Kostis and McCord about handicaps

[jholz]

Beyond that, y'all have my opinion. I've provided some tendrils of the discussion to pursue for those of you that are interested. 

 

I can understand why everyone hates my argument. I've been making it for over 20 years. It runs counter to what everyone "wants to believe."

 

Outside of that, all that I can hope is that I've been a "good sport" by responding to questions and comments in the most efficient and respectful manner possible. 

 

I appreciate everyone's viewpoint, as well as the time you have all taken in your responses. Thank you. 

 

With that, and unless specifically prodded - I'm willing to let this go. 

 

Feel free to PM me if you are not, or would like to discuss further. 

 

Wishing you all solid strikes and good scores!

 

jholz

 

 

[davep043]

30 minutes ago, jholz said:

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. 

The last is the primary thing I object to, your opinion that those of us who play net competitions are playing illegitimate golf.  No amount of "history" will make that opinion any less noxious or elitist.

[davep043]

Deleted, duplicate

Edited November 14, 2024 by davep043

[Pnwpingi210]

53 minutes ago, jholz said:

 

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. 

https://www.popeofslope.com/history/index.html

[nsxguy]

52 minutes ago, jholz said:

With that, and unless specifically prodded - I'm willing to let this go. 

 

Is that a promise ? If so, TIA. 👍

 

Because now you're just trolling to keep your pov in plain view and the "discussion" going.

[mshills]

1 hour ago, jholz said:

 

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. 

I was a low single digit before I lost the use of my L arm for golf. I play with one arm now, and I’m a 16.

 

Ignoring my physical limitation for a minute, how would you suggest I play my +2 buddy in “…stroke, match, and stableford”? How would you suggest another buddy (a 21) play me? Under what other “viable scoring system”?
 

Sure, I can go play a match with +2, get closed out on #11 or #12, pay him, and head to the bar to buy him a drink. Why would I ever do that? For purity? Just to empirically prove he’s a better golfer? I no more need to do that than I need to stick my finger in a light socket to see if it is hot. 
 

Not sure what you don’t get about this. Without a handicap system, the +2 has like two guys in the whole club he can have a competitive couple hours with. I’m lucky, I have probably 20 guys I am reasonably even with, so I have more options. But why not have a process where anyone can play anyone else?

 

Confident you’ll say “that’s not legitimate golf.” Ok fine. 🙄 You get to judge what is legit?

Edited November 14, 2024 by mshills

[DaveLeeNC]

2 hours ago, jholz said:

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

 

A 65  year old grandfather (shoots about 90), his 45 year old daughter (shoots 110-120), and her former D-1 collegiate golfer son are getting together for a couple days of golf. How do you use match/stroke/stableford and the Rules of Golf to make this make sense on the course.

 

dave

Edited November 14, 2024 by DaveLeeNC

[NorthTexasGlfr]

My post on page 3 still stands, lol. 

 

I have no clue what @jholz is trying to tell us. 

[bluedot]

7 hours ago, mshills said:

I was a low single digit before I lost the use of my L arm for golf. I play with one arm now, and I’m a 16.

 

Ignoring my physical limitation for a minute, how would you suggest I play my +2 buddy in “…stroke, match, and stableford”? How would you suggest another buddy (a 21) play me? Under what other “viable scoring system”?
 

Sure, I can go play a match with +2, get closed out on #11 or #12, pay him, and head to the bar to buy him a drink. Why would I ever do that? For purity? Just to empirically prove he’s a better golfer? I no more need to do that than I need to stick my finger in a light socket to see if it is hot. 
 

Not sure what you don’t get about this. Without a handicap system, the +2 has like two guys in the whole club he can have a competitive couple hours with. I’m lucky, I have probably 20 guys I am reasonably even with, so I have more options. But why not have a process where anyone can play anyone else?

 

Confident you’ll say “that’s not legitimate golf.” Ok fine. 🙄 You get to judge what is legit?

