Are You a Vanity Capper?

[ChetlovesMer]

4 hours ago, Big Lex said:

Lower handicap players should still maintain some marginal advantage, even in a handicapped setting. 

It would be difficult for me to agree with anything more than this sentiment. 

The only argument I've ever gotten into at the driving range was over this very topic. A gentlemen and I were discussing the fact that the handicap system levels the playing field to a degree. He said (and I quote) "The system sucks, because it gives an advantage to better players."

He actually said that. 

To which I responded with "Shouldn't BETTER players HAVE an advantage?" 

He said "No, it should be fair for everyone!" 

I responded with "Then why are you practicing?" ... (Incidentally, I think Socrates would have been proud of the way I refuted his argument. But all he would offer by way of rebuttal was more of the same about how "The system sucks.")

Anyway, this went on for quite a while. He kept saying everyone should have equal opportunity to win. To which I kept saying "No, if you practice hard and get better, you SHOULD gain some advantage."

Later, he tweaked his argument and said that it's B.S. because the system rewards consistency. At which point, I gave up on him. 

Edited July 27, 2022 by ChetlovesMer
clarity

[darthweasel]

2 hours ago, ChetlovesMer said:

It would be difficult for me to agree with anything more than this sentiment. 

The only argument I've ever gotten into at the driving range was over this very topic. A gentlemen and I were discussing the fact that the handicap system levels the playing field to a degree. He said (and I quote) "The system sucks, because it gives an advantage to better players."

He actually said that. 

To which I responded with "Shouldn't BETTER players HAVE an advantage?" 

He said "No, it should be fair for everyone!" 

I responded with "Then why are you practicing?" ... (Incidentally, I think Socrates would have been proud of the way I refuted his argument. But all he would offer by way of rebuttal was more of the same about how "The system sucks.")

Anyway, this went on for quite a while. He kept saying everyone should have equal opportunity to win. To which I kept saying "No, if you practice hard and get better, you SHOULD gain some advantage."

Later, he tweaked his argument and said that it's B.S. because the system rewards consistency. At which point, I gave up on him. 

if the point of the handicap system is to make a level playing field, then he is correct. If that is not the point then you would be correct. So it becomes a genuine question: is the handicap system designed to give a level playing field that allows differently skilled players to compete or is it...well...pretty much any other answer?

 

[Shindig]

7 minutes ago, darthweasel said:

if the point of the handicap system is to make a level playing field, then he is correct. If that is not the point then you would be correct. So it becomes a genuine question: is the handicap system designed to give a level playing field that allows differently skilled players to compete or is it...well...pretty much any other answer?

Yes, but not for an arbitrary matchup.  My understanding (please, someone, tell me if I'm wrong) is that it's more accurate to a 'level' field on smaller handicap differentials.  You and I could probably have a reasonably fair match based on our handicap differential, and all other things being equal, we probably have an equal chance to win the match.  This wouldn't be the case for one of us playing against a scratch player (the number of strokes doesn't help much against the huge difference in variance) or against a 32 handicap.

[Big Lex]

6 hours ago, darthweasel said:

if the point of the handicap system is to make a level playing field, then he is correct. If that is not the point then you would be correct. So it becomes a genuine question: is the handicap system designed to give a level playing field that allows differently skilled players to compete or is it...well...pretty much any other answer?

 

The point is not to give a truly level playing field, no. It is to make it possible for people of widely disparate ability to have a reasonable competition, but skewed such that the better player will always maintain some marginal advantage. I think people don't appreciate what an achievement the handicap system is. It is remarkably reliable and does a fantastic job of accounting for all sorts of variables. It's a compromise, no doubt, but an extremely good one IMO. In our evaluations of it, we are all prone to logical-fallacy type errors where we experience something surprising and counter-intuitive, and tend to generalize from this and conclude something is "wrong" with the system. 

[iacas]

On 7/26/2022 at 11:52 PM, Hugh Jars said:

An apparent 4/5 handicapper shoots 29 over par.

EAL is not a 4/5 handicapper. Sorry.

