Kostis and McCord about handicaps

[lchang]

Kostis and McCord with some hand-wavy handicap opinions. Anyone with a reaction to this?  https://golf.com/news/does-world-handicap-system-need-refresh-flaw/?amp=1

[MikeW2]

I kinda agree with them🤷🏻‍♂️

[st1800e]

“Kostis said he thinks there has to be a way to incorporate max driving distance into a handicap calculation.“

 

Sure, but we’ll be waiting a long time for him or anyone else to propose such a system.

 

McCord gets beat by a +5,   A retired pro and an ex pro competing.  The  handicap system isn’t really intended to be for those guys. They’re outliers.  

 

Two old guys trying to fix things…Next they’ll be proposing that the tour adopt a handicap system, because the pros all hit it different distances.😉

 

Their discussion is just clickbait, for their podcast.  

[596]

So they want to beat someone at golf that is better then them?  Yep, golf is the only sport that allows a lesser skilled player to beat a better player.  

 

Can you tell I don't like playing handicap golf?  If you are better then me, you'll beat me, period.  And that's the way I believe it should be.

[NorthTexasGlfr]

1 hour ago, 596 said:

So they want to beat someone at golf that is better then them?  Yep, golf is the only sport that allows a lesser skilled player to beat a better player.  

 

Can you tell I don't like playing handicap golf?  If you are better then me, you'll beat me, period.  And that's the way I believe it should be.

 

So 10 handicappers and 20 handicappers should play head up, no strokes?

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, 596 said:

So they want to beat someone at golf that is better then them?  Yep, golf is the only sport that allows a lesser skilled player to beat a better player.  

 

Can you tell I don't like playing handicap golf?  If you are better then me, you'll beat me, period.  And that's the way I believe it should be.

 

You have a choice. Play in gross events and go home with $5 in pro shop credit for your tie for 9th place. Frankly, we don't want you in our handicapped tournaments because of your condescending attitude. Most of us rabbits are here to play and compete. Winning once in awhile is nice, but for most it's not why we're here.😉

[596]

1 hour ago, sui generis said:

 

You have a choice. Play in gross events and go home with $5 in pro shop credit for your tie for 9th place. Frankly, we don't want you in our handicapped tournaments because of your condescending attitude. Most of us rabbits are here to play and compete. Winning once in awhile is nice, but for most it's not why we're here.😉

I'm actually not condescending at all.  If you want to play by handicap, feel free.  I don't care. But I'm not going around telling people I beat a scratch golfer when I shot 82 and he shot 73.   And I don't play in any tournaments.  

[Hawkeye77]

They aren’t aging well. 

[nsxguy]

24 minutes ago, 596 said:

I'm actually not condescending at all.  If you want to play by handicap, feel free.  I don't care. But I'm not going around telling people I beat a scratch golfer when I shot 82 and he shot 73.   And I don't play in any tournaments.  

 

I wouldn't either. I'd simply tell those people I played better compared to my handicap than the pro did that day. 

[AzRoger]

36 minutes ago, 596 said:

I'm actually not condescending at all.  If you want to play by handicap, feel free.  I don't care. But I'm not going around telling people I beat a scratch golfer when I shot 82 and he shot 73.   And I don't play in any tournaments.  

Most club tournaments that I've played in are flighted so that it would be unusual for a scratch golfer to compete against someone with a double digit handicap. In addition, most flights have both a net and gross competition.

[NorthTexasGlfr]

1 hour ago, 596 said:

I'm actually not condescending at all.  If you want to play by handicap, feel free.  I don't care. But I'm not going around telling people I beat a scratch golfer when I shot 82 and he shot 73.   And I don't play in any tournaments.  

 

I'm not sure anyone would go around telling people that beat a scratch golfer when they shot 82 and he shot 73 so I'm kind of lost what exactly the point is that you are trying make here. 

[naval2006]

There’s a widespread idea, especially in the US, that competitive amateur golf is scratch golf or nothing. For many golfers, hdc competitions are taboo.  I know a handful of golfers who think that way. One of them is a scratch player. The others are average club golfers with 12/20 hdc who could never have the slightest chance of a top ten in a gross event. So the latter do not compete ever. They’ve never even played a summer night league. 
 