Great, great post.  You captured a lot of what makes golf unique in just a few paragraphs.  
 

Thank you for sharing.

[Augster]

14 hours ago, mshills said:

I was a low single digit before I lost the use of my L arm for golf. I play with one arm now, and I’m a 16.

 

Ignoring my physical limitation for a minute, how would you suggest I play my +2 buddy in “…stroke, match, and stableford”? How would you suggest another buddy (a 21) play me? Under what other “viable scoring system”?
 

Sure, I can go play a match with +2, get closed out on #11 or #12, pay him, and head to the bar to buy him a drink. Why would I ever do that? For purity? Just to empirically prove he’s a better golfer? I no more need to do that than I need to stick my finger in a light socket to see if it is hot. 
 

Not sure what you don’t get about this. Without a handicap system, the +2 has like two guys in the whole club he can have a competitive couple hours with. I’m lucky, I have probably 20 guys I am reasonably even with, so I have more options. But why not have a process where anyone can play anyone else?

 

Confident you’ll say “that’s not legitimate golf.” Ok fine. 🙄 You get to judge what is legit?

Excellent. 
 

Weirdly, one time I told my friend I’m a way better golfer than he is. I’m a 5 he’s a 21. He almost flipped out. Not to the point of playing me straight up, but he was pissed for a while. 
 

I guess he didn’t “really” understand what the numbers mean. 🙂

 

In your example, my money is on the +2, straight up. 

[Schulzmc]

6 hours ago, Augster said:

Weirdly, one time I told my friend I’m a way better golfer than he is. I’m a 5 he’s a 21. He almost flipped out. Not to the point of playing me straight up, but he was pissed for a while. 

Interesting. Made me think. If by “better” you mean “shoot lower scores” you are of course correct. 

 

But I could imagine a scenario where one golfer plays religiously by the rules, walks and carries instead of riding a cart (buggy), plays quickly, and is polite and a pleasure to play with, while the other golfer bends the rules from time to time, drinks and drives a cart wherever he wants, plays slowly, and is not fun to play with.  But always shoots lower scores. Is the second guy really the better golfer?

 

In other words, is golf about more than raw score? Hmmmm…

[NorthTexasGlfr]

36 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

Interesting. Made me think. If by “better” you mean “shoot lower scores” you are of course correct. 

 

But I could imagine a scenario where one golfer plays religiously by the rules, walks and carries instead of riding a cart (buggy), plays quickly, and is polite and a pleasure to play with, while the other golfer bends the rules from time to time, drinks and drives a cart wherever he wants, plays slowly, and is not fun to play with.  But always shoots lower scores. Is the second guy really the better golfer?

 

In other words, is golf about more than raw score? Hmmmm…

 

So in your scenario, we know that the first golfer is Rannulph Junuh. But who is the second one?

[jholz]

22 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Is that a promise ? If so, TIA. 👍

 

Because now you're just trolling to keep your pov in plain view and the "discussion" going.

 

Thank you for the "specific prodding." Not a troll. Been a member around here longer than you. 

[jholz]

17 hours ago, NorthTexasGlfr said:

My post on page 3 still stands, lol. 

 

I have no clue what @jholz is trying to tell us. 

 

I understand. My basic position is this:

 

I think golf handicaps are ridiculous. 

 

I think handicapped golf competitions are ridiculous. 

 

I think anyone who finds joy or satisfaction in winning a handicapped golf competition is ridiculous.

 

I think the infrastructure needed to keep handicapped competitions even remotely honest is ridiculous - and even with its best efforts, it will fail. 

 

So, why even bother...? 

 

The golf handicap system is clearly created by rich people. It is a system that promotes integrity every step of the way, but is specifically engineered to allow cheating and provide deniability.

 

As this works out on the local club level...it's quickly deduced that people cheat. 

 

So, if you want honest handicaps, you need to set up a committee. You have to have infrastructure to moderate it. 

