# Lance Armstrong



## rksquire (Jan 15, 2015)

http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/dec/19/lance-armstrong-cheat-golf-heartbroken-cycling

Don't know if this has been posted previously (did a search and nothing appeared, but apologies if it has), number of interesting (to me anyway) comments, that raised a couple of questions:

If you played 250 rounds a year what would you expect your handicap to be? [I play approx. 36-40 rounds a year, with current h/cap of 14, I'd expect to be in the region of 6-8 with 250 rounds]

&

Are the ethics of golf really on that much higher a plane than all other sports? [eg I wouldn't be 'heartbroken' to win a dubious penalty in football but I wouldn't think about gaining an advantage in golf by dubious means]


----------



## turkish (Jan 15, 2015)

Quite an interesting article... No matter what he says people always think if him a cheat and I think that will spread across to golf too.

If he ever scores well in his club competitions that doubt will always prevail in a lot of minds.

The level at which he cheated... And the lengths he went to deny even when undeniable was abhorrent


----------



## Crow (Jan 15, 2015)

I liked this line:

â€œIf I moved my ball in the rough and got caught, I wouldnâ€™t just regret it, Iâ€™d be heartbroken forever. When I think about reform in cycling, I think about golf.â€

Does that mean that if he moved his ball in the rough and didn't get caught then all would be fine and dandy?


----------



## turkish (Jan 15, 2015)

Lol I read it as the getting caught bit as being bad too


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jan 15, 2015)

I wouldn't trust him at anything


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 15, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			I wouldn't trust him at anything
		
Click to expand...

Is the correct answer.  I cannot think of a professional sportsman I am more disappointed in.  Tiger's transgressions pale in comparison.


----------



## Tongo (Jan 15, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			Is the correct answer.  *I cannot think of a professional sportsman I am more disappointed in*.  Tiger's transgressions pale in comparison.
		
Click to expand...

Likewise. I used to watch the tdf every year as a kid but started to lose interest with all the doping scandals. I still checked in on it but the Armstrong business was the nail in the coffin for me.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 15, 2015)

Lance armstrong, maradona, Ben Johnson and many many others.

 not interested one jot in what they have to say.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 15, 2015)

Tongo said:



			Likewise. I used to watch the tdf every year as a kid but started to lose interest with all the doping scandals. I still checked in on it but the Armstrong business was the nail in the coffin for me.
		
Click to expand...

I actually watch the TdF with more interest now he's gone and it's all out in the open; it's probably cleaner now than it's ever been in the modern era.

I was given "It's Not About The Bike" as a Christmas present one year, had it read by Boxing Day morning, totally absorbing & inspirational.  To find out it was a total fraud was the biggest let down I'd ever felt and ever will feel about professional sport.


----------



## SaintHacker (Jan 15, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			I was given "It's Not About The Bike" as a Christmas present one year, had it read by Boxing Day morning, totally absorbing & inspirational.  To find out it was a total fraud was the biggest let down I'd ever felt and ever will feel about professional sport.
		
Click to expand...

Totally agree with that. I was a massive Armstrong fan, I really (and quite naively) believed after all he had been through there was no way he wasn't clean. When he finally confessed I was so so dissappointed. The book went straight in the bin, along with a few other bits. That said I still have my 99 USPS jersey upstairs somewhere, not that I'll ever fit in it again!
Have you read David Millars book? Thats also a very absorbing read, and one thats definitely true!


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 15, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			I actually watch the TdF with more interest now he's gone and it's all out in the open; it's probably cleaner now than it's ever been in the modern era.

I was given "It's Not About The Bike" as a Christmas present one year, had it read by Boxing Day morning, totally absorbing & inspirational.  To find out it was a total fraud was the biggest let down I'd ever felt and ever will feel about professional sport.
		
Click to expand...

While cleaner, I don't believe it's clean yet - which is what is really important!

I wouldn't trust Armstrong to count to 3, let alone mark anyone's card!


----------



## Lincoln Quaker (Jan 15, 2015)

rksquire said:



http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2014/dec/19/lance-armstrong-cheat-golf-heartbroken-cycling

Don't know if this has been posted previously (did a search and nothing appeared, but apologies if it has), number of interesting (to me anyway) comments, that raised a couple of questions:

If you played 250 rounds a year what would you expect your handicap to be? [I play approx. 36-40 rounds a year, with current h/cap of 14, I'd expect to be in the region of 6-8 with 250 rounds]

&

Are the ethics of golf really on that much higher a plane than all other sports? [eg I wouldn't be 'heartbroken' to win a dubious penalty in football but I wouldn't think about gaining an advantage in golf by dubious means]
		
Click to expand...

Just read the article,ha ha what a load of rubbish,

imagine been drawn with him in a monthly medal, I would be checking everything he did from start to finish. Never to be trusted ever again.


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 15, 2015)

SaintHacker said:



			Totally agree with that. I was a massive Armstrong fan, *I really (and quite naively) believed after all he had been through there was no way he wasn't clean.* When he finally confessed I was so so dissappointed. The book went straight in the bin, along with a few other bits. That said I still have my 99 USPS jersey upstairs somewhere, not that I'll ever fit in it again!
Have you read David Millars book? Thats also a very absorbing read, and one thats definitely true!
		
Click to expand...

You and me both mate, you and me both.  Not read Millar's book; was given the one by the Irish journalist who finally outed him, still can't quite bring myself to read it.


----------



## Rumpokid (Jan 15, 2015)

Slightly off topic, but relevant to a couple of posts regarding books.Try reading Born to Ride.(Steven Roche)..True greatness, and a damn good read.Alas, my cycling heyday was during his time, but not as well known..
Oh yes, and no doping.


----------



## Slab (Jan 16, 2015)

Plenty footballers cheat week in week out (amateur as well as professional) and most of us will have played golf with these guys without carrying the assumption that they'll also cheat at golf

I'd definitely go out in a fourball with Lance Armstrong


----------



## Tongo (Jan 16, 2015)

Slab said:



			Plenty footballers cheat week in week out (amateur as well as professional) and most of us will have played golf with these guys without carrying the assumption that they'll also cheat at golf

I'd definitely go out in a fourball with Lance Armstrong
		
Click to expand...

I dont think you can compare cheating at Football with years of systematic doping combined with constant denial that it happened. 

Drug taking is on a whole different level to what goes on in Football.


----------



## Slab (Jan 16, 2015)

Tongo said:



			I dont think you can compare cheating at Football with years of systematic doping combined with constant denial that it happened. 

Drug taking is on a whole different level to what goes on in Football.
		
Click to expand...

The thread starter makes the comparison of football to golf in the opening post & plenty footballers have failed drug tests

And we're not talking about Lance rocking up to the 1st Tee topped up with performance enhancing drugs, we're talking about whether he would cheat or not 

I think I'd trust him to keep an accurate score ahead of certain footballers (cheating in football is as ingrained in the sport as drug talking was in cycling, if not more so)


----------



## Rumpokid (Jan 16, 2015)

Slab said:



			Plenty footballers cheat week in week out (amateur as well as professional) and most of us will have played golf with these guys without carrying the assumption that they'll also cheat at golf

I'd definitely go out in a fourball with Lance Armstrong
		
Click to expand...

Are you serious?
Comparing Armstrong to footballers?..Ok, give us a like for like comparison?
Doping, blood transfusions, controlling of fellow teamates etc...Sounds a right good guy to have a knock with.
The guy has no integrity or shame.What he has done, and those like him, just gives the sport a sullied reputation, and for all those that do it the right way, the sport will never get recognised as being clean....
I guess if you did go out with him in a fourball, i guess you would have to follow to the toilet, and check the contents of his bag..


----------



## Joff (Jan 16, 2015)

I'd trust him. In my life I've cheated in football, I've stolen from a shop when I was young. I'd have an affair with Sofia Vegara. But I wouldn't cheat at golf. It's just different.


----------



## Rumpokid (Jan 16, 2015)

Joff said:



			I'd trust him. In my life I've cheated in football, I've stolen from a shop when I was young. I'd have an affair with Sofia Vegara. But I wouldn't cheat at golf. It's just different.
		
Click to expand...

Yeah..It's just 'different'..What a statement..????


----------



## Hobbit (Jan 16, 2015)

I just don't believe a single word he's said... I wouldn't want him anywhere near a comp I was playing in.


----------



## Slab (Jan 16, 2015)

Rumpokid said:



			Are you serious?
Comparing Armstrong to footballers?..Ok, give us a like for like comparison?
Doping, blood transfusions, controlling of fellow teamates etc...Sounds a right good guy to have a knock with.
The guy has no integrity or shame.What he has done, and those like him, just gives the sport a sullied reputation, and for all those that do it the right way, the sport will never get recognised as being clean....
I guess if you did go out with him in a fourball, i guess you would have to follow to the toilet, and check the contents of his bag..

Click to expand...

Whoa am I missing something, did you finish 118th in the TDF as the first clean rider over the line? 

He's a drug cheat. He's not the first he wont be the last. (I wish there were none) Is it perhaps that he was one of the 'best' cheats (not that there's any glory in that) Is it because he duped the fans for so long that elevates him in condemnation above the others? 

Was the TDF/cycling clean before Armstrong? No other doping scandals?  

How is diving for the winning penalty in major football any better or a lesser crime (you must agree they also have no integrity or shame)

Seems like its too easy to compartmentalize types of cheating to suit.


----------



## colint (Jan 16, 2015)

Slab said:



			Whoa am I missing something, did you finish 118th in the TDF as the first clean rider over the line? 

He's a drug cheat. He's not the first he wont be the last. (I wish there were none) Is it perhaps that he was one of the 'best' cheats (not that there's any glory in that) Is it because he duped the fans for so long that elevates him in condemnation above the others? 

Was the TDF/cycling clean before Armstrong? No other doping scandals?  

How is diving for the winning penalty in major football any better or a lesser crime (you must agree they also have no integrity or shame)

Seems like its too easy to compartmentalize types of cheating to suit.
		
Click to expand...

Armstrong was the best cheat in an era when probably the top 30 riders were all cheating. He's vilified for denying it for so long, what did you expect him to do ? wink at the camera when he denied it ? I'm a big David Millar fan but the likes of him, Tyler Hamilton etc are held up as anti doping heroes because they came clean and wrote a book about it, earning themselves a small fortune in the process. Neither of them did this out of the goodness of their heart, David Millar was dragged out of a restaurant in France by the police and charged with sporting fraud, he didn't wake up one morning and decide to come clean. He reinvented himself as an anti doping campaigner to resurrect his career as he lost everything during his ban. I rode with him a for a few miles while he was banned and he was sleeping in mates house as he had nowhere else to go.

Someone else mentioned Stephen Roache, Roache was linked to doping as well. A test done restrospectively found EPO in his blood sample from (I think) early 2000's. He's also the only rider to win the triple crown other than Eddy Merckx, and as great a rider as Merckx was, he was also caught doping. A famous saying in cycling is that you don't win the tour de france on bread and water. Doping has been part of the sport for ever, it just became more systematic and professional during the armstrong era. If EPO had been available in the 60's or 70's, it would have been someone else held up as the villain.

