Alternative to handicaps

[LincolnShep]

If horse racing and motor sport can use weight penalties to even out a field or squash use different balls, golf can happily carry on with the hcp system.

Just to be doubly fair to my opponents, I also carry a weight penalty when playing golf.

 

[Golf is fun]

I know next to nothing about weightlifting but doesn’t it have a handicapping system with the various weight divisions? Which inevitably leads to folks picking up ‘wins’ when they didn’t lift the most weight and folk winning nothing who lifted more than most of those collecting gold medals etc in lighter divisions
Using your comment for convenience, do those divisional weightlifting winners “need to feel falsely competitive or like they've won for golf weightlifting to be enjoyable” It actually sounds quite a lot like golf in how it allows a spread of participants to win without scoring/lifting the best

Golf has divisions too but being a different skill, it doesn’t need/use as many as weightlifting because it also has a shot system. So when using 3 divisions for golf we need to have a measure to see which Div each player should be in, and a system based on number of shots seems pretty apt (with ‘promotion/relegation’ between divisions already taking place)

Using say 10 golf divisions would work I think, but it’d just lead to endless prize givings and the prize value being much diluted (exactly as you mentioned happens in weightlifting) I think the sheer number of golf comps around the country doesn't lend itself to divisional handicapping system as the prime separator. Then try multiplying those divisions to include women/seniors to facilitate the mixed & team comps... nightmare number

Depends how you look at it I suppose. If you want to boil it down that much, why separate women, juniors and seniors? At some point we accept divisions, but what we deem acceptable divisions is driven by what we see as societal norms.

The difference with weightlifting is that the weight classes are there to allow for physical differences as strength is strongly correlated with muscle mass, although they are measured in weight in reality they are more "height classes", as you need a certain amount of skeleton to fit muscle mass on, a 5' tall man will never be able to pack on 100kg of muscle, and a 6'6 man would seriously risk his health if he cut to 55kg. Also at lighter classes you lift a higher proportion of weight relative to your body (typically an elite ~50kg man can lift 3x his weight, whereas an elite 130kg man will "only" be able to lift about 2x his bodyweight, so they've both achieved something in that regard one the highest absolute amount of weight lifted and the other the highest relative amount of weight compared to body mass lifted. The other difference is you can't really change weight class drastically, I can't be a 130kg superheavyweight and purposely perform badly to become a 55kg lifter and place better next month.

I would have no issue if golf handicaps were based on a physical characteristic like weight or height which is objectively measured, but I'm not sure any physical characteristic like height, weight, eye colour, would be relevant to golf.

 

[LincolnShep]

I agree with the OP - golf is weird compared to others sports. Handicaps are a odd concept but generally offer more advantages than disadvantages. Club competitions could probably be organised on a divisional basis but the joy of a handicap is that it can travel beyond your club.

 

[Slab]

Depends how you look at it I suppose. If you want to boil it down that much, why separate women, juniors and seniors? At some point we accept divisions, but what we deem acceptable divisions is driven by what we see as societal norms.

The difference with weightlifting is that the weight classes are there to allow for physical differences as strength is strongly correlated with muscle mass, although they are measured in weight in reality they are more "height classes", as you need a certain amount of skeleton to fit muscle mass on, a 5' tall man will never be able to pack on 100kg of muscle, and a 6'6 man would seriously risk his health if he cut to 55kg. Also at lighter classes you lift a higher proportion of weight relative to your body (typically an elite ~50kg man can lift 3x his weight, whereas an elite 130kg man will "only" be able to lift about 2x his bodyweight, so they've both achieved something in that regard one the highest absolute amount of weight lifted and the other the highest relative amount of weight compared to body mass lifted. The other difference is you can't really change weight class drastically, I can't be a 130kg superheavyweight and purposely perform badly to become a 55kg lifter and place better next month.

I would have no issue if golf handicaps were based on a physical characteristic like weight or height which is objectively measured, but I'm not sure any physical characteristic like height, weight, eye colour, would be relevant to golf.

I get why weightlifting and other sports have weight divisions, it makes sense for that sport. In the same way that golf (a sport based on No of shots taken) has a handicap system based on shots

I mean if golf were to use divisions and you have a mixed team of 2 blokes, a women and a senior as a 4ball for a team event, all from different divisions and 20 other teams of various divisional combinations... how do you set a fair handicap div for the comp. Divisions just can't cope with that

-----------------------------------

A sneaky thought occurs, no one seems to think badly of a fighter or boxer changing their weight to qualify to fight at a lighter division than they typically are, then adding on weight before the fight. Manipulating their handicap division is too strong a phrase but its done. Is it ok because they all do it

 

[Golf is fun]

I get why weightlifting and other sports have weight divisions, it makes sense for that sport. In the same way that golf (a sport based on No of shots taken) has a handicap system based on shots

