Handicap and Solo Rounds/Rounds with kids

[Augster]

6 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

I don't agree with your opinion.  So, you are saying I could play with a 2-week-old baby and post the score?  That's silly and violates the spirit of not posting when playing alone.

 

Why have a rule against posting a round played by yourself at all if you can post when playing with a baby?

You said, originally, an 8-year-old. 
 

And 8-year-old MAY be used as a marker because they understand numbers. They are not REQUIRED to keep your score, but they COULD if they wanted to, or you wanted them to. 
 

A baby cannot keep your score, nor verify what you shot if need be. Don’t post that score. 
 

There is a massive difference between an 8-year-old and a baby. Like 8 years. 

[Golferpaul]

4 minutes ago, Augster said:

You said, originally, an 8-year-old. 
 

And 8-year-old MAY be used as a marker because they understand numbers. They are not REQUIRED to keep your score, but they COULD if they wanted to, or you wanted them to. 
 

A baby cannot keep your score, nor verify what you shot if need be. Don’t post that score. 
 

There is a massive difference between an 8-year-old and a baby. Like 8 years. 

" I play a lot of golf with either a young child riding with me or actually playing with my 8 or 10 year old.  None of these kids know enough about golf to have any idea what I'm doing out there"

 

He clearly is saying the kid can't be a marker as he has no clue about the game.  The dad could cheat on every hole and the kid wouldn't have a clue so he shouldn't post those scores.

[Augster]

11 minutes ago, Golferpaul said:

" I play a lot of golf with either a young child riding with me or actually playing with my 8 or 10 year old.  None of these kids know enough about golf to have any idea what I'm doing out there"

 

He clearly is saying the kid can't be a marker as he has no clue about the game.  The dad could cheat on every hole and the kid wouldn't have a clue so he shouldn't post those scores.

An 8 year old is old enough to be a marker. They know what numbers are. They are not needed to referee and golf is, ultimately, a game of honor. 
 

Cheaters are going to cheat. They don’t need silly “loopholes” and “gotchas” to doctor their scores. They just put in bogus scores if nobody is watching them. It’s not rocket science. They cheat. 
 

For the other 99% of us that are honorable and post as per the WHS handicap rules, a player playing with an 8-year old fulfills the requirement to post that score. 

[North Butte]

I really can't believe you lot are willing to go to such lengths to try to rationalize or even make sense out of this silly, silly rule. There is no material difference between posting a totally solo round and posting a round where your 8-year-old or non-golfer wife happens to be riding in the cart. It's not about honor and it's not about having a marker. It is just dumb. 

[davep043]

1 hour ago, Golferpaul said:

I don't agree with your opinion.  So, you are saying I could play with a 2-week-old baby and post the score?  That's silly and violates the spirit of not posting when playing alone.

 

Why have a rule against posting a round played by yourself at all if you can post when playing with a baby?

Because golfers are so resistant to change, forcing them to actually have scores attested was considered to be step too far.  This is a first step, in my opinion in the right direction.

[lowndes]

2 hours ago, Augster said:

An 8 year old is old enough to be a marker. They know what numbers are. They are not needed to referee and golf is, ultimately, a game of honor. 
 

Cheaters are going to cheat. They don’t need silly “loopholes” and “gotchas” to doctor their scores. They just put in bogus scores if nobody is watching them. It’s not rocket science. They cheat. 
 

For the other 99% of us that are honorable and post as per the WHS handicap rules, a player playing with an 8-year old fulfills the requirement to post that score. 

Since I made the original post I’ll state that while my 8 year old can count she doesn’t fulfill the requirement the way you are describing.  That would require her to actually pay attention to what I’m doing to have an idea what to count.

[North Butte]

3 minutes ago, lowndes said:

Since I made the original post I’ll state that while my 8 year old can count she doesn’t fulfill the requirement the way you are describing.  That would require her to actually pay attention to what I’m doing to have an idea what to count.

Friend Augster is putting words in USGA's mouth with "they know what numbers are". There is no requirement of knowing what numbers are in the USGA rules. In fact, there are not requirements at all except it be a person. 

[davep043]

5 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Friend Augster is putting words in USGA's mouth with "they know what numbers are". There is no requirement of knowing what numbers are in the USGA rules. In fact, there are not requirements at all except it be a person. 

As I read @Augster, he was saying that an 8 year old could be aware enough to be a marker,  but I didn't see him suggesting that that level of awareness is required of the " person".  

