Kostis and McCord about handicaps

[Pnwpingi210]

45 minutes ago, dan360 said:

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?

 

 

 

Play more forward tees?  I can’t imagine hitting the ball 230 is a problem from whatever the most forward tee is.

[DaveLeeNC]

51 minutes ago, dan360 said:

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?

 

 

 

Slope has a very small effect on the highly skilled golfers where playing at 7600+ yards makes sense - course rating is the dominant parameter in their differential/strokes calculation.

 

For lesser skilled golfers where slope is important - it just doesn't seem like those are the tees that fit their game.

 

dave

[bluedot]

16 hours 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. 

You are on a soapbox the size of Mt Everest, and that’s certainly your right.  
 

But the idea that the handicap system in golf is in any way unique, or even a good example of an “everybody gets a trophy” mentality, is just flat out wrong.  There is absolutely nothing unique to the handicapping system in golf; as others have pointed out, there are similar “adjustments “ made in many, many other sports.

 

Age groupings exist in ALL junior sports, and are increasingly found in all adult sports.  No reasonable person expects a 10 yr old to hit a fastball thrown by an 18 yr old, just as nobody expects a 65 yr old tennis player to compete against 25 yr old.  I was a HS basketball coach for 40 years; every two years, schools were reclassified according to size for the purpose of reasonable competition.  
 

As to private clubs and the handicap system, you are dead wrong about the way that is used.  At every club of which I’ve been a member, including my current club, there is every form of competition you can think of; there are tournaments that are handicapped AND flighted, and there are tournaments played at scratch.  At EVERY club I’ve been part of, or even know about, the club champion is determined in a tournament played from the back tees with no handicaps at all.  
 

I have three more senior tournaments at the state association level remaining in 2024 for an even 20 for the year.  All but three had gross AND net winners; the other three were championship level tournaments and were gross only.

 

Guys play golf using handicaps for pretty simple reasons; it expands competition to include more people.  In the regular Thursday game I play in, yesterday we had 16 guys with an age range of almost 30 years, with guys playing from 4 different sets of tees.  After the round, we sat around having a beer and settling up; I not only didn’t get a trophy, I lost $6.  But I loved the competition, and I’ll be out there again tomorrow morning and Sunday as well.  I’m 72, and however long I have left to do this, it isn’t enough.  The handicap system lets me compete against guys that are young enough to be my grandson, and hit it as far as I did when I was their age.  They don’t have a gun to their head to make them play in a net format; like me, they would just rather compete than eat.

 

I’m sorry you’ve apparently had bad experiences as an employee at private clubs; without a doubt, you can come across some entitled a**holes at private clubs, perhaps disproportionately so at certain clubs compared to the general society.  But that has ZERO to do with golf or the handicap system.  I’d urge you to try to figure out what you’re really mad about without muddying the water.

Edited November 8, 2024 by bluedot

[Ty_Webb]

14 hours ago, dan360 said:

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?

 

 

 

 

Slope on its own is not a measure of course difficulty. It's a measure of relative difficulty for a scratch vs bogey golfer. A higher slope with the same course rating means the course is easier for the pros. 

 

Two courses - one is 73.0/150. The other is 73.0/130. It's easier to shoot 63 on the first course than the second (all else being equal). 63 on the first course is a -7.5 and the second course it's a -8.7. That might seem counter intuitive, but you need to look at what those courses would likely look like. The course rating is the same, so a typical scratch ought to shoot the same score when they have a "good" day - 73. That means that one course is probably shorter and has more trouble on it and the other longer and has less trouble. It's not quite as simple as that course rating is based on length and slope is based on how many hazards there are, but that's the gist of it. Longer typically means higher slope too just because there is more room for the bogey golfer to demonstrate how bad he is, so for the longer course to have the lower slope, there must be less trouble.

 

Longer courses are harder to shoot good scores on because you're spending more time further from the hole. Courses with more trouble are also harder to score on. So if they're equally difficult for a scratch then those two levers are being pulled differently. The better you are, the less the trouble impacts your play. So tour players should score lower on higher slope courses if they're the same course rating.

