We try to have a mix. It will always include one lady, one senior and one member of staff for admin purposes. The chairman is random but holds the position for 3 years if they stay on the Captain's committee.
Except that thread was closed and told to move into this one.
I know low handicappers who do not participate in competitions or submit GP rounds during the winter because it's harder to score and their handicap would rise.
Assuming par 72 the 8 handicapper has gross 73. The 28 handicapper shoots 93. There is still plenty of room for improvement in one of those. Even the 28 would agree, don't you think?One thing I always find amusing is an 8 capper shoots net 65 and is a legend , 28 capper does it and is a bandit
Well the 8 handicapper is a competent golfer who has normally been playing for a while and most will be chuffed for him that he's shot 73.One thing I always find amusing is an 8 capper shoots net 65 and is a legend , 28 capper does it and is a bandit
You can swap 28 for 18 if you wish, same applies.
I know guys off 28 who'd be ecstatic with a 93.Well the 8 handicapper is a competent golfer who has normally been playing for a while and most will be chuffed for him that he's shot 73.
And then there's the 28...
I think you'll find that 65 + 8 = 73 whatever the par is...
18 not so average. As for the 28, anyone that needs 2 shots on a hole can easily sort that.
Yes, the physically limited 80 year old 28 handicapper would probably agree that the fit, young 8 handicapper has far more room for improvement than they do.
With the best will in the world many golfers are never going to hit the ball far enough to be able to get anywhere close to an 18 handicap.
Always rely on you to skew the argument. Saying that there's a 91 year old member of our club you should meet. Regularly says anyone who needs 2 shots extra to reach a green should give up. Takes the attitude that no one needs any extra from 150 yards in.
.
. Unless you beat the scratch guy had the best gross score then you weren't the best and the handicap system has assisted you in some way so how can you complain about it just because it did the same but more for someone else? Handicaps are clearly deeply ingrained within the culture of golf so I accept this is never changing for a more sensible system like divisions, promotion and relegation. Doesn't make the whole idea and degree of angst any less silly though.
I've been quietly following this thread a bit. It's made me ponder game theory.
Let's assume that nobody is playing purely with the intention of falsely manipulating their handicap ( of course out of millions of golfers someone will be but just go with me on this for a bit).
Traditional golf thinking is to plot your way round, eliminate mistakes, don't take risks where the odds are against you, and build a score that way. This is the most consistent method of scoring and, on average, will lead you to achieve the best possible total score over a large number of rounds, therefore the best possible average score and the best possible handicap. Therefore low handicappers - almost by definition - will be those effective golfers who manage risk well. Low handicap goes hand in hand with consistency of scoring, and this style of play is the most effective way to lower your handicap.
But consistency of scoring is a TERRIBLE strategy if your objective is to win typical 18/36 hole handicap tournaments for two reasons. Let's assume that, as no gradated prize money is on the line so there is no reward for finishing 10th rather than 20th (unlike pro golf), then only winning matters (get your name up in that clubhouse!). Whether you finish 10th or last makes no difference.
1) If a tournament has 50 or more players, and handicapping makes then reasonably roughly level regardless of ability then simple random variance means that a "pretty good" score gets you nowhere; out of 50+ players, somebody will have a very good day. You will need to shoot an exceptional score (the type of round you only shoot 1-in-50 times) to win. The bigger the field the more risks you will need to take to have any chance of winning (exactly how many risks is a complex problem as it depends on the playing strategy of all the other players, but the simple answer is .... lots).
2) However if your 49 opponents are playing to win, have thought a bit about game theory and understand all this then they will alter their strategy. They will ignore the safe options and take big risks to try and shoot an exceptional score. Hitting bombs over doglegs, taking on huge carries, heroic flop shots that risk costing you 3 shots, shots at the green through narrow gaps out of trees rather than just knocking back into play; you name it. Most competitors will suffer the consequences and shoot poorly, but of course it only takes one golfer to hit a string of shots where those risks pay off and your winning chances if playing careful solid golf are now zero as their score will be exceptional.
