now I am back at it. We got a trial membership at Priddis and I started keeping score following all of the rules. My handicap is a 30. That's all from Priddis. I know from last year that if I were to play Elbow Springs I could drop my score quite a bit just because it's so much easier there. How does that work with handicap?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by bossy22

I'm played golf with buddies 30 years ago. Now I am back at it. We got a trial membership at Priddis and I started keeping score following all of the rules. My handicap is a 30. That's all from Priddis. I know from last year that if I were to play Elbow Springs I could drop my score quite a bit just because it's so much easier there. How does that work with handicap?

Generally you keep a handicap index. That index is used to calculate your course handicap based on slope and rating of the course you are going to play.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Slava

For us the course puts the scores in for you for leagues and tournaments. They also monitor whether you're putting in all of your scores and try to keep on top of that aspect. It's so ridiculous to me that people will purposefully boost their index to get a few strokes and win these things, but that's just what people do.

And the vanity handicap is no issue to me. Like if you want to put your scores in and have a single digit index but then actually shoot 95-105 when it comes down to it, that's your problem.

Priddis does the same

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by bossy22

I'm played golf with buddies 30 years ago. Now I am back at it. We got a trial membership at Priddis and I started keeping score following all of the rules. My handicap is a 30. That's all from Priddis. I know from last year that if I were to play Elbow Springs I could drop my score quite a bit just because it's so much easier there. How does that work with handicap?

Courses are rated for difficulty, as are each tee box choice. Also, your handicap is indexed so that it can be applied to any course.

If you play the Blues at Priddis for instance, Raven is rated at 130, and Hawk at 136. If you go to Elbow and play the Blues, it is 126 or 127, if you play the Whites, it is 120-122 (depending which 9s).

The system takes your index and applies it to the course rating for your tee choice, and that determines how many strokes you get for that course.

In theory, it levels the playing field. In reality, some handicaps travel better than others, as the system is never going to be perfect.

When I am playing a lot at Banff, my handicap settles lower than when I play a lot at Priddis (so Priddis travels better). In the winter, if I play a lot at Troon North, my handicap goes even higher.

But again, in theory, the course rating should level the playing field, and mostly does.

[mrkajz44]

Interesting to hear from the low handicappers perspective, though it seems most of the issues stem from the high handicapper not actually knowing his handicap as opposed to anything else. However, I think this sums up my feelings best:

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Playing 1v1, if everyone has a proper handicap, should be a tossup on who wins on any given day. A high handicapper is just as likely to have a blow up round that doesn't give him a chance as he does of going low enough to make it tough on the lower handicapper to win. Part of the problem is that lower handicappers seem to think they should win more than the high handicappers because they are better, but that's not how it is supposed to work.

The low handicappers never seem to like losing even though they should lose half the time.

[Enoch Root]

Yeah, the primary problem is that NO ONE likes losing.

Having to give your opponent strokes, and then they beat you even though you actually beat them, is something that most people (read: male egos) don't particularly enjoy

[Northendzone]

as a crappy golfer, i would feel no joy in "beating" a good golfer when handicaps are stirred in........

[Slava]

Originally Posted by bossy22

I'm played golf with buddies 30 years ago. Now I am back at it. We got a trial membership at Priddis and I started keeping score following all of the rules. My handicap is a 30. That's all from Priddis. I know from last year that if I were to play Elbow Springs I could drop my score quite a bit just because it's so much easier there. How does that work with handicap?

We should get out for a round!

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Priddis does the same

I'm at Priddis. Are you a member there as well?

[Enoch Root]

yes, sent you a PM

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by bossy22

I'm played golf with buddies 30 years ago. Now I am back at it. We got a trial membership at Priddis and I started keeping score following all of the rules. My handicap is a 30. That's all from Priddis. I know from last year that if I were to play Elbow Springs I could drop my score quite a bit just because it's so much easier there. How does that work with handicap?

Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating/113) + (Course Rating - Par)

If your index is 30, then your handicap at various courses would be (Black tees, Blue tees, White tees):

Priddis - Hawk: (38,35,26)
Priddis - Raven: (35,32,25)
Elbow Springs - Mountainview/Elbow (36,33,29)
Elbow Springs - MV/Springs (36,32,28)
Elbow Springs - Elbow/Springs (27,33,29)

Glencoe - Forest (40,37,34)
Glencoe - Lakes/Slopes (39,34,32)
Calgary G&CC - (n/a,35,33)
Willow Park (n/a,33,31)
Earl Grey (35,32,28)
Shaganappi (28,25,22)

So if you're playing somebody at Elbow Springs on the Elbow/Springs course, and you're playing the blues, your handicap is 33. If you're playing the white tees, it's 29.


Who knew golf could be so much fun?!

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

Part of the problem is that lower handicappers seem to think they should win more than the high handicappers because they are better, but that's not how it is supposed to work.

Well, shouldn't they? Shouldn't Colorado expect to go into a hockey game against Montreal and have expectations to win in a fairly established playing field? If you make Colorado play short-handed most of the game, just so the Canadiens can be competitive, is that really a fair test? Colorado worked really hard to build a great team and be dominant in the league, so why should they be penalized because Montreal sucks?

That is how a poorly implemented handicap adjustment can be to players. It is why many clubs go out of their way to either monitor scoring to assign handicap adjustments for members or grant only a percentage of an outside player's posted handicap. The handicap system is supposed to make it possible for players of all levels to compete with each other, but for it to work it has to be closely monitored and regulated because scoring variance can play a huge part in these events. It's also why better players prefer a multi-round or multi-day event so the wild card round where the high-variance-low-score does not impact the probable outcome.

There is nothing worse than seeing a 4 handicap shoot a 74 (net 70) and get beat by a 25 handicap who shot a 92 (net 67). The better player did not win that day, but that happens. I stopped letting it bother me a long time ago and just focus on we're out there for the comradery and to have some laughs. It's all about the birdie juice and how many you can make your playing partners drink out there!

[Strange Brew]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Well, shouldn't they? Shouldn't Colorado expect to go into a hockey game against Montreal and have expectations to win in a fairly established playing field? If you make Colorado play short-handed most of the game, just so the Canadiens can be competitive, is that really a fair test? Colorado worked really hard to build a great team and be dominant in the league, so why should they be penalized because Montreal sucks?

That is how a poorly implemented handicap adjustment can be to players. It is why many clubs go out of their way to either monitor scoring to assign handicap adjustments for members or grant only a percentage of an outside player's posted handicap. The handicap system is supposed to make it possible for players of all levels to compete with each other, but for it to work it has to be closely monitored and regulated because scoring variance can play a huge part in these events. It's also why better players prefer a multi-round or multi-day event so the wild card round where the high-variance-low-score does not impact the probable outcome.

There is nothing worse than seeing a 4 handicap shoot a 74 (net 70) and get beat by a 25 handicap who shot a 92 (net 67). The better player did not win that day, but that happens. I stopped letting it bother me a long time ago and just focus on we're out there for the comradery and to have some laughs. It's all about the birdie juice and how many you can make your playing partners drink out there!

Based on the bolded, I'd assume you would endorse a system that strives to make everyone equal.

I see no problem with a high handicapper beating a low handicapper because they played great, compared to their norm. That is the whole point. Sounds like in your example you think the better player should never lose so long as they beat their own handicap.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Well, shouldn't they? Shouldn't Colorado expect to go into a hockey game against Montreal and have expectations to win in a fairly established playing field? If you make Colorado play short-handed most of the game, just so the Canadiens can be competitive, is that really a fair test? Colorado worked really hard to build a great team and be dominant in the league, so why should they be penalized because Montreal sucks?

