'Always result in a Playing Handicap closer to zero'

[IanMcC]

Appendix C of the RoH book states that when applying a handicap allowance, any reduction will always be towards zero, including for + handicap players. Can anyone here give me a decent argument why this is the case, please? Today we ran a 2 ball Texas. We had 2 plus handicap players in the field, and their teams were 1st and 3rd in a field of 58. A couple of people asked me about their allowances, and all I could do was sheepishly quote Appendix C. The best players in the field actually play off a handicap better than their singles allowance, whilst everyone else gets a 65% or 85% reduction. It makes no sense. Plus handicap players surely should not be subject to percentage allowances, but simply play off of their CH.

 

[Jason.H]

I,d imagine the benefit to say a +2 handicapper would be so minuscule he would not gain a shot. Is it that that format with a partner with a higher handicapper creates an advantage?

 

[jim8flog]

Swings and roundabouts
Where I play some + plus handicappers go to even more + handicap going to their course handicap E.G. +2.3 goes to +3 here where as most mid to high handicap players will go up.

As to Jason's comment you can see the arguments

E.G a +4 course handicap goes to +1
Scratch stays scratch

So the plus 4 has in effect gained 3 shots on the scratch player

 

[rulefan]

Appendix C of the RoH book states that when applying a handicap allowance, any reduction will always be towards zero, including for + handicap players. Can anyone here give me a decent argument why this is the case, please? Today we ran a 2 ball Texas. We had 2 plus handicap players in the field, and their teams were 1st and 3rd in a field of 58. A couple of people asked me about their allowances, and all I could do was sheepishly quote Appendix C. The best players in the field actually play off a handicap better than their singles allowance, whilst everyone else gets a 65% or 85% reduction. It makes no sense. Plus handicap players surely should not be subject to percentage allowances, but simply play off of their CH.

See post #9 here
https://forums.golfmonthly.com/threads/plus-players’-handicaps.108630/

 

[SammmeBee]

It has always been thus…..

 

[IanMcC]

I believe the miniscule and swings/roundabouts arguments are valid for a normal singles comp, where 95% of CH is the PH. I am talking here specifically about a 2 ball Texas Scramble where the allowances are 35% lower CH and 15% higher.
The 2 good players I mentioned are +3.2 and + 4.2. I have taken 2 of our members with HI of round about 12 as an example. (12.1 and 11.8.)
I know it is not a direct correlation, but if we compare a 4BBB match to a Texas allowance, the difference is striking.
In a match, on our white tees, the 2 higher handicappers would receive 17 and 16 shots from both of them.
In a scramble, the low handicappers would receive +2 shots, and the higher handicapped team would receive 7 shots.
They are getting 7 or 8 shots less off of that team compared to a 4BBB, over 18 holes. They would have no chance, I reckon.
Unless I am missing something, rulefan's reference is just confirming that to ascertain PH, the changes all tend towards zero when allowances are involved.
As for saying it has always been thus, I dont believe that is true either. Up until WHS, Scrambles were not really recognised by the authorities, and no official guidance on handicapping was given.
If the authorities are now recognising Scrambles, they should do something about this anomaly. Not applying allowance percentages to + handicaps would be a good step.

 

[Swango1980]

Appendix C of the RoH book states that when applying a handicap allowance, any reduction will always be towards zero, including for + handicap players. Can anyone here give me a decent argument why this is the case, please? Today we ran a 2 ball Texas. We had 2 plus handicap players in the field, and their teams were 1st and 3rd in a field of 58. A couple of people asked me about their allowances, and all I could do was sheepishly quote Appendix C. The best players in the field actually play off a handicap better than their singles allowance, whilst everyone else gets a 65% or 85% reduction. It makes no sense. Plus handicap players surely should not be subject to percentage allowances, but simply play off of their CH.

The whole point in playing allowances is to narrow the gap in handicaps between low and high handicappers. Zero is just simply the fixed point at which these changes occur. The absolute change in handicap is not the important thing, it is the relative difference between them. Zero is really just an arbitrary point. Let us say the handicap allowance was 50%, then:

As it stands now:

Player A: Course Handicap = -6, Playing Handicap = -3
Player B: Course Handicap = 0, Playing Handicap = 0
Player C: Course Handicap = 20, Playing Handicap = 10

So, the difference between each players handicap is effectively halved. Player B to C is reduced from 20 to 10 shots, A to B from 6 to 3 shots and A to C from 26 to 13 shots. If you didn't treat plus players in the same way, you'd effectively be saying that the difference between A and B would still be 6 shots (i.e. the better player has to give the worse player 100% the difference in their course handicaps). Wheras if Player B was competing against a 6 handicapper, they'd only be giving 3 shots, not 6, due to the 50% allowance.

