95%?

[ChrisV]

Hello,
I am Ok with the WHS except for one thing. Can anyone explain why there is a need to apply 95% to my course handicap (which is really my handicap)? Needless to say I can't see the point.

Cheers.

 

[Swango1980]

Chris, I will try.

Take a player with a 0 handicap, and a player with a 20 handicap (index). The index is calculated from the best 8 scores. However, the scratch golfer will have a much tighter range of scores in their best 8 compared to the 20 handicapper, so the 20 handicappers best score (or 2) will be much better compared to their average in comparison to the scratch golfers lowest score compared to their average.

So, if Course handicap was used, and the bigger the field gets, the lower handicapper's odds of winning would get lower and lower. Because, as the field increases, the odds become higher that at least one higher handicapper will shoot their best round in 20, thus leaving the scratch golfer (or low handicap golfer) little to no chance of actually winning. The 95%, as I understand it, was based on the analysis of thousands of scores, to try and determine the value that would provide the most balanced chances of winning for all golfers.

It was not required in matchplay, as the low handicapper is only up against 1 higher handicapper. Although the higher handicapper may be unbeatable on their best day, the lower handicapper would typically win more often than not (not massively, slightly over 50% of the time)

 

[rulefan]

USGA and other stats have shown that in any strokeplay competition a high handicapper is more likely to win than a low handicapper, even allowing for the proportion of players in the competition by handicap.

Edit: Just seen Swango's reply which is more comprehensive

 

[jim8flog]

The slope system favours high handicap players and 95% evens that out

Take two players one handicap 9 and the other 29 ie a difference of 20 shots in ability

on a course with a slope of 125

The 9 has a Course and Playing handicap of 10

The 29 has a Course Handicap of 32 and a Playing Handicap of 30

so they remain with a difference of 20 shots when in a singles competition.

 

[jim8flog]

So why not get the Slope and the CH right in the first place??

The more adjustments, the more it's just guesswork.

Changing slope and CH still results in a difference between high an lowish handicappers unless the slope is at 113 (or not much above it) the point at which neither player gets additional strokes for CH i.e. their H.I. = their CH

 

[rulefan]

So why not get the Slope and the CH right in the first place??

The more adjustments, the more it's just guesswork.

If the CH and Slope were adjusted it would affect all formats of play including match play (see the last para of #2).
Before WHS the US, Canada and Australia built in an adjustment of 93% or 96% to the HI. It was termed a 'bonus for excellence'.
Now it only affects individual Stroke play.

 

[ChrisV]

Thank you so much Swango1980, rulefan and jim8flog. I now have a reasonably good grasp of what is going on and can see the point of it. However, I feel that I am in agreement with Traminator in that the 95% is a calculation too far. Surely all these things you mention could have been 'hidden' in the calculation for the 'course' handicap so that I (and people like me) don't have to see it.
My situation might explain why I'm a little bit miffed about this. My CONGU handicap was 15.0. When I used our conversion chart for my WHS handicap I came out as 15. No surprise there I thought. On Monday we played our November Medal and I found that 95% was applied to get my playing handicap 14. I'm sorry to say that my best 8 only includes 1 score under my handicap and yet I have lost 1 shot.
While I was writing this it occurred to me that this could possibly be resolved by an algorithm. They seem to be popping up all over the place and are often referred to when explaining something that has gone belly up. I play in a seniors section and this, I'm sure, would be a much more acceptable reason to my playing buddies many of whom will never fully get to grips with the WHS.

Thanks again guys.

Chris

 

[rulefan]

Thank you so much Swango1980, rulefan and jim8flog. I now have a reasonably good grasp of what is going on and can see the point of it. However, I feel that I am in agreement with Traminator in that the 95% is a calculation too far. Surely all these things you mention could have been 'hidden' in the calculation for the 'course' handicap so that I (and people like me) don't have to see it.
Chris

If it was 'hidden' in the CH then it would again affect other forms of play.
Further the Playing Handicap id only used to determine the competition result. It id Course Handicap that is used to calculate the Score Differential and subsequently the updated Handicap Index.

NB. Your PH may be lower than your CH and you may be tempted to pick up when you think you have got to net double bogey - but it's CH which is the important figure. One reason that it required to be on your card. H Index and PH are optional.

