18 hole par 3 comp

[IanMcC]

Our club want to host an in house comp where all 18 of the holes are turned into par threes by moving the tees up to the 140/150 yard mark. The proceeds would be for club funds to buy machinery for the greenkeeper. As M&H I have agreed in principle. How should I work the handicaps? Is there a precedent or guidance anywhere? After half an hour deliberation I am favouring a betterball pairs comp, with 25% of combined handicaps. Any thoughts?

 

[rulefan]

In a betterball both players play their own ball. Not sure how you intend to combine their handicaps. Why not 25% of the individual's cap.

 

[IanMcC]

With the 25% of combined I was thinking of a strokeplay comp, then taking 25% of combined off at the end. For example, I am 10 and the wife is 28. We shoot 60 as a betterball, then take 38/4=9.5 shots off, giving us 50.5 as a score.
Since I posted, I think maybe a Stableford comp would be more appealing. I want to make it a pairs comp, so how about 1/3 of handicaps, both scores to count?
Also, I think I would ask everyone to play off of the red (ladies) tees, and have no adjustment at the end for the sexes. (Remember, its a fun comp.)

 

[rulefan]

I'm not sure of the attraction for the ladies playing from their own (red) tees. It would be nothing special for them and many holes would be par 4s for the men also.
If it's a par 3 comp, most players should have a chance of reaching most of the holes with their drive so the ladies should be forward of the men. Say 130-150 and 180-200.

The %age allowance, whether combined or individual, is pretty arbitrary.

 

[patricks148]

Tain had a comp like this a couple of years ago, i think they played it under the same lines as a Texas Scramble

 

[williamalex1]

Why adjust the handicaps at all ?

 

[IanMcC]

Why adjust the handicaps at all ?

To my mind the handicaps need to be adjusted because the higher handicappers will have a distinct advantage. Imagine playing a Texas off of full handicaps, for example.
After consideration, I am going to make it a Stableford pairs comp, any combination, 1/3 of handicaps, both scores to count, and have the men play off yellow tees in the 160 to 190 yard range, and the ladies play off of the reds in the 120 to 150 yard range.
Thanks for all the help.

 

[rosecott]

To my mind the handicaps need to be adjusted because the higher handicappers will have a distinct advantage. Imagine playing a Texas off of full handicaps, for example.
After consideration, I am going to make it a Stableford pairs comp, any combination, 1/3 of handicaps, both scores to count, and have the men play off yellow tees in the 160 to 190 yard range, and the ladies play off of the reds in the 120 to 150 yard range.
Thanks for all the help.

So, what you are saying is that, from 140/150 yards in, higher handicappers will perform as well as or better than those with a lower handicap.

 

[rulefan]

To my mind the handicaps need to be adjusted because the higher handicappers will have a distinct advantage.

What evidence have you got for that?
The R&A/USGA and other bodies have done studies in the area of allowances and WHS recommends 85% for 4Ball strokeplay.
At those distances most players will have a chance of getting on or near the green. The rest is down to skill. I would suggest that low handicappers are generally more skilful.

 

[IanMcC]

So, what you are saying is that, from 140/150 yards in, higher handicappers will perform as well as or better than those with a lower handicap.

Not at all. What I am saying is that people with 2 shots at a hole which is playing less than half it's designed length will perform better than someone with no shot at the hole. It's called the 'bleeding obvious'.

 

[rosecott]

Not at all. What I am saying is that people with 2 shots at a hole which is playing less than half it's designed length will perform better than someone with no shot at the hole. It's called the 'bleeding obvious'.

Well, I'm not the only one who doesn't think it's bleeding obvious - see post #9.

 

[IanMcC]

I'm not looking for friction. I'm looking for guidance and advice if you read my first post. So, how would YOU run the comp, and why?

 

[rulefan]

What range of handicaps are expecting to enter? What proportion are over 22 and what proportion on scratch or better?
How many with no shots will miss the green? How many with over 18 will get on most greens?
How many with no shots will 3 putt? How many with over 18 will get take 1 or 2 putts?
High handicappers have a high handicap for a reason, generally related to skill.

 

[IanMcC]

What range of handicaps are expecting to enter? What proportion are over 22 and what proportion on scratch or better?
How many with no shots will miss the green? How many with over 18 will get on most greens?
How many with no shots will 3 putt? How many with over 18 will get take 1 or 2 putts?
High handicappers have a high handicap for a reason, generally related to skill.

Handicaps I expect 3 to 37.
40% or so over 22.
None scratch or better.
The rest of the questions are silly. If I was psychic I would be rich.
It's a fun comp. I ask again, how would anyone here run it?

 

[rulefan]

It's a fun comp. I ask again, how would anyone here run it?

See my posts #4 & #9

 

[rulefan]

A further thought. Make it a "draw" for partners where the lowest handicapper plays with the highest and the next lowest handicapper plays with the next highest ..........

Our ladies have done this in the past and it seems to have gone down well.

 

[duncan mackie]

It's a fun comp. I ask again, how would anyone here run it?

1. stablefor
2. teams of 3
3. best 2 scores on each hole to count
4. SIs allocated as hole number ie 1 - 18
5. Individual handicaps adjusted by a factor = 54/normal course par (create a table). absolutely no scientific basis to this but it smells right and can be easily explained when questioned; which is almost rule 1 to fun competitions.

