90% versus 3/4

[Bunkermagnet]

Ours is an official board comp and recognised as the major pairs comp to win

Fair enough, ours is a singles comp but played as a 4bbb where you partner each person in your division once so you have points for winning plus a goal difference(each game is played to the 18th)
Our pairs board comp's are summer time, and off the whites.

 

[Fish]

Not True, buffer for a cat 3 is 3 shots so you still get the same buffer and the 4 handicap has a one shot buffer.so is the 4 handicap as he is getting no shots. But as i said buffer is not a factor its matchplay. the 20 handicapper is only losing a % of his handicap where as the guy of 4 is losing the whole 100%

I give up, you don't understand the point I'm trying to make, the 20 handicapper is playing off 6 shots less, that's 3 more than his usual buffer which he's only expected to play to 3 from 10 rounds, the 4 handicapper has lost all his shots BUT if he played to handicap or even 1 over, he'd win, or should do. If you gave those 4 shots back to him and gave the 20 handicapper those 4 shots also there's a 2 shot variable that benefits the more consistent golfer. More shots have been removed from the higher handicapper than the lower one!

It should be just full difference across the board for me 😜🏌️

 

[Region3]

So what does it matter if the winning team had 50 points over the 47 point guys in 2nd playing off 90% or if it was 46 points over 44 played off ¾ handicap

Everyone will incrementally score better and pretty much the same team still wins

Let's have a hypothetical 4BBB competition that is played annually.
To keep things simple both players in a pair/team play off the same handicap.

In 2015 the competition is run using 75% allowance, so pair A off 5 receive 4 shots each, and pair B off 15 receive 11 shots each.
Pair A win the competition scoring 45 points and pair B finish 2nd with 44 points.

In 2016 the competition is run using 90% allowance, so pair A both receive 5 shots and pair B both receive 14 shots.
Amazingly, all 4 players play exactly the same as the previous year.

Pair A both have an extra shot so they score 46 points and finish 2nd because pair B both have an extra 3 shots so they win with 47 points.


Not saying one method should be favoured over the other, just that yes it does matter to the result.

 

[Region3]

While specifically relating to Singles, the stats in that document can simply be extrapolated to apply to BB!

Go on then. With numbers please.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

which is the whole 100% of the handicap where the 20 is only losing 20%

For both to play to Par the 4 handicapper has to find 4 shots, the 20 handicapper 6, which one is more likely to be able to do that on a normal day.

 

[patricks148]

I give up, you don't understand the point I'm trying to make, the 20 handicapper is playing off 6 shots less, that's 3 more than his usual buffer which he's only expected to play to 3 from 10 rounds, the 4 handicapper has lost all his shots BUT if he played to handicap or even 1 over, he'd win, or should do. If you gave those 4 shots back to him and gave the 20 handicapper those 4 shots also there's a 2 shot variable that benefits the more consistent golfer. More shots have been removed from the higher handicapper than the lower one!

It should be just full difference across the board for me 😜🏌️

i think you are missing what i'm saying. the 20 handicapper is only losing 20% of his handicap, but the 4 100% of his. as i keep saying buffer does not come in to it as its match play and the CSS/SSS doesn't make any difference either. its one person playing another.

its all about equalisation of handicaps so its more a level playing field, more shots means more of an advantage. after all a handicap is supposed to be a reflection of your best golf, not your consistent golf.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

Let's have a hypothetical 4BBB competition that is played annually.
To keep things simple both players in a pair/team play off the same handicap.

In 2015 the competition is run using 75% allowance, so pair A off 5 receive 4 shots each, and pair B off 15 receive 11 shots each.
Pair A win the competition scoring 45 points and pair B finish 2nd with 44 points.

In 2016 the competition is run using 90% allowance, so pair A both receive 5 shots and pair B both receive 14 shots.
Amazingly, all 4 players play exactly the same as the previous year.

Pair A both have an extra shot so they score 46 points and finish 2nd because pair B both have an extra 3 shots so they win with 47 points.


Not saying one method should be favoured over the other, just that yes it does matter to the result.

I see that Gary, but that could then be used as an argument why 75% was wrong, we have handicaps for a reason and in handicap comps surely that is to allow everyone to be off a level playing field.

 

[patricks148]

For both to play to Par the 4 handicapper has to find 4 shots, the 20 handicapper 6, which one is more likely to be able to do that on a normal day.

the one who's handicap is too high

 

[Deleted member 16999]

i think you are missing what i'm saying. the 20 handicapper is only losing 20% of his handicap, but the 4 100% of his. as i keep saying buffer does not come in to it as its match play and the CSS/SSS doesn't make any difference either. its one person playing another.

its all about equalisation of handicaps so its more a level playing field, more shots means more of an advantage. after all a handicap is supposed to be a reflection of your best golf, not your consistent golf.

How is more shots more of an advantage? Surely it's about ability and if I was a betting man my money would be on the low guy.

Surely if they played to ability, SI 15-18 would favour the low guy as he would be expected to hit regulation Pars and his opponent won't be getting any help.

