Kostis and McCord about handicaps

[Augster]

On 11/4/2024 at 11:16 AM, 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

 

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.

 

STOP using real numbers. 🙂

 

Great job finding the real numbers. Rahm giving McCord 16 from the same back tees seems correct. An old man would need almost a shot a hole to have any chance against Rahm in his current prime. 

[st1800e]

So McCord really gets 16 shots….rather than the approx 10 he implies….”i have no chance”.

 

Don’t know if they play by, or follow the course handicap charts at Whisperock, or just negotiate on the first tee….

 

But the bottom line here is that their podcast is just CLICKBAIT.  They earn revenue by clicks.  

 

 

[Pepperturbo]

On 11/2/2024 at 2:22 PM, lchang said:

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

Their thoughts make sense.  A 12 index that can hit it 290 or 300, is going to have a good day in which everything works.  It may be his game is improving, so his index is on the way down.  In that case, his distance can be the difference.  When that happens he could beat me as a 2 index; I've seen similar.  But most of the time, that isn't likely to happen.  Then there's that other McCord factor, being honest.  LOL 

Edited November 6, 2024 by Pepperturbo

[jholz]

As a former country club busboy and caddie, I can tell you one thing for certain.

 

Golf handicaps mainly exist to help mediocre, but wealthy, people feel better about themselves. You may not realize it, but these folks need a great deal of help and support. 

 

From what I can gather, being wealthy is particularly difficult - and even more so when you are mediocre. These folks tend to ask themselves questions, late at night, like: "Do I deserve this?"

 

The cure (besides cocaine) - winning the member-guest!

 

Taking the victory with a final round score of 93 sure does help to alleviate those existential quandaries.

Edited November 6, 2024 by jholz

[jholz]

1 hour ago, jholz said:

As a former country club busboy and caddie, I can tell you one thing for certain.

 

Golf handicaps mainly exist to help mediocre, but wealthy, people feel better about themselves. You may not realize it, but these folks need a great deal of help and support. 

 

From what I can gather, being wealthy is particularly difficult - and even more so when you are mediocre. These folks tend to ask themselves questions, late at night, like: "Do I deserve this?"

 

The cure (besides cocaine) - winning the member-guest!

 

Taking the victory with a final round score of 93 sure does help to alleviate those existential quandaries.

 

Oh @davep043, can't you stick with me and take a dose of truth with a little bit of punk-rock humor?

 

Have you been a busboy or caddie at a private club? Can you provide a counter to my perspective?

 

If so, you know I'm interested in hearing it and will do so with an open mind. 

 

 

[davep043]

 

1 hour ago, jholz said:

Golf handicaps mainly exist to help mediocre, but wealthy, people feel better about themselves. You may not realize it, but these folks need a great deal of help and support. 

 

14 minutes ago, jholz said:

Oh @davep043, can't you stick with me and take a dose of truth with a little bit of punk-rock humor?

 

There's a difference between "truth" and opinion.  Certainly there ARE people, rich or not, who derive some kind of self-worth from winning at golf.  But in my personal experience, there are many more who love to compete, who love to have a fair chance, and the handicap system exists primarily for those people, not the rich a**holes you mention.  I'm a 8 handicap right now, but I can compete pretty evenly with scratch players and with 30 handicappers only because of handicaps.  Without handicaps, I'd reduce the possibility for moderately fair matches by 80% or 90%.  

 

 

[jholz]

3 minutes ago, davep043 said:

 

 

 

There's a difference between "truth" and opinion.  Certainly there ARE people, rich or not, who derive some kind of self-worth from winning at golf.  But in my personal experience, there are many more who love to compete, who love to have a fair chance, and the handicap system exists primarily for those people, not the rich a**holes you mention.  I'm a 8 handicap right now, but I can compete pretty evenly with scratch players and with 30 handicappers only because of handicaps.  Without handicaps, I'd reduce the possibility for moderately fair matches by 80% or 90%.  

 

 

 

I recognize that my opinion is extreme - but I have yet to see an actual counter to it. 

