90% versus 3/4

[Region3]

On an average par 4 I would expect the scratch pair to average about 3.4 and the 18 hcprs around 4.5 based on one double bogey, 4 bogies, 4 pars and a birdie.

The low hc's should think themselves lucky then. 4BBB should be played off 110% allowance.

Although I think you overestimate the low guys abilities. That rate would give them a better ball score of around 47 points. I'd say it was pretty unlikely they both shoot 72 and have a better ball score of 61.

 

[Ross61]

The low hc's should think themselves lucky then. 4BBB should be played off 110% allowance.

Although I think you overestimate the low guys abilities. That rate would give them a better ball score of around 47 points. I'd say it was pretty unlikely they both shoot 72 and have a better ball score of 61.

My estimation on the scratch players is based on zero experience! Never played anyone on less than 4 handicap, let alone a pair of them.

In the winter league we had a 5 handicapper playing with a 14 handicapper in a bogey/par round finishing on +14 and a later round score +12.

 

[clubchamp98]

4.3 average for the 18 handicapper? No chance. His odd/rare par will probably be offset with doubles, trebles or worse. I'd expect the scratch player to be battering the flag with his 2nd shot 10 out of 10 times.

even the pros don't "batter" the flag 10 out of 10.
I think some on here think low capers don't make mistakes.
they just make less than a higher capper.
truth is it's who plays best on the day wins .
no system is going to suit every one if you don't like the format don't play..

 

[Vikingman]

Bloody hell, what have I started.

The point I was putting across is that two low handicappers seem to have as much chance in a 4BBB as I would have in a scratch competition.

Therefore do you avoid them or as some have said, enjoy them for the day out.

As a rule of thumb we reckon you'll usually need 46 points to pick up a prize and we probably average around 39/40 overall.

 

[Beezerk]

you play against some very different 18 handicappers to me if you think better ball they will average 5 on the easiest par 4 on the course lol, oh and better scratch golfers too!

taking our easiest par 4 (by SI) then I expect the numbers would be something like 3.5 and 4.3

360 yard par 4 wasn't it?
Scratch players who will probably also be pushing to get onto the county team, bombing it down the fairway leaving a 60, 80, 100 yard pitch for their second shot. I'd be surprised if either of them didn't get a birdie on at least half the holes.
18 handicapper driving it 200-220 maybe, I'd say half of those drives will be off the fairway and possibly in bother. Even if on the fairway a 2nd shot of 140-160, most 18 handicappers would miss the green at least half the time again leaving an up and down for par save which rarely happens at that level. And that's not including a small amount of fats and thins which will obviously happen 😁

 

[Alex1975]

360 yard par 4 wasn't it?
Scratch players who will probably also be pushing to get onto the county team, bombing it down the fairway leaving a 60, 80, 100 yard pitch for their second shot. I'd be surprised if either of them didn't get a birdie on at least half the holes.
18 handicapper driving it 200-220 maybe, I'd say half of those drives will be off the fairway and possibly in bother. Even if on the fairway a 2nd shot of 140-160, most 18 handicappers would miss the green at least half the time again leaving an up and down for par save which rarely happens at that level. And that's not including a small amount of fats and thins which will obviously happen 😁

7th hole, SI 16 = 343 off the back tees. Anything like a straight drive and you have very little left as its a dog leg and a down hill approach. Your dead left off the tee and dead long of the green. Hybrid/fairway - sand/gap wedge kind of a deal.

 

[delc]

I'm just wondering how much difference it makes? We have been using 90% for 4BBB Matchplay for over a year now. If the low handicapper is scratch then:
6 handicapper - 3/4 diff = 5, 90% = 5.
12 handicapper - 3/4 diff = 9, 90% = 11
18 handicapper - 3/4 diff = 14, 90% = 16
24 handicapper - 3/4 diff = 18, 90% = 22
28 handicapper - 3/4 diff = 21, 90% = 25
36 handicapper - 3/4 diff = 27, 90% = 32.
So the worst 90% can do is to give 5 extra shots to the higher handicapper, who may not be capable of making full use of them anyway.

 

[clubchamp98]

Bloody hell, what have I started.

The point I was putting across is that two low handicappers seem to have as much chance in a 4BBB as I would have in a scratch competition.

Therefore do you avoid them or as some have said, enjoy them for the day out.

As a rule of thumb we reckon you'll usually need 46 points to pick up a prize and we probably average around 39/40 overall.

