Should the maximum handicap be reviewed?

Wichita Lineman

GreeBo wrote: »

Yep, I dont disagree.
I think my handicap is too high.
What you have to take into account though is that the lower you get, the better your "good" day is going to be.

There are lots of people of 9 in my club that cant hit half of the shots that I can hit, they are never going to be able to turn in a score as low as I could on a good day, they are physically unable to do so. I think thats unfair.

So by that logic I in my 40's should still be playing soccer at a decent level and be able to handicap the other players so I can still look as good as I was at 25. Maybe I should tie their legs together to make it easier for me eh??? It's not unfair, it's life!

Redzah

captainnot wrote: »

Not a junior but a mid aged beginner?

Yes, its possible, its a rarity and extremely different but its possble.

If its 28 to 14 then yes thats difficult for a beginner but def possible and I would suggest that its only really a 4 shot cut as he should have started off 18 . If its from 18 to 4 well that is really exceptional for a beginner and he will be scratch in no time as the currently appears to be no boundries on his ability or (as you have alluded to) he is an unbelieveable cheater. Have you any evidence to support your claim of him cheating?

Greebo will prob put a stop to this as its way off thread so set one up i'd say if u want to discuss

GreeBo

Andy Dunne11 wrote: »

So by that logic I in my 40's should still be playing soccer at a decent level and be able to handicap the other players so I can still look as good as I was at 25. Maybe I should tie their legs together to make it easier for me eh??? It's not unfair, it's life!

erm...pardon?

Ben1977

GreeBo wrote: »

I wouldnt consider myself "low", but I started off 18, couldnt play to it for ages then got cut to 17. Its taken me 10 years to get to 8/9.

Ok thats a good start off 18.

The reason I ask is, well stay with me a moment.
Imagine you join a club, first time, you've got the love for the game. Submit 3 cards and its capped at 18 handicap. Your society HC is eg 26. Imagine playing a round of golf at the weekend and every second hole you have to pick up the ball before reaching the green because you can't score.

What kind of enjoyment is that for anyone? Yes this imaginary guy or girl wants to improve. But at the moment they are learning the game.

You never hear a higher handicap golfer complaining that a lower handicap golfer is winning the big comps. No they just turn around to them and say great shooting and shake their hand.

The handicap shouldn't be limited, I would rather see as much people play this game as possible.

Remember we all had to start as a high handicapper, not one of us picked up a club and had a natural swing.

My own experience is that my pal brought me out to play golf about 6 times a year. He was off about 15 and he gave me 24. If he or for that matter any club give me 24, I would not have loved the game and would not have joined a club and started this loved affair.

So lads the max handicap is were its at for a reason, to include everyone in this great game. Come on do you really think the R&A and the GUI have got the handicap system wrong?

captainnot

its the latter and therefore impossible imo. Last gross score when playing off 10 was over 110, 2 weeks later off 6 after 2x stablefords

ssbob

One more question for Greebo? At what stage should I start using my driver again? I mean you can't keep it in your bag forever! I may get down to 18 but how do I get past that without hitting driver?? And the fact that I will prob have not used it for 2 years will put me back to square one........

Or what about the guys who hit 90% fw's but off 24...can't hit an iron to save their life....now they're fooked!

charlieIRL

am getting an awful sense of deja-vu here when it comes to handicap threads - its the same points over and over. The low guys think that the high guys have too many shots to throw around and the high guys are trying to defend the extra shots.
Probably 80% of the high guys are high for a reason - they don't have the ability to get lower for whatever reason. Be it time to practice / ability etc. Some of them (like me) just prefer society and casual golf. The low guys seem to be at the club from a very young age and grew up playing golf and getting better over 20 - 30 years while some of the high guys took the game up at a later age and may have reached a plateau of where their golf is after 3 - 4 years. Then you have the bandits but thats for another time.

As a high handicap golfer i do agree that the maximum handicap should be reduced - but not to 18. Why take the chance of being there in a competition every now and then away for a 20+ H/c golfer?

charlieIRL

ssbob wrote: »

Or what about the guys who hit 90% fw's but off 24...can't hit an iron to save their life....now they're fooked!

like me! How many fairways did i hit on saturday? And to quote you "You need to be making the most of those drives"

Never a truer word said!