3) Here's the bit where it gets more interesting - and even worse for that consistent steady low handicapper. If those golfers have realised that this is the optimum tournament strategy and their goal is to win tournaments then it must make sense to practice that strategy so they are as good as possible at it - take on those max power swings, huge carries, flop shots, tree-threaders etc. So they should practice this by playing that same way in general play rounds. This would probably increase their odds of being exceptional on any given day (e.g. maybe after practicing these strategies you now have, on a hypothetical hole, a 40% chance of clearing that difficult water carry rather than a 25% chance) but will be terrible for the vast majority of their round scores (you’re always taking that carry on now and you still hit the water 60% of the time on that hole while 36% of the time you hit it at twice or more - and that's just one hole...!). End result - their handicap will go up. Quite a lot. So now the steady golfer who avoids risk and doesn't suffer that same handicap-raising effect is starting further behind the risk taker even if they have the same skill level and same ability to shoot low.
Note that this is NOT cheating or handicap manipulation; this risky golfer is still trying their best with every shot they play to achieve the best possible outcome for that chosen shot both inside and outside tournaments.
So next time you're playing with that player with decent ball striking ability who you generally beat easily as they can't help themselves, always going for the miracle shot rather than the sensible option, ask yourself who is really the better golf strategist...?
Of course the countermeasure is to adopt the same all-out-to-win-the-tournament strategy as your opponents in both tournament and general play golf, but then your handicap will increase with every risky shot that sends a ball in the trees or lake; and the vast majority of low handicap golfers are (probably justifiably) far more proud of and attached to that handicap number than to any minor tournament win, so could never contemplate playing like this and seeing it rise by several shots. The end summary is that players simply will not adopt tournament-winning strategies and are therefore are entering tournaments doomed to fail due to their own playing style and suboptimal general round and tournament strategies (suboptimal in terms of how you should play in order to win tournaments) rather than any bias within the handicapping system.
If you don't like the fact that the strategy described essentially turns tournaments into a lottery - well Duh! That's the whole point of handicapping systems in tournaments - to give everyone an equal chance to win at the start rather than the best player winning most of the time, so that whoever has that one-in-a-hundred round for them wins it. What did you think it was doing? Of course the logical conclusion is that all handicap tournaments are basically hit and giggle rather than serious contests of golf skill - which is correct - but this (and the obvious logical follow on that any prize involved with such a contest should be trivial) was addressed on page 1 of 50+ I think
The strange thing to me (and to anyone coming from a background of any sport other than golf where non-level contests are never taken in any way seriously) is that anyone would attach any care or importance at all to whether they win a contest which is so very obviously and completely artificial, but it’s clear from 50+ pages and ‘ruining golf’ comments within that some people do. It’s like having angst about whether you won the tombola at your village fete.
Just a different perspective from someone fresh to the world of golf and golf handicapping. Without it being normalised to me it's easier to see the essential silliness in the entire concept (at least as far as serious competition rather than fun with your mates). I'll put on my flak jacket as I doubt this opinion will be popular.
I get what you're saying. Back a few decades ago golf was played by fairly proficient individuals and the handicap system was used to make up for obvious stuff like not being strong enough to get to a par 4 green in 2 shots. Things have moved on to using it to compensate for those that really shouldn't be competing at all. That's why it's become a bit silly.I've been quietly following this thread a bit. It's made me ponder game theory.
Let's assume that nobody is playing purely with the intention of falsely manipulating their handicap ( of course out of millions of golfers someone will be but just go with me on this for a bit).
Traditional golf thinking is to plot your way round, eliminate mistakes, don't take risks where the odds are against you, and build a score that way. This is the most consistent method of scoring and, on average, will lead you to achieve the best possible total score over a large number of rounds, therefore the best possible average score and the best possible handicap. Therefore low handicappers - almost by definition - will be those effective golfers who manage risk well. Low handicap goes hand in hand with consistency of scoring, and this style of play is the most effective way to lower your handicap.
But consistency of scoring is a TERRIBLE strategy if your objective is to win typical 18/36 hole handicap tournaments for two reasons. Let's assume that, as no gradated prize money is on the line so there is no reward for finishing 10th rather than 20th (unlike pro golf), then only winning matters (get your name up in that clubhouse!). Whether you finish 10th or last makes no difference.