[Ty_Webb]

Duplicate

Edited November 8, 2024 by Ty_Webb

[Newby]

44 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Slope on its own is not a measure of course difficulty. It's a measure of relative difficulty for a scratch vs bogey golfer. A higher slope with the same course rating means the course is easier for the pros. 

 

 

The CR simply says the difficulty for two model scratch players is the same. It tells you nothing specifically about length. 

Slope says that the higher the slope the more difficult the course is for a model bogey player. As the major difference between the model scratch and bogey player is length of shot, the probability is the higher the slope the longer the course.

But it all depends on where the rated obstacles (ie trouble) are for the relevant player.

 

Edited November 8, 2024 by Newby

[Pnwpingi210]

20 hours 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. 

So if I’m playing a 4 way stroke play handicap game this weekend, we just split the pot 4 ways equally for showing up?  
 

Or do we play and the person the performs the best over 18 holes that relative to their ability win?

 

I'm confused by your analogy of participation vs performance.

Edited November 8, 2024 by Pnwpingi210

[jholz]

Hey @bluedot, @Pnwpingi210, @DaveLeeNC, @betarhoalphadelta, @Warrior42111, and anyone I've neglected...

 

Tough to find a cohesive way to respond to everyone. I recognize the fervor (offense?) and would like to acknowledge everyone's opinion. I hope I don't neglect anyone... 

 

Um yeah, this may be a soapbox issue. I'm a poor kid. Grandpa taught me golf. I attended private schools on scholarship. Was a cook, caterer, and teacher. Been serving rich people my whole life. 

 

Beyond that, I was an internationally ranked and sponsored junior ski racer in the late 80's. I had a brief career as a professional skateboarder. I know the economics of sport first hand.  

 

I also had a brief (and highly unsuccessful) academic career exploring the ideas that I've presented in this thread. I can remember a particularly spirited discussion with Stefan Syzmanski at Hofstra University one afternoon... Check him out. He's "impressive."

https://www.kines.umich.edu/directory/stefan-szymanski

 

So, I do apologize for hurting anyone's feelings and I'm not trying to ruin your local game. I just happen to enjoy talking about this stuff.  

 

I believe that the ways that we have structured competition in sport reflects our values, and our culture. It is a place where British and American culture probably most closely intersect (except for maybe music). So, interesting stuff!

 

Golf, and the golf handicap system, represent a very singular and unique facet of this discussion. 

 

Because it remains largely an upper class game, golf is among the first modern sports to be loosely codified - and also the one that seems to resist open competition most effectively. 

 

Historically speaking, it is America, and the PGA (perhaps Francis Oimet) that forces golf to open competition.

 

I believe it is important to think about this stuff, to contemplate our place in the history of this game, and think about our impact on the game moving forward.

 

Just one mildly educated idiot's opinion. Hope I've given y'all something to think about - just trying to return the favor. 🙂    

 

Edited November 8, 2024 by jholz

[betarhoalphadelta]

27 minutes ago, jholz said:

 

So, I do apologize for hurting anyone's feelings and I'm not trying to ruin your local game. I just happen to enjoy talking about this stuff.  

 

I believe that the ways that we have structured competition in sport reflects our values, and our culture. It is a place where British and American culture probably most closely intersect (except for maybe music). So, interesting stuff!

 

Golf, and the golf handicap system, represent a very singular and unique facet of this discussion. 

 

Because it remains largely an upper class game, golf is among the first modern sports to be loosely codified - and also the one that seems to resist open competition most effectively. 

 

Historically speaking, it is America, and the PGA (perhaps Francis Oimet) that forces golf to open competition.

 

I believe it is important to think about this stuff, to contemplate our place in the history of this game, and think about our impact on the game moving forward.

 

 

@jholz thanks for your post, and pointing out your history with regards to the game and society. And don't worry; you didn't offend me or ruin my local game. 