Personally, as guilty as he is, I think he's been made a scapegoat for the whole sport. Other than Wiggins, I think theres only been 1 TDF winner not linked to doping in something like the last 25 years.

I'd play a round with Armstrong and trust him more than any footballer


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 16, 2015)

colint said:



			Armstrong was the best cheat in an era when probably the top 30 riders were all cheating. He's vilified for denying it for so long, what did you expect him to do ? wink at the camera when he denied it ? I'm a big David Millar fan but the likes of him, Tyler Hamilton etc are held up as anti doping heroes because they came clean and wrote a book about it, earning themselves a small fortune in the process. Neither of them did this out of the goodness of their heart, David Millar was dragged out of a restaurant in France by the police and charged with sporting fraud, he didn't wake up one morning and decide to come clean. He reinvented himself as an anti doping campaigner to resurrect his career as he lost everything during his ban. I rode with him a for a few miles while he was banned and he was sleeping in mates house as he had nowhere else to go.

Someone else mentioned Stephen Roache, Roache was linked to doping as well. A test done restrospectively found EPO in his blood sample from (I think) early 2000's. He's also the only rider to win the triple crown other than Eddy Merckx, and as great a rider as Merckx was, he was also caught doping. A famous saying in cycling is that you don't win the tour de france on bread and water. Doping has been part of the sport for ever, it just became more systematic and professional during the armstrong era. If EPO had been available in the 60's or 70's, it would have been someone else held up as the villain.

Personally, as guilty as he is, I think he's been made a scapegoat for the whole sport. Other than Wiggins, I think theres only been 1 TDF winner not linked to doping in something like the last 25 years.

I'd play a round with Armstrong and trust him more than any footballer
		
Click to expand...

A very well argued post there.


----------



## TheJezster (Jan 16, 2015)

colint said:



			Armstrong was the best cheat in an era when probably the top 30 riders were all cheating. He's vilified for denying it for so long, what did you expect him to do ? wink at the camera when he denied it ? I'm a big David Millar fan but the likes of him, Tyler Hamilton etc are held up as anti doping heroes because they came clean and wrote a book about it, earning themselves a small fortune in the process. Neither of them did this out of the goodness of their heart, David Millar was dragged out of a restaurant in France by the police and charged with sporting fraud, he didn't wake up one morning and decide to come clean. He reinvented himself as an anti doping campaigner to resurrect his career as he lost everything during his ban. I rode with him a for a few miles while he was banned and he was sleeping in mates house as he had nowhere else to go.

Someone else mentioned Stephen Roache, Roache was linked to doping as well. A test done restrospectively found EPO in his blood sample from (I think) early 2000's. He's also the only rider to win the triple crown other than Eddy Merckx, and as great a rider as Merckx was, he was also caught doping. A famous saying in cycling is that you don't win the tour de france on bread and water. Doping has been part of the sport for ever, it just became more systematic and professional during the armstrong era. If EPO had been available in the 60's or 70's, it would have been someone else held up as the villain.

Personally, as guilty as he is, I think he's been made a scapegoat for the whole sport. Other than Wiggins, I think theres only been 1 TDF winner not linked to doping in something like the last 25 years.

I'd play a round with Armstrong and trust him more than any footballer
		
Click to expand...

I think this in an excellent post.  I was a massive Armstrong fan, like many others on here and I too was sure he was innocent, so to find out he was in fact guilty was a huge disappointment. That being said, why would that make him a cheat at golf?  It wouldn't as far as I am concerned and would happily play with him.  I wouldn't even give him cheating a second thought.


----------



## Piece (Jan 16, 2015)

TheJezster said:



			I think this in an excellent post.  I was a massive Armstrong fan, like many others on here and I too was sure he was innocent, so to find out he was in fact guilty was a huge disappointment. That being said, why would that make him a cheat at golf?  It wouldn't as far as I am concerned and would happily play with him.  I wouldn't even give him cheating a second thought.
		
Click to expand...

Same here, word for word.


----------



## sawtooth (Jan 16, 2015)

rksquire said:



			If you played 250 rounds a year what would you expect your handicap to be? [I play approx. 36-40 rounds a year, with current h/cap of 14, I'd expect to be in the region of 6-8 with 250 rounds
		
Click to expand...

5 times a week? I would expect to get down to 5-6


----------



## AmandaJR (Jan 16, 2015)

colint said:



			Armstrong was the best cheat in an era when probably the top 30 riders were all cheating. He's vilified for denying it for so long, what did you expect him to do ? wink at the camera when he denied it ? I'm a big David Millar fan but the likes of him, Tyler Hamilton etc are held up as anti doping heroes because they came clean and wrote a book about it, earning themselves a small fortune in the process. Neither of them did this out of the goodness of their heart, David Millar was dragged out of a restaurant in France by the police and charged with sporting fraud, he didn't wake up one morning and decide to come clean. He reinvented himself as an anti doping campaigner to resurrect his career as he lost everything during his ban. I rode with him a for a few miles while he was banned and he was sleeping in mates house as he had nowhere else to go.

Someone else mentioned Stephen Roache, Roache was linked to doping as well. A test done restrospectively found EPO in his blood sample from (I think) early 2000's. He's also the only rider to win the triple crown other than Eddy Merckx, and as great a rider as Merckx was, he was also caught doping. A famous saying in cycling is that you don't win the tour de france on bread and water. Doping has been part of the sport for ever, it just became more systematic and professional during the armstrong era. If EPO had been available in the 60's or 70's, it would have been someone else held up as the villain.

Personally, as guilty as he is, I think he's been made a scapegoat for the whole sport. Other than Wiggins, I think theres only been 1 TDF winner not linked to doping in something like the last 25 years.

I'd play a round with Armstrong and trust him more than any footballer
		
Click to expand...




TheJezster said:



			I think this in an excellent post.  I was a massive Armstrong fan, like many others on here and I too was sure he was innocent, so to find out he was in fact guilty was a huge disappointment. That being said, why would that make him a cheat at golf?  It wouldn't as far as I am concerned and would happily play with him.  I wouldn't even give him cheating a second thought.
		
Click to expand...

Hear hear - x2 :thup:


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 16, 2015)

If we are comparing the TDF and controlling his team and everything he did, To playing a round of golf with him. It's a bit like asking if you'd eat sprouts coz you like ice cream.

you complain as a team mate coz Lance is cheating and your out of a job.
lance is cheating at golf playing in a fourball with you and he is likely to end up with a club round his ear hole.

i have said this before and I will say it again. Lance was a prize pillock for doing what he did, but what about the second guy that says yeah that's a good idea. What was the ramifications for others involved in this cheating.

re playing with Lance, it will never happen, but I still don't know. When I started playing again, I ended up in a society do at Forest pines and was asked to keep an eye on "Leather wedge Joey". I did not have a clue what they were on about. Having played two holes I worked it out. It took a bit longer to realise what leather wedge meant.

point is we have all played with "known cheats". 

Another point is, if you did play with him. What would the topic of conversation be.&#128563;


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 16, 2015)

colint said:



			Armstrong was the best cheat in an era when probably the top 30 riders were all cheating. He's vilified for denying it for so long, what did you expect him to do ? wink at the camera when he denied it ? I'm a big David Millar fan but the likes of him, Tyler Hamilton etc are held up as anti doping heroes because they came clean and wrote a book about it, earning themselves a small fortune in the process. Neither of them did this out of the goodness of their heart, David Millar was dragged out of a restaurant in France by the police and charged with sporting fraud, he didn't wake up one morning and decide to come clean. He reinvented himself as an anti doping campaigner to resurrect his career as he lost everything during his ban. I rode with him a for a few miles while he was banned and he was sleeping in mates house as he had nowhere else to go.

Someone else mentioned Stephen Roache, Roache was linked to doping as well. A test done restrospectively found EPO in his blood sample from (I think) early 2000's. He's also the only rider to win the triple crown other than Eddy Merckx, and as great a rider as Merckx was, he was also caught doping. A famous saying in cycling is that you don't win the tour de france on bread and water. Doping has been part of the sport for ever, it just became more systematic and professional during the armstrong era. If EPO had been available in the 60's or 70's, it would have been someone else held up as the villain.

Personally, as guilty as he is, I think he's been made a scapegoat for the whole sport. Other than Wiggins, I think theres only been 1 TDF winner not linked to doping in something like the last 25 years.

I'd play a round with Armstrong and trust him more than any footballer
		
Click to expand...




Slab said:



			Whoa am I missing something, did you finish 118th in the TDF as the first clean rider over the line? 

He's a drug cheat. He's not the first he wont be the last. (I wish there were none) Is it perhaps that he was one of the 'best' cheats (not that there's any glory in that) Is it because he duped the fans for so long that elevates him in condemnation above the others? 

Was the TDF/cycling clean before Armstrong? No other doping scandals?  

How is diving for the winning penalty in major football any better or a lesser crime (you must agree they also have no integrity or shame)

Seems like its too easy to compartmentalize types of cheating to suit.
		
Click to expand...

Nobody's denying that there were other cheats at the time, and nobody's claiming that the sport is clean now.

He's vilified as far as I am concerned not so much for denying it for so long, but for the lengths he went to in order to present himself as clean.  The manipulation of team mates, the allegations against the French authorities that they were conducting a totally unjustified campaign against him and the self-promotion of himself as clean and a cut above the rest of his fellow competitors via the books (that made him a small fortune in the process) and the LiveStrong campaign show a level of cynicism and contempt towards his fans, the authorities and the sport in general that beggars belief.  

Yes, footballers cheat when an opportunity presents itself during a game.  But they don't go to the lengths that Armstrong did to engineer & control the cheating, nor to the lengths that he did to cover it up.  Yes, a cheat is a cheat, just as a thief is a thief, but to compare Armstrong to footballers is to compare a shoplifter with the Great Train Robbery or a pickpocket to the Brinks Mat job.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 16, 2015)

Blue in Munich said:



			Nobody's denying that there were other cheats at the time, and nobody's claiming that the sport is clean now.

He's vilified as far as I am concerned not so much for denying it for so long, but for the lengths he went to in order to present himself as clean.  The manipulation of team mates, the allegations against the French authorities that they were conducting a totally unjustified campaign against him and the self-promotion of himself as clean and a cut above the rest of his fellow competitors via the books (that made him a small fortune in the process) and the LiveStrong campaign show a level of cynicism and contempt towards his fans, the authorities and the sport in general that beggars belief.  

Yes, footballers cheat when an opportunity presents itself during a game.  But they don't go to the lengths that Armstrong did to engineer & control the cheating, nor to the lengths that he did to cover it up.  Yes, a cheat is a cheat, just as a thief is a thief, but to compare Armstrong to footballers is to compare a shoplifter with the Great Train Robbery or a pickpocket to the Brinks Mat job.
		
Click to expand...

Another excellent post.  Christ, this tread is in danger of having well argued posts based on intelligent debate instead of half baked prejudices and hearsay.   Not sure I can cope with that.


----------



## colint (Jan 16, 2015)

I don't think he showed contempt for the authorities because I'm sure they knew he was doping. An English speaking tdf champion was a licence to print money for many at the top of the sport, they were happy to ride the gravy train while it lasted


----------



## Blue in Munich (Jan 16, 2015)

colint said:



			I don't think he showed contempt for the authorities because I'm sure they knew he was doping. An English speaking tdf champion was a licence to print money for many at the top of the sport, they were happy to ride the gravy train while it lasted
		
Click to expand...