 

I play munis mostly. I frequent private clubs occasionally.

 

The only people at the muni who care about handicaps are guys (like me) trying to qualify for tournaments, or folks that play in the league. 

 

Other than that, no one cares. 

[davep043]

1 minute ago, jholz said:

 

I recognize that my opinion is extreme - but I have yet to see an actual counter to it. 

 

I play munis mostly. I frequent private clubs occasionally.

 

The only people at the muni who care about handicaps are guys (like me) trying to qualify for tournaments, or folks that play in the league. 

 

Other than that, no one cares. 

I play at a not-very-exclusive private club.  I play with a wide variety of players, who generally keep a handicap properly.   We play for a dollar or two, not much, and we play off our handicaps.  I play in inter-club handicap leagues, we're not good enough to play the scratch leagues, and we play for the competition with old and new friends.  So your "truth" that handicaps exist so wealthy bad golfers can feel good about themselves is complete  💩 (imo).

[Ty_Webb]

Really what they're saying is that the steady eddie type who has little variance in his scores is going to struggle against the wilder person who has more variance, when the wilder guy is on his game. But given that handicap is already based on top 8 out of 20, that variance is already built in. So if those two 12 handicaps play 100 matches, the steady one is going to win more often than he loses (on average). Their average score is closer to their handicap, while wild guy has an average score further from their handicap. If anything I think they're the wrong way around. 

 

Then you've got Jon Rahm who murders it and has all the rest of his game together too. McCord won't have a chance without the right number of shots, but the right number of shots has nothing to do with Rahm being longer than he is.

[vandyfan]

For all my complaints about the handicap system, it comes down to the fact that I didn't grow up playing golf and the idea of handicapping was strange to me as it didn't exist in any other sports I played growing up. As I have played for several years now, I am coming to appreciate how accurately maintained handicaps can level games out between people and generally make almost any matchup interesting. Candidly, I am annoyed when I "lose" to a worse player but it tends to go that if I play really well for me I will win, if I play average it is 50/50 and when I play like crap I usually "lose." In that respect, it works.

 

HOWEVER, giving strokes to players on par 3s felt and still feels crazy to me. Any fairly competent golfer (20 HDCP or better) getting a shot on a par 3 is like Christmas come early. As a 4-5, I give my friend (a 19 HDCP) a shot on 3 out of the 4 par 3s, one of which is a 165 yd par 3 with no OB or hazards aside from a bunker. If he keeps it on the planet he has a HUGE advantage, so much so that I have instituted a "no strokes on par 3s" rule that he grudgingly accepted. I give him two shots on a par 5 and just always assume I am going to lose that hole. 

[sui generis]

Why do so many think that their "hunch" about the handicap system is better than the mountains of data in the hands of the R&A and USGA? 😉

[Pepperturbo]

1 hour ago, jholz said:

 

Oh @davep043, can't you stick with me and take a dose of truth with a little bit of punk-rock humor?

 

Have you been a busboy or caddie at a private club? Can you provide a counter to my perspective?

 

If so, you know I'm interested in hearing it and will do so with an open mind. 

 

 

I agree with @davep043! Wealth or not, IME a person's behaviour and competitive nature on the golf course and handicap maintenance is guided by their character.  

[jholz]

22 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

I agree with @davep043! Wealth or not, IME a person's behaviour and competitive nature on the golf course and handicap maintenance is guided by their character.  

 

And your character is beyond reproach...

 

Schooled at Eton. Luge lessons. In the spring you would make meat helmets. Pretty standard, really...

 

Love you Pepper. Keep zinging those 2i!

[DaveLeeNC]

On the question of 'a better handicap system' ... I see the major limitation of being that a basic assumption is that all golfers with the same index respond the same to course changes that affect course difficulty.

 

Bogey Golfer A who plays a dozen times a year, can hit the ball 240 in the air with a good swing, but has ball contact all over the face is not the same as Bogey Golfer B who was a high single digit handicap 30 years ago and is now 85 years old with a 20 index. He can't hit the ball more than 135 in the air but never misses a fairway.