 

But I think you're missing a very important point here. All golfers, ultimately, acknowledge that getting the ball into the hole, over 18 holes, in fewer strokes than another golfer is "beating" that golfer. That is the nature of the game, and that's what we're all attempting to do.

 

And when it comes to high-level competition, events are gross, not net. Because we know that once you get to a certain level of skill, it's about the number on the scorecard, and we don't adjust it for the handicap. 

 

But when it comes to golf, there is quite often another competition overlaid on top of the actual game of the golf; gambling. And when gambling is involved, you have to offer odds that facilitate action. 

 

For example, tomorrow, my Purdue Boilermakers, with their 1-8 record, travel to Columbus to take on the 8-1 Ohio State Buckeyes. Vegas, being what they are, want people to bet on this game. Do they offer even odds so that any bet on the Buckeyes pays 1:1? No. Because they know that everyone will bet on OSU, none on Purdue, and the casinos will lose their shirts on that bet. If they had to offer it 1:1, they simply wouldn't offer the bet at all because they couldn't afford it. 

 

Instead, they offer a bet against the spread. You can take the Purdue Boilermakers plus 38 points, or you can take the Ohio State Buckeyes minus 38 points. Because they think setting the "spread" there will help to get an even amount of action on both sides of the game. They want to facilitate action, not just reward people for picking the game winner when the game winner is almost a foregone conclusion. 

 

Ultimately, if Purdue only loses by 20 tomorrow, nobody's going to call them the "winner" of the matchup. But there are going to be a lot of people in Vegas happy because they beat the spread. 

 

The only difference in golf is that the people playing the game and the people gambling on the game are the same people. And we use the handicap system to facilitate action, because a 23.2 handicap (me) is never going to bet an 8.2 handicap player straight up because I'd be assured of losing 98 times out of 100. We either use the handicap system for the gambling portion, or we just don't gamble at all. Golfers like to gamble, and the handicap system exists to facilitate that. 

[jholz]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

@jholz thanks for your post, and pointing out your history with regards to the game and society. And don't worry; you didn't offend me or ruin my local game. 

 

But I think you're missing a very important point here. All golfers, ultimately, acknowledge that getting the ball into the hole, over 18 holes, in fewer strokes than another golfer is "beating" that golfer. That is the nature of the game, and that's what we're all attempting to do.

 

And when it comes to high-level competition, events are gross, not net. Because we know that once you get to a certain level of skill, it's about the number on the scorecard, and we don't adjust it for the handicap. 

 

But when it comes to golf, there is quite often another competition overlaid on top of the actual game of the golf; gambling. And when gambling is involved, you have to offer odds that facilitate action. 

 

For example, tomorrow, my Purdue Boilermakers, with their 1-8 record, travel to Columbus to take on the 8-1 Ohio State Buckeyes. Vegas, being what they are, want people to bet on this game. Do they offer even odds so that any bet on the Buckeyes pays 1:1? No. Because they know that everyone will bet on OSU, none on Purdue, and the casinos will lose their shirts on that bet. If they had to offer it 1:1, they simply wouldn't offer the bet at all because they couldn't afford it. 

 

Instead, they offer a bet against the spread. You can take the Purdue Boilermakers plus 38 points, or you can take the Ohio State Buckeyes minus 38 points. Because they think setting the "spread" there will help to get an even amount of action on both sides of the game. They want to facilitate action, not just reward people for picking the game winner when the game winner is almost a foregone conclusion. 

 

Ultimately, if Purdue only loses by 20 tomorrow, nobody's going to call them the "winner" of the matchup. But there are going to be a lot of people in Vegas happy because they beat the spread. 

 

The only difference in golf is that the people playing the game and the people gambling on the game are the same people. And we use the handicap system to facilitate action, because a 23.2 handicap (me) is never going to bet an 8.2 handicap player straight up because I'd be assured of losing 98 times out of 100. We either use the handicap system for the gambling portion, or we just don't gamble at all. Golfers like to gamble, and the handicap system exists to facilitate that. 