So if I'm reading this right, you're saying that those at the top of the sport's administration effectively colluded, either actively or passively, with the USPS team to keep Armstrong at the top of the sport and confound the French police in the process in order to print money, or that potentially the French police were in on it as well?  How does that sit with Armstrong's claims in his that the French authorities had it in for him because the cancer drugs that saved him were on the banned list; or was the first book a cynical smoke and mirrors job to throw us all off the scent whilst he was in bed with the authorities?


----------



## colint (Jan 16, 2015)

There's evidence that the uci, governing body of cycling, colluded with Armstrong. Not the french police.


----------



## SaintHacker (Jan 17, 2015)

There is another angle to look at this from, and I'm not saying its one I agree with. But during his time the sport was rife with drug taking. every rival he beat was done for positive tests at some point. Zulle, Pantani, Ullrich, they were all at it, so it could be argues that whilst anyone doing it was cheating, they were all just truing to keep up with each other! The other thing particular to Armstrong, is that due to his success his Foundation has raised millions upon millions of dollars for cancer research and support. Had he not won so much, however tainted those wins now are, would that still be the case? I'm not so sure, so maybe at least something good has come out all of it.
To get the thread back on track, as a self confessed former fan of Armstrong, and a continuing fan of cycling, I would love to play a round with him, although some of the conversation could become quite uncomfortable and I'm not sure we'd still be on speaking terms by the 18th!


----------



## Sweep (Jan 17, 2015)

What I find very interesting from this thread is that cheating at most "sports" is almost now perfectly acceptable but is an absolute disgrace in golf. Even the man who will probably go down as the greatest cheater of all time says so.
Every time I watch football, I see players diving and commentators applauding them for it. When a player tries to stay on his feet, everyone says he should have gone down. Football now has become more about winning an Oscar than winning the Champions League. The players try to con the ref every single minute of the game and then we vilify him when "he has had a bad game".
Cycling, as a sport is just simply a disgrace and Armstrong and others put in there. The governing bodies of these "sports" are equally to blame. They are presiding over and condoning the self distructionof the sport they are supposed to foster to the point of dereliction of duty. Just look at FIFA. And it's all because of money. And all the while people like Armstrong are taking the adulation and fame, because in the end the only people they are conning is US.
Those that say they would be happy to play with Armstrong should probably question why they would play with him, but very likely refuse to play with someone who has been found cheating at golf.
The truth is that these other sports aren't sports at all. They are just games. Sure, they take athletic ability and great skill to perform, but a sport involves sportsmanship and golf, to it's eternal credit, is the shining beacon of sportsmanship.


----------



## colint (Jan 17, 2015)

Maybe it's because golf relies so much on honesty ? When your playing partner is in the woods you just rely on him to play the ball as it lies, imagine if football was played in a separate field from the referee, if a player said he'd been fouled who'd believe him ?

As for the governing bodies of sports, cycling has at least tried to do something to clean itself up but others just aren;t interested. There was a famous case called Operation Puerto a few years ago where a doctor was raided in Spain (spain is notoriously lax on doping) and the police found evidence of wide scale blood doping / transfusions. Every cyclist on the doctors list was investigated and many where banned. Over half the sportsmen using the doctors where from tennis, football and athletics. Not one person from theses sports was banned. There was evidence linking a top italian football team to the doctor, this team coincidentally scored more goals in the last 10 minutes of matches than any other in europe, the players where somehow fitter. Despite the fact that the club where making cash payments to the doctor in question, fifa concluded there was nothing suspicious. Arsene Wenger has also said that when he buys a player from europe, he often can't play them for weeks until their blood levels return to normal. Doping is rife in all top sport, but theres too much money involved and too many people getting rich for it to ever be dealt with properly.


----------



## Jimaroid (Jan 26, 2015)

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/30981609

"I'd probably cheat again" says Lance Armstrong. 

I think that settles the question of whether he's a trustworthy sportsman or not. A disgraceful man in my opinion.


----------



## Tongo (Jan 26, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/30981609

"I'd probably cheat again" says Lance Armstrong. 

I think that settles the question of whether he's a trustworthy sportsman or not. A disgraceful man in my opinion.
		
Click to expand...

I find the comments about bike sales and the money raised from charity particularly disingenuous and distasteful, almost justifying the means. That money was made on the back of people believing in you as an athlete Lance, not you as a doped up junkie.


----------



## SaintHacker (Jan 26, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/30981609

"I'd probably cheat again" says Lance Armstrong. 

I think that settles the question of whether he's a trustworthy sportsman or not. A disgraceful man in my opinion.
		
Click to expand...

Thats not actually what he says though, is it. It states if he went back to 1995 he would probably do it again, but not now. Because back then doping was so widespread it was considered the norm and you needed to do it just to keep up.


----------



## Jimaroid (Jan 26, 2015)

The intent of his words are quite clear, he would cheat again. The circumstances of others are irrelevant, he chose to cheat then, forced others to cheat, and says he would choose to cheat again if he could by some miracle go back in time. 

Not everyone was doping but lots were and he was. Blaming others for his decision is just another nail in his coffin.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 26, 2015)

So let me get this right, if he was back in 1995 again he would cheat. Having lied, cheated, robbed, back stabbed and knowing that he let down millions of his adoring public he would do it all again. 

His is carefully planned interview to start getting himself back into the public eye has backfired dramatically. Grade one tool.


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jan 26, 2015)

And its the mindset from today's quote why I wouldn't trust him as a golfer. It's ingrained in his psyche


----------



## colint (Jan 26, 2015)

Tongo said:



			I find the comments about bike sales and the money raised from charity particularly disingenuous and distasteful, almost justifying the means. That money was made on the back of people believing in you as an athlete Lance, not you as a doped up junkie.
		
Click to expand...

Why ? Trek are trying to sue him for damage to their brand, the point he's trying to make is that without him Trek were also rans in the bike world and made their name on the back of his victories. Lots of people made money out of Armstrong cheating, but he's the only one being punished, and some of the biggest winners are now trying to sue him. Trek bike sales went from 100 million dollars to 1 billion dollars. I think they did OK


----------



## colint (Jan 26, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			The intent of his words are quite clear, he would cheat again. The circumstances of others are irrelevant, he chose to cheat then, forced others to cheat, and says he would choose to cheat again if he could by some miracle go back in time. 

Not everyone was doping but lots were and he was. Blaming others for his decision is just another nail in his coffin.
		
Click to expand...

Wheres the evidence that he forced anyone to cheat ? Nobody had to dope, they chose to in order to get a place on his team. They could have rode for one of the lesser teams on a tenth of the salary, funnily, they chose not to. He wasn't sticking needles in people arms, they chose to the same as he did


----------



## SaintHacker (Jan 26, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			The intent of his words are quite clear, he would cheat again. The circumstances of others are irrelevant, he chose to cheat then, forced others to cheat, and says he would choose to cheat again if he could by some miracle go back in time. 

Not everyone was doping but lots were and he was. Blaming others for his decision is just another nail in his coffin.
		
Click to expand...

Thats not how I read it, and I would say the circumstances of others are completely relevant. He says he wouldn't dope if he was riding now, but would if he went back to 95. that to me is because in 95 he would need to dope to stand any chance, but now as the sport is so much cleaner he could compete clean on a level playing field.
I'm not saying its right, far from it, but this is high level sport we are talking about with millions of pounds/dollars/euros etc at stake. 

If you really want to point a finger at who is responsible, point it at the team sponsors. They put huge pressure on the team managers to win races, who in turn put huge pressure on the riders. Sadly people will do what they feel they have to to gain an advantage, and not be out of a job the next season.


----------



## Jimaroid (Jan 26, 2015)

colint said:



			Wheres the evidence that he forced anyone to cheat ? Nobody had to dope, they chose to in order to get a place on his team.
		
Click to expand...

In their report the USADA concluded that Armstrong coerced and expected his teammates to dope. He made others cheat, it's as close to absolute certainty as it can be based on individual testimony, although of course it's convenient that those teammates also have him to blame.


----------



## colint (Jan 26, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			In their report the USADA concluded that Armstrong coerced and expected his teammates to dope. He made others cheat, it's as close to absolute certainty as it can be based on individual testimony, although of course it's convenient that those teammates also have him to blame.
		
Click to expand...

That'snot forcing though is it ? They all had a choice. A rider who actually chose not to dope who rode for another team said he'd be given 2 contracts at the beginning of the season by the team management, a none doping one on 20,000 euro a year and a doping one on 200,000. It's not really forcing is it, but I bet some of the people moralising wouldn't have found it so easy to make the decision when they could secure their families futures by cheating in a bike race


----------



## Jimaroid (Jan 26, 2015)

Armstrongs tactics appear to be a combination of bullying in various forms, using financial leverage over others and litigiousness against anyone that spoke against him. If that's not force, I don't know what is.


----------



## colint (Jan 26, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			Armstrongs tactics appear to be a combination of bullying in various forms, using financial leverage over others and litigiousness against anyone that spoke against him. If that's not force, I don't know what is.
		
Click to expand...

So if your employer offers you a tenfold pay rise to cheat and work, or the option to stay as you are thats bullying ? Armstrong was most definitely a bully, but not in making people dope, more in terrorising people who tried to speak out


----------



## Jimaroid (Jan 26, 2015)

colint said:



			So if your employer offers you a tenfold pay rise to cheat and work, or the option to stay as you are thats bullying ?
		
Click to expand...

You think it isn't? 

It's coercion, a form of bullying. Similar to extortion and blackmail. It's a violation of the free will of others. Threats of punishment unless a desired action is performed. How can it possibly be anything else? 

A liar, a cheat, a fraud, a bully... Armstrong is all these and more.


----------



## Tommo21 (Jan 26, 2015)

Not read all of this because it rips my knitting. The people I feel sorry for are the guys who never got the opportunity to stand on the top step, lost out on sponsorship and the chance of big money because of this cheating liar.........no time for him.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 26, 2015)

Tommo21 said:



			Not read all of this because it rips my knitting. The people I feel sorry for are the guys who never got the opportunity to stand on the top step, lost out on sponsorship and the chance of big money because of this cheating liar.........no time for him.
		
Click to expand...

Wasnt it rife in those days though  ? 

It seems that all the main riders from the 90s and into the 00's were all involved in doping ?


----------



## TheJezster (Jan 26, 2015)

Here's another way to look at it... For those of you saying you think he'd definitely cheat at golf, why? Surely by telling the truth that if he was back in 95 he would dope, he'd still tell the truth and call any golf penalty on himself? For me, this is another strong argument for him, not against. It would be easy and simple to say he'd do things differently, but he didn't chose the easy and simple route, he chose the harder way and told the truth. Now that takes guts. After everything I think he's finally heading the right way. I'd still play golf with him.


----------



## colint (Jan 26, 2015)

Jimaroid said:



			You think it isn't? 

It's coercion, a form of bullying. Similar to extortion and blackmail. It's a violation of the free will of others. Threats of punishment unless a desired action is performed. How can it possibly be anything else? 