On 7/26/2022 at 11:52 PM, Hugh Jars said:

I would put money on myself as an 18,8 handicapper under the golf Australia system to beat any USGA 10 handicapper off the stick.

As others have illustrated, you're being a bit foolish now.

On 7/27/2022 at 9:38 AM, billchao said:

I’m not entirely sure you understand how handicap index works at this point. A 14 handicap is only going to shoot a 14 differential or lower 25% of the time.

20% now. 8/20 is 40%, and half of those will be under. Roughly.

[darthweasel]

20 hours ago, Shindig said:

Yes, but not for an arbitrary matchup.  My understanding (please, someone, tell me if I'm wrong) is that it's more accurate to a 'level' field on smaller handicap differentials.  You and I could probably have a reasonably fair match based on our handicap differential, and all other things being equal, we probably have an equal chance to win the match.  This wouldn't be the case for one of us playing against a scratch player (the number of strokes doesn't help much against the huge difference in variance) or against a 32 handicap.

playing a tournament this saturday that will have couple hundred people at most. I got the afternoon flight which, considering the reputed 100+ degree day we expect, i think will be an advantage. I would suspect the most likely winner of the flight I am in will be a mid to high handicapper benefiting from the extra yardage to shoot an abnormally low round. As is generally mentioned in any thread like this (and lets be honest, we have seen this thread before and will see it again), it is easier for a higher cap to shoot lower than normal than a low cap...and the larger the field, the more odds there are one will. Conversely, there will also be a few that shoot much, much higher than expected...

concur wholeheartedly with the idea that one to one it makes it fairly level, but in a large group the percentages will shift perceptions. 

[darthweasel]

14 hours ago, Big Lex said:

The point is not to give a truly level playing field, no. It is to make it possible for people of widely disparate ability to have a reasonable competition, but skewed such that the better player will always maintain some marginal advantage. I think people don't appreciate what an achievement the handicap system is. It is remarkably reliable and does a fantastic job of accounting for all sorts of variables. It's a compromise, no doubt, but an extremely good one IMO. In our evaluations of it, we are all prone to logical-fallacy type errors where we experience something surprising and counter-intuitive, and tend to generalize from this and conclude something is "wrong" with the system. 

I agree it does a great job. Apart from sand and vanity cappers, people who have and maintain legitimate handicaps will, over time, have very reasonable competitions. 

Curious where you get your idea of the point? To amuse myself (and also I was genuinely curious as I never went down this specific rabbit hole before) I went to the USGA website and looked up  "Purpose of the World Handicap System" where bullet point three is "Compete, or play a casual round, with anyone else on a fair and equal basis", So from whence do you draw the idea it is to give one player an advantage?

[Big Lex]

32 minutes ago, darthweasel said:

I agree it does a great job. Apart from sand and vanity cappers, people who have and maintain legitimate handicaps will, over time, have very reasonable competitions. 

Curious where you get your idea of the point? To amuse myself (and also I was genuinely curious as I never went down this specific rabbit hole before) I went to the USGA website and looked up  "Purpose of the World Handicap System" where bullet point three is "Compete, or play a casual round, with anyone else on a fair and equal basis", So from whence do you draw the idea it is to give one player an advantage?

Thanks for asking. When I said the point was that the better player should have an advantage, I was giving my opinion of how I thought the system was intended to work by the USGA, and I was calling on my recollection of Dean Knuth's comments on the system. He said that in creating the original course rating and slope systems, the main idea was to try to make handicaps more universal and portable, but they also thought that handicapping shouldnt' be total, and that better players should still have some degree of advantage. I think all of his musings are still on his website, popeofslope.com . 

I guess the argument that the system should make a truly level playing field has merit. To say othewise begs the question, I guess: If you're going to go to the trouble of making up the difference between two golfers so they can have a "fair and equal" competition, why stop short of making it truly equal? 

For me, personally, I don't really like getting strokes. In fact I have mixed feelings about the whole system. What does it really mean to "beat" someone with an allowance of strokes awarded to you that you didn't earn? I always want fewer strokes than the system "allows." I think that there is no such thing as equality of ability, and any system that tries to make me even with a better competitor is distorting the spirit of competition in some fundamental, philosophical way. 