 

[IanMcC]

The whole point in playing allowances is to narrow the gap in handicaps between low and high handicappers. Zero is just simply the fixed point at which these changes occur. The absolute change in handicap is not the important thing, it is the relative difference between them. Zero is really just an arbitrary point. Let us say the handicap allowance was 50%, then:

As it stands now:

Player A: Course Handicap = -6, Playing Handicap = -3
Player B: Course Handicap = 0, Playing Handicap = 0
Player C: Course Handicap = 20, Playing Handicap = 10

So, the difference between each players handicap is effectively halved. Player B to C is reduced from 20 to 10 shots, A to B from 6 to 3 shots and A to C from 26 to 13 shots. If you didn't treat plus players in the same way, you'd effectively be saying that the difference between A and B would still be 6 shots (i.e. the better player has to give the worse player 100% the difference in their course handicaps). Wheras if Player B was competing against a 6 handicapper, they'd only be giving 3 shots, not 6, due to the 50% allowance.

This is a neat exercise in arithmetic, but, with respect, that is all it is I reckon. The highlighted part is not the definition of Playing Handicap allowances at all. It is not to narrow any gap, it is to produce equity. To quote Rule 6

Playing Handicap - For equity purposes, the Playing Handicap calculation determines the number of strokes each player gives or receives, to ensure that all players can enjoy a fair and equal game when playing with or competing against one another.

Is it fair and equal that one set of players (plus handicappers) play off better than their Course Handicaps in a team event, where the rest of us have to give up 65% or 85% of it?

 

[Swango1980]

This is a neat exercise in arithmetic, but, with respect, that is all it is I reckon. The highlighted part is not the definition of Playing Handicap allowances at all. It is not to narrow any gap, it is to produce equity. To quote Rule 6

Playing Handicap - For equity purposes, the Playing Handicap calculation determines the number of strokes each player gives or receives, to ensure that all players can enjoy a fair and equal game when playing with or competing against one another.

Is it fair and equal that one set of players (plus handicappers) play off better than their Course Handicaps in a team event, where the rest of us have to give up 65% or 85% of it?

Yes, and my explanation gives you the answer. Whether you choose to believe it is another matter.

In individual stroke play, for example, the 95% Playing handicap Allowance is because higher handicappers would "benefit" over lower handicappers if they could play off 100% of the course handicap (which has been discussed on numerous threads). Therefore, the higher handicapper gets a bigger reduction towards zero than a medium handicapper (effectively, if handicaps were to decimal points, the difference in handicaps between golfers would no longer be 100% of course handicap, it would be 95% of course handicap between all players). I used 50% in my example simply to make it much clearer.

Why would you change the rules after crossing the arbitrary threshold of zero?

Again, let us use the 50% example. A 6 course handicapper now only gets 3 shots compared to a scratch player (as the scratch player is still off scratch). So, the handicap allowance is there to say that, although there is a 6 shot difference in course handicaps, it is only fair in the competition to give the 6 handicapper another 3 shots compared to the scratch player. So, if you compared a +6 handicapper with a scratch golfer, then it would also be true that the scratch player should only get 3 more shots than the +6 player, not 6. Hence the +6 golfer becomes +3.

The issue you are having is that you are simply focusing on zero and upwards, and see that in absolute terms, players get less shots than their course handicap when applying these allowances (unless they are off scratch). You are then logically assuming that the purpose of these allowances are to give people less shots, and then this falls over when you look at plus players. HOWEVER, allowances are NOT to there to give players less shots. They are there to provide a fairer relative difference between all golfers based on the format.

Forget actual Zero for now. Imagine absolute "zero" was +6 (the lowest a handicap could go), and allowances were based on the difference between this absolute zero value.

So, using 50% allowances again and using the same course handicaps in my previous post

Player A Course Handicap = -6. Diff from -6 = 0. Playing Handicap = -6 - 0x50% = -6
Player B Course Handicap = 0. Diff from -6 = 6. Playing Handicap = 0 - 6x50% = -3
Player C Course Handicap = 20. Diff from -6 = 26. Playing Handicap = 20 - 26x50% = 7

So, each player gets 3 shots less (in absolute terms) than they did previously. But, the relative difference between them remains the same. That is key. If you applied a different rule for plus players, then you would no longer have equity

 

[IanMcC]

Yes, and my explanation gives you the answer. Whether you choose to believe it is another matter.

In individual stroke play, for example, the 95% Playing handicap Allowance is because higher handicappers would "benefit" over lower handicappers if they could play off 100% of the course handicap (which has been discussed on numerous threads). Therefore, the higher handicapper gets a bigger reduction towards zero than a medium handicapper (effectively, if handicaps were to decimal points, the difference in handicaps between golfers would no longer be 100% of course handicap, it would be 95% of course handicap between all players). I used 50% in my example simply to make it much clearer.

Why would you change the rules after crossing the arbitrary threshold of zero?