A liar, a cheat, a fraud, a bully... Armstrong is all these and more.
		
Click to expand...

How is it a violation of free will if the option to carry on as you are is there ? There wasn't punishment, they could continue to be average riders in the race, they all chose to cheat, nobody was forced other than by their own greed


----------



## Jimaroid (Jan 27, 2015)

Here is an excerpt from the USADA reasoned decision, my emphasis.




			... Had Mr. Armstrong not refused to confront the evidence against him in a hearing, the witnesses in the case of The United States Anti-Doping Agency v. Lance Armstrong would have testified under oath with a legal duty to testify truthfully or face potential civil and/or criminal consequences. Witness after witness would have been called to the stand and witness after witness would have confirmed the following: *That Lance Armstrong used the banned drug EPO.That Lance Armstrong used the banned drug Testosterone. That Lance Armstrong provided his teammates the banned drug EPO. That Lance Armstrong administered to a teammate the banned drug Testosterone. That Lance Armstrong enforced the doping program on his team by threatening a rider with termination if he did not dope in accordance with the plan drawn up byDr. Michele Ferrari.* That Lance Armstrongâ€™s doping program was organized by Dr. Ferrari.That Lance Armstrong pushed his teammates to use Dr. Ferrari. That Lance Armstrong used banned blood transfusions to cheat. ...
		
Click to expand...


----------



## Lord Tyrion (Jan 27, 2015)

Tommo21 said:



			Not read all of this because it rips my knitting. The people I feel sorry for are the guys who never got the opportunity to stand on the top step, lost out on sponsorship and the chance of big money because of this cheating liar.........no time for him.
		
Click to expand...

Agree on all of the above. 99% of riders back then were cheats, frankly you can write off most winners during a 20yr period or more, but what takes Armstrong above them is the way he bullied anyone refusing to take drugs to join up or get out. The nastiness of his approach plus the manner in which he legally attacked those who questioned him raises him above all others. He should never be allowed near competitive sport in any form ever again.


----------



## Rumpokid (Jan 27, 2015)

Greg Lemond looks like the only winner who put in a  'human' performance , for his wins in the last 30 odd years or so..Even Big Mig's (not the golfer ), performances are looking suspect, however, this does not take away the sheer arrogance of the guy that the thread is subject of.


----------



## matt71 (Jan 27, 2015)

Rumpokid said:



			Greg Lemond looks like the only winner who put in a  'human' performance , for his wins in the last 30 odd years or so..Even Big Mig's (not the golfer ), performances are looking suspect, however, this does not take away the sheer arrogance of the guy that the thread is subject of.
		
Click to expand...

not just Gregg but also Stephen Roache too. I for one hope Indurain was drug free as he was my idol in my old cycling days


----------



## Rumpokid (Jan 27, 2015)

matt71 said:



			not just Gregg but also Stephen Roache too. I for one hope Indurain was drug free as he was my idol in my old cycling days
		
Click to expand...

Mentioned Roche earlier in thread, his book is a good read too..As for Indurain, his performance stats are similar to those who have won and been caught out.Hmmm?? i.e not normal, more mutant.


----------



## matt71 (Jan 27, 2015)

sorry did not read all the thread


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 27, 2015)

matt71 said:



			not just Gregg but also Stephen Roache too. I for one hope Indurain was drug free as he was my idol in my old cycling days
		
Click to expand...

No chance indurain was clean.I don't think any one was back then.


----------



## davemc1 (Jan 27, 2015)

Really should lay off Armstrong. I tried riding a bike whilst on drugs once, fell into a hedge after a few seconds... :whoo: :rofl:




*pinched from tim burgess


----------



## Jimaroid (Jan 27, 2015)

I think plenty of elite cyclists stayed clean but very few of the big winners did.

They didn't all dope, I think it's one of the sadder parts of the whole situation that the honest athletes get labelled like the ones who cheated.


----------



## Pro Zach (Jan 27, 2015)

The irony of amateur golfers having a discussion on the morality of cheating.

Lance Armstrong cheated at cycling. He took drugs to gain an advantage to increase his chances of winning. He now plays golf and loves the code of honour. He loves a system that allows him to take 10 shots of his actual score to gain an advantage and increase his chances of winning. He doesn't have to surreptitiously take drugs to gain an advantage or secretly kick his ball out of the rough to gain an advantage. He can use an insidious immoral handicap system that allows him to cheat almost guilt free and with no condemnation from others.

If you are going to judge and castigate Lance Armstrong at least do it for the right reasons.

Lance Armstrong tries to justify his cheating at cycling by using a sound moral argument. He believed that if everybody played by the same rules, on a level playing field, he could win at cycling.  Unfortunately he knew that someone was taking drugs to gain an advantage. Taking drugs for an advantage effectively unlevelled the playing field by sloping it in their favour. He reasoned,   because he couldn't stop them, and no one else was, he was morally justified to also take drugs, to re-level the playing field. If there was only the two of them he would be correct. Because it isn't a two man race then the people who took drugs were cheating him and everyone else who wasn't. The reason him taking drugs was immoral was because it further victimised people who weren't.

In his new found love of golf however it is very different. As a 10 handicap he probably doesn't believe he has a chance of winning on a level playing field. If he plays against a scratch golfer he has no moral argument of why he should take off 10 shots. The scratch golfer is not taking any shots of his score. He is not cheating or in anyway unlevelling the playing field. When LA takes 10 shots off his score he is not re-levelling the playing field because the scratch golfer didn't in anyway unlevel it. It is LA that is unlevelling the playing field. He is gaining an advantage by sloping it in his favour. He is by definition cheating. This is what you should all be morally outraged with.

Unfortunately you have all been indoctrinated into an abomination of a handicap system so you are not.


----------



## Tongo (Jan 27, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			The irony of amateur golfers having a discussion on the morality of cheating.

Lance Armstrong cheated at cycling. He took drugs to gain an advantage to increase his chances of winning. He now plays golf and loves the code of honour. He loves a system that allows him to take 10 shots of his actual score to gain an advantage and increase his chances of winning. He doesn't have to surreptitiously take drugs to gain an advantage or secretly kick his ball out of the rough to gain an advantage. He can use an insidious immoral handicap system that allows him to cheat almost guilt free and with no condemnation from others.

If you are going to judge and castigate Lance Armstrong at least do it for the right reasons.

Lance Armstrong tries to justify his cheating at cycling by using a sound moral argument. He believed that if everybody played by the same rules, on a level playing field, he could win at cycling.  Unfortunately he knew that someone was taking drugs to gain an advantage. Taking drugs for an advantage effectively unlevelled the playing field by sloping it in their favour. He reasoned,   because he couldn't stop them, and no one else was, he was morally justified to also take drugs, to re-level the playing field. If there was only the two of them he would be correct. Because it isn't a two man race then the people who took drugs were cheating him and everyone else who wasn't. The reason him taking drugs was immoral was because it further victimised people who weren't.

*In his new found love of golf however it is very different. As a 10 handicap he probably doesn't believe he has a chance of winning on a level playing field. If he plays against a scratch golfer he has no moral argument of why he should take off 10 shots. The scratch golfer is not taking any shots of his score. He is not cheating or in anyway unlevelling the playing field. When LA takes 10 shots off his score he is not re-levelling the playing field because the scratch golfer didn't in anyway unlevel it. It is LA that is unlevelling the playing field. He is gaining an advantage by sloping it in his favour. He is by definition cheating. This is what you should all be morally outraged with.

Unfortunately you have all been indoctrinated into an abomination of a handicap system so you are not.*

Click to expand...

I've tried to think of an appropriate response to this, but simply cannot put it into words. What a load of tosh. (That'll do) You cant accuse people of cheating when using the handicap system because its part of the rules!


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 27, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			The irony of amateur golfers having a discussion on the morality of cheating.

Lance Armstrong cheated at cycling. He took drugs to gain an advantage to increase his chances of winning. He now plays golf and loves the code of honour. He loves a system that allows him to take 10 shots of his actual score to gain an advantage and increase his chances of winning. He doesn't have to surreptitiously take drugs to gain an advantage or secretly kick his ball out of the rough to gain an advantage. He can use an insidious immoral handicap system that allows him to cheat almost guilt free and with no condemnation from others.

If you are going to judge and castigate Lance Armstrong at least do it for the right reasons.

Lance Armstrong tries to justify his cheating at cycling by using a sound moral argument. He believed that if everybody played by the same rules, on a level playing field, he could win at cycling.  Unfortunately he knew that someone was taking drugs to gain an advantage. Taking drugs for an advantage effectively unlevelled the playing field by sloping it in their favour. He reasoned,   because he couldn't stop them, and no one else was, he was morally justified to also take drugs, to re-level the playing field. If there was only the two of them he would be correct. Because it isn't a two man race then the people who took drugs were cheating him and everyone else who wasn't. The reason him taking drugs was immoral was because it further victimised people who weren't.

In his new found love of golf however it is very different. As a 10 handicap he probably doesn't believe he has a chance of winning on a level playing field. If he plays against a scratch golfer he has no moral argument of why he should take off 10 shots. The scratch golfer is not taking any shots of his score. He is not cheating or in anyway unlevelling the playing field. When LA takes 10 shots off his score he is not re-levelling the playing field because the scratch golfer didn't in anyway unlevel it. It is LA that is unlevelling the playing field. He is gaining an advantage by sloping it in his favour. He is by definition cheating. This is what you should all be morally outraged with.

Unfortunately you have all been indoctrinated into an abomination of a handicap system so you are not.
		
Click to expand...

First written evidence of "Handicaps" 1680, surely someone would've come up with a better format by now?
Or is that because there isn't a better option?


----------



## CheltenhamHacker (Jan 27, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			The irony of amateur golfers having a discussion on the morality of cheating.

Lance Armstrong cheated at cycling. He took drugs to gain an advantage to increase his chances of winning. He now plays golf and loves the code of honour. He loves a system that allows him to take 10 shots of his actual score to gain an advantage and increase his chances of winning. He doesn't have to surreptitiously take drugs to gain an advantage or secretly kick his ball out of the rough to gain an advantage. He can use an insidious immoral handicap system that allows him to cheat almost guilt free and with no condemnation from others.

If you are going to judge and castigate Lance Armstrong at least do it for the right reasons.

Lance Armstrong tries to justify his cheating at cycling by using a sound moral argument. He believed that if everybody played by the same rules, on a level playing field, he could win at cycling.  Unfortunately he knew that someone was taking drugs to gain an advantage. Taking drugs for an advantage effectively unlevelled the playing field by sloping it in their favour. He reasoned,   because he couldn't stop them, and no one else was, he was morally justified to also take drugs, to re-level the playing field. If there was only the two of them he would be correct. Because it isn't a two man race then the people who took drugs were cheating him and everyone else who wasn't. The reason him taking drugs was immoral was because it further victimised people who weren't.

In his new found love of golf however it is very different. As a 10 handicap he probably doesn't believe he has a chance of winning on a level playing field. If he plays against a scratch golfer he has no moral argument of why he should take off 10 shots. The scratch golfer is not taking any shots of his score. He is not cheating or in anyway unlevelling the playing field. When LA takes 10 shots off his score he is not re-levelling the playing field because the scratch golfer didn't in anyway unlevel it. It is LA that is unlevelling the playing field. He is gaining an advantage by sloping it in his favour. He is by definition cheating. This is what you should all be morally outraged with.