FixdePitchmark

ssbob wrote: »

One more question for Greebo? At what stage should I start using my driver again? I mean you can't keep it in your bag forever! I may get down to 18 but how do I get past that without hitting driver?? And the fact that I will prob have not used it for 2 years will put me back to square one........

Or what about the guys who hit 90% fw's but off 24...can't hit an iron to save their life....now they're fooked!

The latter lad, should use your driver off the fairway.

GreeBo

Ben1977 wrote: »

Ok thats a good start off 18.

The reason I ask is, well stay with me a moment.
Imagine you join a club, first time, you've got the love for the game. Submit 3 cards and its capped at 18 handicap. Your society HC is eg 26. Imagine playing a round of golf at the weekend and every second hole you have to pick up the ball before reaching the green because you can't score.

What kind of enjoyment is that for anyone? Yes this imaginary guy or girl wants to improve. But at the moment they are learning the game.

You never hear a higher handicap golfer complaining that a lower handicap golfer is winning the big comps. No they just turn around to them and say great shooting and shake their hand.

The handicap shouldn't be limited, I would rather see as much people play this game as possible.

Remember we all had to start as a high handicapper, not one of us picked up a club and had a natural swing.

My own experience is that my pal brought me out to play golf about 6 times a year. He was off about 15 and he gave me 24. If he or for that matter any club give me 24, I would not have loved the game and would not have joined a club and started this loved affair.

So lads the max handicap is were its at for a reason, to include everyone in this great game. Come on do you really think the R&A and the GUI have got the handicap system wrong?

I dont think the system is wrong, I think giving someone a starting handicap based on 3 scores doesnt tell you enough about their ability.
No more than seeing a 1:0 score in football tells you which is the better team.

ssbob wrote: »

One more question for Greebo? At what stage should I start using my driver again? I mean you can't keep it in your bag forever! I may get down to 18 but how do I get past that without hitting driver?? And the fact that I will prob have not used it for 2 years will put me back to square one........

Or what about the guys who hit 90% fw's but off 24...can't hit an iron to save their life....now they're fooked!

Use it when you need to use it!
I guarantee you will still be parring holes without it, so then you dont need it to play to 18.

charlieIRL wrote: »

Some of them (like me) just prefer society and casual golf.
As a high handicap golfer i do agree that the maximum handicap should be reduced - but not to 18. Why take the chance of being there in a competition every now and then away for a 20+ H/c golfer?

I played with you in Thurles...I remember the drives out past mine, the 3woods onto the par5 in two....how do I stand a chance against that when you have a putt for 6 points and I had to lay up becuase I couldnt afford to scratch the hole?

charlieIRL wrote: »

like me! How many fairways did i hit on saturday? And to quote you "You need to be making the most of those drives"

Never a truer word said!

What were you doing with the second shots? Going for the green after such good drives no doubt. The reality is that you could have layed up and still had a great chance for 3 or more points....

Redzah

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

The latter lad, should use your driver of the fairway.

Your taking from this what you want at this stage.

Use a driver if it is a wide fairway that doesn't narrow if you hit a driver well.

Don't use a driver if its a narrow fairway where any slightly wayward shot gets you in trouble.

Its basic stuff really, kinda like minimum requirements to be able to play the game.

FixdePitchmark

Redzah wrote: »

Your taking from this what you want at this stage.

Use a driver if it is a wide fairway that doesn't narrow if you hit a driver well.

Don't use a driver if its a narrow fairway where any slightly wayward shot gets you in trouble.

Its basic stuff really, kinda like minimum requirements to be able to play the game.

It was a joke Redzah,

You and GreeBo can amuse yourselves.

I don't fall for your wind up.

Ben1977

GreeBo wrote: »

I dont think the system is wrong, I think giving someone a starting handicap based on 3 scores doesnt tell you enough about their ability.
No more than seeing a 1:0 score in football tells you which is the better team.

Ya maybe 3 cards don't tell you their ability. But if their ability is 26 Hc way not give it to them? Why put a limit of 18 when clearly they will get frustrated and maybe walk away from the game.