Handicap is a blessing: it makes everybody competitive at a certain point. It’s perfectly fair and motivating to have the opportunity to play a good round and win your flight or your Thursday league. Golf with a scorecard counting for a result in a small midweek tourney is as much a thrill as the qually for the club championship play-offs. You know you’re performing under pressure, so closing the round becomes a serious challenge.  Going back home with that bottle of whisky you won or waking up next day and remembering you won by a shot with three pars in a row from 16 to 18 are highly inspirational moments to keep you going in golf. Handicap gives us the same taste of winning that the guys you see on TV just in a more “humble” level. 
 

PS: I’ve never heard of a 15 capper bragging after beating a single digit or scratch player in a net competition. A 15 hdc golfer must not be that good, but the usually are no fools. 

[MtlJeff]

I don't really agree ....Sure on a 400yd hole someone who drives 200 won't reach. But this is already factored into his index. Same as the 12 index who hits it 300yds. 

 

A 12 index who hits it 300yds is liable to put the ball into someone's pool . 

 

As the great Bill Parcells said --"You are what you are"

[davep043]

“There’s gotta be a new way of using today’s statistical approach to everything, to organize a handicap system that is fairer for everybody concerned,” Kostis said.

 

Does he think that the current system wasn't developed using a "statistical approach", based on the tens (or hundreds) of millions of scores available in the records from around the world?  And isn't actual score the determining factor, golf isn't the long drive championship.  Sorry, but if you think there's a better way, do something to try to define that better way, propose a method to include driving distance (or driving accuracy or putting prowess, or disaster avoidance or any other single skill) as a factor in handicap calculations.

Edited November 3, 2024 by davep043

[st1800e]

34 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Does he think

No, it’s clickbait.   

[bcflyguy1]

The problem is not the current system. The effectiveness of any system used is directly correlated to the integrity of the users.

[bluedot]

I’m sure that there are some 12’s that hit it 300 yds, but that’s a poor example by Kostis.  Most guys that can actually hit it 300 off the tee are significantly lower that a 12 index.  
 

While he is correct that there are multiple ways to have a 12 index, the simple fact is that a given 12 index has that index because of how long it takes him to get the ball in the hole; they’re a 12 because they’re a 12.

 

And the McCord-Rahm thing is impossible to unpack; I assume MCord is saying he’s scratch from well over 7000 yds.?  Maybe he is.

[st1800e]

27 minutes ago, bluedot said:

assume MCord is saying he’s scratch from well over 7000 yds.?

I think he said he’s a 2.3 or thereabouts.  Don’t know the distance he usually he plays, but if he’s playing with the big boys…..

[Shilgy]

4 hours ago, bluedot said:

I’m sure that there are some 12’s that hit it 300 yds, but that’s a poor example by Kostis.  Most guys that can actually hit it 300 off the tee are significantly lower that a 12 index.  
 

While he is correct that there are multiple ways to have a 12 index, the simple fact is that a given 12 index has that index because of how long it takes him to get the ball in the hole; they’re a 12 because they’re a 12.

 

And the McCord-Rahm thing is impossible to unpack; I assume MCord is saying he’s scratch from well over 7000 yds.?  Maybe he is.

You’re correct, imo as well, a 12 is a 12.  Doesn’t matter if he’s long or short something makes him a 12.

 

As for the McCord handicap scratch from well over 7000 yards would have a stroke average around 77.  Not difficult to believe.  That is based on a course rating or about 74 which a 0.0 cap would average about 77-three strokes over handicap. His best 8 of last 20 would average 74.  For simplicity that is ignoring slope but it’s close to that.

[dan360]

It is probably about time a hard look is made into what constitutes a "forward tee box" vs. a "ladies tee box" and also the ratings some of these places are getting.  At my USGA 9.2 hack hdcp, from the 'whites' at Pebble Beach

6083 yards  71.7 rating 135 slope  I'm an 11.  From the blues, the 'tips'  6802 yards  74.9 rating 144 slope..I'm a 15.

 

https://www.usga.org/course-handicap-calculator.html

 

But ol' Rahmbo if he's a +7.6 drops to a +7 from the tips.....  but swing speed will fix everything, eh?

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2024 by dan360

[larrybud]

Let's take the distance thing first:

 

Since the handicap is based on your best 40% of the rounds, their concern is already taken into consideration, because those are the days where the bomber "Found" their chipping/putting stroke.