Unfortunately you have all been indoctrinated into an abomination of a handicap system so you are not.
		
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understand the point behind the handicap system


----------



## Ethan (Jan 27, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			The irony of amateur golfers having a discussion on the morality of cheating.

Lance Armstrong cheated at cycling. He took drugs to gain an advantage to increase his chances of winning. He now plays golf and loves the code of honour. He loves a system that allows him to take 10 shots of his actual score to gain an advantage and increase his chances of winning. He doesn't have to surreptitiously take drugs to gain an advantage or secretly kick his ball out of the rough to gain an advantage. He can use an insidious immoral handicap system that allows him to cheat almost guilt free and with no condemnation from others.

If you are going to judge and castigate Lance Armstrong at least do it for the right reasons.

Lance Armstrong tries to justify his cheating at cycling by using a sound moral argument. He believed that if everybody played by the same rules, on a level playing field, he could win at cycling.  Unfortunately he knew that someone was taking drugs to gain an advantage. Taking drugs for an advantage effectively unlevelled the playing field by sloping it in their favour. He reasoned,   because he couldn't stop them, and no one else was, he was morally justified to also take drugs, to re-level the playing field. If there was only the two of them he would be correct. Because it isn't a two man race then the people who took drugs were cheating him and everyone else who wasn't. The reason him taking drugs was immoral was because it further victimised people who weren't.

In his new found love of golf however it is very different. As a 10 handicap he probably doesn't believe he has a chance of winning on a level playing field. If he plays against a scratch golfer he has no moral argument of why he should take off 10 shots. The scratch golfer is not taking any shots of his score. He is not cheating or in anyway unlevelling the playing field. When LA takes 10 shots off his score he is not re-levelling the playing field because the scratch golfer didn't in anyway unlevel it. It is LA that is unlevelling the playing field. He is gaining an advantage by sloping it in his favour. He is by definition cheating. This is what you should all be morally outraged with.

Unfortunately you have all been indoctrinated into an abomination of a handicap system so you are not.
		
Click to expand...

Moral argument? That is a weird and opaque argument you are using there. For a start, it is untrue, not everyone was taking drugs, at least not until he strongarmed (no pun intended) them into it. Anyway, it is a version of "Just following orders" blaming others for your failing. Armstrong simply didn't believe the normal rules apply to him. He hasn't changed a bit since. He is a narcissist who was prepared to do anything to win, then blame everyone afterwards. In any case, it is not a moral, or ethical, argument. 

Armstrong beat cancer, and could have been a great role model as a result, but he has wasted his legacy. 

And now he plays golf. For someone of his fitness, mental strength and will power, who plays 250 rounds a year at some of the finest courses on the US, he must be pretty crap to only be a 10 handicap. That is about a 12 in there UK. I am sure he has the same ethical flexibility when it comes to rules of golf, but at least he is only cheating himself, and not very well with that handicap. I doubt he ;loves the code of honour, but he likes that he doesn't have to wee into a cup afterwards.


----------



## drdel (Jan 27, 2015)

TheJezster said:



			I think this in an excellent post.  I was a massive Armstrong fan, like many others on here and I too was sure he was innocent, so to find out he was in fact guilty was a huge disappointment. That being said, why would that make him a cheat at golf?  It wouldn't as far as I am concerned and would happily play with him.  I wouldn't even give him cheating a second thought.
		
Click to expand...


I agree. Its so easy to be pious and its easy to slag him off but sometimes we should take a hard and honest look at ourselves before we jump to judge others.

 At the time his competitors were also into similar substances - with most Team's trainers looking for drugs that would not be detected. He was still better than his peers. Reporters said he'd do it again- its not what he said. He actually said that IF the same conditions existed as in the past he could see how he'd compete without taking the same stuff as others!

He was a figure head and became the fall guy.

Unfortunately the press wants everyone to be pure as driven snow and put them on a pedestal then take great delight when the find a flaw.

I doubt very much that the professional game of golf is any 'cleaner' than other sports and its my opinion that many Professionals will try all manner of stuff (antlers, etc. etc) if they think it'll give them and edge and its not on a banned substance list.


----------



## Pro Zach (Jan 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			First written evidence of "Handicaps" 1680, surely someone would've come up with a better format by now?
Or is that because there isn't a better option?
		
Click to expand...

Handicapping was introduced into golf to equalise odds to facilitate betting. I don't know of a better system to do this.

If you want the monthly medal to be a fair bet then the handicap system is very good. If you want the monthly medal to be a competition then the system is unfair. A better format for competition has been used throughout human history.

A competition is only fair, or has meaning as a competition, if it is on a level playing field. Handicapping deliberately unlevels the playing field to equalise odds.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 27, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			Handicapping was introduced into golf to equalise odds to facilitate betting. I don't know of a better system to do this.

If you want the monthly medal to be a fair bet then the handicap system is very good. If you want the monthly medal to be a competition then the system is unfair. A better format for competition has been used throughout human history.

A competition is only fair, or has meaning as a competition, if it is on a level playing field. Handicapping deliberately unlevels the playing field to equalise odds.
		
Click to expand...

So, using my club as an example (Club championship) i can tell you this years winner from 5 blokes, why would the rest of us enter, that's why we use handicaps for other comps, to make it competetive for all.
We all strive for a lower handicap and dream of scratch.


----------



## Pro Zach (Jan 27, 2015)

Tongo said:



			I've tried to think of an appropriate response to this, but simply cannot put it into words. What a load of tosh. (That'll do) You cant accuse people of cheating when using the handicap system because its part of the rules! 

Click to expand...

If we used rules as a moral guide then we would still have slavery and women wouldn't have the vote.


----------



## Imurg (Jan 27, 2015)

Here we go again......


----------



## Tongo (Jan 27, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			Handicapping was introduced into golf to equalise odds to facilitate betting. I don't know of a better system to do this.

If you want the monthly medal to be a fair bet then the handicap system is very good. If you want the monthly medal to be a competition then the system is unfair. *A better format for competition has been used throughout human history.*

A competition is only fair, or has meaning as a competition, if it is on a level playing field. Handicapping deliberately unlevels the playing field to equalise odds.
		
Click to expand...

Such as? 

Whatever the origins of handicapping, it has moved on since then and allows all players to compete for a monthly medal or golf competition rather than those playing off of low handicaps. Or would you rather that a handful of members won all the tournaments? The system is by no means perfect, but no system ever is.


----------



## Tongo (Jan 27, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			If we used rules as a moral guide then we would still have slavery and women wouldn't have the vote.
		
Click to expand...

Your use of slavery to back up your argument against a system for pithy golf tournaments really is disingenuous and distasteful. Nobody gets hurt or is oppressed at a monthly medal. Have a word with yourself.


----------



## virtuocity (Jan 27, 2015)

Tongo said:



			Nobody gets hurt or is oppressed at a monthly medal.
		
Click to expand...

What about hurt and depressed?


----------



## drdel (Jan 27, 2015)

Forgive me for interrupting the spat; but what on earth has handicap, slavery, oppression and depression got to do with Lance Armstrong?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 27, 2015)

drdel said:



			Forgive me for interrupting the spat; but what on earth has handicap, slavery, oppression and depression got to do with Lance Armstrong?
		
Click to expand...

I believe someone is trying to suggest its a form of cheating by using your HC ? i may have that wrong ?


----------



## tsped83 (Jan 27, 2015)

davemc1 said:



			Really should lay off Armstrong. I tried riding a bike whilst on drugs once, fell into a hedge after a few seconds... :whoo: :rofl:




*pinched from tim burgess
		
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha. This is pure gold! Not to fussed about the big 'moral' debate. But this is just flat out funny.


----------



## Tashyboy (Jan 27, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			Handicapping was introduced into golf to equalise odds to facilitate betting. I don't know of a better system to do this.

If you want the monthly medal to be a fair bet then the handicap system is very good. If you want the monthly medal to be a competition then the system is unfair. A better format for competition has been used throughout human history.

A competition is only fair, or has meaning as a competition, if it is on a level playing field. Handicapping deliberately unlevels the playing field to equalise odds.
		
Click to expand...

If that was the case then you would only have one horse run the Derby, grand national and Skegness donkey Derby, and all bookies would go bust after twenty minutes. Every club would only have half a dozen members because everyone would be fed up of getting thumped every week and losing 50p every time they played in a fiddle. 
Na ah stick with the handicap system it has its small problems but it's far better than plan B.


----------



## Pro Zach (Jan 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			So, using my club as an example (Club championship) i can tell you this years winner from 5 blokes, why would the rest of us enter, that's why we use handicaps for other comps, to make it competetive for all.
We all strive for a lower handicap and dream of scratch.
		
Click to expand...


I believe Sophocles answered this question a couple of thousand years ago when he wrote â€œit is better to lose with honour than win by cheatingâ€
Winning a competition is not important. One of the reasons you think it is because the handicap system equalises odds to make it a bet. Winning a bet is more important because there is no hierarchy of first to last. There is a winner and the rest are all losers.

There are plenty of non handicapped sports that show that winning is not important to people. If you look at a marathon you will see hundreds of people competing but only an elite few have a chance of winning.

If you ran your club champs as a scratch comp it is true that many people wouldn't enter. This is because the handicap system has blinded them to the meaning and enjoyment we get from competition. The system has allowed them to cheat and they will now feel it is unfair if they can't. 

If golf had never had a handicap system golfers would not be making the arguments they make. People would still start playing golf and enter competitions in the same way as they do in non handicapped sports. The difference is they would be enjoying it more.

A newcomer to the game would enter competitions when he felt he had the ability to compete with the worst players. Probably his goal in his first comp would be to not finish last. If he achieves this he will be delighted if he doesn't he will be disappointed. He will not be disappointed about not winning because that would be a ridiculous goal for a newcomer. 

At no point will he think or argue that he should have an equal chance of winning against someone who has worked hard for 20 years and has more ability than him. If he did suggest it was unfair that the same scratch golfer won all the comps he would be given a slap and told to show some respect for the winners hard work and skill. If someone suggested he should knock off 28 shots so he had a chance of winning he would look at them like they were an idiot. Why would he want to cheat to win?

He would keep entering comps and compare himself to people of similar ability. He will be thrilled or disappointed depending on were he finishes on the leader board compared to were he thinks is capable of finishing. He will congratulate the winner even if it is the same bloke every week.

Now it does seem strange that you can turn this sensible, honourable, person into a delusional cheat just by introducing him to a handicap system â€“ but it seems you can.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 27, 2015)

Sorry but dont think its right to be calling people who use a HC system as cheats.


----------



## Pro Zach (Jan 27, 2015)

Tongo said:



			Your use of slavery to back up your argument against a system for pithy golf tournaments really is disingenuous and distasteful. Nobody gets hurt or is oppressed at a monthly medal. Have a word with yourself.
		
Click to expand...

I didn't use it for the argument you suggest. I used it as an argument against using rules as a moral compass.


----------



## freddielong (Jan 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			Sorry but dont think its right to be calling people who use a HC system as cheats.
		
Click to expand...