My question is why limit the HC to 18 or any number when there is clearly a need upto 28 to include all? Yes they may have the ability sometimes to play lower but don't we all?

FixdePitchmark

A putt for 6 points Charlie, lol.

In fairness to GreeBo, he has a point there. (pmsl).

Redzah

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

It was a joke Redzah,

You and GreeBo can amuse yourselves.

I don't fall for your wind up.

Yeah, to be honest i quoted the wrong person but you get my point. There are minimum requirements to be able to play any sport which are essentially to know the rules and to have a broad idea of what to do and when.

For a 24 handicapper to have extra shots because they don't know what to do at certain times is wrong in my opinion. It's like a beginner goalkeeper not realising they are meant to stay around their goal area and come chasing out of goals, lose the ball and the opposition score coz the keeper is not there, but the goals is disallowed because he pleads ignorance as a beginner.

GreeBo

Ben1977 wrote: »

Ya maybe 3 cards don't tell you their ability. But if their ability is 26 Hc way not give it to them? Why put a limit of 18 when clearly they will get frustrated and maybe walk away from the game.

My question is why limit the HC to 18 or any number when there is clearly a need upto 28 to include all? Yes they may have the ability sometimes to play lower but don't we all?

the ability that you can sometimes play to is supposed to reflect your handicap though...not your average rounds.

how do you know their ability is 26?
I mentioned it earlier, but some sort of skills test would be a better judge of handicap/ability than 3 random cards that tell you nothing. Otherwise someone from the HC committee should accompany the person on the rounds to get a feel for the "why" instead of just the "what".

Redzah

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

A putt for 6 points Charlie, lol.

In fairness to GreeBo, he has a point there. (pmsl).

lol, I get 2 opportunities a round where I can get 6 points with a hole in one on a par 4 or an albotross on a par 5 yet you have the ability to putt for it? Where is the fairness there if you clearly have the ability to create this opportunity?

FixdePitchmark

Redzah wrote: »

Yeah, to be honest i quoted the wrong person but you get my point. There are minimum requirements to be able to play any sport which are essentially to know the rules and to have a broad idea of what to do and when.

For a 24 handicapper to have extra shots because they don't know what to do at certain times is wrong in my opinion. It's like a beginner goalkeeper not realising they are meant to stay around their goal area and come chasing out of goals, lose the ball and the opposition score coz the keeper is not there, but the goals is disallowed because he pleads ignorance as a beginner.

But that goalkeeper will learn quickly, One match.

Golf has a much longer feedback system

A golfer will learn, but with golf it takes years for you to get to be in goal or have a choice to run out or not,

The variables are so numerous, considerable experience is required, the ability to repeat is the ability you are trying to perfect, once repetition is achieved a world of options open up, then these options take time to perfect too.

Without keeping these golfers in the game, they never will get in goal.

Anyway, **** analogies.

Best of Luck Redzah
GreeBo.

Wombatman

GreeBo wrote: »

I think this could lead to a very dangerous place where people have to prove they are playing honestly because "the computer" says they are cheating....after that its a quick two step before we have SkyNet and there goes the neighbourhood.

SkyNet.....???? The concept may be a little difficult for some to understand I guess.

The Director of Course Rating & Handicapping for the Northern California Golf Association explains it well.

Certainly, NCGA net competitions have not been immune to this infestation. Too-good-to-be-true net scores have become commonplace and certain faces seem to be popping up in the winner’s circle all too often. Worse yet, certain clubs seem to be gaining reputations for harboring or breeding such golfers.

Based upon such performances, you would think that scores that are several strokes under one’s handicap are supposed to be everyday occurrences. They are not. In many instances, they are “once a decade” or even “once in a lifetime” types of scores, as illustrated by the table appearing on this page.

As you examine this table, you will discover that the odds of a golfer teeing it up today and playing to his handicap are 5 to 1 against. On average a golfer actually plays around three to four strokes above his handicap. Don’t believe me? Look up your own scoring record and you’ll probably only find four scores in 20 where you played to your current Handicap Index or better. Four out of 20, that’s it! Naturally, the odds of playing two, four or six strokes under one’s handicap are even more remote.

