Anybody elses Clubs giving full shots?

[ManchesterGolfer]

We've had a change at our club this year in our club Knockout matches. It's always been 3/4 the difference handicap allowence but this season it's changed to full difference. I personally think this is a load of B/S but apparently it's an R&A idea as most club knockouts are won by the low handicappers.

I have two major problems with it

#1). Maybe the knockout's are being won by the lower handicapper because he's the better player?

#2). How many times a season do you see an untoachable score by a 18 handicapper or so who plays to single figures? for a Low handicapper to compete he'd have to shatter the course record... thats why 3/4 the difference was correct. The bigger the Handicap the more potential for a blitz score.

 

[Irish]

MG its a congu thing...this is what I lifted from their site

Myth 7



Myth …..
“It is unfair in singles match play to require the lower handicap player to concede full handicap difference to his opponent. Three-quarters of the difference was more equitable.”


· Numerous researchers and golfing bodies including the United States Golf Association, English Golf Union and Scottish Golf Union have investigated the relative merits of full versus three-quarters difference in handicap.
· All of these independent pieces of research have come to a single conclusion – full difference between the handicaps of the two players is clearly the more equitable allowance.
· A Scottish Golf Union survey covering 4000 handicap singles matches showed:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="40%" align=center background="" border=2><TBODY><TR><TD> </TD><TD align=middle background=""> ¾ Difference</TD><TD align=middle background="">Full Difference </TD></TR><TR><TD> Matches won by lower handicap player</TD><TD>

61%​

</TD><TD>

55%​

</TD></TR><TR><TD> Matches won by higher handicap player</TD><TD>

39%​

</TD><TD>

45%​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
From the above it can be seen that even when conceding full difference the lower handicap player retains an advantage.
· To further explore the significant advantage given to the lower handicap player by limiting the handicap allowance in match play to ¾ of the difference in handicaps, a handicap match play event with a large entry was analysed in detail.
· The following table tracks the representation, and hence performance of players in respect to Handicap Category at various stages of the competition.
Handicap Category

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="60%" align=center background="" border=2><TBODY><TR><TD> </TD><TD> </TD><TD> </TD><TD> </TD><TD> </TD><TD> </TD><TD> </TD><TD> </TD><TD> </TD></TR><TR><TD align=middle background=""> Representation</TD><TD align=right background="" colSpan=2>

Cat . 1​

</TD><TD align=left background="" colSpan=2>

Cat. 2​

</TD><TD align=right background="" colSpan=2>

Cat. 3​

</TD><TD align=right background="" colSpan=2>

Cat. 4​

</TD></TR><TR><TD> </TD><TD> No</TD><TD> %</TD><TD> No</TD><TD> %</TD><TD> No</TD><TD> %</TD><TD> No</TD><TD> %</TD></TR><TR><TD> At Competition Start</TD><TD> 27</TD><TD> 13</TD><TD> 104</TD><TD> 50</TD><TD> 72</TD><TD> 34.5</TD><TD> 5</TD><TD> 2.5</TD></TR><TR><TD> Reached last 32</TD><TD> 9</TD><TD> 28</TD><TD> 21</TD><TD> 65.5</TD><TD> 2</TD><TD> 6.5</TD><TD> 0</TD><TD> 0</TD></TR><TR><TD> Reached last 4</TD><TD> 2</TD><TD> 50</TD><TD> 2</TD><TD> 50</TD><TD> 0</TD><TD> 0</TD><TD> 0</TD><TD> 0</TD></TR><TR><TD> Finalists</TD><TD> 2</TD><TD> 100</TD><TD> 0</TD><TD> 0</TD><TD> 0</TD><TD> 0</TD><TD> 0</TD><TD> 0</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

· The above is a fairly dramatic example of the bias in favour of the better player but the general trend repeats in the majority of club singles handicap events.
· In addition, the increasing probability of the lower handicap player prevailing with an increase in strokes conceded was clearly demonstrated as follows:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="60%" align=center background="" border=2><TBODY><TR><TD rowSpan=2> Difference in Handicaps
</TD><TD vAlign=top background="" rowSpan=2>

No. of Matches won by higher handicap player​

</TD><TD rowSpan=2>

No. of Matches won by lower handicap player​

</TD><TD rowSpan=2>

%tage of Matches won by lower handicap player​

</TD></TR><TR></TR><TR><TD>

(Strokes)​

</TD><TD>

​

</TD><TD>

​

</TD><TD>

​

</TD></TR><TR><TD>

1 to 2​

</TD><TD>

20​

</TD><TD>

28​

</TD><TD>

58 ​

</TD></TR><TR><TD>

3 to 5​

</TD><TD>

19​

</TD><TD>

40​

</TD><TD>

68 ​

</TD></TR><TR><TD>

6 to 8​

</TD><TD>

12​

</TD><TD>

29​

</TD><TD>

71​

</TD></TR><TR><TD>

9 to 11​

</TD><TD>

7​

</TD><TD>

22​

</TD><TD>

76​

</TD></TR><TR><TD>

12 to 14​

</TD><TD>

0​

</TD><TD>

11​

</TD><TD>

100 ​

</TD></TR><TR><TD>

15 to 18​

</TD><TD>

0​

</TD><TD>

4​

</TD><TD>

100​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
· In 1992 the English Golf Union surveyed clubs and determined the winners by handicap of 870 match play handicap competitions with every club using ¾ allowance
The Cat.4 players notched up 5 wins and consequently Cats. 3 & 4 were combineded together to give the following distribution of winners:
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="40%" align=center background="" border=2><TBODY><TR><TD> Winners from Category 1</TD><TD>