Cheating is cheating


----------



## HomerJSimpson (Jan 27, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			So, using my club as an example (Club championship) i can tell you this years winner from 5 blokes, why would the rest of us enter, that's why we use handicaps for other comps, to make it competetive for all.
We all strive for a lower handicap and dream of scratch.
		
Click to expand...

Like many clubs we have a scratch prize (club champion) and it's normally between half a dozen but we run a handicap event at the same time so everyone has something to aim for with it's own separate trophy and honour board. With a halfway cut after round one there's always a fight to avoid the axe and the stick that come with an MC. That's why with have handicaps. It gives everyone an equal playing field


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 27, 2015)

freddielong said:



			Cheating is cheating
		
Click to expand...

That maybe correct but players using a HC system in golf is not cheating


----------



## Pro Zach (Jan 27, 2015)

Tashyboy said:



			If that was the case then you would only have one horse run the Derby, grand national and Skegness donkey Derby, and all bookies would go bust after twenty minutes. Every club would only have half a dozen members because everyone would be fed up of getting thumped every week and losing 50p every time they played in a fiddle. 
Na ah stick with the handicap system it has its small problems but it's far better than plan B.
		
Click to expand...

Handicapping is used in horse racing to equalise odds to facilitate betting. It is so humans can gamble. It is not there because horses refuse to compete if they don't have an equal chance of winning.

If what you say about club golf is true, can you explain why marathons don't only have half a dozen entrants?


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 27, 2015)

Because of lot of people enter marathons for more than just to compete 

If HC system was removed from golf then the numbers would just disappear

Golf is great in that it allows a level playing field meaning that anyone can one on any given day 

it allows people of all ages and sex to compete all their life and its great


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 27, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			I believe Sophocles answered this question a couple of thousand years ago when he wrote â€œit is better to lose with honour than win by cheatingâ€
Winning a competition is not important. One of the reasons you think it is because the handicap system equalises odds to make it a bet. Winning a bet is more important because there is no hierarchy of first to last. There is a winner and the rest are all losers.

There are plenty of non handicapped sports that show that winning is not important to people. If you look at a marathon you will see hundreds of people competing but only an elite few have a chance of winning.

If you ran your club champs as a scratch comp it is true that many people wouldn't enter. This is because the handicap system has blinded them to the meaning and enjoyment we get from competition. The system has allowed them to cheat and they will now feel it is unfair if they can't. 

If golf had never had a handicap system golfers would not be making the arguments they make. People would still start playing golf and enter competitions in the same way as they do in non handicapped sports. The difference is they would be enjoying it more.

A newcomer to the game would enter competitions when he felt he had the ability to compete with the worst players. Probably his goal in his first comp would be to not finish last. If he achieves this he will be delighted if he doesn't he will be disappointed. He will not be disappointed about not winning because that would be a ridiculous goal for a newcomer. 

At no point will he think or argue that he should have an equal chance of winning against someone who has worked hard for 20 years and has more ability than him. If he did suggest it was unfair that the same scratch golfer won all the comps he would be given a slap and told to show some respect for the winners hard work and skill. If someone suggested he should knock off 28 shots so he had a chance of winning he would look at them like they were an idiot. Why would he want to cheat to win?

He would keep entering comps and compare himself to people of similar ability. He will be thrilled or disappointed depending on were he finishes on the leader board compared to were he thinks is capable of finishing. He will congratulate the winner even if it is the same bloke every week.

Now it does seem strange that you can turn this sensible, honourable, person into a delusional cheat just by introducing him to a handicap system â€“ but it seems you can.
		
Click to expand...

Genuinely don't know if this a wind up?
So everyone off scratch are we giving everyone identical clubs, balls, time to practise?
Playing would be very mechanical and I assume you are a low single figure or scratch golfer, because if I felt as strongly about it as yourself, I'd give up.
Calling it cheating is wrong, Governing bodies make rules and we play to them, I think your issue is with them,


----------



## Imurg (Jan 27, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			Handicapping is used in horse racing to equalise odds to facilitate betting. It is so humans can gamble. It is not there because horses refuse to compete if they don't have an equal chance of winning.

If what you say about club golf is true, can you explain why marathons don't only have half a dozen entrants?
		
Click to expand...

Because they're Golf Clubs not running races.
Comparing completely different things is pointless.

You come on every few months with this garbage and then go away again..
The Handicap system ain't going anywhere - get used to it!
If you don't want to use handicaps then play off Scratch and enjoy yourself.


----------



## Pro Zach (Jan 27, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			That maybe correct but players using a HC system in golf is not cheating
		
Click to expand...


I think they are cheating and it is difficult to argue that without saying it. But I am always open to a better way.

So, a player knowingly and deliberately doesn't count shots that they actually took for the sole purpose of increasing their chance of winning.......what would you call it?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 27, 2015)

HomerJSimpson said:



			Like many clubs we have a scratch prize (club champion) and it's normally between half a dozen but we run a handicap event at the same time so everyone has something to aim for with it's own separate trophy and honour board. With a halfway cut after round one there's always a fight to avoid the axe and the stick that come with an MC. That's why with have handicaps. It gives everyone an equal playing field
		
Click to expand...

That's what we do, was simplifying for postings sake&#128515;


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 27, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			I think they are cheating and it is difficult to argue that without saying it. But I am always open to a better way.

So, a player knowingly and deliberately doesn't count shots that they actually took for the sole purpose of increasing their chance of winning.......what would you call it?
		
Click to expand...

Cheating is classed as breaking the rules set out by the governing body of the game of golf 

By a player using a HC - how is that breaking any rules ?

Players not counting shots is cheating but thats nothing to do with the HC system


----------



## Imurg (Jan 27, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			I think they are cheating and it is difficult to argue that without saying it. But I am always open to a better way.

So, a player knowingly and deliberately doesn't count shots that they actually took for the sole purpose of increasing their chance of winning.......what would you call it?
		
Click to expand...

It is impossible to cheat if what you are doing is within the bounds of the rules of whatever you are doing.
If the Rules of Golf said I was allowed to kick your ball into every ditch we came to I would not be cheating if I did it.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jan 27, 2015)

Imurg said:



			If the Rules of Golf said I was allowed to kick your ball into every ditch we came to I would not be cheating if I did it.
		
Click to expand...

I can tell you are tempted


----------



## Imurg (Jan 27, 2015)

PhilTheFragger said:



			I can tell you are tempted  

Click to expand...

Well, I do play to the rules......


----------



## Tiger man (Jan 27, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			I believe Sophocles answered this question a couple of thousand years ago when he wrote â€œit is better to lose with honour than win by cheatingâ€
Winning a competition is not important. One of the reasons you think it is because the handicap system equalises odds to make it a bet. Winning a bet is more important because there is no hierarchy of first to last. There is a winner and the rest are all losers.

There are plenty of non handicapped sports that show that winning is not important to people. If you look at a marathon you will see hundreds of people competing but only an elite few have a chance of winning.

If you ran your club champs as a scratch comp it is true that many people wouldn't enter. This is because the handicap system has blinded them to the meaning and enjoyment we get from competition. The system has allowed them to cheat and they will now feel it is unfair if they can't. 

If golf had never had a handicap system golfers would not be making the arguments they make. People would still start playing golf and enter competitions in the same way as they do in non handicapped sports. The difference is they would be enjoying it more.

A newcomer to the game would enter competitions when he felt he had the ability to compete with the worst players. Probably his goal in his first comp would be to not finish last. If he achieves this he will be delighted if he doesn't he will be disappointed. He will not be disappointed about not winning because that would be a ridiculous goal for a newcomer. 

At no point will he think or argue that he should have an equal chance of winning against someone who has worked hard for 20 years and has more ability than him. If he did suggest it was unfair that the same scratch golfer won all the comps he would be given a slap and told to show some respect for the winners hard work and skill. If someone suggested he should knock off 28 shots so he had a chance of winning he would look at them like they were an idiot. Why would he want to cheat to win?

He would keep entering comps and compare himself to people of similar ability. He will be thrilled or disappointed depending on were he finishes on the leader board compared to were he thinks is capable of finishing. He will congratulate the winner even if it is the same bloke every week.

Now it does seem strange that you can turn this sensible, honourable, person into a delusional cheat just by introducing him to a handicap system â€“ but it seems you can.
		
Click to expand...

Wow, someone does not like losing his 50p every week.  
The main reason we play this game is enjoyment I believe? And giving a hacker the same chance as a seasoned player adds to it this, and keeps the better players sharp as they know they have to play to the best of their own ability to win.


----------



## chrisd (Jan 27, 2015)

H



Pro Zach said:



			...what would you call it?
		
Click to expand...


mmmmmmmmmmm how about........... GOLF!


I've read some utter garbage on the forum over the years but your arguments about handicapping are absolute nonsense!


----------



## Tiger man (Jan 27, 2015)

Imagine how exciting the club house would be every weekend with the same 2 guys talking about how they won. . . Again, and the mere mortals getting excited over who finished 30th this weekend! That would do wonders for dwindling golf numbers:thup: everyone has their good and bad rounds and it's the excitement of a good round that keeps you coming back with the added bonus of a few free rounds in the bar if ya win. Take that away and the soul would well and truly disappear from every golf club. But at least Sophocles would be happy:lol:


----------



## Pro Zach (Jan 28, 2015)

Imurg said:



			It is impossible to cheat if what you are doing is within the bounds of the rules of whatever you are doing.
If the Rules of Golf said I was allowed to kick your ball into every ditch we came to I would not be cheating if I did it.
		
Click to expand...

By this definition of cheating you are correct. I will try to use your statement of kicking the ball into the ditch to explain what the hell I'm talking about.

If a rule of golf allowed you to kick an opponents ball into a ditch but didn't allow him the same courtesy, would you do it?

I think most golfers wouldn't. They would immediately see that a rule that allows them to do something, but not others, is unfair. I think if you did it because it is in the rules, and therefore not cheating, you would still feel like you cheated because it would still seem unfair. 

I don't think there are any rules of golf like this. The rules of golf are the same for everyone.

But the handicap does not treat everyone the same. If you play a scratch golfer you are allowed to take 7 shots off your score and he isn't allowed to take off any. This is unfair because it treats you both differently.

The thing that seems to make me odd is that I do see the unfairness of handicapping. If I play a scratch golfer I am allowed  to take 13 shots of my score and he isn't allowed to take off any. To me this feels immoral, unfair and feels like I'm cheating. There is nothing in my head that justifies me doing this. It is not his fault I am crap at golf. Being crap at golf is my responsibility. I admire the hard work that he has put in to become a scratch golfer. If he can beat me while playing to the same rules he deserves the trophy. If I ever manage to beat him playing to the same rules then I deserve the trophy. If I never get good enough then I can live with that. But I struggle to live with playing by different rules so I can steal the trophy. The idea that I am allowed to take an advantage to make it more fun is ridiculous to me. 

I'd prefer to come second last on a level playing field, were the rules are the same for everyone, than come first because the rules advantaged me.


----------



## ColchesterFC (Jan 28, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			I'd prefer to come second last on a level playing field, were the rules are the same for everyone, than come first because the rules advantaged me.
		
Click to expand...