 

[Fish]

i think you are missing what i'm saying. the 20 handicapper is only losing 20% of his handicap, but the 4 100% of his. as i keep saying buffer does not come in to it as its match play and the CSS/SSS doesn't make any difference either. its one person playing another.

its all about equalisation of handicaps so its more a level playing field, more shots means more of an advantage. after all a handicap is supposed to be a reflection of your best golf, not your consistent golf.

I get that Patrick, I was just using buffer solely as a barometer of ability in that the 4 handicapper will play to his handicap or buffer (4) far more times than the 20 handicapper and yet he's losing 2 more shots (6) within the variable.

I think we'll leave it there 👍

 

[patricks148]

How is more shots more of an advantage? Surely it's about ability and if I was a betting man my money would be on the low guy.

Surely if they played to ability, SI 15-18 would favour the low guy as he would be expected to hit regulation Pars and his opponent won't be getting any help.

yep but what about the low SI 1-4 where the 4 handicapper gets no shots, but would in Stroke play. In stroke play I'm not expected under the handicap system to par these, hence i get a shot, but the higher still does. Usually the higher SI are par 3's so you will be reg giving a shot away on a par 3 or a very short easy par 4.

 

[Region3]

I see that Gary, but that could then be used as an argument why 75% was wrong, we have handicaps for a reason and in handicap comps surely that is to allow everyone to be off a level playing field.

I wasn't arguing for 75%, just that it matters to the result which one is used.

 

[Slab]

Let's have a hypothetical 4BBB competition that is played annually.
To keep things simple both players in a pair/team play off the same handicap.

In 2015 the competition is run using 75% allowance, so pair A off 5 receive 4 shots each, and pair B off 15 receive 11 shots each.
Pair A win the competition scoring 45 points and pair B finish 2nd with 44 points.

In 2016 the competition is run using 90% allowance, so pair A both receive 5 shots and pair B both receive 14 shots.
Amazingly, all 4 players play exactly the same as the previous year.

Pair A both have an extra shot so they score 46 points and finish 2nd because pair B both have an extra 3 shots so they win with 47 points.


Not saying one method should be favoured over the other, just that yes it does matter to the result.

Yeah doubtless there will be the exception that proves the rule

These hypothetical teams would prob finish 7th & 8th anyway due the the handicap blaggers that came in with 48 points


(I do get your point though)

 

[AmandaJR]

I haven't read all the thread but in terms of singles matchplay off full difference - I've played my last! Winter knockout and giving 31 shots and I played really well but have never felt so demotivated and disillusioned on a golf course. The 2 Par 3's I needed to hole in one just to get a half etc etc. There was nothing I could do to compete as she played better than her handicap suggested she could/should...lost it on the 16th at which stage I was 1 under handicap. The rights and wrongs are one thing but how demotivating it was for me was enough to say never again...singles off scratch or nowt.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

yep but what about the low SI 1-4 where the 4 handicapper gets no shots, but would in Stroke play. In stroke play I'm not expected under the handicap system to par these, hence i get a shot, but the higher still does. Usually the higher SI are par 3's so you will be reg giving a shot away on a par 3 or a very short easy par 4.

And the 20 handicapper loses 1 on SI1 & 2 as well so still advantage to the low guy

 

[Deleted member 16999]

I wasn't arguing for 75%, just that it matters to the result which one is used.

Yes I understood what you were doing, it was a decent example that occurredto me could back up both arguments.

 

[patricks148]

And the 20 handicapper loses 1 on SI1 & 2 as well so still advantage to the low guy

no he doesn't he still lost those even at at 3/4

 

[Deleted member 16999]

no he doesn't he still lost those even at at 3/4

And won 15-18 so wins 2 up

 

[Region3]

we have handicaps for a reason and in handicap comps surely that is to allow everyone to be off a level playing field.

Singles - full HC, no arguments from me. I don't understand why singles keeps getting mentioned.


In better ball and team competitions, I think the higher handicaps have an inbuilt advantage over lower handicaps which needs offsetting by reducing the handicaps by a percentage.

I will try to explain why I think that.

Let's use a scratch golfer and an 18 handicap.

Trying to keep the numbers simple let's say the 'expected' score for the scratch on a 360yd par 4 is 4, and the 18hc would be 5.

What do you think the expected score would be for each if they both played the hole twice and recorded the better of the 2.


If you think both 'expected' scores reduce by the same amount, what if they play the hole 3 times each, or 10 times, or 100 times?
There is never always going to be 1 stroke between the 2 expected scores, because a 2 for the low hc is way less likely than a 3 for the high hc.


The problem, is how much does the low hc's advantage (which is 1 stroke when they each play the hole once) reduce by when there are 2 bites at the cherry.


I've read that back and I'm not sure I've put my point across very well, but I hope it makes some sense.

 

[Robobum]

It seems to me that statistics suggest it will be fair but in reality, according to actual experiences it's weighted heavily in high handicaps favour.

Certainly from my own experience this year, I have been beaten 10 out of 13 times this winter but have shot a worst score of 1 under my handicap.