 

When you move these two from a wide open course to a narrow and punishing course, their scoring changes will not be the same (even though they have the same index). Same thing is true with distance changes.

 

If you want to fix this you are going to have to quantify the various skills of each golfer and have a bunch of different parameters (beyond slope and rating) for each golf course/tee set. I don't see it being practical and I am continually amazed at how well the current system (utilizing the various tee options) equalizes play among the guys that I compete with (indexes varying from high single digits to high 30's).

 

dave

[sui generis]

3 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

On the question of 'a better handicap system' ... I see the major limitation of being that a basic assumption is that all golfers with the same index respond the same to course changes that affect course difficulty.

 

Bogey Golfer A who plays a dozen times a year, can hit the ball 240 in the air with a good swing, but has ball contact all over the face is not the same as Bogey Golfer B who was a high single digit handicap 30 years ago and is now 85 years old with a 20 index. He can't hit the ball more than 135 in the air but never misses a fairway.

 

When you move these two from a wide open course to a narrow and punishing course, their scoring changes will not be the same (even though they have the same index). Same thing is true with distance changes.

 

If you want to fix this you are going to have to quantify the various skills of each golfer and have a bunch of different parameters (beyond slope and rating) for each golf course/tee set. I don't see it being practical and I am continually amazed at how well the current system (utilizing the various tee options) equalizes play among the guys that I compete with (indexes varying from high single digits to high 30's).

 

dave

 

It's obvious, Dave. Each player gets to invent their own system of determing their own handicap based on their own anecdotal evidence or no evidence whatsoever. Then, they declare it before play, why they can even change it during the round if needs be. Nothing can go wrong in this system. 😉

[rogolf]

15 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

It's obvious, Dave. Each player gets to invent their own system of determing their own handicap based on their own anecdotal evidence or no evidence whatsoever. Then, they declare it before play, why they can even change it during the round if needs be. Nothing can go wrong in this system. 😉

It's then not a "system" but a constant negotiation.  🫢

[sui generis]

5 minutes ago, rogolf said:

It's then not a "system" but a constant negotiation.  🫢

Hey, it fits right in with rolling 'em everywhere and limitless gimmies. 

[mshills]

19 hours ago, jholz said:

As a former country club busboy and caddie, I can tell you one thing for certain.

 

Golf handicaps mainly exist to help mediocre, but wealthy, people feel better about themselves. You may not realize it, but these folks need a great deal of help and support. 

 

From what I can gather, being wealthy is particularly difficult - and even more so when you are mediocre. These folks tend to ask themselves questions, late at night, like: "Do I deserve this?"

 

The cure (besides cocaine) - winning the member-guest!

 

Taking the victory with a final round score of 93 sure does help to alleviate those existential quandaries.

 

I have waited tables, caddied, and worked in the bag room at several very private clubs.  One was/is known to be rife with sticks, very good, accomplished players.  Another club had a lot of prominent national members.  Another club was borderline fossils, but they were cool old guys who were a lot of fun to caddy for and liked to spread it 💰 around.

 

I have also been a member at a couple of clubs and am at a mid-tier now.  Neither imposter syndrome nor coke have anything to do with it man.

 

Handicaps have nothing to do with all the emotional nonsense you’re mentioning.  You know why we have handicaps?  So lots of members can play meaningful games against lots of other members.  For even more fun, we will have events with other clubs.  Organized events, one of the huge benefits of a club membership, are difficult / impossible to run without a handicapping system.

 

As far as the 12 running off at the mouth that he “beat” the +2 that morning…..that stuff must only happen on the internet.  Out here in the real world, that never happens.

 

Some of the other comments in this thread hit a nerve for me.  I used to be a good player, then I got injured and thought I had the game taken away from me forever.  I’m now an adaptive player, well into a double digit index, and yet I can still enter every event and get the juice of competition again.  I cannot play basketball or soccer at any level any more, I can’t jog, can’t climb a ladder, but I still have this game, and the thrill of competing, available to me, and that is wonderful.  If you think that is somehow silly or unfair, we should have a conversation.