But you already have this option if you wish to take it. You can either only enter scratch competitions where nobody gets to take any shots off thier score or you can enter handicap competitions and put your handicap in as scratch. As far as I am aware you do not have to play off your handicap and could put whatever number you like in that box on the scorecard as long as it was 13 or less.

I am sure that in most clubs the more prestigious prize over the course of a season is the Scratch Champion but the handicap system gives everyone the chance to compete which surely is the whole point of a "competition".


----------



## ExRabbit (Jan 28, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			Blah, blah, blah...

I'd prefer to come second last on a level playing field, were the rules are the same for everyone, than come first because the rules advantaged me.
		
Click to expand...

I'd like to think that you are just a troll rather than an idiot. Nobody could be so dumb as this otherwise.  

You think that regular golf clubs competitions would happen if everyone played from scratch?

I think you are just an idiot unfortunately.


----------



## Slab (Jan 28, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			By this definition of cheating you are correct. I will try to use your statement of kicking the ball into the ditch to explain what the hell I'm talking about.

If a rule of golf allowed you to kick an opponents ball into a ditch but didn't allow him the same courtesy, would you do it?

I think most golfers wouldn't. They would immediately see that a rule that allows them to do something, but not others, is unfair. I think if you did it because it is in the rules, and therefore not cheating, you would still feel like you cheated because it would still seem unfair. 

I don't think there are any rules of golf like this. The rules of golf are the same for everyone.

But the handicap does not treat everyone the same. If you play a scratch golfer you are allowed to take 7 shots off your score and he isn't allowed to take off any. This is unfair because it treats you both differently.

The thing that seems to make me odd is that I do see the unfairness of handicapping. If I play a scratch golfer I am allowed  to take 13 shots of my score and he isn't allowed to take off any. To me this feels immoral, unfair and feels like I'm cheating. There is nothing in my head that justifies me doing this. It is not his fault I am crap at golf. Being crap at golf is my responsibility. I admire the hard work that he has put in to become a scratch golfer. If he can beat me while playing to the same rules he deserves the trophy. If I ever manage to beat him playing to the same rules then I deserve the trophy. If I never get good enough then I can live with that. But I struggle to live with playing by different rules so I can steal the trophy. The idea that I am allowed to take an advantage to make it more fun is ridiculous to me. 

I'd prefer to come second last on a level playing field, were the rules are the same for everyone, than come first because the rules advantaged me.
		
Click to expand...

While I can see you point of view (havenâ€™t we all stood there collecting our baseball cap & sleeve of balls while acknowledging to ourselves there were better golfers out there who didnâ€™t win the comp) However itâ€™s one of the conditions of entry known to all players prior to playing the competition that a handicap scoring system will be used, itâ€™s not a rule of the game of golf (& handicapping exists in a great many sports from golf to formula 1)

So youâ€™re not playing to a different set of rules to a scratch golfer, youâ€™ve both entered a particular competition where before play started he agreed youâ€™d take x shots off your actual strokes and you agreed youâ€™d take x shots off your actual strokes. It actually treats both players exactly the same not differently as you suggest 
(the formula itself dictates what number of shots is involved for particular players but itâ€™s exactly the same formula for every player so that it cant be unfair)  

Without it, as you point out, youâ€™re left only to play against players of similar ability to you and we lose stroke play as a format from the amateur game 

I doubt scratch golfers need another sleeve of balls to feel good about their game and doubtless they enter sufficient scratch comps to pit themselves against their peers but when one does choose to play against all-comers in a handicap scoring comp he still knows that every time he steps onto the 1st tee or putts out on the 18th the scratch golfer knows full well that he is the standard bearer by which every other amateur golfer in the world is measured, few will be better players than he, most will be poorer, but this is amateur golf played for pleasure & fun with token prizes for all entrants to compete for

Enjoy your golf


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 28, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			I think they are cheating and it is difficult to argue that without saying it. But I am always open to a better way.

So, a player knowingly and deliberately doesn't count shots that they actually took for the sole purpose of increasing their chance of winning.......what would you call it?
		
Click to expand...

I think you are missing the not so subtle difference between someone breaking the rules and someone following a rule that you do not agree with.  One is a cheat, one most certainly is not.  Apart from in your world obviously it seems.


----------



## TheJezster (Jan 28, 2015)

Zach,  in your scenario, he is still the better player, you just get to level the field to make a match between you as even as possible, otherwise it would be a non event.  This is entirely fair and in keeping with adding excitement to the game and bringing more people into it.

No one is 'cheating' or stealing anything in your scenario, they are simply competing against each other on as level a playing field as possible.  Remember, this isn't professional golf, so you cant compare it to professional sport, like football or rugby.  Horse racing is handicapped too, different weights depending on jockey and other factors to make it as even a race as possible.  You'll still get one winner, sometimes it will be the 'better' horse, sometimes it will be the one with the least handicapped weight.

I can just about see what you are trying to say, however, it's not really relevant in how we as amateurs play golf.


----------



## Tongo (Jan 28, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			By this definition of cheating you are correct. I will try to use your statement of kicking the ball into the ditch to explain what the hell I'm talking about.

If a rule of golf allowed you to kick an opponents ball into a ditch but didn't allow him the same courtesy, would you do it?

I think most golfers wouldn't. They would immediately see that a rule that allows them to do something, but not others, is unfair. I think if you did it because it is in the rules, and therefore not cheating, you would still feel like you cheated because it would still seem unfair. 

I don't think there are any rules of golf like this. The rules of golf are the same for everyone.

But the handicap does not treat everyone the same. If you play a scratch golfer you are allowed to take 7 shots off your score and he isn't allowed to take off any. This is unfair because it treats you both differently.

The thing that seems to make me odd is that I do see the unfairness of handicapping. If I play a scratch golfer I am allowed  to take 13 shots of my score and he isn't allowed to take off any. To me this feels immoral, unfair and feels like I'm cheating. There is nothing in my head that justifies me doing this. It is not his fault I am crap at golf. Being crap at golf is my responsibility. I admire the hard work that he has put in to become a scratch golfer. If he can beat me while playing to the same rules he deserves the trophy. If I ever manage to beat him playing to the same rules then I deserve the trophy. If I never get good enough then I can live with that. But I struggle to live with playing by different rules so I can steal the trophy. The idea that I am allowed to take an advantage to make it more fun is ridiculous to me. 

I'd prefer to come second last on a level playing field, were the rules are the same for everyone, than come first because the rules advantaged me.
		
Click to expand...


I think your playing the wrong sport pal. Actually, i'd avoid sport altogether if i was you, the utopia you are looking for doesnt exist.


----------



## Hacker Khan (Jan 28, 2015)

TheJezster said:



			Zach,  in your scenario, he is still the better player, you just get to level the field to make a match between you as even as possible, otherwise it would be a non event.  This is entirely fair and in keeping with adding excitement to the game and bringing more people into it.

No one is 'cheating' or stealing anything in your scenario, they are simply competing against each other on as level a playing field as possible.  Remember, this isn't professional golf, so you cant compare it to professional sport, like football or rugby.  Horse racing is handicapped too, different weights depending on jockey and other factors to make it as even a race as possible.  You'll still get one winner, sometimes it will be the 'better' horse, sometimes it will be the one with the least handicapped weight.

I can just about see what you are trying to say, *however, it's not really relevant in how we as amateurs play golf*.
		
Click to expand...

May be because he is a pro, after all why else would you name yourself a pro if you are not, that he thinks this board is populated by other pros?  So he is not talking about the amateur game.


----------



## Foxholer (Jan 28, 2015)

Tongo said:



			I think your playing the wrong sport pal. Actually, i'd avoid sport altogether if i was you, the utopia you are looking for doesnt exist.
		
Click to expand...

Yes it does - in any Scratch event!

The handicap system is one of the things that sets Golf apart from any other sport in that it aims to create a situation where whoever plays 'best compared to their norm' on the day will win - and pretty much succeeds! If you simply want to find out who is the better golfer, then both/all should play it off scratch. Of course, that aim can be corrupted by unscrupulous competitors or the accusation of unscrupulous behaviour can be made!

And while I have posted that I wouldn't trust Armstrong to count, I agree with his statement as to the integrity of Golf!

For me, he can remain 'out in the cold' for at least as many years as he cheated his way to TdFs! I'd like to see Cycling commit to a several year ban for first instance of deliberate drug use and a life ban for a second.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 28, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			By this definition of cheating you are correct. I will try to use your statement of kicking the ball into the ditch to explain what the hell I'm talking about.

If a rule of golf allowed you to kick an opponents ball into a ditch but didn't allow him the same courtesy, would you do it?

I think most golfers wouldn't. They would immediately see that a rule that allows them to do something, but not others, is unfair. I think if you did it because it is in the rules, and therefore not cheating, you would still feel like you cheated because it would still seem unfair. 

I don't think there are any rules of golf like this. The rules of golf are the same for everyone.

But the handicap does not treat everyone the same. If you play a scratch golfer you are allowed to take 7 shots off your score and he isn't allowed to take off any. This is unfair because it treats you both differently.

The thing that seems to make me odd is that I do see the unfairness of handicapping. If I play a scratch golfer I am allowed  to take 13 shots of my score and he isn't allowed to take off any. To me this feels immoral, unfair and feels like I'm cheating. There is nothing in my head that justifies me doing this. It is not his fault I am crap at golf. Being crap at golf is my responsibility. I admire the hard work that he has put in to become a scratch golfer. If he can beat me while playing to the same rules he deserves the trophy. If I ever manage to beat him playing to the same rules then I deserve the trophy. If I never get good enough then I can live with that. But I struggle to live with playing by different rules so I can steal the trophy. The idea that I am allowed to take an advantage to make it more fun is ridiculous to me. 

I'd prefer to come second last on a level playing field, were the rules are the same for everyone, than come first because the rules advantaged me.
		
Click to expand...

So lets pretend you're a scratch golfer and your playing me (off 14) in a scratch event, you finish 10 over and I finish 12 over, you win, however it won't feel like a win as you've finished 10 over, me, I'm on cloud nine as I feel like I won the moral victory as I have played well. 
In reality the match was pointless because without hitting a ball we know you are the best golfer.
You take the prize having played badly, pretty much a hollow victory.
Surely there be no point in playing golf.


----------



## Pro Zach (Jan 28, 2015)

ColchesterFC said:



			But you already have this option if you wish to take it. You can either only enter scratch competitions where nobody gets to take any shots off thier score or you can enter handicap competitions and put your handicap in as scratch. As far as I am aware you do not have to play off your handicap and could put whatever number you like in that box on the scorecard as long as it was 13 or less.

I am sure that in most clubs the more prestigious prize over the course of a season is the Scratch Champion but the handicap system gives everyone the chance to compete which surely is the whole point of a "competition".
		
Click to expand...

I would enter scratch comps but I would get balloted out because my handicap is too high. Entering 0 my score card doesn't solve my problem. Also it effects css which would be unfair. 

The handicap doesn't give everyone the chance to compete, it gives everyone an equal chance of winning. You do not need an equal chance of winning to compete. Have you ever played any game or sport were you have had to compete against an opponent you knew was better than you? Did you refuse to play or did you try your best and enjoy the challenge?

I think that challenge is the most enjoyable part of competition. We don't have this in golf because everyone is made equal.