 

Yet, even at its best, those committees will fully acknowledge that they cannot prevent instances of cheating. All that they can do is monitor trends and indicate instances of "suspected cheating."

 

So, if we want to prosecute Dave for cheating, of course, we have a hearing. In that hearing, questions like - do you know how much Dave contributed to the new greens fund last year? If we don't give him the trophy, will he support our youth golf camp this year?" naturally get raised.

 

And yeah, we know Dave. He cheats - but man, he's such a good guy. Let's give him the D flight trophy yet again... 

 

I've seen this kind of crap first hand. The PGA staff would simply roll their eyes - this is the cost of doing business. 

 

If you'd like to expand that out to a larger national or global scale, I think we can find a number of systems in our society that work exactly the same way. 

 

As such, I think we could do well to think about golf handicaps as a system of social organization, and test it for efficiency, reliability, and efficacy. If we do that, I think we find it particularly lacking. 

 

Every Tom, Dick, and Harry can come up with a situation where they've used handicaps correctly and beneficially. 

 

On the other side, I can show you examples where they haven't worked out so well. 

 

The big problem here is the inability of folks to divorce themselves from their own experience. Ultimately, your own experience is merely one of billions. It is an anecdote. 

 

In academic study, anecdotes count for nothing. 

Edited November 15, 2024 by jholz

[Pnwpingi210]

3 minutes ago, jholz said:

 

I understand. My basic position is this:

 

I think golf handicaps are ridiculous. 

 

I think handicapped golf competitions are ridiculous. 

 

I think anyone who finds joy or satisfaction in winning a handicapped golf competition is ridiculous.

 

I think the infrastructure needed to keep handicapped competitions even remotely honest is ridiculous - and even with its best efforts, it will fail. 

 

So, why even bother...? 

 

The golf handicap system is clearly created by rich people. It is a system that promotes integrity every step of the way, but is specifically engineered to allow cheating and provide deniability.

 

As this works out on the local club level...it's quickly deduced that people cheat. 

 

So, if you want honest handicaps, you need to set up a committee. You have to have infrastructure to moderate it. 

 

Yet, even at its best, those committees will fully acknowledge that they cannot prevent instances of cheating. All that they can do is monitor trends and indicate instances of "suspected cheating."

 

So, if we want to prosecute Dave for cheating, of course, we have a hearing. In that hearing, questions like - do you know how much Dave contributed to the new greens fund last year? If we don't give him the trophy, will he support our youth golf camp this year?" naturally get raised.

 

And yeah, we know Dave. He cheats - but man, he's such a good guy. Let's give him the D flight trophy yet again... 

 

I've seen this kind of crap first hand. The PGA staff would simply roll their eyes - this is the cost of doing business. 

 

If you'd like to expand that out to a larger national or global scale, I think we can find a number of systems in our society that work exactly the same way. 

 

As such, I think we could do well to think about golf handicaps as a system of social organization, and test it for efficiency, reliability, and efficacy. If we do that, I think we find it particularly lacking. 

 

Every Tom, Dick, and Harry can come up with a situation where they've used handicaps correctly and beneficially. 

 

On the other side, I can show you examples where they haven't worked out so well. 

 

The big problem here is the inability of folks to divorce themselves from their own experience. Ultimately, your own experience is merely one of billions. It is an anecdote. 

 

In academic study, anecdotes count for nothing. 

If you fail to see the irony in your post I will help.

 

You are telling us your personal anecdotes of why you think handicaps are bad or whatever.  So far you have presented zero credible academic or factual evidence supporting this.  What you have presented is your opinion based on your experiences in life, which are anecdotes….

 

what we do know is the first evidence of golf handicapping is documented somewhere in the 1600-1700 in Scotland, consisting of players negotiating strokes before a match based on odds so they could wager.  There a lot more out there if you care to read up more.

[jholz]

7 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

If you fail to see the irony in your post I will help.

 

You are telling us your personal anecdotes of why you think handicaps are bad or whatever.  So far you have presented zero credible academic or factual evidence supporting this.  What you have presented is your opinion based on your experiences in life, which are anecdotes….