1) If a tournament has 50 or more players, and handicapping makes then reasonably roughly level regardless of ability then simple random variance means that a "pretty good" score gets you nowhere; out of 50+ players, somebody will have a very good day. You will need to shoot an exceptional score (the type of round you only shoot 1-in-50 times) to win. The bigger the field the more risks you will need to take to have any chance of winning (exactly how many risks is a complex problem as it depends on the playing strategy of all the other players, but the simple answer is .... lots).
2) However if your 49 opponents are playing to win, have thought a bit about game theory and understand all this then they will alter their strategy. They will ignore the safe options and take big risks to try and shoot an exceptional score. Hitting bombs over doglegs, taking on huge carries, heroic flop shots that risk costing you 3 shots, shots at the green through narrow gaps out of trees rather than just knocking back into play; you name it. Most competitors will suffer the consequences and shoot poorly, but of course it only takes one golfer to hit a string of shots where those risks pay off and your winning chances if playing careful solid golf are now zero as their score will be exceptional.
3) Here's the bit where it gets more interesting - and even worse for that consistent steady low handicapper. If those golfers have realised that this is the optimum tournament strategy and their goal is to win tournaments then it must make sense to practice that strategy so they are as good as possible at it - take on those max power swings, huge carries, flop shots, tree-threaders etc. So they should practice this by playing that same way in general play rounds. This would probably increase their odds of being exceptional on any given day (e.g. maybe after practicing these strategies you now have, on a hypothetical hole, a 40% chance of clearing that difficult water carry rather than a 25% chance) but will be terrible for the vast majority of their round scores (you’re always taking that carry on now and you still hit the water 60% of the time on that hole while 36% of the time you hit it at twice or more - and that's just one hole...!). End result - their handicap will go up. Quite a lot. So now the steady golfer who avoids risk and doesn't suffer that same handicap-raising effect is starting further behind the risk taker even if they have the same skill level and same ability to shoot low.
Note that this is NOT cheating or handicap manipulation; this risky golfer is still trying their best with every shot they play to achieve the best possible outcome for that chosen shot both inside and outside tournaments.
So next time you're playing with that player with decent ball striking ability who you generally beat easily as they can't help themselves, always going for the miracle shot rather than the sensible option, ask yourself who is really the better golf strategist...?
Of course the countermeasure is to adopt the same all-out-to-win-the-tournament strategy as your opponents in both tournament and general play golf, but then your handicap will increase with every risky shot that sends a ball in the trees or lake; and the vast majority of low handicap golfers are (probably justifiably) far more proud of and attached to that handicap number than to any minor tournament win, so could never contemplate playing like this and seeing it rise by several shots. The end summary is that players simply will not adopt tournament-winning strategies and are therefore are entering tournaments doomed to fail due to their own playing style and suboptimal general round and tournament strategies (suboptimal in terms of how you should play in order to win tournaments) rather than any bias within the handicapping system.
If you don't like the fact that the strategy described essentially turns tournaments into a lottery - well Duh! That's the whole point of handicapping systems in tournaments - to give everyone an equal chance to win at the start rather than the best player winning most of the time, so that whoever has that one-in-a-hundred round for them wins it. What did you think it was doing? Of course the logical conclusion is that all handicap tournaments are basically hit and giggle rather than serious contests of golf skill - which is correct - but this (and the obvious logical follow on that any prize involved with such a contest should be trivial) was addressed on page 1 of 50+ I think
The strange thing to me (and to anyone coming from a background of any sport other than golf where non-level contests are never taken in any way seriously) is that anyone would attach any care or importance at all to whether they win a contest which is so very obviously and completely artificial, but it’s clear from 50+ pages and ‘ruining golf’ comments within that some people do. It’s like having angst about whether you won the tombola at your village fete.
Just a different perspective from someone fresh to the world of golf and golf handicapping. Without it being normalised to me it's easier to see the essential silliness in the entire concept (at least as far as serious competition rather than fun with your mates). I'll put on my flak jacket as I doubt this opinion will be popular.