To two scratch players 46 points is ten under gross that's a tall order if both play well.

two 18 cappers will make some pars with shots some bogeys with shots but as long as one of them doesn't have more than bogey they should have a decent score.

the two low men would have to play -5 each to score 46 points

your off 14 could you beat yozza of scratch at your place.?= no
i am assuming you know Ian.
could you beat him off full handicap.=yes if you play well.

all low men make mistakes but make up by getting a few birdies but 10 under is asking a lot.

I play in them for the golf if we pick something up that's great but it's a game of golf not the end of the world.

my honest opinion of Opens in 4BBB is there is to many expensive prizes and that creates bandits.

How is Blunddels playing I am at Grange Park.

 

[Crow]

Blimey!

This is all doing my 'ead in, I'm givin up on golf, full stop. (two in fact)

 

[Fish]

18 handicapper driving it 200-220 maybe, I'd say half of those drives will be off the fairway and possibly in bother. Even if on the fairway a 2nd shot of 140-160, most 18 handicappers would miss the green at least half the time again leaving an up and down for par save which rarely happens at that level. And that's not including a small amount of fats and thins which will obviously happen 😁

Were you watching me at Cleveland :smirk:

 

[coley167]

This subject is very interesting to see the views of both sides. Being an 8 (soon to be 9 handicapper) I probably don't find the change to 90% to be such an issue as cat 1 players.
Saying that, when this change was announced my first thought was that the change to 90% would favour higher handicappers as their bad holes can often be offset by their partner, therefore their lack of consistency is less of an issue in better ball.

I have just looked at my clubs how did I do and clicked on a competition result from October 2016 where 5 players all scored 38 points. I thought it would be interesting to work out the better ball score of the 2 cat 1 players and the 2 double digit handicappers who scored 38 points.

The handicaps of these 4 players were 0,3,24 and 10.

I paired the 0&3 handicaps together and worked out their better ball stableford score using 90% of their handicap (neither player lost a shot) and did the same with the 24&9 handicaps. The results were:
0&3 handicaps = 42 points in better ball stableford
24&10 handicaps = 44 points in better ball stableford

I also work out the result if they had played in the same pairs but at matchplay using the 90% difference taken from the lowest player. The 24&10 handicap pair would have won 4&3.

So all 4 players scored the same individual stableford score. The higher players 'lost' shots due to the 90% difference but would still have come out on top in both better ball stableford and better ball matchplay.

Now this could be a one off but it does seem odd that 4 players can play to exactly the same level (in relation to their handicap) but the higher handicap pair win convincingly when paired together.

 

[doublebogey7]

This subject is very interesting to see the views of both sides. Being an 8 (soon to be 9 handicapper) I probably don't find the change to 90% to be such an issue as cat 1 players.
Saying that, when this change was announced my first thought was that the change to 90% would favour higher handicappers as their bad holes can often be offset by their partner, therefore their lack of consistency is less of an issue in better ball.

I have just looked at my clubs how did I do and clicked on a competition result from October 2016 where 5 players all scored 38 points. I thought it would be interesting to work out the better ball score of the 2 cat 1 players and the 2 double digit handicappers who scored 38 points.

The handicaps of these 4 players were 0,3,24 and 10.

I paired the 0&3 handicaps together and worked out their better ball stableford score using 90% of their handicap (neither player lost a shot) and did the same with the 24&9 handicaps. The results were:
0&3 handicaps = 42 points in better ball stableford
24&10 handicaps = 44 points in better ball stableford

I also work out the result if they had played in the same pairs but at matchplay using the 90% difference taken from the lowest player. The 24&10 handicap pair would have won 4&3.

So all 4 players scored the same individual stableford score. The higher players 'lost' shots due to the 90% difference but would still have come out on top in both better ball stableford and better ball matchplay.

Now this could be a one off but it does seem odd that 4 players can play to exactly the same level (in relation to their handicap) but the higher handicap pair win convincingly when paired together.

I think you are right, if all four players in a 4BB score the same relatrelative to their handicaps then usually the two higher handihandicapped players will usually win the match. But low handicappers are much more consistent relative to their handicap so will buffer or better more often than high handicapper. It is this consistency that allows low handicappers to win more matches whether a 75% or a allowance 90% is used.

At my club we have a winter series of pairs strokeplay, of the 7 events played to date three have been won by the same pair. Playing off 3 & 1.