These odds have a cumulative affect as well. The odds of a golfer playing to his handicap two consecutive rounds, for example, are 25 to 1 (the 5 to 1 for each round multiplied by each other), while three in a row is 125 to 1, etc. The odds of a five-handicapper playing five strokes under his handicap twice in a row are a whopping 143,641 to 1 (379 to 1 times 379 to 1)!

It is these cumulative odds that we have zeroed in on at the NCGA. Beginning this season, those deemed to perform too well, too often will have their handicaps slashed in NCGA play. Those at the very top of the sandbagging food chain may be banned entirely.

How will we determine who makes this “hit list?” Simple, by reviewing net scores from previous NCGA competitions, including the Net and Senior Net, the Four-Ball Net, Senior Four-Ball Net and Associate Four-Ball Net, the Zones and Associate Club Championship, the CGA Net competitions and all associated qualifiers. We’ll even look at Team Match scores, since handicaps are a part of that competition.

What are we looking for? Simple, how did a golfer play in relationship to his handicap? Not, what was his handicap then, what is it now? Did the golfer play better or worse than his handicap . . . and if better, by how much?

There is a tremendous difference between an honest golfer catching lightning in a bottle one day and a habitual sandbagger. It all has to do with the frequency or regularity that each golfer plays to his handicap. Lay all the honest golfers’ scores out and it is obvious that the one great round was an anomaly. Lay all the bagger’s scores out and the pattern is plain to see -- score after score where the golfer blatantly played to his handicap or better. Let’s call it male pattern boldness.

So that’s what we’ve done. We’ve collected all the net scores from NCGA net events that we could get our hands on from the past two seasons, laid them all out and identified who has been playing to their handicap too often. And we will continue to add new names and new scores to this monster-sized net score database from this point on.

http://www.garykodani.com/Pinseekers/articles/ThroughtheGreenByJim%20Cowan.htm

ssbob

GreeBo wrote: »

What were you doing with the second shots? Going for the green after such good drives no doubt. The reality is that you could have layed up and still had a great chance for 3 or more points....

In fairness he was leaving himself short irons, wedges etc into greens(not par 5's) but he was duffing, scuffing, shanking all over the place. Given it was a bad day at the office for him and you will see in the other thread that Charlie has shot an 83 recently so I'd imagine his handicap will be flying down soon!

Redzah

ssbob wrote: »

In fairness he was leaving himself short irons, wedges etc into greens(not par 5's) but he was duffing, scuffing, shanking all over the place. Given it was a bad day at the office for him and you will see in the other thread that Charlie has shot an 83 recently so I'd imagine his handicap will be flying down soon!

As a matter of interest what did charlie score of his handicap on this day for such a bad day at the office? Anything 30+ points and it again would seem like its unfair and that he should be capped at 18 like the rest 18+ handicappers. To duff, scuff and shank the ball all over the place as you have alluded to he should come nowhere near even 30 points (should be closer to 20)

GreeBo

Wombatman wrote: »

SkyNet.....???? The concept may be a little difficult for some to understand I guess.

The Director of Course Rating & Handicapping for the Northern California Golf Association explains it well.

Sorry for being so dim, but isnt that pretty much what the handicap review does?

m r c

Skynet?????



Pmsl that's fn brilliant!!!!!!!

Russman

GreeBo wrote: »

the ability that you can sometimes play to is supposed to reflect your handicap though...not your average rounds.

But GreeBo, by that logic, someone who is in a terrible run of form shouldn't get shots back. What about the guy who is still healthy and fit but has just simply "lost his game" ? Your handicap is supposed to reflect your current ability (or at least it was, it might have been changed).

Over a period of 4-5 years I myself went from 3 to 5, and then I was given 2 shots back which got me to 7, and at one point last year I was out to 9. I just couldn't do a score and played horribly. My potential scores or "ability" were arguably still those of a low handicapper but IMO it would have been wrong for me to still be off 3 for all that time. I took no pleasure in being off 9 (more embarrassment if anything) but it was reflective of my game at the time, I still couldn't even play to it !!! Thankfully I got back to 5 in July of this year !;)

Or even better, what about a guy who is reasonably talented and we'll say plays off 18 and his scores reflect that. Lets say he plays once a month due to family & work pressures and doesn't get a chance to practice. Obviously he would likely be lower if he played more regularly, but he doesn't/can't. Its not right to give him a handicap that he "might" be able to play to if he got out more or practised, he just can't.

