How many strokes is too many?

[mikedean441]

Is it 'fair' that the guy who put the time in to improve his game has to give a load of strokes away? I don't have an issue with what GregDan is saying, and he's owned this numerous times when he preferred to play me straight up despite my having a lower handicap. Playing golf with someone isn't an obligation to play a game against them. If the competition is too steep, enjoy the company of a casual round instead!

I can't imagine there's anyone out there who actually enjoys 'giving' strokes, but I know quite a few who love taking them.

Im all about the casual round (as you know), and most of these rounds with thpers turn into fun little matches of 2 on 2 or maybe some 1 on 1. Id love to be in a position to where I dont have to get strokes when playing some of you guys but the fact of the matter is that Im not there. It would be idiotic for me to play anyone straight up who is 10-12 strokes better. Now if it happens randomly in an event, then so be it, not much you can control there.

I do agree with GregDan though, that in match play the full index differences maybe shouldnt be the guide to assigning strokes.

What about like 75%? In GregDan's example of a 20 and a 4 playing match play that would be a stroke on 12 holes? Is that still not fair? Id say if both parties play to their "index" on that given day, then it should even out right?

 

[JB]

Is it 'fair' that the guy who put the time in to improve his game has to give a load of strokes away? I don't have an issue with what GregDan is saying, and he's owned this numerous times when he preferred to play me straight up despite my having a lower handicap. Playing golf with someone isn't an obligation to play a game against them. If the competition is too steep, enjoy the company of a casual round instead!

I can't imagine there's anyone out there who actually enjoys 'giving' strokes, but I know quite a few who love taking them.

So based on this, nobody should ever compete that has varying skill levels? Im genuinely trying to wrap my head around it.
The comparison with GregDan is not all that fair to the general conversation because he is a low single digit golfer as well.

However lets say you play against Ole Gray in a match. Should he be penalized because his skills have lessened over the years or because he does not have the natural ability to match up against a scratch golfer? Or he is genuinely just not allowed to compete with better golfers?

This seems a bit short sided and says no competition should ever exist unless the golfers are of similar skill set.

And if all this is true, what is the purpose of keeping a handicap?

 

[baldguy]

I think in a scramble match you only get 60% of the team's average hcp. at least that's the way it was done the last time I participated in one of those. so a 20 and a 4 would get a stroke on the 7 hardest holes (assuming they are playing a scratch team). That formula gets really screwy if your partner has no hcp (like has basically never played golf before) and gets the "max" hcp even though they could never come close to it... that may have happened to me recently

 

[Canadan]

Im all about the casual round (as you know), and most of these rounds with thpers turn into fun little matches of 2 on 2 or maybe some 1 on 1. Id love to be in a position to where I dont have to get strokes when playing some of you guys but the fact of the matter is that Im not there. It would be idiotic for me to play anyone straight up who is 10-12 strokes better. Now if it happens randomly in an event, then so be it, not much you can control there.

I do agree with GregDan though, that in match play the full index differences maybe shouldnt be the guide to assigning strokes.

What about like 75%? In GregDan's example of a 20 and a 4 playing match play that would be a stroke on 12 holes? Is that still not fair? Id say if both parties play to their "index" on that given day, then it should even out right?

On matchplay, in my experience, it has to be at minimum 80% or closer to 70%. The higher the handicap gets, the more irrelevant that number becomes on a hole by hole basis (generalization). I've played with plenty of guys who par 6, bogey 6, and double bogey six. Defining that as an 18 handicap, that's 18 strokes against me. Now, I play for par as a relatively conservative player and don't find myself having too much variance when I am playing well.

Handicap adjustments now mean I am playing against six birdies, six pars, and six bogeys. How do I beat that? Even if you cut out a few holes there, it's still a mountain to climb, and my opponent (who would generally play a bit more erratic) suddenly realizes that and plays every par four like a par 5.

I find that gap to be too substantial. Doesn't feel like I am playing against someone, more like I am playing against a handicap.

 

[blugold]

Is it 'fair' that the guy who put the time in to improve his game has to give a load of strokes away? I don't have an issue with what GregDan is saying, and he's owned this numerous times when he preferred to play me straight up despite my having a lower handicap. Playing golf with someone isn't an obligation to play a game against them. If the competition is too steep, enjoy the company of a casual round instead!

I can't imagine there's anyone out there who actually enjoys 'giving' strokes, but I know quite a few who love taking them.

I actually hate the handicap system. Hate it. It gives incentive for people to be bad. Punishes players who are good. Is complicated. Serves no real purpose. The only thing I can make an argument for, it could make matches for competitive for the players involved. But even then, there is resentment.