 

Well yes, gambling. This is the other major thread of the story. 

 

From my perspective, gambling is not true competition.  Gambling, in it's most base form doesn't care who wins or looses. It only seeks to beat the spread and make a profit. That ain't sport. It's finance.

 

Another interesting, but slightly adjacent example is Connie Mack, who learned he could earn more money with a mediocre baseball team than a competitive one. 

 

To me, there's competition - and then there's money. People who have a lot of money seem very reluctant to separate the two.  

 

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

5 hours ago, jholz said:

Because it remains largely an upper class game, golf is among the first modern sports to be loosely codified - and also the one that seems to resist open competition most effectively. 

 

Historically speaking, it is America, and the PGA (perhaps Francis Oimet) that forces golf to open competition.

 

Could you expand on what you mean here. I honestly can't comprehend what you are saying. What is it about the USGA that seems 'closed' to you?

 

dave

[bluedot]

14 hours ago, jholz said:

 

Well yes, gambling. This is the other major thread of the story. 

 

From my perspective, gambling is not true competition.  Gambling, in it's most base form doesn't care who wins or looses. It only seeks to beat the spread and make a profit. That ain't sport. It's finance.

 

Another interesting, but slightly adjacent example is Connie Mack, who learned he could earn more money with a mediocre baseball team than a competitive one. 

 

To me, there's competition - and then there's money. People who have a lot of money seem very reluctant to separate the two.  

 

 

 

I have absolutely no idea what this means.

 

But bro, you REALLY come across as bitter.  

[NorthTexasGlfr]

I do feel better now knowing that I am not the only one having trouble understanding what @jholz is trying to say in his posts, lol. 

[Schulzmc]

20 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

But when it comes to golf, there is quite often another competition overlaid on top of the actual game of the golf; gambling. And when gambling is involved, you have to offer odds that facilitate action. 

I agree that gambling adds an aspect here… but it is NOT the reason the handicap system exists, IMHO.

 

For me it is competition. I have a regular group of guys I play with. There is a range of ability in that group. If we played without handicaps I would win 8 or 9 times out of 10. But with handicaps it ends up being pretty even. And on any given week any one of us could win. That isn’t giving out participation trophies… it is giving competitive people an outlet for that competitive spirit. When I know I have to play my best to win, winning is fun. And when I miss a couple putts that could have won the week, I am still stewing about it three days later. (LOL) Without handicaps none of that would happen.

 

And there are MANY other sports who level the playing field. Our bowling league is handicapped. The state high school football tournament has tiers. Our local D-III college football team could not compete with the Ohio States of the world, but are nationally ranked in their division. When I play chess with another friend he normally starts without a bishop which gives me a much better chance to win and offers him a challenge where there would normally be an easy game. With another friend we play HORSE on the bball hoop in the driveway and I spot him the “H” and the “O” to make it more even. 

 

Again - the goal is competition, and not just determining skill level, or financial (gambling). For me that is what sport is all about.

[davep043]

20 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

Again - the goal is competition, and not just determining skill level, or financial (gambling). For me that is what sport is all about.

I agree with this, sport is about competition.  Without handicaps, any player's opportunities for reasonably even competitions would be limited to a small percentage of the group of available opponents.  Handicapping greatly expands the possibilities for competitions, which is a great part of the game.    

[jholz]

On 11/8/2024 at 9:29 PM, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Could you expand on what you mean here. I honestly can't comprehend what you are saying. What is it about the USGA that seems 'closed' to you?

 

dave

 

Hey @DaveLeeNC sorry to take some time to get back to you...

 

I appreciate your interest and understand the confusion. I'm confused myself. Indeed, I may be completely wrong. But, hear me out...

 

I think the main point of confusion is the difference between the history and the present day.

 

Overall, when I'm talking about sports being "closed" I'm talking about history - like the mid-to-late 1900's. This was the time when modern "sports" emerged. When I say "modern," I mean professional leagues, organized competition, rules, a ruling body (like the USGA or R&A).