Yet, I could see how the better player might want the opposite: to have the challenge on his back. The same way maybe, in a footrace, someone like Usain Bolt would like to see how much of a headstart he could give to an opponent and STILL beat them. 

In the end it comes down to fun, I guess. It would be no fun to try to beat Rory straight up. It's pointless. But if he gives me a passel of strokes, then it is fun. 

For me, who has lived between 6 and 14 HI most of my golf career, I've been on both sides of the stroke equation, and by far I prefer matches where I am the one giving strokes, not getting them. 

 

 

[darthweasel]

21 hours ago, Big Lex said:

T popeofslope.com . 

I

In the end it comes down to fun, I guess. It would be no fun to try to beat Rory straight up. It's pointless. But if he gives me a passel of strokes, then it is fun.

Pope of slope is a great site. Very informative for sure.

I suspect, and there is zero data to back this up, a huge difference comes in that there are many golfers for whom betting is a huge part of the game. They have to play "for something". In a tournament setting like the NW Golf guys tournaments, having everything as equal as possible has value in maintaining the integrity of the field so to speak. By contrast, in a betting setting, and again, this is conjecture...i cannot back this up with studies or data, just anecdotal observation which has the value of a plugged nickel...being a better player is often perceived as something that should provide advantage in a bet.

I am reminded of a time a group of us were at Black butte. Because some of them are the "have to have something on it" crowd, it was with handicaps and pops. One of the guys who happens to be a plus handicap twice had birdies canceled by a mid capper (read "me") parring the hole...getting a pop...and thus tying for the hole. To the surprise of..well...nobody, this was frustrating to him that a birdie could not win a hole and since he was giving pops to everyone it made it really tough for him to win a hole. I get it. In a foursome with a +2, 6.8, 11 something and I think I was like a 14 at that point, someone is parring pretty much every hole at worst. So if you are giving pops to everyone and it takes a birdie to win but your birdie gets canceled...hard to win.  if I were him or had that skill level, I would likely feel the same.

By contrast though, my skill level...a par is a relative birdie. I have little to no interest in competing in something where, honestly, my best is not good enough to be competitive. 

Full disclosure, I am not one of those people who has to have something on it. in fact, i actively dislike doing so and have reached the point where when in one of those groups I take zero part in the negotiations. I just tell them after the round tell me who to pay and how much to a maximum...then I go golf and enjoy the round. 

But to me it has to do with the idea of there being a desire for an advantage for the better player. Note I am making no value judgement...i don't really care one way or the other. I just find the exercise of looking into it intellectually stimulating and actually learned a couple things in this thread. That is always a win.

[iacas]

Guys… the current handicap system still provides almost the same exact "bonus for excellence" as the old one. Before it was 10/20 but multiplied by 0.96. Now it's 8/20. It works out about the same: the lower handicap player should win about 53% of the matches.

[Big Lex]

43 minutes ago, iacas said:

Guys… the current handicap system still provides almost the same exact "bonus for excellence" as the old one. Before it was 10/20 but multiplied by 0.96. Now it's 8/20. It works out about the same: the lower handicap player should win about 53% of the matches.

How do you convert the 96% allowance and the best 8 (or 10) rounds factors into a precise number like 53%? I'm not disagreeing, I'm asking. 

I'm also wondering, how does the new "par adjustment" in the WHS affect how handicap matches will come out? My understanding was that the par adjustment was created by HCP authorities in countries where stableford scoring was the most common form of play and, in the case of Australia, the form in which scores were posted for computation of handicap. So it was essential to adjust for par in these situations, as Stableford scores are determined in relation to par. 

But now things change quite a bit in terms of course handicaps in the USA...our handicap index formula has changed only slightly, but the course handicaps awarded will be quite different. 

I'm probably off topic.....

[iacas]

13 minutes ago, Big Lex said:

How do you convert the 96% allowance and the best 8 (or 10) rounds factors into a precise number like 53%? I'm not disagreeing, I'm asking.