[dugue4]

What's the baby's handicap?

[Purple Toupee]

16 hours ago, North Butte said:

I really can't believe you lot are willing to go to such lengths to try to rationalize or even make sense out of this silly, silly rule. There is no material difference between posting a totally solo round and posting a round where your 8-year-old or non-golfer wife happens to be riding in the cart. It's not about honor and it's not about having a marker. It is just dumb. 

Of course when you take it to the extreme and talk about an 8-year old, or even a baby, the rule looks silly.  But for years, people have complained that the rules are too complicated and too confusing, so when the USGA decided that we shouldn’t post solo rounds, they made it as simple as possible: don’t post solo rounds and post anything with another person.  It couldn’t be simpler and less confusing than that.  And yet you guys still complain!

 

And the worst thing is that what you are really asking for, is for the USGA to come up with a list of every conceivable person you might play with based on age, golf knowledge, cognitive function, etc. and list whether or not you can post if you play with that person.  You would be first in line to complain if the USGA tried to do that, and would go out of your way to find every exception to the list you could and call the USGA dumb for not thinking of it.

 

I’m no defender of the USGA, but they made this as simple as they possibly could, removed any room for error, and you guys still try to pick them apart.  No matter what they do, you guys complain about it.  Just post your score if you play with someone else, and don’t post if you are solo.  It couldn’t be any simpler, there’s no need to look for exceptions or hypothetical scenarios.

[North Butte]

The rule looks silly no matter who you're talking about, unless you're talking about another golfer you're competing against. There was a guy out playing today at my club with his wife riding along in the cart with him. She had ear buds and spent the day riding along, listening to music and texting or whatever it was she was doing on her phone. 

 

I've actually seen her out playing golf with him on other days. So she's not a baby or an 8-year-old or even a non-golfer. But the rules of the handicap system says he's supposed to post his round because she happened to be physically present in his golf cart, regardless of the fact she hardly ever even looked up from her phone. 

 

That's a silly, silly rule. 

 

It could be simpler, less confusing AND actually make sense to boot. Don't post any score unless it's from a round where you had one or more opponents. If USGA is too feckless to require attested scores, fine. But they can at least make the rule sensible by saying only competitive scores count, even if they leave it unverifiable and totally "honor system". 

[Purple Toupee]

2 hours ago, North Butte said:

The rule looks silly no matter who you're talking about, unless you're talking about another golfer you're competing against. There was a guy out playing today at my club with his wife riding along in the cart with him. She had ear buds and spent the day riding along, listening to music and texting or whatever it was she was doing on her phone. 

 

I've actually seen her out playing golf with him on other days. So she's not a baby or an 8-year-old or even a non-golfer. But the rules of the handicap system says he's supposed to post his round because she happened to be physically present in his golf cart, regardless of the fact she hardly ever even looked up from her phone. 

 

That's a silly, silly rule. 

 

It could be simpler, less confusing AND actually make sense to boot. Don't post any score unless it's from a round where you had one or more opponents. If USGA is too feckless to require attested scores, fine. But they can at least make the rule sensible by saying only competitive scores count, even if they leave it unverifiable and totally "honor system". 

But that’s not simpler.  Now you have to define what constitutes a competition.

[North Butte]

1 hour ago, Purple Toupee said:

But that’s not simpler.  Now you have to define what constitutes a competition.

They could let the R&A do the definition since they've been basing handicaps on competition rounds since, well, since forever. This is done, settled, long since figured stuff.

 

Everybody except USGA knows how to deal with it but USGA come up with their own bespoke nonsense instead, in order to collect more GHIN subscriptions. It's shameful. 

[Purple Toupee]

1 hour ago, North Butte said:

They could let the R&A do the definition since they've been basing handicaps on competition rounds since, well, since forever. This is done, settled, long since figured stuff.

 

Everybody except USGA knows how to deal with it but USGA come up with their own bespoke nonsense instead, in order to collect more GHIN subscriptions. It's shameful. 

Just stop, there’s nothing shameful about it.  The USGA is catering to their audience just like the R&A is.  Most of the rounds are comps over there so that system works for them.  It would be a nightmare to immediately switch to a system like that.  Look how many people complain here because they claim to play “all my rounds solo” and now they can’t keep a handicap.  And you want to take it away from 90% of the golfing population here by only allowing comps?  That would be a disaster.

 

And still doesn’t change the fact that the USGA system is simpler.