 

what we do know is the first evidence of golf handicapping is documented somewhere in the 1600-1700 in Scotland, consisting of players negotiating strokes before a match based on odds so they could wager.  There a lot more out there if you care to read up more.

 

That is indeed part of the history. That is a practical, human solution to an immediate problem. 

 

In the late 19th century, that practical, individual, human solution was systematized. 

 

It is indeed true that folks, individually, are utilizing this practice effectively all the time. 

 

Yet, when exploded to a global system, we encounter problems. 

 

I am interested in why this is. I am also interested in the fact that people feel that a "gentleman's agreement" on the first tee somehow equates to a universal system. 

 

When we look at that, what is it that prevents the isolated occurrence (the gentleman's agreement) from succeeding as a universal system?

 

Well, I'd argue that it is honesty. It also has to do with what we consider to be "a gentleman."

 

Forgive me, but I find these to be pretty pertinent topics. Golf is a microcosm of life.  

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, jholz said:

 

Thank you for the "specific prodding." Not a troll. Been a member around here longer than you. 

 

 

Sounds like your typical 8-year-old logic, as written here in this thread.

 

You've been here longer so you're what ? Right ? And about what ? Your "theory" on handicaps ? Or that you're not trolling ? (Which you obviously are). 

[jholz]

3 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

Sounds like your typical 8-year-old logic, as written here in this thread.

 

You've been here longer so you're what ? Right ? And about what ? Your "theory" on handicaps ? Or that you're not trolling ? (Which you obviously are). 

 

Um...nah, just trying to assert the fact that I am an honest, good standing member who has a pretty untarnished record of providing reasonable content that stimulates conversation. 

 

Can't help but notice you've posted at roughly 10X the rate as myself during your tenure here. You are certainly not shy about your opinions. 

 

Hope that NSX is still getting some use...what a cool car!

[Pnwpingi210]

15 minutes ago, jholz said:

 

That is indeed part of the history. That is a practical, human solution to an immediate problem. 

 

In the late 19th century, that practical, individual, human solution was systematized. 

 

It is indeed true that folks, individually, are utilizing this practice effectively all the time. 

 

Yet, when exploded to a global system, we encounter problems. 

 

I am interested in why this is. I am also interested in the fact that people feel that a "gentleman's agreement" on the first tee somehow equates to a universal system. 

 

When we look at that, what is it that prevents the isolated occurrence (the gentleman's agreement) from succeeding as a universal system?

 

Well, I'd argue that it is honesty. It also has to do with what we consider to be "a gentleman."

 

Forgive me, but I find these to be pretty pertinent topics. Golf is a microcosm of life.  

 

 

The system was designed to create a platform that people across the world, of all skill levels, could compete.   The systems continues to be refined as more data is available.

 

Will people cheat or abuse the system to their advantage, yes.  Ive never seen any data supporting that people from different socio economic or even golf clubs preference (private vs public) or more or less likely to cheat or abuse the system.  

 

I think where people are struggling to follow is you are making bold claims and only supporting them by saying “because it’s academia!!!” “Or “I caddie at a rich person club, so I know why”.  If you care to educate folks on why you have this opinion, your going to need to tell them something credible about the “why”
 

 

Edited November 15, 2024 by Pnwpingi210

[mshills]

42 minutes ago, jholz said:

My basic position is this:

 

I think golf handicaps are ridiculous. 

 

I think handicapped golf competitions are ridiculous. 

That is all I needed. Carry on, I’m out, we will never understand each other on this topic. 

[Pnwpingi210]

8 minutes ago, mshills said:

That is all I needed. Carry on, I’m out, we will never understand each other on this topic. 

I can understand not wanting to use the system for someone’s own game, but failing to see the value of the system for others is tough.

[jholz]

15 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

 

 

The system was designed to create a platform that people across the world, of all skill levels, could compete.   The systems continues to be refined as more data is available.