I mean if golf were to use divisions and you have a mixed team of 2 blokes, a women and a senior as a 4ball for a team event, all from different divisions and 20 other teams of various divisional combinations... how do you set a fair handicap div for the comp. Divisions just can't cope with that

-----------------------------------

A sneaky thought occurs, no one seems to think badly of a fighter or boxer changing their weight to qualify to fight at a lighter division than they typically are, then adding on weight before the fight. Manipulating their handicap division is too strong a phrase but its done. Is it ok because they all do it

The first part would be a shortcoming of this system, yes. Unless the team was fixed and then it's just like any other team sport. You could start the teams in the average of all the members divisions and then promotion and relegation will move them to their correct spot with time.

On the second point, this fully within the rules as the weight is set at weigh in and is more about safety than anything else, do we really want to see people dying from dehydration in the ring over them being a few pounds heavier than the official weight class. I guess the golf equivalent would be qualifying for an over 10 handicap competition on Friday and then playing in it off 2 on Sunday, fortunately I don't think there is the risk of anyone dying if forced to play to their true handicap.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Handicaps - golf is a game.
No handicaps - golf is a sport.

What did you shoot today?
Gross score - sport.
Nett score or stableford points - game.

The game is mostly about trying to win. The sport is about striving to be the best you can be. Sometimes the two merge on the day.

I love the game, but the sport is the greater challenge.

There is and always has been an alternative to handicaps - your gross score.
We have a club championship 36 holes, a scratch matchplay and a lowest gross prize in every handicap comp.
All players are catered for, as far as I can tell.

 

[Bunkermagnet]

Just to be doubly fair to my opponents, I also carry a weight penalty when playing golf.

Snap

 

[Canfordhacker]

I've often wondered what it would be like if, instead of your handicap being say, 12 shots off your round, it was to give you 12 Mulligans instead. Would bring a strategic element as you have to choose when to use them, and also would probably favour the higher handicappers less, because a Mulligan could be used but then wasted with a second attempt that was no better than the first.

I think this is an intriguing idea - I'm already thinking where I would most likely use mine! One problem I see is slow play - people with 30 mulligans to use...

 

[Orikoru]

I think this is an intriguing idea - I'm already thinking where I would most likely use mine! One problem I see is slow play - people with 30 mulligans to use...

I think I'd love it, given that my destructive shot last year was a sliced driver, one Mulligan could save me two shots if the first effort was out of bounds.

On a day where you were playing well you might find you hadn't used them all, so you get two chances to hole a birdie putt on the final green or something. Would be a nice way to end.

I don't know that it would be that much slower, most people would be using them in the same situations as provisionals I should think, when they've hit a shocking drive. But then I suppose your higher handicappers getting two mulligans on a hole I guess it would take a little longer. I would definitely make the rule that you have to decide straight away - you can't go and look for your ball, not find it, and then walk all the way back for your Mulligan. Has to be decided there and then when you've hit the shot.

 

[LincolnShep]

I've often wondered what it would be like if, instead of your handicap being say, 12 shots off your round, it was to give you 12 Mulligans instead. Would bring a strategic element as you have to choose when to use them, and also would probably favour the higher handicappers less, because a Mulligan could be used but then wasted with a second attempt that was no better than the first.

I'd love this. We all know that provisionals always go straight down the middle so I'd expect mulligans to do the same.

 

[The Squirrel]

I think I'd love it, given that my destructive shot last year was a sliced driver, one Mulligan could save me two shots if the first effort was out of bounds.

On a day where you were playing well you might find you hadn't used them all, so you get two chances to hole a birdie putt on the final green or something. Would be a nice way to end.

I don't know that it would be that much slower, most people would be using them in the same situations as provisionals I should think, when they've hit a shocking drive. But then I suppose your higher handicappers getting two mulligans on a hole I guess it would take a little longer. I would definitely make the rule that you have to decide straight away - you can't go and look for your ball, not find it, and then walk all the way back for your Mulligan. Has to be decided there and then when you've hit the shot.

Yep very sensible. Quicker than hunting in the woods for 3 minutes. It’s an ideal fun system for those of us who are the (middle) age where we have families and jobs with very limited practice time who can hit 250+ on a perfect strike but are very erratic (so me basically ). Not so fair on Joe the pensioner with dodgy hips who knocks round the course every day in repeatedly reliable 140 yarders.

 

[VVega]

I can't be a 130kg superheavyweight and purposely perform badly to become a 55kg lifter and place better next month.

Yet, not sure if it’s the same in weightlifting but in MMA everyone openly cuts weight just before the competition (a lot through dehydration) and there can be sometimes a two weight classes difference from the weigh-in to when they step into the octagon.