Again, let us use the 50% example. A 6 course handicapper now only gets 3 shots compared to a scratch player (as the scratch player is still off scratch). So, the handicap allowance is there to say that, although there is a 6 shot difference in course handicaps, it is only fair in the competition to give the 6 handicapper another 3 shots compared to the scratch player. So, if you compared a +6 handicapper with a scratch golfer, then it would also be true that the scratch player should only get 3 more shots than the +6 player, not 6. Hence the +6 golfer becomes +3.

The issue you are having is that you are simply focusing on zero and upwards, and see that in absolute terms, players get less shots than their course handicap when applying these allowances (unless they are off scratch). You are then logically assuming that the purpose of these allowances are to give people less shots, and then this falls over when you look at plus players. HOWEVER, allowances are NOT to there to give players less shots. They are there to provide a fairer relative difference between all golfers based on the format.

Forget actual Zero for now. Imagine absolute "zero" was +6 (the lowest a handicap could go), and allowances were based on the difference between this absolute zero value.

So, using 50% allowances again and using the same course handicaps in my previous post

Player A Course Handicap = -6. Diff from -6 = 0. Playing Handicap = -6 - 0x50% = -6
Player B Course Handicap = 0. Diff from -6 = 6. Playing Handicap = 0 - 6x50% = -3
Player C Course Handicap = 20. Diff from -6 = 26. Playing Handicap = 20 - 26x50% = 7

So, each player gets 3 shots less (in absolute terms) than they did previously. But, the relative difference between them remains the same. That is key. If you applied a different rule for plus players, then you would no longer have equity

We will have to agree to differ on this. Again, arithmetically, your argument is sound. There is even logic when you apply it to a singles comp, which you have done in all of your posts. I opened the thread talking specifically about a Texas 2 ball with 35% and 15% of CH, which you have not addressed. If you think your logic still holds for that, then let me extend your argument further to its logical conclusion. Lets not take 50%, Lets take 0.01%. Under this regime, we all play off scratch. Does your argument hold up arithmetically? Of course it does. Does it produce fairness and equity? Of course not.
I will close by quoting your own post: Why would you change the rules after crossing the arbitrary threshold of zero?
Under the present system the rules DO change at that juncture in a Texas Scramble. Plus golfers get it easier, and the rest get it harder. It might be arithmetically correct, and fit in with the simplistic views of the governing bodies, but every reasonable golfer knows that it is flawed.

 

[Swango1980]

We will have to agree to differ on this. Again, arithmetically, your argument is sound. There is even logic when you apply it to a singles comp, which you have done in all of your posts. I opened the thread talking specifically about a Texas 2 ball with 35% and 15% of CH, which you have not addressed. If you think your logic still holds for that, then let me extend your argument further to its logical conclusion. Lets not take 50%, Lets take 0.01%. Under this regime, we all play off scratch. Does your argument hold up arithmetically? Of course it does. Does it produce fairness and equity? Of course not.
I will close by quoting your own post: Why would you change the rules after crossing the arbitrary threshold of zero?
Under the present system the rules DO change at that juncture in a Texas Scramble. Plus golfers get it easier, and the rest get it harder. It might be arithmetically correct, and fit in with the simplistic views of the governing bodies, but every reasonable golfer knows that it is flawed.

I used singles play primarily as that is the most common format, and easiest to demonstrate why the allowance works the way it does for plus handicappers.

It will be the same for plus players in Scramble. Yes, 2 plus players will go out and play of a better handicap than their own individual handicaps. So of course, they are going to shoot a nett score well under course rating. But, so does everyone else. In fact, if you look at gross scores, the teams of higher handicappers will shoot much much better gross scores relative to their ability, and they can erase many individual bad shots. With the plus players, there will be many shots they could have used, but simply didn't as their partners also hit good shots.

So, the theory works exactly the same as a single player. The allowances are simply reducing the spread of handicaps of each team. The absolute handicap is not really relevant. Scramble is a good example of that actually, as most nett scores are usually/always significantly under course rating. Thus, the teams playing handicap is not even trying to indicate how a team will play relative to course rating.

Mind you, there is still a lot of general debate about the allowances that are given in Texas Scramble, another thread exists on that.

Also, in your example of using 0.01%, it does produce equity. Why? Because clearly if such a low percentage was deemed applicable in any format, you are saying that it is only fair if every golfer plays off the same handicap (might as well use 0%). So, by applying that percentage, you get that outcome as now everyone is off scratch. What wouldn't be fair is if everyone with a course handicap 0-72 played off scratch, yet a +6 golfer had to play off +6. That would be like competing for the "gross" club champs (effectively applying 0% playing allowance), but adding 6 shots onto each round of the +6 player, but none to anyone with course handicaps 0-72.