 

At that time, a big question was "who gets to play?"

 

During that time, a lot of upper class folks in England and America thought that lower class folks "tried to hard" to win when they played sports. Their behavior was undignified. They were willing to get their "trousers dirty" and things of this nature to win. How uncouth. 

 

This was such a big issue, that in many sports, and for a very long time, lower class people/teams were not allowed to compete. They tried to hard. As such, upper class people won every championship. Hooray!

 

I believe you can still see this within the modern handicapping system in golf. It comes out in the "I just want to compete against people in my club" mentality that handicaps both reflect and support. 

 

Therefore, open, stroke-play competition is the only way to go. Who's the best on a given day? This is the only worthy question in golf, IMHO. 

 

Edited November 12, 2024 by jholz

[DaveLeeNC]

@jholz  FWIW, my perspective is strictly a 'recent history' perspective where (as best as I know) you can actually compete against the best players in the world (on a level playing field) simply by being good enough to make it through the US Open qualifiers which are accessible to pretty much anybody with enough skill. There are not many other sports where 'just being good enough' is good enough to get you there.

 

dave

[bluedot]

16 hours ago, jholz said:

 

Hey @DaveLeeNC sorry to take some time to get back to you...

 

I appreciate your interest and understand the confusion. I'm confused myself. Indeed, I may be completely wrong. But, hear me out...

 

I think the main point of confusion is the difference between the history and the present day.

 

Overall, when I'm talking about sports being "closed" I'm talking about history - like the mid-to-late 1900's. This was the time when modern "sports" emerged. When I say "modern," I mean professional leagues, organized competition, rules, a ruling body (like the USGA or R&A).

 

At that time, a big question was "who gets to play?"

 

During that time, a lot of upper class folks in England and America thought that lower class folks "tried to hard" to win when they played sports. Their behavior was undignified. They were willing to get their "trousers dirty" and things of this nature to win. How uncouth. 

 

This was such a big issue, that in many sports, and for a very long time, lower class people/teams were not allowed to compete. They tried to hard. As such, upper class people won every championship. Hooray!

 

I believe you can still see this within the modern handicapping system in golf. It comes out in the "I just want to compete against people in my club" mentality that handicaps both reflect and support. 

 

Therefore, open, stroke-play competition is the only way to go. Who's the best on a given day? This is the only worthy question in golf, IMHO. 

 

Can you provide links to any of this “history”?  It’s a lovely unified theory of the development of sports, but one which I’ve read nowhere else, ever.

 

And lucky for you, avoiding net play is SUPER easy!  Just don’t enter events or agree to it in casual play! Problem solved! 

[davep043]

On 11/6/2024 at 2:21 PM, 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. 

 

On 11/6/2024 at 3:42 PM, jholz said:

 

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

 

16 hours ago, jholz said:

I think the main point of confusion is the difference between the history and the present day.

.......

 

I believe you can still see this within the modern handicapping system in golf. It comes out in the "I just want to compete against people in my club" mentality that handicaps both reflect and support. 

I really don't think history of handicapping is germane to the present day function of handicapping, to what exists right now.  It may be your opinion that handicapping exists to soothe the egos of poor but wealthy golfers, as you claim quite clearly, but its certainly not the truth, not a fact.  Many of us compete in net situations within clubs, certainly, but also in inter-club settings. in state and regional net events, even in events as large as the the Myrtle Beach  World Amateur.  I've travelled across the country to play with and against other players.  None of those competitions would be feasible without the handicap system.  There are lots of competitions where the actual best players can compete without handicaps, but to look down your nose at those of us who need handicaps to have a chance at winning is a golfer's form of snobbery.

[jholz]

Agh. So, the predominant opinion is that "history doesn't matter." By saying that, you assert "whatever I am doing is ok."

 

Cool. Let's go with that and test the opinion. 