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, North Butte said:

They could let the R&A do the definition since they've been basing handicaps on competition rounds since, well, since forever. This is done, settled, long since figured stuff.

 

Everybody except USGA knows how to deal with it but USGA come up with their own bespoke nonsense instead, in order to collect more GHIN subscriptions. It's shameful. 

 

You really ought to stop. 

 

You cast yourself as a worldly gent who understands other golfing cultures, yet you post here as a clueless bumpkin who's never been beyond the city limits of Podunk, Rhode Island. 

 

 

[Colin L]

7 hours ago, North Butte said:

They could let the R&A do the definition since they've been basing handicaps on competition rounds since, well, since forever. This is done, settled, long since figured stuff.

Just to keep things accurate.  The R&A took over handicapping along with the USGA only with the inception of the WHS in 2020.  Previously, handicapping was run by regional/national associations such as in my part of the world  CONGU, a union of England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales and for much of the rest of Europe the EGA [European Golf Association].  

 

And another thing.  In all this talk of being accompanied by a 6 year old, by people  who know nothing about golf and spend the time on their phone  and so on, please help me with this.  If you are accompanied by someone of that kind, how do you meet the requirement for an acceptable score that "the player's score must always be certified in accordance with the Rules of Handicapping (see Rule 4.4)"?   Rule 4.4 says, inter alia,  that the score must be "certified by the marker (who keeps the player's score) in accordance with the Rules of Golf (see Rule 3.3.b)".

 

Edited June 17, 2022 by Colin L

[North Butte]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

And another thing.  In all this talk of being accompanied by a 6 year old, by people  who know nothing about golf and spend the time on their phone  and so on, please help me with this.  If you are accompanied by someone of that kind, how do you meet the requirement for an acceptable score that "the player's score must always be certified in accordance with the Rules of Handicapping (see Rule 4.4)"?   Rule 4.4 says, inter alia,  that the score must be "certified by the marker (who keeps the player's score) in accordance with the Rules of Golf (see Rule 3.3.b)".

 

Here is Rule 4.4

 

 

Quote

 

A score submitted for handicap purposes must be made available for peer review as soon as possible after completion of the round. To facilitate the process of peer review:

(i)	A player, or someone authorized by the player, must submit their score as soon as possible after completion of the round, and

(ii)	The Handicap Committee should ensure a submitted score is posted to the player’s scoring record as soon as possible.

 

There is no requirement for certification, attestation, a marker or anything else in the current USGA handicap system. "Submit their score..." simply means typing a number into the GHIN app.

 

This is just USGA's typical assertion that the Handicap Committe (and more generally, peer review) makes everything work out correctly in the end. Even though millions of scores are posted to GHIN every year with no peer review and no functioning Handicap Committee.  

Edited June 17, 2022 by North Butte

[Colin L]

That must be another of the optional variations in the WHS Rules which seems, of course, extremely lax to me.  What I quoted above is from the WHS Rules as implemented by CONGU.  

 

But I presume the USGA version does include the requirement to play by the Rules of Golf and even without its being spelled out, Rule 3.3b is pretty clear on the subject of a marker and the responsibilities of the marker.  I guess that's just ignored?

[North Butte]

9 minutes ago, Colin L said:

That must be another of the optional variations in the WHS Rules which seems, of course, extremely lax to me.  What I quoted above is from the WHS Rules as implemented by CONGU.  

 

But I presume the USGA version does include the requirement to play by the Rules of Golf and even without its being spelled out, Rule 3.3b is pretty clear on the subject of a marker and the responsibilities of the marker.  I guess that's just ignored?

Colin,

 

You and I completely agree that the USGA's approach to handicap score posting is extremely lax. That's what I'm banging on about constantly in these threads. 

 

I don't know the ins and outs of 4.4 this and 3.3b that but up until recently the USGA handicap system required that we post all rounds, even when playing literally by ourselves. They then changed it to say don't post if it's literally played alone but we must post if any other person is physically present. 

 

But at least as long as I've had a USGA handicap (25-ish years) there's never been a requirement to turn in a scorecard, have someone attest your score or go through any process that actually assures peer review takes place. [EDIT: There are certainly clubs in USA who do require signed scorecards or attestation before posting scores but they are imposing that requirement on their own without any help from the USGA system]

 

Hence there are still millions of solo round scores (played totally alone) posted to GHIN every year by handicap holders who either ignore or are unaware that the system's rules say not to post them. 