That is how a poorly implemented handicap adjustment can be to players. It is why many clubs go out of their way to either monitor scoring to assign handicap adjustments for members or grant only a percentage of an outside player's posted handicap. The handicap system is supposed to make it possible for players of all levels to compete with each other, but for it to work it has to be closely monitored and regulated because scoring variance can play a huge part in these events. It's also why better players prefer a multi-round or multi-day event so the wild card round where the high-variance-low-score does not impact the probable outcome.

There is nothing worse than seeing a 4 handicap shoot a 74 (net 70) and get beat by a 25 handicap who shot a 92 (net 67). The better player did not win that day, but that happens. I stopped letting it bother me a long time ago and just focus on we're out there for the comradery and to have some laughs. It's all about the birdie juice and how many you can make your playing partners drink out there!

The betting line would probably give Montreal a goal or two, which is closer to what the handicap system is trying to do.

Every club championship I've known emphasizes the low gross for the champion, and the better players don't much care about who won low net.

There are plenty of competitive non-handicapped competitions out there for better players if that's your thing. Handicapped events seem to be more about betting and drinking and having fun. Events like member-members and member-guests tend to bring out more people trying to game the system.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Strange Brew

Based on the bolded, I'd assume you would endorse a system that strives to make everyone equal.

I do. How you do that is open for debate and there are many ways to do it. I'm just explaining why certain clubs do it certain ways and why some players feel certain ways about it. For the most part, I don't give a ####. The only person I'm competitive with is myself. Everyone I golf with comments I'm the biggest cheer leader out there, even when they are playing me in a match. I want people to do their best and have the most fun out there. If they beat me, that's okay, because I only care about how I feel about my game when I walk off the course. Did I hit the ball well? Did I make good decisions in shot selection? Did I make the scoring shots that were available? Did I putt well? Most importantly, did I have a good time? Nothing in those first four measures involves anyone else but me, so why would I give a #### about some other player having a better net score? It's irrelevant to how I gauge my success on the course. The only measure that the other players can influence is whether I have fun and that is again predominantly driven by how I interact with the other players. When people are playing their best they have the most fun and that translates to positive energy in the group. That is the most important thing and why I preach for people to relax, find the positive in every shot, and have as much fun out there as possible.

I see no problem with a high handicapper beating a low handicapper because they played great, compared to their norm. That is the whole point. Sounds like in your example you think the better player should never lose so long as they beat their own handicap.

I'll say what I don't like are systems that reward players with inflated handicaps. If you want to compete, do so with honor. Too many people fudge their handicaps or don't enter all their scores. It's why percentage of posted index is probably the most reasonable. It helps eliminate the wild swings in score variance and normalizes the data a little more and lot more fairly. Any handicap should be well regulated and applied equitably and judiciously.

Personally, I don't care if a high handicapper plays well and takes out a low handicapper if all things are considered equal. But there's the problem. The system is rarely equal.

Scoring variance for high handicappers is such that you can rarely predict what you're going to get from round to round compared to the low handicapper. The scoring variance for a 5 handicap is around eight strokes, with crazy outliers being knocked out. For a 25 handicap, that variance is much higher and usually in the 29 stroke range. Both players putting in a good performance means the high handicapper wins every time because variance and handicap advantage work strongly in the favor of the weaker player. Both players putting in an average performance and the high handicapper wins almost every time for the same reason. The only way the lower handicap player doesn't lose more often than not is if the high handicapper has an above average to bad round. The handicap adjustment and potential swing in score variance greatly favors the high handicapper. It's why flighting is invoked in many large tournaments, to isolate the scoring variance advantage. It's also why if you're going into tournaments or games to adjust your own expectations accordingly. Understand how handicap and scoring variance could work to or against you and set your expectations accordingly. If you do, you'll have way more fun and likely not care about the end result.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

There is nothing worse than seeing a 4 handicap shoot a 74 (net 70) and get beat by a 25 handicap who shot a 92 (net 67). The better player did not win that day, but that happens. I stopped letting it bother me a long time ago and just focus on we're out there for the comradery and to have some laughs. It's all about the birdie juice and how many you can make your playing partners drink out there!