 

Golf rules don't matter. The R&A is nonsense. I've shot 68 the past few rounds and now I should be on the LIV tour. 

 

This is the argument you all are making. Please try to parse it out for me and show me how this isn't just "hey I'd rather not think about this stuff. I've got a boat, so who seriously cares?"

 

[bluedot]

1 hour ago, jholz said:

Agh. So, the predominant opinion is that "history doesn't matter." By saying that, you assert "whatever I am doing is ok."

 

Cool. Let's go with that and test the opinion. 

 

Golf rules don't matter. The R&A is nonsense. I've shot 68 the past few rounds and now I should be on the LIV tour. 

 

This is the argument you all are making. Please try to parse it out for me and show me how this isn't just "hey I'd rather not think about this stuff. I've got a boat, so who seriously cares?"

 

I don't think anyone has said "history doesn't matter".  But history is a set of facts, and you have NOT provided that; only YOUR opinions of both how sports in general, and specifically handicapping in golf, developed.  Provide links to support what you are claiming, and I'm good to go.

 

And I don't have a boat.  I drive a 12 year old car with well over 100k miles on it, and I'm a retired HS teacher/coach.  I lived paycheck to paycheck and carried a LOT debt just to get by for longer than you've been alive.  You'd have more credibility, at least with me, if you'd climb down off that particular soapbox.

[davep043]

5 hours ago, jholz said:

Agh. So, the predominant opinion is that "history doesn't matter." By saying that, you assert "whatever I am doing is ok."

 

Cool. Let's go with that and test the opinion. 

 

Golf rules don't matter. The R&A is nonsense. I've shot 68 the past few rounds and now I should be on the LIV tour. 

 

This is the argument you all are making. Please try to parse it out for me and show me how this isn't just "hey I'd rather not think about this stuff. I've got a boat, so who seriously cares?"

 

I've never said that history doesn't matter, I don't believe anyone has said that, but history doesn't prove in any way the "truth" that you posted about the purpose of the handicap system right now.  Right now we have Rules of Golf that have evolved over time, and a handicap system that has evolved over time.  And right now the handicap system exists to facilitate fair competition between players of differing abilities.  

[jholz]

I hate to be the guy who says it, but ultimately the only "truth" in the study of history is that there is no "truth." You have yours. I have mine. 

 

I have witnessed this first hand as a (former) working academic. It's pretty weird to give a talk about an historical event to an audience of people who have lived through it. I suggest everyone do it once in their life. (For reference - a paper I delivered on the Mets "Midnight Massacre" of 1977 at Hofstra University about a decade ago).  

 

Many of the people in the audience for my talk lived through the events I described. It was pretty arrogant to think I could teach them something about their own experience.

 

Yet, I was constantly reminded of the fact that even the folks who lived through the Midnight Massacre differed on the "what happened" and "why" of the events - much less the "meanings" of those events within the context of later 1970's MLB business and culture.

 

They could agree on some things. But argued constantly about others. Hence, a university sponsored a talk on the subject and invited me to speak upon it. 

 

At the end of my presentation, I heard plenty of "you got this wrong..." and "you don't understand this..." and things of this nature. Yet, they also agreed that I wasn't "totally wrong..." and maybe "I knew what I was talking about..." Many acknowledged "man, you may have a point."

 

And I'd argue this is the best we can get with studies of history - particularly socio-cultural history.

 

Once again, I do apologize for my opinions and my efforts to provide something to think about. Please keep in mind that I am writing on a golf forum and no one is paying me for this. You aren't getting more than about .02% of my research on the subject.  

 

But, if it helps to explain anything about my aberrative point of view, when it comes to golf, I am a walker and carrier. We do tend to see the world a bit differently. 🙂 

Edited November 13, 2024 by jholz

[MountainKing]

On 11/2/2024 at 10:07 PM, NorthTexasGlfr said:

 

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. 

