who has actually played with a legit scratch golfer/pro level player?

[kiwigolf72]

8 minutes ago, st1800e said:

This tangential conversation of fake handicaps and sandbaggers will never end.   

If a +1 shoots 77 he’s a vanity capper , if a 10 shoots a 77 he’s a sandbagger, are we all supposed to shoot exactly the same Score every day to avoid suspiscion?  Then what would be the point? 

 

beating a dead horse. 

Not sure who mentioned fake HCs. The OP asked if anybody had played with a scratch golfer, my only point was that a scratch golfer under the current system is quite a lot different from the system where every card good or bad counted.

[knock it close]

8 hours ago, st1800e said:

This tangential conversation of fake handicaps and sandbaggers will never end.   

If a +1 shoots 77 he’s a vanity capper , if a 10 shoots a 77 he’s a sandbagger, are we all supposed to shoot exactly the same Score every day to avoid suspiscion?  Then what would be the point? 

 

beating a dead horse.  

Hell there's a course 30 minutes from me that a 77 would be a 0.6 differential 

[MtlJeff]

On 10/31/2023 at 6:14 AM, kiwigolf72 said:

Not sure who mentioned fake HCs. The OP asked if anybody had played with a scratch golfer, my only point was that a scratch golfer under the current system is quite a lot different from the system where every card good or bad counted.

 

That is very true. 8 out of 20 rounds isn't a lot. Currently i am +1.6 and if you used all 20 rounds a quick calculation i'd probably be around a 0.5 or 1. 

 

It's not a huge difference in numbers , but it kind of is. You think of a 1 far different than someone just under +2. 

[NRJyzr]

23 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

That is very true. 8 out of 20 rounds isn't a lot. Currently i am +1.6 and if you used all 20 rounds a quick calculation i'd probably be around a 0.5 or 1. 

 

It's not a huge difference in numbers , but it kind of is. You think of a 1 far different than someone just under +2. 

 

The difference between rating bowlers and golfers, illustrated.  <shrug>

 

[MtlJeff]

9 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

The difference between rating bowlers and golfers, illustrated.  <shrug>

 

 

How do bowlers get rated?

[NRJyzr]

2 minutes ago, MtlJeff said:

 

How do bowlers get rated?

 

A bowler's average is simply the score of every game they roll in a league setting, divided by the number of games.  Every game counts.

 

No difficulty metric to use as an adjustment such as we see in golf.  Which provides its own entertainment, when you consider that different bowling centers have their own level of difficulty, based on a number of factors.  Some of which can be controlled better than others.  🙂

 

 

[MtlJeff]

23 minutes ago, NRJyzr said:

 

A bowler's average is simply the score of every game they roll in a league setting, divided by the number of games.  Every game counts.

 

No difficulty metric to use as an adjustment such as we see in golf.  Which provides its own entertainment, when you consider that different bowling centers have their own level of difficulty, based on a number of factors.  Some of which can be controlled better than others.  🙂

 

 

 

yeah i mean that is a true average....I am sure there is a reason golf does 10/20 and now 8/20 for the purpose of handicapping matches, but i have no idea what it is. 

 

I like 8/20 though, it makes me sound better LOL

[NRJyzr]

1 minute ago, MtlJeff said:

 

yeah i mean that is a true average....I am sure there is a reason golf does 10/20 and now 8/20 for the purpose of handicapping matches, but i have no idea what it is. 

 

I like 8/20 though, it makes me sound better LOL

 

The bowling equivalent might be the use of a percentage for handicapping.  Such as, everyone has an individual handicap based on 80% of the difference between their average and an established "scratch" score.  The Scratch score has varied over the years, 30+ years ago, I would see 200 used, then 210.  I've heard of higher numbers used more recently (largely quit bowling 10 years ago).

 

[Nels55]

1 hour ago, MtlJeff said:

 

That is very true. 8 out of 20 rounds isn't a lot. Currently i am +1.6 and if you used all 20 rounds a quick calculation i'd probably be around a 0.5 or 1. 

 

It's not a huge difference in numbers , but it kind of is. You think of a 1 far different than someone just under +2. 

The bigger the difference between index on 8 of 20 vs. index on an average of 20 scores the more potential to win a tournament or to finish last.  Also the higher the handicap the bigger the difference is likely to be.  The current system of 8 scores counting is pretty solid I think as it makes it possible for a player to win when playing really well but also gives lower handicappers a chance to be in the mix.  

[lchang]

On 10/31/2023 at 3:14 AM, kiwigolf72 said:

Not sure who mentioned fake HCs. The OP asked if anybody had played with a scratch golfer, my only point was that a scratch golfer under the current system is quite a lot different from the system where every card good or bad counted.

When was there ever a system where every card counted?  At least in the US, it used to be best 10/20 (with a 4% reduction) and now it’s simple best 8/20. 

[kiwigolf72]

8 hours ago, lchang said:

When was there ever a system where every card counted?  At least in the US, it used to be best 10/20 (with a 4% reduction) and now it’s simple best 8/20. 