 

[Swango1980]

I think I agree with IanMcC in that simply keeping the handicaps as they are could favour the higher handicappers. Why?

Well, essentially everybody will be hitting their approach shot from the tee. So, excluding any natural par 3's on the course, no player need to hit a drive to the fairway, and no player needs to hit a second shot to the fairway (for par 5's). In both those cases, you'd normally expect lower handicappers to do a generally better job than a high handicapper, so you are removing that advantage away from the lower handicappers. It will be s significant one as well, as we are talking about 14-16 drives most likely.

On top of that, lower handicappers will usually have the distance to get to the green in regulation for par 4's and 5's, whereas higher handicappers may not. Again, you are largely removing that advantage away from lower handicappers, especially as you'll not have any long par 4's or 5's, that a high handicapper in some cases may only ever be able to reach the green in 1 or 2 over regulation.

Simple example, you might have a reasonably low golfer off, say 10, who hits a great ball off the tee, usually consistent and long. Good ball striking with irons. But, terrible chipping and putting that stops him getting to that next level (our Captain this year is exactly that player). Then, compare to a player with a handicap of 28, who isn't too bad (or even the same as the 10 handicapper I mentioned, so not great at all) around the greens, but can't drive a ball more than 160-170 yards, and can easily duff drives and long iron shorts on a regular basis.

Well, if both these players play this par 3 comp, in my mind you have basically removed all the advantages the low handicapper has in defining why he is a lower handicapper in the first place. They could both easily go round in a similar score. OK, maybe the lower handicapper will still be favourite to win the gross score between both, BUT it will be very difficult to beat him by 18 shots. If the 28 handicapper is able to hit nearly every drive to about 10-15 yards of the green, chip to about 20 feet and then 2 putt every hole for a 4 (OK, he might get the odd 5, but may also get the odd 3), then the 10 handicapper needs to go round in level par despite his shortcomings around the greens.

Put it like this, reduce the course down to simply a putting green, with each hole is 20 feet long and your tee shot on each hole is a putt. I play off 9. I wouldn't fancy playing a 28 handicapper over 18 putts if I had to give him 19 shots.

 

[rulefan]

I think I agree with IanMcC in that simply keeping the handicaps as they are could favour the higher handicappers. Why?

Well, essentially everybody will be hitting their approach shot from the tee. So, excluding any natural par 3's on the course, no player need to hit a drive to the fairway, and no player needs to hit a second shot to the fairway (for par 5's). In both those cases, you'd normally expect lower handicappers to do a generally better job than a high handicapper, so you are removing that advantage away from the lower handicappers. It will be s significant one as well, as we are talking about 14-16 drives most likely.

On top of that, lower handicappers will usually have the distance to get to the green in regulation for par 4's and 5's, whereas higher handicappers may not. Again, you are largely removing that advantage away from lower handicappers, especially as you'll not have any long par 4's or 5's, that a high handicapper in some cases may only ever be able to reach the green in 1 or 2 over regulation.

Simple example, you might have a reasonably low golfer off, say 10, who hits a great ball off the tee, usually consistent and long. Good ball striking with irons. But, terrible chipping and putting that stops him getting to that next level (our Captain this year is exactly that player). Then, compare to a player with a handicap of 28, who isn't too bad (or even the same as the 10 handicapper I mentioned, so not great at all) around the greens, but can't drive a ball more than 160-170 yards, and can easily duff drives and long iron shorts on a regular basis.

Well, if both these players play this par 3 comp, in my mind you have basically removed all the advantages the low handicapper has in defining why he is a lower handicapper in the first place. They could both easily go round in a similar score. OK, maybe the lower handicapper will still be favourite to win the gross score between both, BUT it will be very difficult to beat him by 18 shots. If the 28 handicapper is able to hit nearly every drive to about 10-15 yards of the green, chip to about 20 feet and then 2 putt every hole for a 4 (OK, he might get the odd 5, but may also get the odd 3), then the 10 handicapper needs to go round in level par despite his shortcomings around the greens.

Put it like this, reduce the course down to simply a putting green, with each hole is 20 feet long and your tee shot on each hole is a putt. I play off 9. I wouldn't fancy playing a 28 handicapper over 18 putts if I had to give him 19 shots.

Oof course that is all speculation without any hard data to back it up
I would speculate (without data) that higher 'cappers will miss the green more often than low and miss the long to middling putts more often.
At 160-170 yards, a mid/short iron for a low capper is more accurate than a long wood/driver for the high capper

 

[IanMcC]

1. stablefor
2. teams of 3
3. best 2 scores on each hole to count
4. SIs allocated as hole number ie 1 - 18
5. Individual handicaps adjusted by a factor = 54/normal course par (create a table). absolutely no scientific basis to this but it smells right and can be easily explained when questioned; which is almost rule 1 to fun competitions.

Thanks for the constructive comments, Duncan. I would have had teams of 3 and best 2, but the originator of the idea understandably wants to maximise entries by making it 4 balls. The adjustment factor comes out at roughly 2/3. That still would give some people 2 shots at some holes, so I will probably stick to 1/3. Thanks again.