 

It happens, probably more than you think, although the type that does are generally obnoxious everywhere in life.  I see it fairly regular on reddit (and the guy generally ends up getting roasted pretty good), and had it happen to me a few years back in Ryder Cup type event where a 20 handicap wouldn't stop running his mouth about beating me. 

[Schulzmc]

7 hours ago, jholz said:

Agh. So, the predominant opinion is that "history doesn't matter."

It’s not that history does not matter. In fact, history is hugely important and respected in golf. It is just YOUR history, which as was stated above I have never seen expressed ANYWHERE but in your creative post, that I am questioning. 

 

I’m trying to be polite here, but I believe your supposed history is a bunch of nonsense.

[mshills]

2 hours ago, jholz said:

I hate to be the guy who says it, but ultimately the only "truth" in the study of history is that there is no "truth." You have yours. I have mine. 

 

I have witnessed this first hand as a (former) working academic. It's pretty weird to give a talk about an historical event to an audience of people who have lived through it. I suggest everyone do it once in their life. (For reference - a paper I delivered on the Mets "Midnight Massacre" of 1977 at Hofstra University about a decade ago).  

 

Many of the people in the audience for my talk lived through the events I described. It was pretty arrogant to think I could teach them something about their own experience.

 

Yet, I was constantly reminded of the fact that even the folks who lived through the Midnight Massacre differed on the "what happened" and "why" of the events - much less the "meanings" of those events within the context of later 1970's MLB business and culture.

 

They could agree on some things. But argued constantly about others. Hence, a university sponsored a talk on the subject and invited me to speak upon it. 

 

At the end of my presentation, I heard plenty of "you got this wrong..." and "you don't understand this..." and things of this nature. Yet, they also agreed that I wasn't "totally wrong..." and maybe "I knew what I was talking about..." Many acknowledged "man, you may have a point."

 

And I'd argue this is the best we can get with studies of history - particularly socio-cultural history.

 

Once again, I do apologize for my opinions and my efforts to provide something to think about. Please keep in mind that I am writing on a golf forum and no one is paying me for this. You aren't getting more than about .02% of my research on the subject.  

 

But, if it helps to explain anything about my aberrative point of view, when it comes to golf, I am a walker and carrier. We do tend to see the world a bit differently. 🙂 

What does this have to do with being able to compete with anyone who is also there that day?

[Pnwpingi210]

There are some really interesting reads out there that discuss the origins of the handicap system dating back to the 1600’s in Scotland and developing a system to wager, similar to how the developed odds in horse racing.  
 

That predates any country club vs local try hard anecdotes brought up in this thread.

[DaveLeeNC]

WRT 'your history' vs. 'my history' vs., 'the history' ...

 

My personal view of historical golf goes back to the late 1950's (and by word of mouth back to the late 40's as expressed by my father). It was 9 hole muni golf on sand greens, NO practice facilities, and the pro shop sold candy bars, soft drinks, tees, and a few golf balls. That is the historical golf that I personally know.  I am sure that 'my history' is much different than others who view golf in that timeframe from different circumstances.

 

I don't know what 'the history' might be.

 

dave

[Roejye]

On 11/7/2024 at 8:48 AM, sui generis said:

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4JzJEL2ufE?si=Cn9SbsHkoYnLPsSf

 

This has been an interesting thread, personally I don't see anything wrong with the current system, but I also don't keep an official handicap or compete against others.

Edited November 14, 2024 by Roejye

[jholz]

15 hours ago, mshills said:

What does this have to do with being able to compete with anyone who is also there that day?

 

Stroke, match, and stableford already provide a variety of rules to conduct this type of play. Why not use those?

 

All three provide a viable scoring system and established rules that are effective for determining the player who shoots the best score in a given competition on a given day.

 

So, why invent or implement the handicap system? 

 

If you can agree with what I am saying in the first two paragraphs, then supply an answer to the final question. 

 

I'm not sure anyone is going to go much farther than a version of "so that I can have fun with my buddies."

 

Which is cool.

 

But let's not conflate that with legitimate golf. 

Edited November 14, 2024 by jholz