 Sorry showing my age, before the R&A and the USGA came up with the WHS, here in NZ we played under the old R&A system, handicaps would go up and down following each competitive round, with an increase of 0.1 for a poor score and a decrease of at least that amount for every stroke under par. There were no non counting rounds so a scratch golfer shot close to par or better all of the time.

Edited November 4, 2023 by kiwigolf72
Grammar

[Neutral_Impact]

On 11/4/2023 at 1:01 AM, kiwigolf72 said:

 Sorry showing my age, before the R&A and the USGA came up with the WHS, here in NZ we played under the old R&A system, handicaps would go up and down following each competitive round, with an increase of 0.1 for a poor score and a decrease of at least that amount for every stroke under par. There were no non counting rounds so a scratch golfer shot close to par or better all of the time.

The R&A system was far better at determining elite players from 'very good' players.

If you wanted to get to scratch from 5.0hcp then you needed to be aggregate around 50 under par. No way you could get there by pretending to be a good golfer
Beyond that, anybody off a plus handicap was guaranteed to be what I would call an elite player

Nowadays on WHS, scratch players are still great golfers, but they're not what they used to be


**Edit**

I ran an experiment to check this
If you were 5.0 and shot 20 rounds in a row all level par you would get to 0.5 on R&A
Meanwhile on WHS you only need 8 rounds of level par to get to 0.0 (I know there's slope ratings etc but let's keep it simple)

8 rounds of level par starting at 5.0 on R&A would get you to 2.1

 

Edited November 6, 2023 by Neutral_Impact

[kiwigolf72]

5 hours ago, Neutral_Impact said:

The R&A system was far better at determining elite players from 'very good' players.

If you wanted to get to scratch from 5.0hcp then you needed to be aggregate around 50 under par. No way you could get there by pretending to be a good golfer
Beyond that, anybody off a plus handicap was guaranteed to be what I would call an elite player

Nowadays on WHS, scratch players are still great golfers, but they're not what they used to be


**Edit**

I ran an experiment to check this
If you were 5.0 and shot 20 rounds in a row all level par you would get to 0.5 on R&A
Meanwhile on WHS you only need 8 rounds of level par to get to 0.0 (I know there's slope ratings etc but let's keep it simple)

8 rounds of level par starting at 5.0 on R&A would get you to 2.1

 

The old R&A HC system was IMO better at determining exactly what the players current HC was, although it was updated less frequently.

Today's WHS concentrates on the potential of a golfer. You could have a scratch golfer who under the WHS shoots 5x80s in a row and nothing happens to his HC unless something is dropping off the other end. 

Not having a dig at the WHS or players who are on scratch, but for low HC players as you worked out there is quite a difference under the WHS.

It was a long time ago but when I first got to scratch, to get to a +HC I had to have 4 consecutive rounds under par and 1 of those rounds had to be played on an away course, I also remember my club having to apply for me to play on a +.

Times have changed. I remain a + HC by simply not playing enough, my current HC and the state of my game compared to 35 years ago is so different, I was far better back then.

Edited November 6, 2023 by kiwigolf72

[Louis_Posture]

The various handicap index calculation methods in place are all good. A handicap index not being accurate is due to input error; that is a bragging handicap player not posting a score for every round played and or posting artificially low scores. Betting handicap players (sandbaggers) tend to either post artificially high scores and, or intentionally sabotage their play on particular holes to produce a high score for posting.

[ProV1Killa]

On 11/6/2023 at 1:04 PM, Louis_Posture said:

Betting handicap players (sandbaggers) tend to either post artificially high scores and, or intentionally sabotage their play on particular holes to produce a high score for posting.

I assume this is referencing those playing with there buddies.  If someone tanks their HC for a $100 calcutta that is pretty sad.  The actual money games aren't asking your HC.  If you get in everyone there knows how you play. If you got in and they don't know you the organizer has talked to someone who does know you and you're not getting away with sandbagging.  If you got in and nobody knows you, or the organizer couldn't find a trustworthy source that knows you, then you're just there paying the cost of admission, "donating to the pot".   It doesn't matter what your HC is for money games. If they don't know you the terms of getting in are going be sufficient to take away any chance of you walking away with the pot.  

[Louis_Posture]

3 hours ago, ProV1Killa said:

I assume this is referencing those playing with there buddies.  If someone tanks their HC for a $100 calcutta that is pretty sad.  The actual money games aren't asking your HC.  If you get in everyone there knows how you play. If you got in and they don't know you the organizer has talked to someone who does know you and you're not getting away with sandbagging.  If you got in and nobody knows you, or the organizer couldn't find a trustworthy source that knows you, then you're just there paying the cost of admission, "donating to the pot".   It doesn't matter what your HC is for money games. If they don't know you the terms of getting in are going be sufficient to take away any chance of you walking away with the pot.  

The long running skins game at Kapalua, Maui , 7 days a week, has an average of 25 players including a mix of local pros, local amateurs, and tourists.  It's a gross game but for higher handicaps (7 or above) a skin is worth double. I think that is the proper way to run a skins game which includes lots of newcomer strangers.