 

[StLCardsFan]

1. My feeling has always been that if you want to compete, it should be straight up with no advantages for one or the other.

An unpopular opinion for sure, but I grew up getting my butt kicked playing straight and just don't like playing any other way. It taught me how to compete and made me want to get better.

 

[baldguy]

I actually hate the handicap system. Hate it. It gives incentive for people to be bad. Punishes players who are good. Is complicated. Serves no real purpose. The only thing I can make an argument for, it could make matches for competitive for the players involved. But even then, there is resentment.

in theory it shouldn't punish or reward those things since this is a gentleman's sport... but I do agree that it has that effect.

 

[blugold]

in theory it shouldn't punish or reward those things since this is a gentleman's sport... but I do agree that it has that effect.

Gentlemen's sport. Right. It's a sport filled with vanity. And that vanity shows through in two big ways with handicap. One, the vanity capper. Two, the sandbagger.

 

[Canadan]

So based on this, nobody should ever compete that has varying skill levels? Im genuinely trying to wrap my head around it.
The comparison with GregDan is not all that fair to the general conversation because he is a low single digit golfer as well.

However lets say you play against Ole Gray in a match. Should he be penalized because his skills have lessened over the years or because he does not have the natural ability to match up against a scratch golfer?

This seems a bit short sided and says no competition should ever exist unless the golfers are of similar skill set.

I didn't say the game shouldn't be played, I said I tend to shy away from matches like that based solely on handicap. When push comes to shove, i'm not an overly competitive guy on the golf course (most days) and would prefer to play casual vs handing over 10-20 strokes to 'compete' against someone. It's just my personal preference as responding to the OP.

The guys who I play money games with regularly play at 80% or less and have done so for years. It's far closer, but can still be a very frustrating process. Again, these are just my experiences. I tend to believe that flighted tournaments are far more successful than all handicaps dumped into a single grouping.

So yes, maybe dropping a 20 to get three a side against a 4 is a bit much. But I don't think it's THAT far off.

 

[baldguy]

Gentlemen's sport. Right. It's a sport filled with vanity. And that vanity shows through in two big ways with handicap. One, the vanity capper. Two, the sandbagger.

some people are going to game the system, no matter what the system is. the gentleman's sport thing was my attempt at tongue-in-cheek. Many of us want it to be that... but spend any time on any golf course and you will see that not everyone agrees.

 

[JB]

I actually hate the handicap system. Hate it. It gives incentive for people to be bad. Punishes players who are good. Is complicated. Serves no real purpose. The only thing I can make an argument for, it could make matches for competitive for the players involved. But even then, there is resentment.

The irony in this statement based on your thoughts on a few other matters is pretty interesting. But this is not the place for a debate room like topic.

 

[Canadan]

I actually hate the handicap system. Hate it. It gives incentive for people to be bad. Punishes players who are good. Is complicated. Serves no real purpose. The only thing I can make an argument for, it could make matches for competitive for the players involved. But even then, there is resentment.

I find it to be flawed, but there is logic worth utilizing in it. You can't convince a 220 yard driver to play from 6,000 yards instead of 6,500 but I've seen first hand them move up a tee box and shoot a good 8-10 strokes better despite the handicap adjustment being a whopping 1-2 strokes. It's imperfect, but it's a nice guideline to use an index to try and find a common ground.

Freddie mentioned earlier about adjusting at the turn, and that's a great thought. Adds a nice friendly element to the competition.

 

[blugold]

I find it to be flawed, but there is logic worth utilizing in it. You can't convince a 220 yard driver to play from 6,000 yards instead of 6,500 but I've seen first hand them move up a tee box and shoot a good 8-10 strokes better despite the handicap adjustment being a whopping 1-2 strokes. It's imperfect, but it's a nice guideline to use an index to try and find a common ground.

Freddie mentioned earlier about adjusting at the turn, and that's a great thought. Adds a nice friendly element to the competition.

For competition purposes, it can serve a purpose.

I just think there is too much focus on handicap by some golfers. It is another complicated cog in an already complicated machine.

 

[Canadan]

For competition purposes, it can serve a purpose.

I just think there is too much focus on handicap by some golfers. It is another complicated cog in an already complicated machine.

It's just a number buddy, and the only people who don't benefit from their number are those who aren't taking it seriously or are cheating on either side of it.

--That being said, there are few things I'll speak up about on a golf course.. watching someone sandbag over the course of a couple rounds is one of them.

Sidenote: I remember the first time I got my index sub 5, I was mad about it because my dad kept talking about losing strokes.. My wife looked at me and said "Isn't that the goal to get it as low as you can?" yes, yes it is.... and since then, it's just a number I try and play to. Whatever else happens, happens.