[Ty_Webb]

46 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

On the question of 'a better handicap system' ... I see the major limitation of being that a basic assumption is that all golfers with the same index respond the same to course changes that affect course difficulty.

 

Bogey Golfer A who plays a dozen times a year, can hit the ball 240 in the air with a good swing, but has ball contact all over the face is not the same as Bogey Golfer B who was a high single digit handicap 30 years ago and is now 85 years old with a 20 index. He can't hit the ball more than 135 in the air but never misses a fairway.

 

When you move these two from a wide open course to a narrow and punishing course, their scoring changes will not be the same (even though they have the same index). Same thing is true with distance changes.

 

If you want to fix this you are going to have to quantify the various skills of each golfer and have a bunch of different parameters (beyond slope and rating) for each golf course/tee set. I don't see it being practical and I am continually amazed at how well the current system (utilizing the various tee options) equalizes play among the guys that I compete with (indexes varying from high single digits to high 30's).

 

dave

 

I think the reason that happens is because those differences don't have *that* much of an impact on scoring. Maybe a shot or two in the extremes. Given most people's scoring variance is probably 12-15 shots over the course of a season (I managed an 18 shot swing on the same course two days running...), it will take a long time and a lot of play for those differences to show up in outcomes. So B might be slightly better than A on the tighter course, but they'd probably have to play 30-50 games before you'd see a pattern emerge and even then you'd have to be looking for it. If someone wins 30 and loses 20, you'd have to be paying attention to notice that and I don't think it would be that extreme anyway.

[jholz]

20 hours ago, davep043 said:

I play at a not-very-exclusive private club.  I play with a wide variety of players, who generally keep a handicap properly.   We play for a dollar or two, not much, and we play off our handicaps.  I play in inter-club handicap leagues, we're not good enough to play the scratch leagues, and we play for the competition with old and new friends.  So your "truth" that handicaps exist so wealthy bad golfers can feel good about themselves is complete  💩 (imo).

 

My argument has nothing to do with what you, or your clubmates, happen to do individually here in the present day.

 

Golf "handicapping" stems from a deeper place in history, and the culture from which it emerged still influences us today. Most folks have no idea.

 

The "idea" of golf handicapping emerges almost as early as the game itself. Yet, handicapping is not officially codified until the later 19th century. 

 

For those that know something about the origins of English sport - that late 19th century date for codification is significant.

 

It plays into the larger transformation of sport that was taking place in England and the U.S. at the time and evidences the class-based nature of the dialog surrounding the issue. 

 

I'd invite you to do some research into the 1883 F.A. Cup Final. It will give you some of what you need to know about this subject, and perhaps you will be able to see my point (if not agree with it).

Edited November 7, 2024 by jholz

[DaveLeeNC]

23 hours ago, jholz said:

I recognize that my opinion is extreme - but I have yet to see an actual counter to it. 

 

I play munis mostly. I frequent private clubs occasionally.

 

The only people at the muni who care about handicaps are guys (like me) trying to qualify for tournaments, or folks that play in the league. 

 

Other than that, no one cares

 

In general people play muni's to play golf with their friends. They know their friends and handicaps are not necessary to balance out games. And in many cases there isn't a game. Just go play golf.  Either way having a handicap brings little extra value.

 

In general people play private clubs for the private club activities (including golf). In this case not everybody knows everybody and the only way (or at least the best way) that I know of to equalize competitions is the handicap system.

 

I have two childhood friends visiting me next week (they are muni type players). We are going to just play golf. When I play my FridayGolf guys at the club - we use our handicaps and play a match of some kind.

 

I honestly see the point being made here.

 

dave

 

ps. Maybe the point has something to do with this ...

 

Golf "handicapping" stems from a deeper place in history, and the culture from which it emerged still influences us today. Most folks have no idea.

 

I still don't get it and struggle to imagine kind of historical context would matter at this point.

Edited November 7, 2024 by DaveLeeNC

[caniac6]

Sorry, but when I read Mc Cord and Kostis I figured it would be a goofy idea.