You don't. That's just how things shook out. 96% of a 1 was still a 1. 96% of an 18 was was a 17. Hence, advantage to the lower handicapper. The 8/20 with no 96% accomplishes the same thing in practice.

It's not math, it's just how it works out.

This is all probably better for the WHS topic, yes.

[Sandy Lie]

I’ve played 200 plus rounds a year in my 6 years of retirement. I’m at 144 so far this year. So I see a wide range of H’Cappers that don’t post their rounds even though I felt they played well.  I post them all, the good, bad and ugly.

I mostly see mostly low HDCP’s not post rounds at all.  I see young good players who just post competitive rounds only (tournaments). I see Low HDCPs play poorly and mid round declare it a practice round. Really?  I’ve seen players that don’t post for months! I’ve seen players at our Club who do batch posting which is frowned upon by  our HDCP committee.   
Some players don’t post scores in order to keep their HDCP low so they can get into some tournaments.

Do we care? Well, I do. There are certain things I don’t like.  I hate gimmes! They seem to get longer and longer with a few people I know!  And the rule infraction that is put aside, the drop from relief etc. 

So back to me, I post them all. I do the “hole-by-hole” posting method in GHIN.  By the way I’ve heard that may become the de facto method of posting per the USGA. Anyone else hear about that?

Am I perfect? Far from it, but when I play it is by the rules. I have on occasion ask one of our Pro’s to delete a score after learning I made an error.

Its just a game, do the best you can. A bad day on the golf course? There’s no such thing!
 

 

 

[Dave2512]

Don’t play enough to have one and not currently registered anywhere. Have only been able to finish 9 holes twice since 2018 due to injury. Twice in about 10 attempts. 
 
My scores were in line with my previous handicap, 42-41 on different days at different courses, so I will say probably not. If I can make it around the course a few times without stopping I’ll pay for access to GHIN again. 

 

[Carl3]

23 hours ago, Sandy Lie said:

I’ve played 200 plus rounds a year in my 6 years of retirement. I’m at 144 so far this year.

Dayum! The first time I read that it came across 200 rounds over your 6 years of retirement 😆, which did not sound impressive at all. Good for you

[GolfLug]

On 7/31/2022 at 9:56 AM, Sandy Lie said:

I hate gimmes! 

We pick up if about a foot/foot and a half except for competition (obviously). I must have yipped 9-10 putts in the 3-4 feet range in the last few rounds that still sting. 

[imsys0042]

I'm not a vanity capper, but I am pretty vain about it.   I sometimes get caught up trying to drive the number lower because it feeds my ego, but ultimately my handicap is pretty true since I put scores in every time I play, including with people outside my home course and the Men's Golf Association.   

I don't recall all the details, but a long time ago I was paired up with 2 guys who were just dressed to the nines, had top shelf equipment and just looked all decked out like crazy.   They decided to play from the tips because "we're single digit handicaps" and they put on a Masterclass of B.S. that probably still befouls the air above that golf course to this day (Mercer Oaks in Mercer county, NJ).   

They played terrible, had terrible swings yet felt compelled to tell me and my buddy how they were having their "worst" day for various reasons.   The BS things that came out of their mouths to each other about how to play the game (bogus swing mechanics, how to read greens, etc) were just comical sometimes.   It was very hard to listen to things like "Well the grass is going to grow towards the dominant direction of the sun, but of course it will always break to the water as well."  with a response of "yes, but look at the slope beyond the green and that must influence it as well".   Probably lucky to 3 putt at that point.

They weren't mean or got angry, but it was a long day.  To this day I wonder if I saw a red dot dancing on them from the sniper rifle the ranger probably had on them.  The fact that he didn't pull the trigger shows either great restraint or great apathy.

[Carl3]

15 minutes ago, imsys0042 said:

Well the grass is going to grow towards the dominant direction of the sun, but of course it will always break to the water as well."  with a response of "yes, but look at the slope beyond the green and that must influence it as well"

I have been noticing things like the grain and people will sometimes shake their head as if I am crazy, but since I birdied 3 in a row the other day I am staying the course. My regular partner is now asking me to read some of his putts occaissionally.