 

[cliveb]

I have just looked at my clubs how did I do and clicked on a competition result from October 2016 where 5 players all scored 38 points. I thought it would be interesting to work out the better ball score of the 2 cat 1 players and the 2 double digit handicappers who scored 38 points.

The handicaps of these 4 players were 0,3,24 and 10.

[snip]

Now this could be a one off but it does seem odd that 4 players can play to exactly the same level (in relation to their handicap) but the higher handicap pair win convincingly when paired together.

You have cherry-picked the pairs so that only the players who played well on the day were paired up. In such circumstances it's inevitable that the higher handicappers will score better, because even though they each individually played well, they will have been less consistent than the lower cappers, and therefore their opportunity to dovetail is greater.

If you had selected pairs of high and low handicappers who had played badly on the day, you would almost certainly have found that the low handicappers would have got a much better pairs score.

Cherry-picking is known to be utterly unscientific. Indeed, it is one of the favourite methods used by people who are trying to gather evidence to support their (possibly incorrect) prejudices.

Saying that the change from 3/4 to 90% has benefitted the higher handicappers is pointless - of course it has. And the reason for the change is that after extensive analysis, CONGU discovered that 3/4 was putting the higher handicappers at a disadvantage. They are only trying to further level the playing field. (In fact, if you wanted to be really fair, they should probably get 100%, even in 4BBB). At my club when we have fourball rollups, it's very rare that the winning pair doesn't include a low handicapper.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

You have cherry-picked the pairs so that only the players who played well on the day were paired up. In such circumstances it's inevitable that the higher handicappers will score better, because even though they each individually played well, they will have been less consistent than the lower cappers, and therefore their opportunity to dovetail is greater.

If you had selected pairs of high and low handicappers who had played badly on the day, you would almost certainly have found that the low handicappers would have got a much better pairs score.

Cherry-picking is known to be utterly unscientific. Indeed, it is one of the favourite methods used by people who are trying to gather evidence to support their (possibly incorrect) prejudices.

Saying that the change from 3/4 to 90% has benefitted the higher handicappers is pointless - of course it has. And the reason for the change is that after extensive analysis, CONGU discovered that 3/4 was putting the higher handicappers at a disadvantage. They are only trying to further level the playing field. (In fact, if you wanted to be really fair, they should probably get 100%, even in 4BBB). At my club when we have fourball rollups, it's very rare that the winning pair doesn't include a low handicapper.

Can you explain what extensive analysis they did ? What competitions results did they use to come to their conclusions - because none of that has actually been shown. How exactly did they come to the conclusion that's 3/4 was unfair

The playing doesn't seem to have been further levelled within our matchplay 4BBB comps - the results seem to show that it's now weighted towards the higher HC

 

[patricks148]

maybe they should have made it 82.5%?

 

[IanG]

Can you explain what extensive analysis they did ? What competitions results did they use to come to their conclusions - because none of that has actually been shown. How exactly did they come to the conclusion that's 3/4 was unfair

The playing doesn't seem to have been further levelled within our matchplay 4BBB comps - the results seem to show that it's now weighted towards the higher HC

Take a look at

4BBB Handicap Allowance - The Research


from ENGLAND Golf which may or may not persuade you.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Take a look at

4BBB Handicap Allowance - The Research


from ENGLAND Golf which may or may not persuade you.

Yep seen it - they basic created scenarios using singles scores and also generated false matches etc.

Yet we all know that matchplay is a totally different game especially 4BBB

Basically they didn't speak to any club and see what their matchplay and BB scores were

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I've just checked managed exactly 56, a few of them are eagles and one was a hole in 1

What's your point?

 

[doublebogey7]

Basically they didn't speak to any club and see what their matchplay and BB scores were

Think you need to read it again, they did use a sample of 4BB scores in their research.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Think you need to read it again, they did use a sample of 4BB scores in their research.

Yep they said that the change to 90% wouldn't have made a difference between the results - how do you they know that ?

Who were these 160 clubs and did the club provide the exact scores from every single round in matchplay or did they just use team 4BBB comps and not matchplay

And the last sentence of "encouraging the mid to high HC to enter" - in our club all HC entered the comp before the change - now I believe the low HC are avoiding the matchplay comps - so ultimately the change in HC allowance at our club will actually have the opposite affect that they were attempting - less participation.