----------



## Pro Zach (Jan 28, 2015)

Slab said:



			While I can see you point of view (havenâ€™t we all stood there collecting our baseball cap & sleeve of balls while acknowledging to ourselves there were better golfers out there who didnâ€™t win the comp) However itâ€™s one of the conditions of entry known to all players prior to playing the competition that a handicap scoring system will be used, itâ€™s not a rule of the game of golf (& handicapping exists in a great many sports from golf to formula 1)

So youâ€™re not playing to a different set of rules to a scratch golfer, youâ€™ve both entered a particular competition where before play started he agreed youâ€™d take x shots off your actual strokes and you agreed youâ€™d take x shots off your actual strokes. It actually treats both players exactly the same not differently as you suggest 
(the formula itself dictates what number of shots is involved for particular players but itâ€™s exactly the same formula for every player so that it cant be unfair)  

Without it, as you point out, youâ€™re left only to play against players of similar ability to you and we lose stroke play as a format from the amateur game 

I doubt scratch golfers need another sleeve of balls to feel good about their game and doubtless they enter sufficient scratch comps to pit themselves against their peers but when one does choose to play against all-comers in a handicap scoring comp he still knows that every time he steps onto the 1st tee or putts out on the 18th the scratch golfer knows full well that he is the standard bearer by which every other amateur golfer in the world is measured, few will be better players than he, most will be poorer, but this is amateur golf played for pleasure & fun with token prizes for all entrants to compete for

Enjoy your golf
		
Click to expand...

I disagree with your second paragraph. You don't both take x shots off. One takes x shots off and the other takes y shots off. Each taking a different number of shots off proves they are treated differently. So before you start play you have agreed to be treated differently. 

As for losing match play as a format (I assume you meant) I have previously on this forum suggested keeping the handicap for match play. But run medals in divisions without handicaps and have a most improved player award (i.e. best nett) for the people who want to compete for that.


----------



## Liverpoolphil (Jan 28, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			I would enter scratch comps but I would get balloted out because my handicap is too high. Entering 0 my score card doesn't solve my problem. Also it effects css which would be unfair. 

The handicap doesn't give everyone the chance to compete, it gives everyone an equal chance of winning. You do not need an equal chance of winning to compete. Have you ever played any game or sport were you have had to compete against an opponent you knew was better than you? Did you refuse to play or did you try your best and enjoy the challenge?

I think that challenge is the most enjoyable part of competition. *We don't have this in golf because everyone is made equal.*

Click to expand...

And that is exactly what makes golf great and sets it apart from all other sports 

Take that away and the sport dies very quickly. 

Comparisons to other sports doesn't work because golf is different.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 28, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And that is exactly what makes golf great and sets it apart from all other sports 

Take that away and the sport dies very quickly. 

Comparisons to other sports doesn't work because golf is different.
		
Click to expand...

100% Agree


----------



## Pro Zach (Jan 28, 2015)

Hacker Khan said:



			I think you are missing the not so subtle difference between someone breaking the rules and someone following a rule that you do not agree with.  One is a cheat, one most certainly is not.  Apart from in your world obviously it seems.
		
Click to expand...

I think you'll find I'm not. I have already conceded to Imurg that by that definition of cheating you are correct. I also think it is a cheap trick to use that definintion to try to prove me wrong. 

For example, it is possible, without breaking any rules, for a golfer to be a bandit (have a higher handicap than their ability). But most people will still consider them a cheat.

Cheat: a person who behaves in a dishonest way.


----------



## Pro Zach (Jan 28, 2015)

ExRabbit said:



			I'd like to think that you are just a troll rather than an idiot. Nobody could be so dumb as this otherwise.  

You think that regular golf clubs competitions would happen if everyone played from scratch?

I think you are just an idiot unfortunately.
		
Click to expand...

Talking of trolls and idiots...


----------



## chrisd (Jan 28, 2015)

I played competitive but very amateur tennis and many years ago Volkeswagon sponsored a competition nationally where a handicap system was introduced whereby the lessor ability player was given a lead in every game - say 30 love, them the game was played out as normal. 

This was an attempt to equalise matches like in golf so that it was theoretically possible for a less talented player to beat a better opponent if the lessor player managed to up his game on the day. 

Ultimately it didn't work because, particularly at the better end of the game, the fact that someone was a better player meant that they would still always win as you'd not be able to return their serve or play at their pace

Golf has addressed (to a large extent) the best way to handicap players so that anyone can play anyone else - hence the chance to have a real game at any level!


----------



## Pro Zach (Jan 28, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And that is exactly what makes golf great and sets it apart from all other sports 

Take that away and the sport dies very quickly. 

Comparisons to other sports doesn't work because golf is different.
		
Click to expand...

If it is the handicap system that makes golf great, why do cat 1 players enter scratch comps?


----------



## chrisd (Jan 28, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			If it is the handicap system that makes golf great, why do cat 1 players enter scratch comps?
		
Click to expand...

Simple!

Because they play with like ability players and can win because the handicap ranges are usually much less that say between cat 3 players

Why, however, do the cat 1 players also play in our club competitions that are open to all handicap categories?


----------



## Pro Zach (Jan 28, 2015)

chrisd said:



			Simple!

Because they play with like ability players and can win because the handicap ranges are usually much less that say between cat 3 players

Why, however, do the cat 1 players also play in our club competitions that are open to all handicap categories?
		
Click to expand...

Apparently they play in the club competition because the handicap system is what makes golf great.

The question is, if it is the handicap that makes the game great, why would they choose to play in a non handicapped competition?


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 29, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			Apparently they play in the club competition because the handicap system is what makes golf great.

The question is, if it is the handicap that makes the game great, why would they choose to play in a non handicapped competition?
		
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered my last post? Just wondering?


----------



## Imurg (Jan 29, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			The handicap doesn't give everyone the chance to compete, it gives everyone an equal chance of winning. You do not need an equal chance of winning to compete. Have you ever played any game or sport were you have had to compete against an opponent you knew was better than you? Did you refuse to play or did you try your best and enjoy the challenge?

I think that challenge is the most enjoyable part of competition. We don't have this in golf because everyone is made equal.
		
Click to expand...

To compete you must have a chance of winning
If you have no chance of winning you are just taking part in the activity.

When you play the monthly medal you have a chance of competing for the prize on offer because the handicap system allows everyone to win.
In, say, a 100 metre race against Mr Bolt, we would simply be taking part in the race, we can't compete to win as we do not have the same ability. In order to compete against him - have a chance to win - he has to be handicapped in some way....

See the difference?
If you have no chance to win you can't compete, you're simply taking part.


----------



## NWJocko (Jan 29, 2015)

You're 6 monthly crusade against handicaps Zach....

Have you raised the possibility of playing some division comps off scratch at your club?


----------



## Tongo (Jan 29, 2015)

Liverpoolphil said:



			And that is exactly what makes golf great and sets it apart from all other sports 

Take that away and the sport dies very quickly. 

*Comparisons to other sports doesn't work because golf is different*.
		
Click to expand...

And in other sports (football, cricket, rugby, whatever) you end up playing in leagues where you invariably play people / teams of a similar standard. (Cup competitions aside but even then the local park football team wont play Manchester United as it would be a farce) Golf is probably unique in its club set up in that respect.


----------



## Tongo (Jan 29, 2015)

NWJocko said:



*You're 6 monthly crusade against handicaps Zach....*

Have you raised the possibility of playing some division comps off scratch at your club?
		
Click to expand...

Apologies. As a greenhorn i have fallen for this tomfoolery! I shall know better next time!


----------



## USER1999 (Jan 29, 2015)

At my last club, there was one competition per year that was a scratch competition, split into 3 different divisions. 0 to 11, 12 to 19, and 19 and above. Every year, the divisions were won by the lower end of that division. The 19 handicapper had no chance playing scratch against the 12. It was pointless. So still way more than half the field had no chance of winning.

Playing off 12, I won it twice, and got a nice cup for the trophy cabinet. It was a bit of a hollow victory though, as I knew that I pretty much just had to play a couple under handicap to win it.


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jan 29, 2015)

murphthemog said:



			At my last club, there was one competition per year that was a scratch competition, split into 3 different divisions. 0 to 11, 12 to 19, and 19 and above. Every year, the divisions were won by the lower end of that division. The 19 handicapper had no chance playing scratch against the 12. It was pointless. So still way more than half the field had no chance of winning.

Playing off 12, I won it twice, and got a nice cup for the trophy cabinet. It was a bit of a hollow victory though, as I knew that I pretty much just had to play a couple under handicap to win it.
		
Click to expand...

Funny how people are different. Every comp I won by virtue of my handicap taking me past players who had a lower score felt like a hollow victory to me. I find winning a scratch comp and knowing you really were the best player on the day much more fulfilling.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 29, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Funny how people are different. Every comp I won by virtue of my handicap taking me past players who had a lower score felt like a hollow victory to me. I find winning a scratch comp and knowing you really were the best player on the day much more fulfilling.
		
Click to expand...

But in your scratch comp if you were against Handicaps 0-11, playing of 4 I would suggest you are a very good player who could threaten the leaderboard, at the same time I don't think you'd see the guy off 11 as a serious challenger, that's the issue in scratch comps, we know before the first ball is struck who the best golfers are, any someone having a great day or a bad day doesn't change that.
Scratch Golf is the purest form of Golf but scratch comps by division is just using handicaps without saying it.


----------



## PhilTheFragger (Jan 29, 2015)

We do seem to have veered off the Lance Armstrong subject a bit.......

Just sayin.......


----------



## FairwayDodger (Jan 29, 2015)

pauldj42 said:



			But in your scratch comp if you were against Handicaps 0-11, playing of 4 I would suggest you are a very good player who could threaten the leaderboard, at the same time I don't think you'd see the guy off 11 as a serious challenger, that's the issue in scratch comps, we know before the first ball is struck who the best golfers are, any someone having a great day or a bad day doesn't change that.
Scratch Golf is the purest form of Golf but scratch comps by division is just using handicaps without saying it.
		
Click to expand...

Not really arguing, just giving an alternative point of view. I might be off 4 now but I felt the same when I was off 16 and beating lower handicap players; it always seemed a hollow victory.


----------



## Deleted member 16999 (Jan 29, 2015)

FairwayDodger said:



			Not really arguing, just giving an alternative point of view. I might be off 4 now but I felt the same when I was off 16 and beating lower handicap players; it always seemed a hollow victory.
		
Click to expand...

lol, was also agreeing with your point, just can't understand how Prozac calls handicaps cheating (Lance Armstrong) but advocates scratch by division, what other method is there to decide ability in Golf? So handicaps are OK for somethings!


----------



## ExRabbit (Jan 30, 2015)

Pro Zach said:



			Talking of trolls and idiots...
		
Click to expand...

You are now going to have to point out my troll and/or idiot posts if you want to justify your post.


----------



## ger147 (Feb 4, 2015)

A class guy right enough...

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/31125348?SThisEM


----------



## Ethan (Feb 4, 2015)

ger147 said:



			A class guy right enough...

http://m.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/31125348?SThisEM

Click to expand...

Well, he said that if given the chance again, he would cheat again. Probably didn't think he would get a chance so soon, though.


----------