 

[doublebogey7]

This is a neat exercise in arithmetic, but, with respect, that is all it is I reckon. The highlighted part is not the definition of Playing Handicap allowances at all. It is not to narrow any gap, it is to produce equity. To quote Rule 6

Playing Handicap - For equity purposes, the Playing Handicap calculation determines the number of strokes each player gives or receives, to ensure that all players can enjoy a fair and equal game when playing with or competing against one another.

Is it fair and equal that one set of players (plus handicappers) play off better than their Course Handicaps in a team event, where the rest of us have to give up 65% or 85% of it?

I think Swango's has tried to answer this but let me try a different way. The highlighted paragraph is the key, using a percentage to change the number of strokes a player receives results in those with a minus handicap getting fewer strokes by degrees and thus their stroke allowances getting closer. Once you get to a plus handicap then for the handicaps to get closer you have to apply the percentage in the same way, i.e bring it nearer to zero.

If the aim was, as you seem to think, was to make it harder to play to your handicap that is what the RoH would say but it doesn't.

It appears to me that your issue is with the percentage applied for this format rather than the principle relating to plus handicaps, which incidentally has not changed with WHS.

 

[Ethan]

Mathematically, it is absurd, because the logic should be that all handicap reductions should be reductions, albeit to varying degrees. It has probably arisen because you would otherwise need to zero the handicap system off the lowest possible handicap, +6 or whatever.

I think some of what Swango says is true, but I think it is a post-hoc justification rather then the original rationale and it doesn't explain why the pivot point for this equitation system falls conveniently at 0, when the pivot point between better and worse golfers would probably be better in mid single figures.

 

[Swango1980]

Mathematically, it is absurd, because the logic should be that all handicap reductions should be reductions, albeit to varying degrees. It has probably arisen because you would otherwise need to zero the handicap system off the lowest possible handicap, +6 or whatever.

I think some of what Swango says is true, but I think it is a post-hoc justification rather then the original rationale and it doesn't explain why the pivot point for this equitation system falls conveniently at 0, when the pivot point between better and worse golfers would probably be better in mid single figures.

The pivot point is zero because all one needs to do is apply a %. It is a very simply calculation.

The pivot point could be -10, 74 or anywhere in between. However, the calculation becomes more complicated as it is no longer a 1 step process to get from course to playing. Unless one simply relies on a table to get their playing handicap, which I'm sure many do.

It is true that if you ignored simplicity, a reasonable pivot point would be the median handicap of most club golfers, as you say probably mid teens. So low handicappers would increase towards it, high handicappers decrease

 

[Ethan]

The pivot point is zero because all one needs to do is apply a %. It is a very simply calculation.

The pivot point could be -10, 74 or anywhere in between. However, the calculation becomes more complicated as it is no longer a 1 step process to get from course to playing. Unless one simply relies on a table to get their playing handicap, which I'm sure many do.

It is true that if you ignored simplicity, a reasonable pivot point would be the median handicap of most club golfers, as you say probably mid teens. So low handicappers would increase towards it, high handicappers decrease

I realise it is for simplicity and convenience, but I think the necessity for simple calculations has gone out of the window now with WHS.

 

[Swango1980]

I realise it is for simplicity and convenience, but I think the necessity for simple calculations has gone out of the window now with WHS.

Agree with that

 

[doublebogey7]

Mathematically, it is absurd, because the logic should be that all handicap reductions should be reductions, albeit to varying degrees. It has probably arisen because you would otherwise need to zero the handicap system off the lowest possible handicap, +6 or whatever.

I think some of what Swango says is true, but I think it is a post-hoc justification rather then the original rationale and it doesn't explain why the pivot point for this equitation system falls conveniently at 0, when the pivot point between better and worse golfers would probably be better in mid single figures.

I really don't see how you can say its mathimatically obsurd, it is always the way maths works. As I said the aim is to bring higher handicapped players stroke allowance closer to the low handicappers stroke allowance. The maths makes this happen changing the pivot point would potentially mean the best score would be closer to par, but you would get the same winner.

 

[Ethan]

I really don't see how you can say its mathimatically obsurd, it is always the way maths works. As I said the aim is to bring higher handicapped players stroke allowance closer to the low handicappers stroke allowance. The maths makes this happen changing the pivot point would potentially mean the best score would be closer to par, but you would get the same winner.

But it takes the super low handicappers allowance closer to low handicappers too, and this gives them a relative advantage.

 

[Swango1980]

But it takes the super low handicappers allowance closer to low handicappers too, and this gives them a relative advantage.

Why is it OK to reduce the allowance between low and high handicappers, but not between super low handicappers and low handicappers?

 

[Ethan]

Why is it OK to reduce the allowance between low and high handicappers, but not between super low handicappers and low handicappers?

Because reducing the allowance between the former and the latter pairs work in different directions. The idea should be to reduce the disparity in handicaps across the range, i.e. in one direction only.