Not in the spirit of the game!

[Fourputt]

My point, however hypothetical it is, is does it need to be that

Have to disagree. We know who the best players are, handicap or not. And as far as producing better players, I doubt that too. Without the improving handicap to use as a measure, many players would simply quit in frustration long before they became good enough to be competitive. What it would do is kill the game. It would become about as popular as curling is in the tropics. Or players would simply handicap themselves without any oversight, and then there would be no control at all over sandbagging tactics.

I look at it like this. The average tennis player has no interest at all in playing a match against Roddick or Federer because he'd be unlikely to ever hit a return shot. Handicapping in tennis simply isn't possible. He competes against players of similar skill without ever even entertaining a serious thought of playing a top pro. On the other hand, most golfers dream of playing a round with a group comprised of their favorite pros, and with proper handicapping, such a round could actually be competitive. You could play a Nassau against Adam Scott and actually enjoy the round. It doesn't mean that you have to ignore your score against the course ( I always keep my scratch score, and when I talk about what I shot I don't say I shot 72 with the handicap applied, I say I shot the 84), but it can add an extra bit challenge or excitement to any round you play. I love to play a simple $2 Nassau or 25 cent skins game when I play and I can do so against any honest player of any ability because I carry a legitimate handicap. It just puts in an extra level of competition without any risk of breaking the bank.

[MrSandman]

JaY B,

When you play a match, and give 4 strokes a side, and lose 3&2, does your opponent taunt you or tell you they played better? I hope not.

The strokes are to keep things entertaining and competative in friendly matches, not to determine the best player. Everybody will know who the better player is.

[JaY_B]

Have to disagree. We know who the best players are, handicap or not. And as far as producing better players, I doubt that too. Without the improving handicap to use as a measure, many players would simply quit in frustration long before they became good enough to be competitive. What it would do is kill the game. It would become about as popular as curling is in the tropics. Or players would simply handicap themselves without any oversight, and then there would be no control at all over sandbagging tactics.

Agreed.

JaY B,

Agreed.

As I said in the post earlier, the situation is purely hypothetical, handicaps make the game of golf what it is, everyone playing off scratch would probably destroy the league system, not improve it. I do agree with earlier posters that it is easier for higher handicap players to beat low handicap players in theory, although I do believe the mental advantage lower handicap players have is the winning ingredient.

[Shindig]

I do agree with earlier posters that it is easier for higher handicap players to beat low handicap players in theory, although I do believe the mental advantage lower handicap players have is the winning ingredient.

Exactly. I've noticed in the past year (going from 30+ to almost under 20) that my blow-up holes don't carry over to the next hole nearly as often as they used to. Sure, the high handicapper could have a blow-up hole that accounts for a number of the strokes he gets, but how likely is he to play to his handicap on the next hole? What about a 2-handicapper who gets a double bogey? He'll probably bounce back much sooner.

This reminds me: I'm a bit surprised the .96 multiplier hasn't been brought up yet. Or, if it has, I missed it. It drags high handicappers' handicaps lower than their scores indicate, relative to what it does to low handicappers. So, while the advantage is for high handicappers in a match between two people who can play to their handicaps consistently, the low handicapper has an advantage in the event of relative inconsistency for both.