 

All the stuff about markers and so forth by definition only apply to rounds where the golfer is competing somehow or another. Long ago the USGA started marketing handicaps to people who have no intention of competing or at least not doing so regularly. They literally want their handicap to reflect how they "score" when playing by themselves or alongside other golfers without competing with them.

Edited June 17, 2022 by North Butte

[Golferpaul]

On 6/15/2022 at 7:21 PM, North Butte said:

Friend Augster is putting words in USGA's mouth with "they know what numbers are". There is no requirement of knowing what numbers are in the USGA rules. In fact, there are not requirements at all except it be a person. 

You are correct.  The letter of the law would allow you to have a one-day old baby which is no different than playing by yourself.

 

But the spirit of the law is that your person be able to understand something about the game.

 

 

[lowndes]

On 6/16/2022 at 9:35 AM, Purple Toupee said:

Of course when you take it to the extreme and talk about an 8-year old, or even a baby, the rule looks silly.  But for years, people have complained that the rules are too complicated and too confusing, so when the USGA decided that we shouldn’t post solo rounds, they made it as simple as possible: don’t post solo rounds and post anything with another person.  It couldn’t be simpler and less confusing than that.  And yet you guys still complain!

 

And the worst thing is that what you are really asking for, is for the USGA to come up with a list of every conceivable person you might play with based on age, golf knowledge, cognitive function, etc. and list whether or not you can post if you play with that person.  You would be first in line to complain if the USGA tried to do that, and would go out of your way to find every exception to the list you could and call the USGA dumb for not thinking of it.

 

I’m no defender of the USGA, but they made this as simple as they possibly could, removed any room for error, and you guys still try to pick them apart.  No matter what they do, you guys complain about it.  Just post your score if you play with someone else, and don’t post if you are solo.  It couldn’t be any simpler, there’s no need to look for exceptions or hypothetical scenarios.

Again since I was the original poster I’ll respond.  I wasn’t complaining - learned something new and posted a question.  I play almost all of my rounds with my kids so it really isn’t extreme or a hypothetical.  Wanted to make sure I understood correctly and that is that.  

 

And I wasn’t  asking the USGA to come up with every conceivable person who could count as a marker.  If you took out the actual facts my question was since solo rounds are not to be posted does a round need somebody who is actually capable of “attesting” to your round or not.  That’s it - pretty simple.

[sui generis]

2 hours ago, lowndes said:

does a round need somebody who is actually capable of “attesting” to your round or not

 No, not this year. But, it's quite possible that down the road a stricter requirement for the accompanying person might surface. I'd also suggest that many here would welcome such.

[Augster]

On 6/15/2022 at 7:21 PM, North Butte said:

Friend Augster is putting words in USGA's mouth with "they know what numbers are". There is no requirement of knowing what numbers are in the USGA rules. In fact, there are not requirements at all except it be a person. 

That’s not true. 
 

Let’s set the record straight for what the USGA’s guidance is for the acceptability of a score. 
 

In 2.1 it says (besides all the honesty stuff etc.):

 

“In the company of at least one other person, who MAY also act as a marker.”

 

The person you are playing with does not have to actually be a marker, BUT they need to be able to be a marker if need be. 
 

A marker as defined in the ROG:

”In stroke play, the person responsible for entering a player’s score on the player’s scorecard and for certifying that scorecard. The marker may be another player, but not a partner.”

 

A baby simply couldn’t do that. They could not be a marker if asked. An 8-year old could. 
 

Lastly, the infographic on Page 30 of “Scores not acceptable for handicap purposes” states, among others:

 

“When score cannot be verified by another person.”

 

For these reasons I state the person you are playing with, if you want to be able to post your score, needs to know what numbers are. They have to be able to be a marker if you choose to want them to be. If they cannot fulfill the definition of marker, your round won’t be postable. Therefore, they need to be able to write down numbers on the card (definition of marker), and add them up at the end to verify what you shot. (Definition of marker). 
 

A baby does not satisfy the definition of marker. An 8-year-old that can add and write down numbers does. A girlfriend on her phone the entire round does. A caddy does. A smart 3-year old does. Infants do not. 
 

Getting used to only posting when playing with one other person that can verify your score is only the first step. We are 2.5 years into the WHS, and as one can read in this thread, and others on the board, there is still confusion as to when/what to post. 
 

Before WHS, in the USA, it was “post everything.” Simple. Now it’s “don’t post if you play alone”. Still simple. 
 

