Stop generalizing about people based on their handicap.

[Shanks A Million]

  kafka01 said:

We in Germany mostly play stableford, which pretty much filters out these trainwreck holes. In our handicap distribution there are 20x more double digit hcps than single hcps. And if you look at USGA distribution charts, its a bit better, but not by that much.

In the U.S. we also have a max on each hole, and it depends on the course slope I believe. Like I've said before, trainwreck holes may be the reason that high handicappers are high handicappers, but for some reason, every single one of those people with the poor course management skills seem to have the same over the top move with a flip... Wonder why that is?

It's nice to think of it in that light, but it's not true. I know someone who ahas handicap higher than his swing indicates because he has a few trainwreck holes per round. He may be a good example. His swing is beautiful, poetry, he's only severely mishit one ball (duff, shank, top, etc) in my presence, and it was while swinging with one hand. Indeed, he could swing with one hand and still beat most people. So, what's the damage? He's in his mid 60s, and he's a 3.

[kafka01]

  Shanks A Million said:

to have the same over the top move with a flip... Wonder why that is?

I agree, thats a killer move (that the majority of golfers do) for any kind of efficent energy transfer to the ball, and the energy that actually is transfered during impact produces all kinds of unwanted sideeffect on the ballflight.

Why that is? My guess, its just a feel thing, and the guys/gals that do it/did it, felt it was the right thing to do (arent there a gazillion reasons why you have an OTT? To strong of a grip/ upper body domination, reverse Tilt, inside backswing and so on). I´ve been fighting that for years and coming properly at the ball just feels so unnatural, but unless you dont expierence positive results with it, it will be hard to let go of the OTT move, despite you know what kind of results you get from it. And flipping through is basically just a result of the lost lag during the OTT move.

[KDub]

Well put Fourputt!!!

  Fourputt said:

I know personally at least 2 players in my handicap range, who regularly drive over 300 yards. Rarely in the fairway, which is why they are 13+ handicaps. I can't think if I've ever seen a 20+ handicap hit the ball that far.

[Tomboys]

  Shanks A Million said:

In the U.S. we also have a max on each hole, and it depends on the course slope I believe.

Equitable Stroke Control (ESC) and it's based on your course handicap.

[sean_miller]

  Tomboys said:

Equitable Stroke Control (ESC) and it's based on your course handicap.

In Canada it goes by handicap ranges - in mine it's a double bogey per hole. I can still take a gross 12 on a par 3 in a tournament or when playing for money (which I never do), but the software see that as a 5. It can take a while to bump up an index with blowup holes, so there's no worry about counting all your strokes. If you're entering a round as just a total score though, you have to do the ESC adjustments prior to entering it. Not rocket science.

[Bo the Golfer]

I don't have an official handicap but usually score somewhere between 95-103. I have always viewed this site the same way I do a Golf Digest. I love to read as much as I can and understand that tips/advice/ect. while well intentioned may or may not always work for me. I guess I have at time fallen into the trap of looking at others handicaps but I can't remember a time when I have outright rejected what one was saying based on that.

[golfinanuj]

I think people do often make assumptions of how good a player is by handicap and many times it does hold to be true. However their scores don't necessarily indicate what type of player they really are. I recently played in a tournament with a guy who was listed as a 15 handicap but didn't hit the ball very far at all on a 6600 yard course. He was just out there having fun and said he would go nuts if he shot 85. He would hit his driver maybe 200-210, but would always have to hit a hybrid onto every green, very rarely hitting irons. He even had to hit driver on one par 3 and didn't make it there. He did end up shooting 85 and I shot 84 while hitting almost every fairway and a few of the greens in regulation. People were surprised that we shot so similar just because perceptions about distance, accuracy, or technique. So people can shoot pretty consistently if they can figure out what to do (i guess it helped that he was regularly taking lessons and knew a bit about his swing).

