54 Handicappers - Scourge or Scarcity ?

[Blue in Munich]

But from this casual observers point of view I just do not see any of the oft repeated accusations against, well, lets just call them "extreme handicap golfers" rather than put a specific number gains them, standing up. I don't see that play has slowed any, I don't see such players coming remotely close to cleaning up in comps, as far as I can see those players that do hold such handicaps, for the most part probably have good reason to have those handicaps which are perfectly justifiable given their time playing the game or their general health/fitness.

So for me....I find the 50+ brigade "not guilty" on all charges.

Those of you have have access to fact based evidence...how do you see things? What proportion of your club is 36+, 40+, 50+ handicap golfers? Are they winning every thing in site? Are there a raft of youngsters (lets say sub 50 year olds ) playing off such handicaps?

How do you fancy playing a 36 hole match play final & giving 56 shots? I know I wouldn't & I know the lower handicapper wasn't at all happy about it. Never looked like losing any of the rounds on the way to the final either by all accounts.

 

[chellie]

How do you fancy playing a 36 hole match play final & giving 56 shots? I know I wouldn't & I know the lower handicapper wasn't at all happy about it. Never looked like losing any of the rounds on the way to the final either by all accounts.

Surely the club should/would/could put a maximum playing handicap on the competition.

 

[SurreyGolfer]

My view as someone who is 30+ handicapper.....I play a lot by myself and with mates who know where I'm at in terms of development, I play off the yellows and frankly my biggest issues are tee-related anyway (so why exacerbate them by playing off the whites?). Having said that......

....every single competition at my local club for someone who is not female or a senior is off of the white tees. I have taken the approach I should get decent off the yellows before progressing to the whites, it's not unreasonable to think someone else might take the approach of "Well, I have to use the whites eventually so why not just start using them now?" Maybe there's some people in that handicap range who are new to golf and interpret the tees as Reds/Yellows/Whites as Seniors/Ladies/Mens? Who knows?

I do agree with using the most appropriate tee for your ability and that there should be appropriate 'encouragement' (signage?) to make this happen more often than not

 

[wjemather]

How do you fancy playing a 36 hole match play final & giving 56 shots? I know I wouldn't & I know the lower handicapper wasn't at all happy about it. Never looked like losing any of the rounds on the way to the final either by all accounts.

If the handicaps truly reflect ability... the odds are stacked in favour of the low handicapper (especially over 36 holes) and more often than not, they wouldn't have to play well to win.

 

[clubchamp98]

My view as someone who is 30+ handicapper.....I play a lot by myself and with mates who know where I'm at in terms of development, I play off the yellows and frankly my biggest issues are tee-related anyway (so why exacerbate them by playing off the whites?). Having said that......

....every single competition at my local club for someone who is not female or a senior is off of the white tees. I have taken the approach I should get decent off the yellows before progressing to the whites, it's not unreasonable to think someone else might take the approach of "Well, I have to use the whites eventually so why not just start using them now?" Maybe there's some people in that handicap range who are new to golf and interpret the tees as Reds/Yellows/Whites as Seniors/Ladies/Mens? Who knows?

I do agree with using the most appropriate tee for your ability and that there should be appropriate 'encouragement' (signage?) to make this happen more often than not

This is the biggest problem at my club imo.
If you want to play competition golf you must play off the white back tees.
A lot of players just can’t handle the length.
They pay their fees and are entitled to play if they want.
But it does have a knock on affect to the field.
One such game lost four holes once , the guys behind were not happy.
Don’t know how many games they let through but it wouldn’t be fun for his pps.

At the end of the day we can set limits to play off in the comp ours is 32.
But they will still take as many as they need to get around so limits mean they just won’t win.

 

[SteveJay]

I played in a seniors competition a few months ago with a 40+ handicapper - can't remember his exact, but I knew I had to think a lot when I was marking his card!!!

He had been playing for some time, but had gone up since WHS and the increase in max handicaps. Another playing partner was someone who played with him fairly regularly and said he can and does blow up a lot when submitting cards.

Anyway, the surprising thing was that he could actually hit the ball some distance, albeit not consistently obviously. Think he went like 4-5 holes in a row with blobs, but recall he scored 5 points on a par 4 (receiving 3 shots) and scored something like 17 points on the last 5 holes . However, the earlier blobs meant he only scored in the low 30's for the entire round. I can see how, if he kept doing that, he wouldn't come down very quickly despite being able to reach par 4's in 2 shots on occasion.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Surely the club should/would/could put a maximum playing handicap on the competition.

I think they might be next year, bit late for the runner up though.

 

[clubchamp98]

If the handicaps truly reflect ability... the odds are stacked in favour of the low handicapper (especially over 36 holes) and more often than not, they wouldn't have to play well to win.

I bet all the guys he beat getting to the final thought that as well.
Any capper that high would not have the consistency.

 

[Blue in Munich]

If the handicaps truly reflect ability... the odds are stacked in favour of the low handicapper (especially over 36 holes) and more often than not, they wouldn't have to play well to win.

