95% - why?

[sunshine]

I understand the rationale for the 95% playing handicap adjustment, and that is based on a statistical analysis to achieve a balanced outcome. But why couldn't this have been incorporated into the main course handicap calculation, so that people are only having to deal with one calculation.

I would expect that the majority of golf where this difference is "important" consists of medals and stableford. Surely design the system to fit those formats, if necessary add an additional step for match play (although it is probably not necessary).

Creating a 2 step process is over-complicating things, just another error from the WHS implementation team.

 

[Orikoru]

I understand the rationale for the 95% playing handicap adjustment, and that is based on a statistical analysis to achieve a balanced outcome. But why couldn't this have been incorporated into the main course handicap calculation, so that people are only having to deal with one calculation.

I would expect that the majority of golf where this difference is "important" consists of medals and stableford. Surely design the system to fit those formats, if necessary add an additional step for match play (although it is probably not necessary).

Creating a 2 step process is over-complicating things, just another error from the WHS implementation team.

Yeah, my thoughts as well. Why do we need a different handicap for our social round than we have for comps. Just put it in the calculation so it's one number regardless.

 

[Ethan]

One of the statistical bugbears of handicaps and differing playing abilities is variability. Generally speaking, worse players have greater variability, so if you peg handicaps according to average scores, sometimes the 28 handicapper scores 20 shots above handicap, but sometimes they score 20 shots better. The same variability doesn't happen (so often) with better players, but comps are won by players having their once in a blue moon outlier score on the god side of the range. So handicaps are therefore pegged at something closer to the 75th percentile score, which reduces the variability effect. But it doesn't eliminate it and other adjustments are needed. One of these is the 95% correction.

 

[jim8flog]

You can't win either way. One group or another will moan whatever solution is put in place.

So the lower handicappers complained that the higher handicappers had an unfair advantage. So chucked in the 95% To make it fairer. And the WHS just for a laugh they upped the max hcap to 36 ? Thats really made it fairer giving them another 8 shots.

Max handicap has been 54 for several years. Trouble is that is the max H.I add in slope and calculate to Course Handicap and a player could be playing off anything up to 74.

 

[jim8flog]

This is the thinking in my group at the moment. Forget the points, just enter the shots. The fun will start to be when cards have to be handed in again. There may need to be a few amendments at the terminal before dropping the card in the box.

If you only down the gross there is no need for any amendments. The club has always been responsible for working out Stford points and if a player has done and it is wrong there is no penalty anyway.

 

[Tashyboy]

The talk at the course today was about the WHS and the 95%. I mentioned this topic and how the 95% was put in place to make it fairer. The club know it all “ says it don’t”. I asked why and he Said “coz it don’t “. I said “that’s not a valid reason, So what’s the thought process behind why it don’t”. He said “ there don’t have to be a valid thought process, but I know 95% don’t make it fairer.
So there you are, you can now close the thread ?

 

[jim8flog]

Yes, but in the real world 99.9% of golfers mark their shots and points in the same box. Get to the bottom of the card and those same 99.9% enter their stableford score and circle it.

The above is particularly the case for Opens.

If the gross score per hole is correct, the circled stableford score incorrect, does that matter if signed for and entered in the box?

We had a major campaign going on at our club starting May 2020 to get players out of the habit of recording gross score and stableford points in the gross score column and if they want to record their stableford points use the points column. In the main it was a major success.

 

[Tashyboy]

Max handicap has been 54 for several years. Trouble is that is the max H.I add in slope and calculate to Course Handicap and a player could be playing off anything up to 74.

?74, I wouldn’t want that if I was Stevie Wonder.

 

[jim8flog]

I have had quite a number of players ask me about it and when I have given them the explanation they have accepted it.

I try to get them to realise going from H.I. to C.H. is actually getting extra shots added to your handicap (H.I. being the equivalent of your handicap in old money).

Very rough for quickness of explanation

a player with HI of 10 gets one extra shot
a player with with 20 gets 2
a player with 30 gets 3
and
a player with 40 gets 4

The 95% just keeps the difference between their CHs the roughly same as the difference between their HIs

 

[Voyager EMH]

Yeah, my thoughts as well. Why do we need a different handicap for our social round than we have for comps. Just put it in the calculation so it's one number regardless.

When playing with and against others you should play off the correct Playing Handicap for the format of play. This is true for social golf and club competitions, because the rules of handicapping apply in exactly the same way. There are not two sets of rules of handicapping - one for club competitions and one for social golf - as far as I know.
But with you mates, you can do whatever you like, if you all agree. (Again - I add the qualifier - as far as I know)

 

[rulefan]

Four shots on a hole, Jesus. If that isn't a flaw in the system I don't know what is. Imagine bagging a point for an 8 on a par three.