The next step, I am hoping, will be “your score can only be posted by someone else who can verify your score”. And to “grow the game” and the USGA coffers, the only people allowed to attest will be other WHS members. So if you play a round with your 3 buddies that don’t keep an official cap, you won’t be able to post it. 
 

I’m guessing that’ll be too far of a leap for we Americans, so I doubt the USGA will do that on the NEXT update. But maybe the update after that. 
 

One can hope anyway. 
 

 

 

Edited June 18, 2022 by Augster

[North Butte]

5 hours ago, Augster said:

Before WHS, in the USA, it was “post everything.” Simple. Now it’s “don’t post if you play alone”. Still simple. 
 

The next step, I am hoping, will be “your score can only be posted by someone else who can verify your score”. And to “grow the game” and the USGA coffers, the only people allowed to attest will be other WHS members. So if you play a round with your 3 buddies that don’t keep an official cap, you won’t be able to post it. 
 

I’m guessing that’ll be too far of a leap for we Americans, so I doubt the USGA will do that on the NEXT update. But maybe the update after that. 
 

One can hope anyway. 
 

Hope is fine but as I've said before, I simply can't imagine USGA being willing to see roughly half their subscriber base go away. Because there are many, many people currently paying for a USGA handicap who seldom if ever play rounds which could be attested by other USGA handicap subscribers. 

 

The only path forward I see for USGA is a bifurcated system that will track whatever numbers you care to post (like GHIN today) but will also allow real WHS compliant handicaps for those who want them. I reckon it would be possible to have those two sets of numbers all in the same database and have two apps. GHIN Classic and GHIN-WHS. The build-out and subscriber education process for GHIN-WHS would be substantial, though. Not sure USGA will ever think it's worth it.

[RCGA]

On 6/18/2022 at 2:04 AM, Augster said:

The next step, I am hoping, will be “your score can only be posted by someone else who can verify your score”. And to “grow the game” and the USGA coffers, the only people allowed to attest will be other WHS members. So if you play a round with your 3 buddies that don’t keep an official cap, you won’t be able to post it. 
 

I’m guessing that’ll be too far of a leap for we Americans, so I doubt the USGA will do that on the NEXT update. But maybe the update after that. 
 

One can hope anyway. 

 

In an effort to solve what, exactly? 

[North Butte]

11 minutes ago, RCGA said:

 

In an effort to solve what, exactly? 

To solve the problem that it's impossible to tell under the current system what scores are meaningful versus which are pure fantasy. They're just whatever numbers that GHIN subscriber felt like entering. 

 

There are plenty of people in GHIN who have a legitimate handicap. But you can't distinguish between those and the sandbaggers, "track my progress" solo artists and outright delusional vanity 'cappers. If only attested scores from rounds played while competing against one or more opponents were in the system there would still be sandbaggers and vanity 'cappers but at least they'd need to collude with like-minded others in order to get their illegitimate scores into the system. 

 

[Golferpaul]

1 hour ago, North Butte said:

To solve the problem that it's impossible to tell under the current system what scores are meaningful versus which are pure fantasy. They're just whatever numbers that GHIN subscriber felt like entering. 

 

There are plenty of people in GHIN who have a legitimate handicap. But you can't distinguish between those and the sandbaggers, "track my progress" solo artists and outright delusional vanity 'cappers. If only attested scores from rounds played while competing against one or more opponents were in the system there would still be sandbaggers and vanity 'cappers but at least they'd need to collude with like-minded others in order to get their illegitimate scores into the system. 

 

No collusion needed.  If somebody wants to sandbag, they can deliberately miss putts, etc. even with another competitor.

[Augster]

2 hours ago, Golferpaul said:

No collusion needed.  If somebody wants to sandbag, they can deliberately miss putts, etc. even with another competitor.

Nobody does that. They’d lose money. The ONLY reason to doctor your handicap is to give you an edge to win money. 
 

Any other reason is simply psychotic. 

[nsxguy]

5 hours ago, Augster said:

Nobody does that. They’d lose money. The ONLY reason to doctor your handicap is to give you an edge to win money. 
 

Any other reason is simply psychotic. 

 

I'm not sure I'd call a vanity capper psychotic but,,,,,,,, what ev,,,,,

 

 

[Augster]

6 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

I'm not sure I'd call a vanity capper psychotic but,,,,,,,, what ev,,,,,

 

 

Really?

 

Intentionally doctoring your cap so that you lose more money, more events, more often, isn’t a symptom of psychosis? 🙂