Ben1977

GreeBo wrote: »

the ability that you can sometimes play to is supposed to reflect your handicap though...not your average rounds.

how do you know their ability is 26?
I mentioned it earlier, but some sort of skills test would be a better judge of handicap/ability than 3 random cards that tell you nothing. Otherwise someone from the HC committee should accompany the person on the rounds to get a feel for the "why" instead of just the "what".

Sorry but a skills test is different than, 3 to 4 hours of golf were, one of the biggest and hardest test is between the ears. 3 rounds over 18 holes is better because we play it over 18 holes. But the debate is about capping the HC. You can 't simply limit the HC because we are all different and thats the way of the world.

Why would you exclude people from golf by capping their HC? Every sport has its different divisions for different abilities. In GAA, senior, intermediate and juniors. So should golf, ok golf is different because all levels play the same game. In fact is not the low guy verses the high guy. It's the guy or girl against the course no matter how high their handicap is.

Russman

Redzah wrote: »

To duff, scuff and shank the ball all over the place

Surely that's exactly why he has a high handicap though ? If high handicappers didn't mish1t shots they wouldn't be high handicappers....?

Almaviva

GreeBo wrote: »

Its unfair that Billy who is 67 and still plays off 12 because he is consistent and has adapted his game to his handicap has to compete against Barry who is 22 and also plays of 12 and hits it 8 miles further than Billy, can hit flop shots and bend the ball, but is as stable on the course as a bag of jelly.

It not unfair ! Its fair.

Where in the rules of golf, or handicapping does it say anything to even suggest something like that ? It doesnt. The bottom line is what counts - the score and not how it was achieved. You are trying to put your own philosophical spin on what you understand the handicap system to be (or would like it to be). This is simply incorrect. You keep stating something along the lines of "your handicap is not there to make up for your bad decisions". What official source have you to back up this contention ?

Almaviva

GreeBo wrote: »

Because Barry has miles more golfing ability than Billy has yet they are supposed to play off the same handicap.
If Billy played the same style as Barry his handicap would shoot up, then he could choose which holes to play his sensible game on and walk in with 40 points every week.

You are making up your own (limited) definition of golfing abilty. They are both the same handicap and correctly so. He wouldnt walk in with 40 points every week. If he solved some aspect of his game and it enabled to improve his scores - lets say its by playing sensbly as you put it - he would have a 40 the first time. And be cut. So not 40 the next time. If he maintained the same improved level of golf then his new handicap would reflect this in a few rounds - so no more 40 points unless he has a good day as will happen occasionally, or makes another step imrpovement in his game.

Almaviva

GreeBo wrote: »

And this is why I think a max of 18 is required.
If your handicap is there to accommodate your bad decisions then you will only ever get lower by getting better at hitting the ball. This is where you end up with lads off 12 who on a good day are 4 over and on a bad day 20 over.

"Forcing" you to play bogey golf in the beginning is IMO the best thing for both the game and the player in question. Its like getting a free lesson in how to play golf.

The aim of the handicap system is not to force you to play better golf. Who is to say what good is anyway. Bogey golf is rubbish to a 10 handcapper. The ten handicapper is no contest for the scratchman. The scratchman is not contest for a tour pro. So why draw some arbitrary line at 18 and that anything above them is someone who shouldnt have more shots even if their golf reflects the need for them?

Almaviva

GreeBo wrote: »

do you think its right that Billys scores bounce between 34 and 38 points but Barrys for from 20 to 40?

Billy is working like mad to come in within his buffer each week, Barry isnt even aware of his buffer and goes out to play "great" golf each week.

If he can bounce between 34 and 38 and stay withing the buffer zone, then Billy is a bandit ! No golfer (of any level) can do this honestly. If his scores are like that, then he has shots 'in the bag' which he uses to increase the bad scores into the buffer zone dishonestly. The review system looks at these stats and is designed to 'advise' cutting them.