[RagnarD]

To go back to the original post, yes I've played with two different kinds of scratch golfers, while my HC has been around 12 (now 9). One was with a D3 team golfer who at his best was a +3. He was friends with my daughter, so I played with him a few times at the club we were both members of. Could drive the ball 270-300, hit hybrids onto the green from 240, etc, and putt, so not surprising he could go low when he was on and playing the middle tees versus the back tees he plays college tournaments from. I've also played with crafty old guys who played courses 6,100y, and was nearly always on the fairway or fringe, or green or fringe, and pretty much never wasted shots, usually got up and down, so made pars and bogeys, and on their good days sank enough one putts to get near par. There's a big difference between those two sorts of golfers, with the young college player being much more impressive to watch. But one thing in common is that they play a lot, and normally play by themselves or with other good golfers, both at private clubs (The college golfer I played with at our private club in NJ, the older guys at our private club in FL). So of course the original poster isn't likely to bump into either one of them as a fourth on a public golf course in NJ.

[MattM97]

Pretty sure I played with one this past week on my trip, I didn't ask but heard him talk to his buddies about course conditions at tournaments vs everyday, just asking about my clubs a bit mainly my PXG irons and if the jumper issue was true, just how he carried himself on the course, etc. 

 

He was not having a great day off the tee but his recovery game was amazing and that stood out a lot to me, how he carried himself before shots, around the green, etc. Really taking into account everything, pretty much all his putts had a chance to some extent, nothing left low, etc. Basically his whole game was put together, if he hit a bad tee shot he had to recover with a great second shot or really get close on his shot into the green, etc. 

 

There were a lot of things I noticed where I would keep up with him shot for shot and being a 14 handicap that was a good sign. But then there were many more time where he would clearly separate and that was eye opening to me on what I needed to do. I think it was either a sign he was not that good or I have the potential to do much better with more focus on each shots. 

 

 

[isaacbm]

On 10/17/2023 at 1:55 PM, phizzy30 said:

What's a semi pro for golf?  Developmental tour?  He kept your score?  That's creepy, lol. 

No golf professional, or professional golfer, under any circumstances at any time would call himself a “semi pro.”

 

I know tons of guys who have called them selves a pro who aren’t.

 

My definition of a professional golfer is somebody who MAKES money playing tournament golf. Not just somebody who plays in tournaments FOR money. 

 

Just because there is a purse doesn’t change the fact that you shot 81,81… 

 

[phizzy30]

On 11/13/2023 at 3:26 PM, isaacbm said:

No golf professional, or professional golfer, under any circumstances at any time would call himself a “semi pro.”

 

I know tons of guys who have called them selves a pro who aren’t.

 

My definition of a professional golfer is somebody who MAKES money playing tournament golf. Not just somebody who plays in tournaments FOR money. 

 

Just because there is a purse doesn’t change the fact that you shot 81,81… 

 

Yes, I know.  It was a joke. 

[Golfbit2X]

Finally, I'm able to post on this thread after playing with a golfer who had a 4 handicap and shot 4 over yesterday at Eisenhower Park - Red course. 

 

I must say though that it was the experience was disappointing as the guy, who is in his late 50s or early 60s, had a terrible temperament. 

 

In fact, I would compare his maturity to a toddler, after witnessing him slam his putter head on the green and kicking his ball off the green on several occasions due to missed short putts. 

 

I assumed that golfers with that skill level would have a matching emotional maturity but I guess I was wrong. 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2023 by Golfbit2X

[st1800e]

2 hours ago, Golfbit2X said:

Finally, I'm able to post on this thread after playing with a golfer who had a 4 handicap and shot 4 over yesterday at Eisenhower Park - Red course. 

 

I must say though that it was the experience was disappointing as the guy, who is in his late 50s or early 60s, had a terrible temperament. 

 

In fact, I would compare his maturity to a toddler, after witnessing him slam his putter head on the green and kicking his ball off the green on several occasions due to missed short putts. 

 

I assumed that golfers with that skill level would have a matching emotional maturity but I guess I was wrong. 

 

 

Sorry to hear, but your anecdotal experience of one is not representative of anything.  A 4 cap isn’t scratch. 
Bad etiquette and behaviour doesn't correlate with any particular skill level.  

[Golfbit2X]

1 hour ago, st1800e said:

Sorry to hear, but your anecdotal experience of one is not representative of anything.  A 4 cap isn’t scratch. 
Bad etiquette and behaviour doesn't correlate with any particular skill level.  

[Golfbit2X]

Just now, Golfbit2X said:

1 hour ago, st1800e said:

Sorry to hear, but your anecdotal experience of one is not representative of anything.  A 4 cap isn’t scratch. 
Bad etiquette and behaviour doesn't correlate with any particular skill level.  

I understand that scratch means 0 handicap but with the amateur golf leagues that I've participated in, golfers with a 4 and below handicap is considered scratch and/or top tier division.

 

It may be anecdotal but my experience still represents an authentic experience despite your dismissive comment.