[iacas]

17 minutes ago, caniac6 said:

Sorry, but when I read Mc Cord and Kostis I figured it would be a goofy idea.

 

Yeah. We just need driver faces that explode when you're winning by more than 2 up. It's like pressing, but in reverse. 😛 

[jholz]

41 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

In general people play muni's to play golf with their friends. They know their friends and handicaps are not necessary to balance out games. And in many cases there isn't a game. Just go play golf.  Either way having a handicap brings little extra value.

 

In general people play private clubs for the private club activities (including golf). In this case not everybody knows everybody and the only way (or at least the best way) that I know of to equalize competitions is the handicap system.

 

I have two childhood friends visiting me next week (they are muni type players). We are going to just play golf. When I play my FridayGolf guys at the club - we use our handicaps and play a match of some kind.

 

I honestly see the point being made here.

 

dave

 

ps. Maybe the point has something to do with this ...

 

Golf "handicapping" stems from a deeper place in history, and the culture from which it emerged still influences us today. Most folks have no idea.

 

I still don't get it and struggle to imagine kind of historical context would matter at this point.

 

I get it. Most folks won't think about these kinds of things - but to the extent that sport has become central to lives in the contemporary era, I would suggest that we do so. 

 

So, I wonder...

 

Why is the "golf club" a bastion of "equalized competition?" Why is it so important to equalize competition there, when it seems completely antithetical to pretty much everything else we do in life. 

 

We constantly complain about "everyone getting a trophy" and yet that's pretty much what the handicap system is.  

 

Reconcile those contradictions for me sir, and you will find truth. 

[Warrior42111]

18 minutes ago, jholz said:

 

 

Why is the "golf club" a bastion of "equalized competition?" Why is it so important to equalize competition there, when it seems completely antithetical to pretty much everything else we do in life. 

 

 

I'll jump in with most recreation level sports are handicapped

 

Bowling, tennis, pickleball

Even baseball /softball leagues are tiered usually.

 

I'm not saying you're wrong at all, I just think the sense and feeling of competition is something many enjoy at the non elite level. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

20 minutes ago, jholz said:

 

I get it. Most folks won't think about these kinds of things - but to the extent that sport has become central to lives in the contemporary era, I would suggest that we do so. 

 

So, I wonder...

 

Why is the "golf club" a bastion of "equalized competition?" Why is it so important to equalize competition there, when it seems completely antithetical to pretty much everything else we do in life. 

 

We constantly complain about "everyone getting a trophy" and yet that's pretty much what the handicap system is.  

 

Reconcile those contradictions for me sir, and you will find truth. 

 

Golf is certainly not the only place where we equalize competition. In boxing, we don't ask flyweight fighters to box against heavyweights. In martial arts tournaments, they group people by belt color so you don't have a white belt competing against a black belt. In chess, it can be a common thing when you have two people with a skill difference for one player to start the game without a piece--the value of that piece dependent on how big of a difference there is in skill. 

 

Why do we do these things? Because if you don't, you might as well not have a game at all. Because a flyweight won't even step in the ring with a heavyweight, a white belt won't bother to compete against a black belt, and a chess player with an Elo rating of 1200 isn't going to bother competing with a master. 

 

If I'm playing golf with someone whose handicap is half of mine, and that player suggests "hey, let's play straight up for $10 a hole", I'm going to say "Nope." I'll play golf with the dude, but I'm not going to put money on the line competing with him. It's basically a donation at that point. 

 

So one option is to only engage in flighted competition, whether organized or ad hoc, such that we only compete with players at our skill level. This would be akin to having flyweights only box other flyweights and heavyweights only box other heavyweights. That's fine--if you either have a large enough field of golfers to flight a competition by skill level, or only play with golfers whose skill level is the same as yours. 

 

Or we can handicap it, such that we have a mathematical system that equalizes the competition for us, such that we can play against anyone at any time. 

 

Golf lends itself well to the latter. Which is why we do it. Otherwise there would be much less competition entirely. 

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, jholz said:

 

I get it. Most folks won't think about these kinds of things - but to the extent that sport has become central to lives in the contemporary era, I would suggest that we do so. 