 

As far as handicaps for the super elite: Yes, the entire handicap system really breaks down for the + cappers, but honestly, who cares? The WHS isn't going to revamp stuff for the top 0.001% of the players, that would be ridiculous.

[bluedot]

11 hours ago, Shilgy said:

You’re correct, imo as well, a 12 is a 12.  Doesn’t matter if he’s long or short something makes him a 12.

 

As for the McCord handicap scratch from well over 7000 yards would have a stroke average around 77.  Not difficult to believe.  That is based on a course rating or about 74 which a 0.0 cap would average about 77-three strokes over handicap. His best 8 of last 20 would average 74.  For simplicity that is ignoring slope but it’s close to that.

I think I take issue more with the idea that Rahm is a +7.6.  Maybe he actively maintains an index somewhere, and maybe he actually is a 7.6, but that seems very high to me, and there are links that show him significantly lower than that, as much as +13 when he really had it going. 
 

We have a Korn Ferry Tour player at my club who maintains a handicap so that he can bring his brother to play in the Member-Guest, and for purposes of money games when he’s home; he was a college AA at Duke, POY in the ACC.  He is currently a +6.2, and he wasn’t in the top 75 on the Korn Ferry money list.

 

So Jon Rahm would have to give the #80 player on the Korn Ferry money list only 1 or 2 shots?  
 

My advice to McCord would be don’t play Jon Rahm for money if you’re only getting 3 or 4 a side.  It’s a sucker bet, and that has almost zero to do with the handicap system.

Edited November 4, 2024 by bluedot

[iacas]

2 hours ago, bluedot said:

I think I take issue more with the idea that Rahm is a +7.6.  Maybe he actively maintains an index somewhere, and maybe he actually is a 7.6, but that seems very high to me, and there are links that show him significantly lower than that, as much as +13 when he really had it going. 

 

He's not a +13.

 

13 * 148 / 113 = 17.0265 

 

I don't care if the course rating is 80… he's not averaging 63 8 of 20 times. Remember, high slopes move the number toward zero, regardless of which side of 0 they're on.

[MtlJeff]

17 hours ago, bluedot said:

I’m sure that there are some 12’s that hit it 300 yds, but that’s a poor example by Kostis.  Most guys that can actually hit it 300 off the tee are significantly lower that a 12 index.  
 

While he is correct that there are multiple ways to have a 12 index, the simple fact is that a given 12 index has that index because of how long it takes him to get the ball in the hole; they’re a 12 because they’re a 12.

 

And the McCord-Rahm thing is impossible to unpack; I assume MCord is saying he’s scratch from well over 7000 yds.?  Maybe he is.

 

Exactly....I mention above similar

 

It's funny, i have 2 very good friends who have similar indexes and are basically the opposite. They are both around 11-13 indexes....One hits weak fades and kind of slaps at the ball. The other is an ex-swimmer who murders it, but has the strongest grip in the history of golf and for every 300yd drive he hits---he snap hooks one into a Best Buy 2 towns over.

 

I dont think the longer hitting friend has any advantage on a longer hole. Sure if he hits a perfect drive i guess. But if he did that every time he wouldn't be a 13

[landolakes]

Well the guy who can't hit it 200 yards is playing the wrong tees.  That should fix things.  

[betarhoalphadelta]

16 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

Exactly....I mention above similar

 

It's funny, i have 2 very good friends who have similar indexes and are basically the opposite. They are both around 11-13 indexes....One hits weak fades and kind of slaps at the ball. The other is an ex-swimmer who murders it, but has the strongest grip in the history of golf and for every 300yd drive he hits---he snap hooks one into a Best Buy 2 towns over.

 

I dont think the longer hitting friend has any advantage on a longer hole. Sure if he hits a perfect drive i guess. But if he did that every time he wouldn't be a 13

 

But that's the area where Kostis is correct. The 300-hitter has a higher ability to "go low" at any given time, because of that advantage. The fact that he doesn't is why he's a 13, of course. But for one magical round, it could happen. 

 

Take me. I'm currently hovering just over 23 index. If you look at the various handicap charts, I should be driving it maybe 200 tops. But while I'm by no means some bomber, I can carry a driver 240-250 with no problem and a little longer when I really rip one. 