Holes 6 - 9; 449 yards SI 3, 457 yards SI 1, 164 yards SI 17, 365 yards SI 7. The lower handicapper needed to shoot 3 under gross to match the 4 bogeys thrown at him. Odds stacked in his favour?

 

[wjemather]

Holes 6 - 9; 449 yards SI 3, 457 yards SI 1, 164 yards SI 17, 365 yards SI 7. The lower handicapper needed to shoot 3 under gross to match the 4 bogeys thrown at him. Odds stacked in his favour?

Yes, the low handicapper wins more than 60% of the time in your scenario. Of course, the high handicapper can (and will) win a substantial amount of the time - and occasionally they'll give their opponent no chance with exceptional scoring that is impossible to match from a low handicap.

 

[nickjdavis]

Holes 6 - 9; 449 yards SI 3, 457 yards SI 1, 164 yards SI 17, 365 yards SI 7. The lower handicapper needed to shoot 3 under gross to match the 4 bogeys thrown at him. Odds stacked in his favour?

Just for perspective....what were the 2 players handicaps.... scratch and high 20's or 20's and high 40's/50's?....somewhere in between?

 

[rulefan]

Yes, the low handicapper wins more than 60% of the time in your scenario.

That is pretty well the scenario that the USGA and the SGU found

 

[Blue in Munich]

Just for perspective....what were the 2 players handicaps.... scratch and high 20's or 20's and high 40's/50's?....somewhere in between?

3 and 31.

 

[Rlburnside]

3 and 31.

Don’t think the guy off 3 should complain to much as the odds are in his favour.

That’s only true if the 31 h/capper was playing with a true reflection of his h/c, we don’t know the full story maybe he was “ managing” his h/c.

 

[Blue in Munich]

Don’t think the guy off 3 should complain to much as the odds are in his favour.

That’s only true if the 31 h/capper was playing with a true reflection of his h/c, we don’t know the full story maybe he was “ managing” his h/c.

In stableford terms he’s just gained 11 points from 4 holes over the toughest stretch of the course; sound like a fair reflection? Do you think I’d even have raised it if it was a true reflection?

 

[Rlburnside]

In stableford terms he’s just gained 11 points from 4 holes over the toughest stretch of the course; sound like a fair reflection? Do you think I’d even have raised it if it was a true reflection?

So what you are implying is the 31 has manipulated his h/c , it’s not giving away 56 shots that’s the problem as the lower guy has a better chance of winning.

That’s a whole different story.

 

[wjemather]

In stableford terms he’s just gained 11 points from 4 holes over the toughest stretch of the course; sound like a fair reflection? Do you think I’d even have raised it if it was a true reflection?

There is nothing outrageous there at all; we're only talking 3 nett birdies and a nett par over 4 holes (i.e. there were no nett eagles). High handicappers are allowed to score well, and will often better their stroke allowance for several holes in succession, even on holes that may be considered difficult. Their good holes usually get more than out-weighed by nett bogeys, double-bogeys (and worse), but sometimes they don't.

In any handicap match, the lower handicapper simply has to accept that there will be holes they have virtually no chance of even halving because nett eagle is not realistically achievable for them; this should be balanced against the number of easy win holes they will usually get from nett bogeys and worse by their opponent.

 

[Biggleswade Blue]

There is nothing outrageous there at all; we're only talking 3 nett birdies and a nett par over 4 holes (i.e. there were no nett eagles). High handicappers are allowed to score well, and will often better their stroke allowance for several holes in succession, even on holes that may be considered difficult. Their good holes usually get more than out-weighed by nett bogeys, double-bogeys (and worse), but sometimes they don't.

In any handicap match, the lower handicapper simply has to accept that there will be holes they have virtually no chance of even halving because nett eagle is not realistically achievable for them; this should be balanced against the number of easy win holes they will usually get from nett bogeys and worse by their opponent.

yes - this is why I (HI 32.3) have been so difficult to beat in Matchplay (we have a comp for the high handicappers separate to the low handicappers), but cannot get my handicap down.

 

[Deleted member 23344]

yes - this is why I (HI 32.3) have been so difficult to beat in Matchplay (we have a comp for the high handicappers separate to the low handicappers), but cannot get my handicap down.

I agree … I play off 28.6 and have a very good win percentage in inter-club matches, but I cannot get my handicap down. It is inconsistency that hampers my attempt to get my handicap down … but this isn‘t such a problem in matchplay where, providing I play several of the holes well, the occasionally blow up holes don’t matter that much.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

There is nothing outrageous there at all; we're only talking 3 nett birdies and a nett par over 4 holes (i.e. there were no nett eagles). High handicappers are allowed to score well, and will often better their stroke allowance for several holes in succession, even on holes that may be considered difficult. Their good holes usually get more than out-weighed by nett bogeys, double-bogeys (and worse), but sometimes they don't.

In any handicap match, the lower handicapper simply has to accept that there will be holes they have virtually no chance of even halving because nett eagle is not realistically achievable for them; this should be balanced against the number of easy win holes they will usually get from nett bogeys and worse by their opponent.

When you are giving 31 shots there are no 'easy win' holes.