 

[Golf is fun]

Yet, not sure if it’s the same in weightlifting but in MMA everyone openly cuts weight just before the competition (a lot through dehydration) and there can be sometimes a two weight classes difference from the weigh-in to when they step into the octagon.

In weightlifting weigh-in opens 2 hours before your weight categories start time and lasts for 1 hour, so yes you'll be a bit heavier on stage, but realistically only by 0.1-2kg depending on how much you eat and drink in that period.

 

[jim8flog]

I've often wondered what it would be like if, instead of your handicap being say, 12 shots off your round, it was to give you 12 Mulligans instead. Would bring a strategic element as you have to choose when to use them, and also would probably favour the higher handicappers less, because a Mulligan could be used but then wasted with a second attempt that was no better than the first.

I have tried (unsuccessfully) to get our group to play Mulligans for a change but could not drum up the interest.
One stipulation I would make is that mulligans cannot be taken once the ball is on the putting green.

 

[Slab]

The mulligan idea would be fun for a few mates in their regular social round to mix things up, but in comps etc then it would take way too long. I see it when mulligans can be bought for charity on fundraiser events (even if restricted use) & they still look for the wayward balls in the trees so no time is saved there

Imagine having a good day leaving you free to take 3 or 4 approach shots on the 18th. Even if your first shot was on the green but some way from the flag players will 'mulligan' it

 

[chrisd]

Agree, but as I said earlier, it gives little or no incentive for the poorer player to improve. That's the great weakness of handicapping in my opinion, unlike almost any other sport, it encourages mediocrity and the better players (especially given WHS flaws) do not win very often.

I can't think of any other sport where some players relish the fact that their handicap has gone up so they get any extra shot, making it easier for them when competing (and i use that word loosely) against a better player.

I totally disagree Steve. Almost every one I play, see, or meet say that they want to get their handicap down. I'm now 72 and my handicap has gone to 17.5 from around 10 at its best back a few years., I've had a fair bit of illl health and surgery over the years and I've just taken a deal with our pro to use the practice studio for 52 hours this year to work hard on my game in the hope of getting my handicap down again.

I have only met one golfer who's said that he was happy to have a higher hc so that he could win a comp once or twice a year, he was club captain back then and I was quite disgusted with him. I play in our vet league team and those guys practice very much more than most members, not only because they have more time but that they want to retain a decent handicap - pride does matter too.

 

[Bobthesock]

Yep very sensible. Quicker than hunting in the woods for 3 minutes. It’s an ideal fun system for those of us who are the (middle) age where we have families and jobs with very limited practice time who can hit 250+ on a perfect strike but are very erratic (so me basically ). Not so fair on Joe the pensioner with dodgy hips who knocks round the course every day in repeatedly reliable 140 yarders.

I very much doubt you hit it 250+ with an erratic swing. Unless it's at a links course in summer with a 20mph wind

 

[Golf is fun]

Regarding people not having an incentive to improve, beyond some bandits who purposely inflate their handicaps to win money, I don't think many people want their handicaps to go up. However I think a lot of people are ok with being mediocre and not really improving, they might say they want to improve but they either don't really try that hard to improve, or they put in a lot of effort but not very effective effort. There are likely even valid reasons for this, things going on in life, it's just not that important in the big scheme, nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that person doesn't really want what they say they want.

I liken it to losing weight. Very few overweight people will tell you they don't want to lose weight, however not many of these people will attempt to do anything about it, and of the people that do very few will do anything that has long term sustainable results.

Thinking you would like the outcome of something is not the same as actually wanting something enough to go through what it takes achieve that outcome.

 

[Orikoru]

I very much doubt you hit it 250+ with an erratic swing. Unless it's at a links course in summer with a 20mph wind

Really? Surely 'erratic' includes the possibility of a perfect strike every once in a while? Most of us can hit one lucky 250 yarder with modern drivers.

 

[Orikoru]

Regarding people not having an incentive to improve, beyond some bandits who purposely inflate their handicaps to win money, I don't think many people want their handicaps to go up. However I think a lot of people are ok with being mediocre and not really improving, they might say they want to improve but they either don't really try that hard to improve, or they put in a lot of effort but not very effective effort. There are likely even valid reasons for this, things going on in life, it's just not that important in the big scheme, nothing wrong with that, but it does mean that person doesn't really want what they say they want.

I liken it to losing weight. Very few overweight people will tell you they don't want to lose weight, however not many of these people will attempt to do anything about it, and of the people that do very few will do anything that has long term sustainable results.

Thinking you would like the outcome of something is not the same as actually wanting something enough to go through what it takes achieve that outcome.

You make it sound like a bad thing if someone doesn't want to improve at golf, but it's not really is it? If they just enjoying playing and that's it. Not sure what that has to do with handicaps.