But I don't think it is out of the question for a 15 or so handicap to have a lot of knowledge about a golf swing or equipment for their game. I'd like to think i know about equipment and technique just as much as a single handicap just from experience, reading, practice, and gaining knowledge from everyone I've golfed with. I believe that there are golfers with single digits and golfers who are around 11 or 12 that are around the same skill level, with the single digits having a bit more experience or composure. I don't think there is as great gap between skill level as perceived.

[etlreams]

I didn't even read all 9 pages of this discussion. I just like the OP and the heading to this post! Perhaps they are accurate, perhaps they are not, I don't know. But I think handicap #s are over rated.

I do not have an official USGA handicap. I enter all my scores into OOBgolf.com and that's how I get my handicap. If I wanted to list what that says in my profile, I'd be a 5.6. It is that low because (as I was called out on yesterday) there's one particular course I play a majority of the rounds that I play and I shoot REALLY well there. No way is it a reflection of my "typical" game. If I take out those course scores, I'm a 13-15ish handicap. Go figure!

Anyways.... I know a lot of guys who spend a lot of their time studying equipment, the golf swing, etc. that aren't good golfers. I also know a lot of great golfer who know little about equipment and giving instruction on the golf swing. I'm not going to give the former less of my attention when they talk those things simply because they are not a cetain level of handicap.

[B-Con]

  iacas said:

In the end, everyone needs to remember it's an incredibly difficult game. I like to remind myself of this... if you took an alien or a person who'd never even heard of or seen "golf" and you gave them a bunch of screwed up looking sticks, a ball, and told them "there's a hole barely four inches across 450 yards away, and you've gotta get this ball to fall into it with these screwy looking sticks" and then asked them to guess how many it'd take, they'd probably guess 30 or 50 or something. We get pissed if we don't do it in 4 or 5. Or 3. So in the end, EVERYONE is pretty good at golf... if you think about it that way.

No kidding.

I constantly remind myself of that after a bad hole, it puts the mistakes and bad swings in perspective and keeps me from getting too pessimistic. And it's why I always hole out, I already moved the ball 450 yards, the least I can do is finish the last 4 inches.

[CarlSpackler]

  iacas said:

In the end, everyone needs to remember it's an incredibly difficult game. I like to remind myself of this... if you took an alien or a person who'd never even heard of or seen "golf" and you gave them a bunch of screwed up looking sticks, a ball, and told them "there's a hole barely four inches across 450 yards away, and you've gotta get this ball to fall into it with these screwy looking sticks" and then asked them to guess how many it'd take, they'd probably guess 30 or 50 or something. We get pissed if we don't do it in 4 or 5. Or 3. So in the end, EVERYONE is pretty good at golf... if you think about it that way.

The alien would tap the ball once with the putter, point his finger at it, and it would levitate all the way to the cup, then fly out of that cup, then the next, and so forth, thereby playing the round with one stroke. Perhaps the USGA/R&A; should forbid telekinesis.

OK. So I watch too much SciFi.

[sean_miller]

  etlreams said:

I know a lot of guys . . .

Some guys are tech savvy and other guys are brochure savvy. BTW - you should enter ALL your scores.

@ carl spackler - why would they have arms?

[CarlSpackler]

  sean_miller said:

Some guys are tech savvy and other guys are brochure savvy. BTW - you should enter ALL your scores.

Arms... tentacles... antenae... =)

[case31]

  etlreams said:

I didn't even read all 9 pages of this discussion.

I didn't read all of the pages either. I agree that in general, it is unfair to generally discredit someone's opinion just because he/she is a high handicap. I will say that in my experience, the high handicap golfers I know personally do not have a very deep knowledge of the game. Most of the time, a person who plays regularly and has a high handicap struggles with course strategy as much, if not more, than with technique. A perfect example, and I've heard this

countless times, "I'm gonna hit it through that tree...it's 90% air, right?" That's poor strategy. Or, "It's 260 to clear the creek, all I have to do is hit a perfect shot."