What was your gross score on the very first round you played over 18 holes? And what was the highest score on any hole?

 

[rulefan]

a little over 50% of matches, can't remember the exact value).

It was 55%.

A FINAL THOUGHT…
​

“In many sports such as tennis, one player’s superiority over another is quickly established and monotonously reaffirmed. The inexhaustible competitive charm of golf lies in its handicap strokes, whereby all players are theoretically equalised and an underdog can become, with a small shift of fortunes, a top dog.”

John Updike

 

[Voyager EMH]

Australia.
Handicap Index is called GA Handicap (GA = Golf Australia)
They call Course Rating, Scratch Rating.
Individual strokeplay Playing Handicap is called Daily Handicap.
The Ozzies wanted to have the situation that if you score 36 points on any course, you have played to your handicap.
They seem to have no terminology of Course Handicap as we do.
Hence...



Anybody still think the Ozzie system is better?

 

[clubchamp98]

So, it might have been answered, but I will try and explain anyway in simple terms. But, before I do, my personal opinion, I do think it over complicates things and I would have preferred the allowance was effectively built within the Course Handicap (as the Australians look to have done).

The reason is, imagine a scratch golfer and a 30 Index golfer. The best 8 scores from the scratch golfer should have a much tighter range than the best 8 scores of a 30 Indexer. The course handicap is based on the average of these 8 scores. So, if the scratch golfer went out and shot his best round in 20, his score would be less under his average from the best 8 than if a 30 Indexer went out and shot his best score in 20. In other words, the 30 Indexer would beat the scratch golfer. Therefore, if you just assumed 100% of Course Handicap in a stroke play competition, then the larger the field is, the less and less likely a lower handicapper could win. Because there would be more and more higher handicappers, and therefore more and more chance at least one would have their best round in 20.

So, the 95% is applied in stroke play competitions to try and balance the odd for any golfer winning, off any ability. This figure based on the analysis of many scores (interestingly, australia use 93%). Also, the main WHS manual suggests the 95% only needs to be considered once field size exceeds 30 players. However, the national authority in UK makes this mandatory, regardless of field size.

Singles Match Play is a different story, as it is only one versus one. Yes, if the higher handicapper has his best round in 20, he'll beat the scratch player. However, the scratch player will be more consistent, so on balance would be expected to win more matches than he loses against the high handicapper (a little over 50% of matches, can't remember the exact value). That is why 100% of course handicap is used.

Similar analysis has then been done on numerous other formats, which is why we have all these playing handicap allowances.

So if the Aussies have a different way of doing it.
Why is it called a WHS if there are differences between countries?
That just seems odd.
They should all be the same or it’s not a WHS.

 

[clubchamp98]

Four shots on a hole, Jesus. If that isn't a flaw in the system I don't know what is. Imagine bagging a point for an 8 on a par three.

Four shots a hole you need to take up another sport imo.

 

[jim8flog]

Four shots a hole you need to take up another sport imo.

We all started the game with little or no knowledge of how to play it most of us would have run up a 10+ many times.

The only difference now is you can have a handicap before you have learned how to break 100.

 

[Val]

I know , but glitches happen.
Are you working at home or away Martin ?

Home bud, have been for 13 months

 

[Beedee]

I understand the rationale for the 95% playing handicap adjustment, and that is based on a statistical analysis to achieve a balanced outcome. But why couldn't this have been incorporated into the main course handicap calculation, so that people are only having to deal with one calculation.

I would expect that the majority of golf where this difference is "important" consists of medals and stableford. Surely design the system to fit those formats, if necessary add an additional step for match play (although it is probably not necessary).

Creating a 2 step process is over-complicating things, just another error from the WHS implementation team.

I agree that it should have been added in to the calculation so that most golf for handicap is played off 100%. However, if 100% is fair for stroke play it should probably be 105% for match play. Can you imagine the howls from the low handicappers if they were told then had to give more than 100%

 

[Orikoru]

What was your gross score on the very first round you played over 18 holes? And what was the highest score on any hole?

I don't know but my dad taught me to pick up once I reached 10. He didn't give me 1 Stableford point for it.

 

[Orikoru]

When playing with and against others you should play off the correct Playing Handicap for the format of play. This is true for social golf and club competitions, because the rules of handicapping apply in exactly the same way. There are not two sets of rules of handicapping - one for club competitions and one for social golf - as far as I know.
But with you mates, you can do whatever you like, if you all agree. (Again - I add the qualifier - as far as I know)

It is different because one of them is 100% and one of them is 95%. How have you missed that, that's the whole point of the topic??