 

What does this mean? I'm a 23 because I suck. But despite playing at most about every other weekend, I have 3 separate exceptional score adjustments in my GHIN history since 2021. Including one where it was a -2 stroke adjustment because I was a 24 at the time and posted a 10.3(!) differential. All it takes is a round where my misses are mostly playable, I mostly avoid really big numbers / penalty strokes, and maybe hit a few extra greens. It doesn't happen often. But it happens at a rate at which the USGA exceptional score likelihood chart would have people looking at me like I'm a sandbagger. 

 

As I've often said, for me to par or birdie a hole is never a shock to my playing partners; nor is it for me to quadruple bogey a hole. 

 

Now, compared to one of my normal playing parters... He's about 20 years my elder. While he's in fine shape for his age, he's a foot shorter and >100 lbs lighter than me. And he hits weak wipey fades. He's lucky to get 180 out of his driver on a good one. We're basically the same index; I think he's a stroke ahead right now.

 

The truth is that we score similarly most of the time. But he has less potential to truly "go low" because of the number of par 4s that he can't reach in 2 even with a 3w, whereas I can reach often with a mid or short iron. 

 

-------------------------

 

All that said, I disagree with Kostis that there's a problem that needs to be fixed. The handicap system is based on your scoring record. I'm a 23 because I play to a 23, despite hitting it farther than a "typical" 23. And we already have the exceptional score reduction adjustment in the current GHIN system to account for those outlier low scores. They're unicorn rounds. 

 

So I don't think we need to fix it. However I do think that having outlier distance for your handicap range does give you more potential for those unicorn rounds than if you don't have that distance.

[bluedot]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

He's not a +13.

 

13 * 148 / 113 = 17.0265 

 

I don't care if the course rating is 80… he's not averaging 63 8 of 20 times. Remember, high slopes move the number toward zero, regardless of which side of 0 they're on.

Do with this what you will. I didn't pull +13 out of thin air.

https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/the-mind-blowing-handicap-jon-rahm-would-currently-have

 

I realize that this article is dated, and that this was a hypothetical index.  So I looked him up; he currently carries a +9.5 at Whisper Rock in AZ.  Interestingly, McCord also plays at Whisper Rock, and his current index is 2.8.  From the tips of the Whisper Rock Upper course (75.9/146), Rahm's course handicap NOW is a +8; McCord's NOW is 8.

 

So Rahm would be giving McCord SIXTEEN shots, not 8 like McCord says in the article.  I like a good story as much as the next guy, but McCord is REALLY fudging the numbers on this.

 

[iacas]

4 hours ago, bluedot said:

Do with this what you will. I didn't pull +13 out of thin air.

https://www.golfmonthly.com/news/the-mind-blowing-handicap-jon-rahm-would-currently-have

 

The guy didn't even do the math right:

 

 

(63-77) * 113/144 = -10.986

 

He got -14.

 

The round he got -17.4 on is a -12.7 round.

 

P.S. Ha, I had liked a response tweet back when this article made the news nearly two years ago: 

 

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2024 by iacas
Postscript added

[naval2006]

One of my regular buddies hits it a real mile, the ball goes up and far and never seems to go down.  His hdc is 19.  His game is 19 hdc with loads of balls off the tee long and left or sometimes right; most greens missed, and average chipping and putting for his hdc. I don't think a hdc reduction due to length would suit him at all.  

 

What determines your ability in golf is the shot quality and range of shots at your disposal; the ability to shoot the lowest you can hole by hole and avoidance of blow-up holes.  

[bluedot]

1 hour ago, naval2006 said:

One of my regular buddies hits it a real mile, the ball goes up and far and never seems to go down.  His hdc is 19.  His game is 19 hdc with loads of balls off the tee long and left or sometimes right; most greens missed, and average chipping and putting for his hdc. I don't think a hdc reduction due to length would suit him at all.  

 

What determines your ability in golf is the shot quality and range of shots at your disposal; the ability to shoot the lowest you can hole by hole and avoidance of blow-up holes.  

Agreed.  Though I believe that honest double digit indexes who hit the ball 300 off the tee are rare, the bottom line is that your index is your index because that’s just who you are.

 

I suppose that I can accept the argument that a 12 who is extremely long off the tee might have a better chance at a great day than a 12 who hits it 200 off the tee, but even that doesn’t really make mathematical sense.  He’s still a 12…