[Tomboys]

  B-Con said:

No kidding.

Agreed. That's why when I made the decision to get better at golf earlier this year, I decided to redefine my goals. Sure, lowering my handicap is something that I want, but (for me, at least) it's too broad of an objective. Rather, I focus now on smaller, more attainable goals and build from there.

For instance, I used to measure "success" when I scored par or better on a hole. Now, I measure "success" when I strike the ball with good CDD (contact, direction & distance). I made this change in focus because I found that when I tried to shoot a lower score, the opposite happened. I would become so fixated on the final product (the score) that I ended up agonizing over every shot trying to be "perfect". From there, my swing would get totally out of sync resulting in a downswing that started and continued with the upper body leading the way. At that point, the bad shot was the norm and the good shot was the anomaly. Lastly, while I don't deny that there may be some 15+ 'cappers out there that are excellent ballstrikers that only suffer from poor short-game and putting, IMO, they are pretty rare. The only reason I say this is because according to my playing partners, I was one of them. Trust me, I bought into that line for way too long. All it did was lead to frustration and disappoinment--mostly mine. Now that I've been improving my ballstriking, a funny thing is happening; my short-game and putting are getting better. Go figure.

[Weezy]

High handicappers who can consistently get the ball in the air think they are great ball strikers. That is the problem, they don't know what real ball striking is. They just think they are putting a smooth swing on it and thats why they only hit their 7 iron 140. It's not though, it's because they aren't making good contact (usually its the dreaded flip).

[soloredd]

  Weezy said:

High handicappers who can consistently get the ball in the air

Why is distance some kind of barometer? That doesn't mean anything. To me, a great ball striker is someone who can make the same shot over and over and over and over and over, consistently. Fred Couples will use a club or two down from Phil Mickelson, does that make him less of a ball striker? Hell no.

[Bullitt5339]

If distance was a factor, I'd be whooping up on the pair of 10 handicappers I play with that I consistantly hit the ball further than they do. They're hitting 6 irons, I'm hitting an 8. I can carry the distance with 2 less clubs, but mine will be 10 yards left or right, sometimes long, sometimes short, where they hit their 6 irons into the green almost every time. If distance was a major factor, I'd be killing them, but the opposite is actually going on, they're beating me by about 10 strokes per game.

[golfro]

  soloredd said:

Why is distance some kind of barometer? That doesn't mean anything. To me, a great ball striker is someone who can make the same shot over and over and over and over and over, consistently. Fred Couples will use a club or two down from Phil Mickelson, does that make him less of a ball striker? Hell no.

Why shouldn't distance be used as some kind of barometer?

Even a good ball striker who has a slow swing speed can get great distance. Not sure why you brought Fred Couples up... he still drives 280 average. You're comparing a pro to a hacker on a forum. There is a huge difference between hitting a ball and being a great ball striker. Most people are NOT great ball strikers regardless of if they can get the ball in the air. A great ball striker is able to CONSISTENTLY get their ball accurately in best position for their game. Hitting a ball means nothing...it just means you're hitting a ball. THe whole concept of "great ball striking" is thrown around with forum all too often with guys claiming they hit 8 out of 10 shots pure. And then they start a thread crying about how people are generalizing based on his handicap? High handicappers often have the wrong understanding of what a pure shot or even great ball striking is. I'm sure there are exceptions, don't get me wrong...but byt he way some of the high handicappers talk on this forum, they're all pro's who can shape the ball left and right and are all "great ballstrikers" who can control spin with their wedges, etc etc etc. We're not just talking about distance, we're talking about the absurd claims made by many people on this forum. and again, distance IS a huge factor only if used right. Distance with consistency is the difference between a eagle opp versus par on a par 5. Distance with consistency is the difference between an approach shot with a 9 iron as opposed to a 6 iron. Don't discount one aspect of the game because you suck at another. they're all important.