 

[rulefan]

On a slight tangent, I still can't grasp why the 95% applies to individual strokeplay but not individual matchplay.

Because contrary to the stroke play stats, match play shows a very different outcome. Even on 100% the lower capper wind nearly 55% of matches against the higher capper.

I can't lay my hands on my notes but I'm sure Swango will have the rationale somewhere.

 

[IanM]

Cos it does. You don’t really want to know why. Smile and wave... and run out of the bar before one of the blighters tries to explain it to you!

 

[Mozza14]

Further the Playing Handicap id only used to determine the competition result. It id Course Handicap that is used to calculate the Score Differential and subsequently the updated Handicap Index.

Think you meant Course Rating. The course handicap is not relevant to the updated HI.

 

[williamalex1]

On a slight tangent, I still can't grasp why the 95% applies to individual strokeplay but not individual matchplay.

Easy , low handicappers just don't like getting beat by high handicappers [no matter what the format ]. But they tend to forget their early learning days.
Plus they're usually on the committees that make the decisions, or influence them in a big way.

 

[williamalex1]

Agr

If that was the case it'd be 3/4 difference and we wouldn't be having any of this chat. I just don't understand why it's used for one format and not the other - it's still the same game. Either apply 95% in both or don't use it in either.

Exactly , your handicap should be as stated on your h/c certificate, not 75% , 95% or 90%. to suit the minority.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

Im not an expert, but distilling what I’ve read into its simplest form, the answer to your question Kaz, is that the point of the handicap system is to give those that don’t play off scratch the opportunity to play against those that do on a level playing field. The statistics show that 100% handicap in a big field gives high handicappers (as a group, not individually) an advantage, using 95% removes that advantage. In match play it’s not necessary to remove it because there is no advantage.

 

[Swango1980]

If that was the case it'd be 3/4 difference and we wouldn't be having any of this chat. I just don't understand why it's used for one format and not the other - it's still the same game. Either apply 95% in both or don't use it in either.

Kaz, as I said in my previous post:

Stroke Play: there are many in the field, so the odds increase a high handicapper will have their best round in 20, and give low handicappers a very very small chance of winning. But, it should be remembered, on average the lower handicapper will usually finish higher up the leaderboard than higher handicappers due to consistency, they will just rarely see themselves at top of leaderboard. So, the 95% supposedly gives a more balanced chance of winning for low handicappers.

Match Play: the low handicapper is only playing one high handicapper. Due to consistency, as mentioned above, the low handicapper will more frequently win (rulefan stated 55% of time). Therefore, no need to apply 95%

Generally: I agree, it is just one of those additional complications / annoyances that we didn't really need to worry about in the old system (though we did apply 90% in 4 ball match play). However, if we are to accept that the purpose of a handicap is to provide people of all abilities an equal chance of winning, then we need to accept stroke play and match play are 2 different beasts, and therefore different handicaps may be required. That's backed up by the analysis of thousands of scores.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Will 95% apply in stableford comps as well? I've seen lots of comments relating to stroke play, I'm guessing it's the same, but no one has specifically mentioned stableford.

 

[rulefan]

Will 95% apply in stableford comps as well? I've seen lots of comments relating to stroke play, I'm guessing it's the same, but no one has specifically mentioned stableford.

Stableford is strokeplay. See Rules of Golf 21.1

 

[rulefan]

Think you meant Course Rating. The course handicap is not relevant to the updated HI.

Oops

 

[rulefan]

If that was the case it'd be 3/4 difference and we wouldn't be having any of this chat. I just don't understand why it's used for one format and not the other - it's still the same game. Either apply 95% in both or don't use it in either.

Kaz
Don't you remember under CONGU when the higher capper only got 75% of their handicap in a match. The stats showed that the lower capper won 61% of matches.
A comment made by CONGU a few years ago was to the effect that the higher capper would need up to 120% (depending on the numerical difference in strokes) to change the balance.

A table of full difference results

 

[BubbaP]

Stableford is strokeplay. See Rules of Golf 21.1

@Lord Tyrion thanks for maybe backing up the point I was trying to make here ?
https://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/threads/world-handicap-system-whs.104054/post-2252826

The various bodies/authorities don't make it easy ?