 

So, I wonder...

 

Why is the "golf club" a bastion of "equalized competition?" Why is it so important to equalize competition there, when it seems completely antithetical to pretty much everything else we do in life. 

 

We constantly complain about "everyone getting a trophy" and yet that's pretty much what the handicap system is.  

 

Reconcile those contradictions for me sir, and you will find truth. 

 

The driver here is organized golf (which, by definition, includes a large # of golfers who don't all know each other's game). In Muni golf organized play exists but is the exception. At private clubs organized play is kind of the basis of the organization.

 

I grew up on muni golf. I played with a couple of friends, we moved course to course based on tee time availability and price. The handicap system did not solve any of the problems that we had.

 

When I retired I became a club golfer. I knew pretty much nobody at the club and there were a couple of organized groups that were a great way to meet friends. And you gotta have a handicap to participate. Without some kind of structured way to compensate for the huge range of skills, the organized golf experience would have suffered greatly (IMHO).

 

And it is a far cry from everybody gets a trophy. It is also far different than "only the best golfer gets a trophy".

 

Others have mentioned the numerous individual sports that handicap via flights plus some form of skill assessment. Running is interesting in that it is an individual sport with little to no 'handicapping' (beyond maybe some age group stuff). In my running experience for the vast majority of participants it was about 'racing against your PR' (your Personal Record) for a given distance. Or maybe some kind of relatively arbitrary standard like the 3 hour marathon.

 

dave

Edited November 7, 2024 by DaveLeeNC

[mshills]

21 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Golf is certainly not the only place where we equalize competition. In boxing, we don't ask flyweight fighters to box against heavyweights. In martial arts tournaments, they group people by belt color so you don't have a white belt competing against a black belt. In chess, it can be a common thing when you have two people with a skill difference for one player to start the game without a piece--the value of that piece dependent on how big of a difference there is in skill. 

 

Why do we do these things? Because if you don't, you might as well not have a game at all. Because a flyweight won't even step in the ring with a heavyweight, a white belt won't bother to compete against a black belt, and a chess player with an Elo rating of 1200 isn't going to bother competing with a master. 

 

If I'm playing golf with someone whose handicap is half of mine, and that player suggests "hey, let's play straight up for $10 a hole", I'm going to say "Nope." I'll play golf with the dude, but I'm not going to put money on the line competing with him. It's basically a donation at that point. 

 

So one option is to only engage in flighted competition, whether organized or ad hoc, such that we only compete with players at our skill level. This would be akin to having flyweights only box other flyweights and heavyweights only box other heavyweights. That's fine--if you either have a large enough field of golfers to flight a competition by skill level, or only play with golfers whose skill level is the same as yours. 

 

Or we can handicap it, such that we have a mathematical system that equalizes the competition for us, such that we can play against anyone at any time. 

 

Golf lends itself well to the latter. Which is why we do it. Otherwise there would be much less competition entirely. 

100%, and I’m not sure why this is controversial. 
 

I would not want to belong to a club where there were like 5 guys I’d have a close match with. Forget that, you know how old that would get? How would you even begin to have a club-wide organized event, or an interclub?

 

I play a buddy all the time who is a +1. I buy drinks probably 60% of the time….better players still win more often, and when he comes off the hip for me, I don’t exactly go around saying how I took him down, because that would be absurd. He beats me straight up 999.5 out of 1000 times, and where’s the entertainment in that?  Neither of us would bother. 

[ChrisSP]

On 11/3/2024 at 10:25 AM, bcflyguy1 said:

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

 

Bingo.

[dan360]

Unpopular opinion….   

If the slope rating table truly goes from 55-155 and golf course design keeps up with this trend of long “PGA” style, at what point are we crossing that 155 line and/or will the difficulty between a 150-155 slope be judged the same as 115-120, or will we have a situation where orders of magnitude get involved?

 

When places are already 149 slopes and pros are shooting low 60s…. Where do we go for amateurs who barely break 230 off the tee?

 

 

 

Edited November 8, 2024 by dan360