See, it's this attitude that annoys me and sort of what I was getting at with my original post. A 92 for a 25 handicap is an excellent day - why shouldn't he win? Just because he's got a lower end score variance? I don't like the percentage approach on handicaps as I've experienced it when I was close to an 18 handicap. In a 75% system I'd get adjusted to a 14, while the 4 handicap gets adjusted to a 3. How is that ever going to be fair for me?

If you don't like a system that levels the playing field, then play gross score and get beat up by scratch golfers. Otherwise, accept that mid to high handicappers have just as good a shot at winning net events as you.

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald

Well, shouldn't they? Shouldn't Colorado expect to go into a hockey game against Montreal and have expectations to win in a fairly established playing field? If you make Colorado play short-handed most of the game, just so the Canadiens can be competitive, is that really a fair test? Colorado worked really hard to build a great team and be dominant in the league, so why should they be penalized because Montreal sucks?

That is how a poorly implemented handicap adjustment can be to players. It is why many clubs go out of their way to either monitor scoring to assign handicap adjustments for members or grant only a percentage of an outside player's posted handicap. The handicap system is supposed to make it possible for players of all levels to compete with each other, but for it to work it has to be closely monitored and regulated because scoring variance can play a huge part in these events. It's also why better players prefer a multi-round or multi-day event so the wild card round where the high-variance-low-score does not impact the probable outcome.

There is nothing worse than seeing a 4 handicap shoot a 74 (net 70) and get beat by a 25 handicap who shot a 92 (net 67). The better player did not win that day, but that happens. I stopped letting it bother me a long time ago and just focus on we're out there for the comradery and to have some laughs. It's all about the birdie juice and how many you can make your playing partners drink out there!

Though it isn't fair, it is pretty much the reality of regular season NHL

(apologies for the derail)

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by mrkajz44

See, it's this attitude that annoys me and sort of what I was getting at with my original post. A 92 for a 25 handicap is an excellent day - why shouldn't he win? Just because he's got a lower end score variance? I don't like the percentage approach on handicaps as I've experienced it when I was close to an 18 handicap. In a 75% system I'd get adjusted to a 14, while the 4 handicap gets adjusted to a 3. How is that ever going to be fair for me?

Calm down. Nothing meant by any of this other than discussing the strengths and weaknesses of systems used to allow for equitable competition. I view all golfers equally and enjoy playing with all skill levels. The point was a 74 for a 4 handicap is a great day too. Both players have shot toward the bottom of their score variance. That was the point of that exercise. To show that the players actually had similar days, just that the high handicapper has a built-in advantage the low handicapper does not get to rely upon. It is a weakness of the handicap system which why there are so many different approaches to find balance n the application of that system.

In the scenario presented, the difference between the two players is consistency and I was taught consistency is the goal and should always be rewarded, hence not liking the straight up handicap system. It is why real tournaments are over multiple rounds or multiple days, so that consistency rules the day. The system being discussed, consistency is not rewarded, which is why low handicappers have the attitude they do. It would be great if there was a mechanism in the handicap system to identify the scoring variance and inject consistency into the mix so then it would be a fairer comparison, but that is kind of hard to do.

If you don't like a system that levels the playing field, then play gross score and get beat up by scratch golfers. Otherwise, accept that mid to high handicappers have just as good a shot at winning net events as you.

As I said, I don't really care. I'm just explaining how some people feel about it. Having gone through several years of listening to the membership whine about stuff like this, I get all positions. It really is a no win because there is no truly equitable way of letting people play together without appropriate controls and oversight over establishing handicaps. As soon as someone gets to report their own handicap there is potential for abuse and cheating, and there are too many people out there who will cheat their asses off for even for some basic bragging rights. Takes all the joy out of playing.

[Derek Sutton]

Without an established handicap, one stroke per hole is the max that should be given. Our mens league allows non members to play league, many are casual players and some claim to be 32 handicaps “I normally shoot 110”. There’s nothing like being on in Zero on the par fours. Many of these players believe your handicap is an average and simply don’t know that that is not the case.