 

Will people cheat or abuse the system to their advantage, yes.  Ive never seen any data supporting that people from different socio economic or even golf clubs preference (private vs public) or more or less likely to cheat or abuse the system.  

 

I think where people are struggling to follow is you are making bold claims and only supporting them by saying “because it’s academia!!!” “Or “I caddie at a rich person club, so I know why”.  If you care to educate folks on why you have this opinion, your going to need to tell them something credible about the “why”
 

 

 

An interesting response - and yes - something to think about. 

My initial goal was simply to give folks an alternate perspective - which is mine. I thought that folks might engage with that idea. And they did. 

 

But, with that engagement, we see a common human tendency - the inability to abstract. 

 

Most often, we human beings related ideas to ourselves and our own experience. This is a myopic perspective. We call this "navel-gazing."

 

If you can get folks beyond navel-gazing, they can approach topics from a purely divorced and "academic" perspective. 

 

So far, I've seen little in any response to my arguments that weren't personal. That weren't "I use the handicap system every day and it works great." Hey, good for you. 

 

I've raised several questions concerning why we use handicapping in golf, and not in any other sport. 

 

No one has provided a reasonable answer to that question. 

 

Yes, we have different levels for different competitors. If you really want to ski race, you join FIS, pay your entry fee, and deal with it. If you want to join a beer league, then fine. 

 

At the end of the day, it's the lowest time that wins. 

 

In golf, a guy shoots a 93 - but we have to do some math. There's a black box that determines a 93 is actually the winning score. 

 

Sounds like a hedge fund to me. Sounds like something that can't be effectively regulated and is open to easy manipulation. 

 

That ain't competition in my book.  

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, jholz said:

 

I understand. My basic position is this:

 

I think golf handicaps are ridiculous. 

 

I think handicapped golf competitions are ridiculous. 

 

I think anyone who finds joy or satisfaction in winning a handicapped golf competition is ridiculous.

 

I think the infrastructure needed to keep handicapped competitions even remotely honest is ridiculous - and even with its best efforts, it will fail. 

 

So, why even bother...? 

 

The golf handicap system is clearly created by rich people. It is a system that promotes integrity every step of the way, but is specifically engineered to allow cheating and provide deniability.

 

As this works out on the local club level...it's quickly deduced that people cheat. 

 

So, if you want honest handicaps, you need to set up a committee. You have to have infrastructure to moderate it. 

 

Yet, even at its best, those committees will fully acknowledge that they cannot prevent instances of cheating. All that they can do is monitor trends and indicate instances of "suspected cheating."

 

So, if we want to prosecute Dave for cheating, of course, we have a hearing. In that hearing, questions like - do you know how much Dave contributed to the new greens fund last year? If we don't give him the trophy, will he support our youth golf camp this year?" naturally get raised.

 

And yeah, we know Dave. He cheats - but man, he's such a good guy. Let's give him the D flight trophy yet again... 

 

I've seen this kind of crap first hand. The PGA staff would simply roll their eyes - this is the cost of doing business. 

 

If you'd like to expand that out to a larger national or global scale, I think we can find a number of systems in our society that work exactly the same way. 

 

As such, I think we could do well to think about golf handicaps as a system of social organization, and test it for efficiency, reliability, and efficacy. If we do that, I think we find it particularly lacking. 

 

Every Tom, Dick, and Harry can come up with a situation where they've used handicaps correctly and beneficially. 

 

On the other side, I can show you examples where they haven't worked out so well. 

 

The big problem here is the inability of folks to divorce themselves from their own experience. Ultimately, your own experience is merely one of billions. It is an anecdote. 

 

In academic study, anecdotes count for nothing. 

 

Yours is just a variation on the "Rules am stoopid" thing that rears its ugly head here from time-to-time.  Now we are treated to your "handicaps am stoopid." 🙄

[Pnwpingi210]

12 minutes ago, jholz said:

 

An interesting response - and yes - something to think about. 