 

[mikeg_74]

I play with a couple of friends who are better than me. I'm carrying anywhere from a 16-15 right now and they are in the 6-9 range. So I anywhere from 10 to 7 strokes depending on who it is & it's only on the 10 or 7 hardest holes excluding par 3's. This levels it a bit on the par 3's and helps me on the harder holes.

This has been the best and most fair way for us to do it and usually ends up with us having great matches and the better players not getting blindsided bc I happen to have a good day.

 

[mikedean441]

It's just a number buddy, and the only people who don't benefit from their number are those who aren't taking it seriously or are cheating on either side of it.

--That being said, there are few things I'll speak up about on a golf course.. watching someone sandbag over the course of a couple rounds is one of them.

My old boss hit a guy with a putter a week before a tourney after watching him 4 putt from 10 feet

 

[blugold]

My old boss hit a guy with a putter a week before a tourney after watching him 4 putt from 10 feet

And that's the story of how Mike Dean become Worldwide #4.

 

[GregDan]

I do agree with GregDan though, that in match play the full index differences maybe shouldnt be the guide to assigning strokes.

What about like 75%? In GregDan's example of a 20 and a 4 playing match play that would be a stroke on 12 holes? Is that still not fair? Id say if both parties play to their "index" on that given day, then it should even out right?

This I can agree with more. I am not saying to punish the guys who may not have time to practice because of family obligations or prior commitments, but why put someone at a disadvantage right from the get go because they took the time to work on their game and become a better golfer?

I don't mind giving strokes as long as it's fair. But 16 strokes to anyone that regularly plays the game is quite unfair.

 

[blugold]

This I can agree with more. I am not saying to punish the guys who may not have time to practice because of family obligations or prior commitments, but why put someone at a disadvantage right from the get go because they took the time to work on their game and become a better golfer?

I don't mind giving strokes as long as it's fair. But 16 strokes to anyone that regularly plays the game is quite unfair.

Devil's advocate: If I play everyday and can't break 100, why should I not be able to use all of the handicap I have earned?

 

[GregDan]

Devil's advocate: If I play everyday and can't break 100, why should I not be able to use all of the handicap I have earned?

If you play everyday and you can't break 100, find a new hobby.

Seriously though, with that amount of practice there is no way you can play 365 rounds a year and not get better. But I see where you are coming from and I just don't think that scenario works.

 

[ChristopherKee]

I have no issues since I'm in the high area for the moment =). In match play, 10 strokes is about all I can tolerate since it's the 10 hardest holes that you have to give them a stroke on anyway. I just like it better when the holes I have to give strokes are at the end of the 18 instead of the start. Makes getting a lead easier.

In stroke play taking it off at the end without a readjustment just stings. I'm glad the people I play with regularly are all same cap. Makes it fun.

 

[baldguy]

This I can agree with more. I am not saying to punish the guys who may not have time to practice because of family obligations or prior commitments, but why put someone at a disadvantage right from the get go because they took the time to work on their game and become a better golfer?

I don't mind giving strokes as long as it's fair. But 16 strokes to anyone that regularly plays the game is quite unfair.

I think there's a better way to look at it. Your handicap is supposed to be an indicator of how you should fare on a good day from a given set of tees on a given course. You're not at a disadvantage - if you beat your handicap you beat your "good day" average. It's the same for your opponent. If he beats his handicap then he is playing well. The net result is going to be a victory for who beats their handicap by more.

 

[blugold]

If you play everyday and you can't break 100, find a new hobby.

Seriously though, with that amount of practice there is no way you can play 365 rounds a year and not get better. But I see where you are coming from and I just don't think that scenario works.

I agree, my scenario was an extreme. But if there is going to be a handicap system, it cannot take into account anything off the course.

 

[IceyShanks]

Honestly I don't know what the magic number was, but I played in a match out our course last year, and I was clearly the worse golfer compared to my opponent and I was giving him strokes, something was off!

 

[GregDan]

I think there's a better way to look at it. Your handicap is supposed to be an indicator of how you should fare on a good day from a given set of tees on a given course. You're not at a disadvantage - if you beat your handicap you beat your "good day" average. It's the same for your opponent. If he beats his handicap then he is playing well. The net result is going to be a victory for who beats their handicap by more.

Not necessarily, but I see what you are saying. Because you can shoot your average day by having 3 or 4 meltdown holes. So you lose 3 holes, while the other 14 or so holes you par or bogey at worse and odds are you are going to win minimum 6-8 of those holes. Meanwhile the low cap has to play better than his average day to just not lose by 7&5. Not to fair to me.