301​

</TD><TD>

35%​

</TD></TR><TR><TD> Winners from Category 2 </TD><TD>

427​

</TD><TD>

49%​

</TD></TR><TR><TD> Winners from Catergory 3&4 </TD><TD>

142​

</TD><TD>

16%​

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
In summary 8% of the entrants were Cat.1 players. They won 35 % of the match play competitions.
· CONGU now directs that the full difference between the handicaps of the two players in singles match play be applied.

 

[SilverUberXeno]

I agree 100% MG. I really don't like the handicap system anyway, though. But there's no way to make it honest. I'd rather see it be half the difference. Better players deserve to win.

All those statistics prove a point; but it's a crappy point IMO.

 

[Irish]

I agree 100% MG. I really don't like the handicap system anyway, though. But there's no way to make it honest. I'd rather see it be half the difference. Better players deserve to win.

All those statistics prove a point; but it's a crappy point IMO.

this is rubbish imo...if thats the case then why operate a handicap system at all....just go play senior,intermediate scratch events if thats the case...

in a golf club of a few hundred members whats the point in running various tournaments where only 5 to 10 people can ever win

edit... I'm also assuming that the handicap secretary is doing a decent job and limiting the amount of bandits...

 

[Eracer]

this is rubbish imo...if thats the case then why operate a handicap system at all....just go play senior,intermediate scratch events if thats the case...

in a golf club of a few hundred members whats the point in running various tournaments where only 5 to 10 people can ever win

edit... I'm also assuming that the handicap secretary is doing a decent job and limiting the amount of bandits...

I agree. Either play scratch events or allow the handicapping system to to the best job it can do. I've never understood why the indexes were offset at all. A 10 index averages 10 over par, while an 18 index averages 18 over par (all else being equal.) So in any match the lower index player should play more than 8 strokes better to win. It seems pretty simple to me.

Yes, people cheat. If that bothers you, then don't play handicapped events, or scrambles, or even a weekly Nassau.

 

[ManchesterGolfer]

I agree with full handicap for Medal's, Stableford etc but would like my club to have bands. On saturday I would have had to beat my best round from the plates by 4 shots to tie the fella who won (thats possable for me I suppose) but the fellas playing off scratch-3 would have to beat the course record to tie.

In Match play I think 3/4 the difference was correct. I play regulary with a 20 capper who does the same thing every week. Plays to 10 for 14 holes and drops the other 10 shots on the other 4 holes or may even NR. To beat him giving him 3/4's is hard to beat him giving him a full 15 will be almost impossable. There is no reward for getting your handicap down... which is the aim of the game for most people who play. 20 capper wants to be off 18, 18 wants to be Cat 2, 12 Capper wants to be single digit etc, etc. The handficap system is a great thing without it most clubs wouldn't have the membership to function but there has to be an advantage to the lower player at some point. Otherwise he might as well jack his membership and just enter gross comp's every week.

 

[MGP]

I think the problem with the handicap system is that it assumes a LOT of rounds go into the calculation and that the lowest rounds of that bunch will be used for the higher handicap player. The law of averages works with a very high sample count and indicates pretty well the best the golfer is able to play. If that's the case then it probably works ok.

But consider the case where a high handicap player only has say 20-30 rounds and the best 10 have a spread of maybe 10 or more strokes? That's going to include a lot of higher scores in his handicap calculation and not truly indicate his ability (IMO). That's not an unlikely scenario as higher cappers tend to balloon up (even under ESC) much worse than lower cap players. I've seen plenty of 15 hdcp. players that are (honestly) capable of shooting anywhere from +6 to +25 on a given day. I think with a very low handicap player that spread will be much lower.

In my case, I'm about a 12 handicap. I am very capable of shooting 5-6 over but will usually shoot around my handicap with the occasional balloon round(s) of up to maybe 20-25 over. If I have fewer rounds to include in my handicap and have say, over half of them in the higher range then the handicap really doesn't indicate the potential of my game. If I show up with my 12 hdcp. for your tournament and shoot 5-6 over then you are not a happy camper, if I shoot +20 more so.

It's a tough issue, very hard to police for sandbaggers and I think for golfers above mid-cap they will just vary a lot more in their scoring. At least that's been my experience over the years.