10.5 is 11, no it's not

[duncan mackie]

If you are 40 years and 6 months old and someone asks you how old you are, would you round it up and say you are 41?

birthdays are one way traffic, and generally discussed in terms of 'attained', and sometimes even celebrated

ask someone who's 17y 300days and they will probably respond "I'm nearly 18".

with a whole number reference it makes most sense to be 'nearest', and I'm sure there was a long and heated debate at to whether 0.5 should be rounded up or down, but at the end of the day it's not a big issue either way ie it is what it is!

 

[upsidedown]

Um isn't that the same as 9.4 and 9.5 ??

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Basic maths I guess, never really thought about it and can't say I have ever thought about it. It's just the way it is

 

[kid2]

I think Bob's method would be a better marker...... But then what would happen when you dont shoot handicap..... do you go up that particular no. of shots that you missed the buffer by?

As many bandits as there are currently in our clubs.....It would be like a remake of the Magnificent seven if we were dealing in full shots......

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Having just reached this mark, I will be taking the shot available to me while quietly seething that my incompetence has seen me slip further away from single figures. There has to be a cut off and to be honest I have more to worry about in my golfing world than the complexities of applied mathematics association to the relevant cut off clause of the handicapping system

 

[Foxholer]

Bob,

For someone who doesn't 'have' a handicap, you seem to be showing a tad excessive interest in the concept. On a 'positive spin' note, that does show independence.

There does have to be some sort of cut-off. Apart from the n.5 one, which is just as logical to round up as down, I believe that the n.6 to n.9 are 'closer to n+1 than n', so it is better to round up than simply chop. and as handicaps are all relative values anyway, it makes little/no difference, on average.

Golf has always been a 'rounded up' pastime. The 2 or 3 inch putt is only a tiny percentage of the several shots before but still counts the same. By your logic, should that not be rounded down?

 

[srixon 1]

Brilliant, does that mean that I finally made it to 3

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Been thinking about this since my last post (cheers Bob) and you could make a case for what you say, but you could also make a case for rounding up so 10 would be 9.1 to 10.0. After all, if you're handicap is greater than 9, it should be 10 right? I'm still not sure it really matters though.

 

[bobmac]

For someone who doesn't 'have' a handicap, you seem to be showing a tad excessive interest in the concept.

Hardly, I'm just curious (the clue was in the OP) why the powers that be chose to go from 9.5-10.4 as opposed to 10.0-10.9.

The 2 or 3 inch putt is only a tiny percentage of the several shots before but still counts the same. By your logic, should that not be rounded down?

I'm not asking for anything to be rounded up or down just that if your handicap starts with a '10' then it should be 10

It's just the way it is

but at the end of the day it is what it is!

Thats all right then

 

[MKDave]

I can see why people agree with Bob OP, another great example is if something costs £20 and you only have £19.50 they don't let you round that up.

But that is irrelevant and comparing apples with oranges. Mathmatically numbers are rounded up unless decimals are used throughout. As its consistant all the way through it doesn't really matter how its worked out. Who's to say that the handicap brackets and their reduction factors are correct? It's all relative and its all part of a group of formulae to make this consistant.

 

[MKDave]

Hardly, I'm just curious (the clue was in the OP) why the powers that be chose to go from 9.5-10.4 as opposed to 10.0-10.9.

The answer to that is because 9.6-10.4 are closer to 10 than 10.6-10.9 (the only dodgey number is 0.5)

If you set a goal or a target for example for weight of 150lbs, if you weighed 145lbs you are closer to your target weight than if you weigh 156lbs.

If you play nearest the pin and you are 5 foot past or or 5 feet from the pin its still the same distance, its not rounded up or down dependant on whether you are under or over the target. It's closest to a number because thats exactly what it is, closest to a number.

I always thought the point of a handicap was to make things as level a playing field as possible so essentially it doesn't matter which way its done as long as its consistant but they way it is done makes more sense as its closer to the perfect or round number

 

[Smiffy]

Bob,

For someone who doesn't 'have' a handicap, you seem to be showing a tad excessive interest in the concept.

Knowing the whinging old git like I do, I expect he has just been knocked out of a club competition by a 10.5 handicapper and the handshake was carried out on the stroke index 11 hole.
:smirk:

 

[G1BB0]

Knowing the whinging old git like I do, I expect he has just been knocked out of a club competition by a 10.5 handicapper and the handshake was carried out on the stroke index 11 hole.
:smirk:

haha, your probably right Smiffy

 

[chrisd]

Knowing the whinging old git like I do, I expect he has just been knocked out of a club competition by a 10.5 handicapper and the handshake was carried out on the stroke index 11 hole.
:smirk:

Worse still - he had to give full handicap allowance!

 

[bobmac]

Dont worry, I'm taking names :smirk:

What a bunch of knobs

 

[StrangelyBrown]

Hardly, I'm just curious (the clue was in the OP) why the powers that be chose to go from 9.5-10.4 as opposed to 10.0-10.9.

They stuck with the rounding convention set out in maths. It's as sensible a decision as the R&A / Golfing Unions have ever made

 

[Bomber69]

I know a h/cap of 10.4 means your off 10 and 10.5 means your off 11 but can anyone tell me why?
Surely common sense would say 10.0-10.9 would be 10 etc
Just curious

It has been set up to stop RickG getting to Cat 1, not even a silly English ESR can help him:whoo::rofl::rofl:

 

[USER1999]

More to the point, in a team event, it's often a multiplier of combined playing handicaps that then produces a decimal handicap. Why not use combined decimals for the calculation?

 

[cookelad]

More to the point, in a team event, it's often a multiplier of combined playing handicaps that then produces a decimal handicap. Why not use combined decimals for the calculation?

or in Matchplay - somebody off 9.6 playing someone off 10.4 could be giving his opponent a shot or somebody playing off 10.4 playing 10.6 would be playing proper (no shots) golf!