My initial goal was simply to give folks an alternate perspective - which is mine. I thought that folks might engage with that idea. And they did. 

 

But, with that engagement, we see a common human tendency - the inability to abstract. 

 

Most often, we human beings related ideas to ourselves and our own experience. This is a myopic perspective. We call this "navel-gazing."

 

If you can get folks beyond navel-gazing, they can approach topics from a purely divorced and "academic" perspective. 

 

So far, I've seen little in any response to my arguments that weren't personal. That weren't "I use the handicap system every day and it works great." Hey, good for you. 

 

I've raised several questions concerning why we use handicapping in golf, and not in any other sport. 

 

No one has provided a reasonable answer to that question. 

 

Yes, we have different levels for different competitors. If you really want to ski race, you join FIS, pay your entry fee, and deal with it. If you want to join a beer league, then fine. 

 

At the end of the day, it's the lowest time that wins. 

 

In golf, a guy shoots a 93 - but we have to do some math. There's a black box that determines a 93 is actually the winning score. 

 

Sounds like a hedge fund to me. Sounds like something that can't be effectively regulated and is open to easy manipulation. 

 

That ain't competition in my book.  

I think where we disagree is your opinion that the handicap system is created for and by rich folks at private clubs who couldn’t beat or didn’t like to compete against local,non-rich try hards.   You presented your opinion on why you believe this, and probably even more so your personal life experiences , but not any factual information or evidence to support.  There is a lot of information out there that documents the history handicapping, none of which supports your opinion that I have seen.

 

Not going to argue or debate if the system is good or bad.  Thats your personal opinion, and it’s right for you.  Other people (from all walks of life, not just rich) find value in the system for their enjoyment.  They are equally right in their opinion.

 

 

Edited November 15, 2024 by Pnwpingi210

[DaveLeeNC]

9 minutes ago, jholz said:

I've raised several questions concerning why we use handicapping in golf, and not in any other sport. 

 

No one has provided a reasonable answer to that question. 

 

What are those questions (or what is the question - I can't tell as your post is ambiguous on that point)?

 

BTW, most sports that generate scores are 'match play oriented' and don't generate meaningful scores as a standalone kind of thing. But bowling is one sport that is quite similar to golf in that regard. Take a wild guess as to how bowling typically handles mismatches in skill levels.

 

dave

[Pnwpingi210]

1 minute ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

What are those questions (or what is the question - I can't tell as your post is ambiguous on that point)?

 

BTW, most sports that generate scores are 'match play oriented' and don't generate meaningful scores as a standalone kind of thing. But bowling is one sport that is quite similar to golf in that regard. Take a wild guess as to how bowling typically handles mismatches in skill levels.

 

dave

I believe darts is another example of a sport that uses handicapping.

[DaveLeeNC]

1 minute ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

What are those questions (or what is the question - I can't tell as your post is ambiguous on that point)?

 

BTW, most sports that generate scores are 'match play oriented' and don't generate meaningful scores as a standalone kind of thing. But bowling is one sport that is quite similar to golf in that regard. Take a wild guess as to how bowling typically handles mismatches in skill levels.

 

dave

 

ps. I just did a quick Google Gemini query. Darts also uses handicaps.

 

[jholz]

Just now, sui generis said:

 

Yours is just a variation on the "Rules am stoopid" thing that rears its ugly head here from time-to-time.  Now we are treated to your "handicaps am stoopid." 🙄

 

How nice of you. Thank you. 

[DaveLeeNC]

1 minute ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I believe darts is another example of a sport that uses handicapping.

 

Holy crap. I lived in Lexington, Ky for 25 years and this just now occurred to me. They use handicapping in horse racing and they even call it HANDICAPPING.

 

dave

[jholz]

So darts and bowling use handicaps. Cool. 

 

Why not soccer?

 

Why not fencing?

 

Why not ski racing?

 

And I believe the issue y'all are missing is gambling.