'Always result in a Playing Handicap closer to zero'

[Deleted member 3432]

If it isn't high handicappers getting too many shots it's now low handicappers getting too many shots ?

Maybe we should all play off scratch to even things up ?

 

[Swango1980]

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.

It doesn't matter though, the relative difference between competing golfers is what is important

 

[doublebogey7]

No it

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.

Relative handicaps are moving in one direction only, i.e lower handicaps getting closer to higher handicappers whether plus or minus. Try making the base +6, then move everyone's CH up 6 and apply the relavant %. Compare the PH pre & post moving base and the difference between PH remains the same ignoring any rounding.

 

[IanMcC]

As a follow on to this thread, we ran the same comp last weekend. The same guy, now off +4.4 and a potential superstar, won the comp with his partner by 3 shots. 9 pairs were grouped in a cluster 3 shots behind. I fully understand the maths and reasoning behind this, and also think that 35/15 % is right for 2 balll scrambles (unlike 4 balls), but I think that the authorities have still got this wrong regarding + handicap golfers in a Texas. I fully appreciate the maths involved in bringing people 'together', but in the real world, a plus handicap golfer still gains shots over everyone else, however you look at it. Our young superstar teamed up with a 14 handicapper. I truly believe he could have partnered anyone at our club and still have won. I think this algorithm is flawed to say the least.

 

[rulefan]

As a follow on to this thread, we ran the same comp last weekend. The same guy, now off +4.4 and a potential superstar, won the comp with his partner by 3 shots. 9 pairs were grouped in a cluster 3 shots behind. I fully understand the maths and reasoning behind this, and also think that 35/15 % is right for 2 balll scrambles (unlike 4 balls), but I think that the authorities have still got this wrong regarding + handicap golfers in a Texas. I fully appreciate the maths involved in bringing people 'together', but in the real world, a plus handicap golfer still gains shots over everyone else, however you look at it. Our young superstar teamed up with a 14 handicapper. I truly believe he could have partnered anyone at our club and still have won. I think this algorithm is flawed to say the least.

What would you propose?

 

[Backsticks]

Never had a hc in the plus to have to experience it, but assume that plus handicaps are divided by the competition adjustment, rather than multiplied as for us minus men?
i.e. Would a plus 20ch not be give plus 21 in a singles? Which is consistent with the 95% application for minus handicaps, giving a scratchman the same correction versus the plus 20, as a minus 20 gets versus the scratchman?
Does the same not apply in the scramble?

 

[IanMcC]

What would you propose?

I would propose that + handicaps use their full handicap, not 35% of it. In the case of our winners that would mean the partner (Index 9.0, not 14 as I stated earlier) would still contribute his 15% of CH, which is 1.5 shots, but the +4.4 lad would get his full +4.4, giving a Team Playing handicap of +2.9, rounded to +3. The way it is just now, the team played off 0 (-1.75 contribution from the low handicapper, added to the 1.5 from the higher, giving -0.25, playing 0)
That 3 shot difference would, in this case at least, have brought their score back to the field.
I know it is not mathematically sound, but I believe most golfers would be happier with this arrangement.

 

[rulefan]

I would propose that + handicaps use their full handicap, not 35% of it. In the case of our winners that would mean the partner (Index 9.0, not 14 as I stated earlier) would still contribute his 15% of CH, which is 1.5 shots, but the +4.4 lad would get his full +4.4, giving a Team Playing handicap of +2.9, rounded to +3. The way it is just now, the team played off 0 (-1.75 contribution from the low handicapper, added to the 1.5 from the higher, giving -0.25, playing 0)
That 3 shot difference would, in this case at least, have brought their score back to the field.
I know it is not mathematically sound, but I believe most golfers would be happier with this arrangement.

Probably because most golfers are not better than scratch
Although if i was their partner I wouldn't be best pleased and I suspect he might have some difficulty finding someone to play with.

 

[Swango1980]

I would propose that + handicaps use their full handicap, not 35% of it. In the case of our winners that would mean the partner (Index 9.0, not 14 as I stated earlier) would still contribute his 15% of CH, which is 1.5 shots, but the +4.4 lad would get his full +4.4, giving a Team Playing handicap of +2.9, rounded to +3. The way it is just now, the team played off 0 (-1.75 contribution from the low handicapper, added to the 1.5 from the higher, giving -0.25, playing 0)
That 3 shot difference would, in this case at least, have brought their score back to the field.
I know it is not mathematically sound, but I believe most golfers would be happier with this arrangement.

The big problem with this is that, your methodology is effectively "discriminating" against any player with a handicap below zero. However, this zero point you have chosen, is simply just an arbitrary point on a handicap scale. There is nothing special about it.

What is important is the relative difference between all players handicaps, and that this is also consistent when any adjustments are made.

Let us forget zero, but pick another arbitrary point of 10. To make the mathematics the same for your proposal, we'll now make 10 the new zero (subtract 10 from everyones handicap, so a 10 handicapper becomes 0, scratch golfer -10, etc). Anyone under this new zero mark now has no adjustments that would have narrowed the differences, and the adjustments only apply to those over zero (I.e. the guys who used to be over 10)

Another way to look at it. If the lowest guy in field was -4, imagine we just added 4 onto everyones handicap. So, lowest in field is now 0, but everyones relative difference remains the same. As you can imagine, that really makes no meaningful difference to a singles comp, except scores would be 4 shots better for everyone. Relative difference in scores the same. So, if we added 4 shots to everyone before team scramble adjustments (so we wouldn't apply your methodology for full handicap for anyone under 0), would it somehow be unfair because one of the guys happened to be under zero before this mass adjustment, and it would be giving his team, and only his team an unfair advantage?

 

[IanMcC]

I object to you saying that I chose zero. Zero is the point that is chosen by CONGU for adjustments to go towards. It is also the switchover point in a Scramble where individual players are ‘worse off’ or ‘better off’. It is also inherent in working out percentages, and crucial to the very structure of mathematics. I did not pick it as a special number.

For all of the above reasons, you moving the switchover point from zero to any other point is meaningless.

You talk of discrimination. Any ‘non plus’ handicapper has their allowance slashed in a Scramble, but a plus handicapper is better off. I think this is discrimination.

You mention that what is important is the relative difference between all players handicaps. Again, I would dispute this. What is important is that all players are adjusted consistently. As we are using percentages, and the zero point is fixed, it is impossible to adjust players fairly using percentages alone if positive and negative numbers are involved.

It is only very recently that Scrambles have been officially recognized. If they truly analyse the results, I predict that something similar to my suggestion will be taken up by CONGU in the near future, because clearly the allowances are unfair at the moment.

 

[Swango1980]

I object to you saying that I chose zero. Zero is the point that is chosen by CONGU for adjustments to go towards. It is also the switchover point in a Scramble where individual players are ‘worse off’ or ‘better off’. It is also inherent in working out percentages, and crucial to the very structure of mathematics. I did not pick it as a special number.

For all of the above reasons, you moving the switchover point from zero to any other point is meaningless.

You talk of discrimination. Any ‘non plus’ handicapper has their allowance slashed in a Scramble, but a plus handicapper is better off. I think this is discrimination.

You mention that what is important is the relative difference between all players handicaps. Again, I would dispute this. What is important is that all players are adjusted consistently. As we are using percentages, and the zero point is fixed, it is impossible to adjust players fairly using percentages alone if positive and negative numbers are involved.

It is only very recently that Scrambles have been officially recognized. If they truly analyse the results, I predict that something similar to my suggestion will be taken up by CONGU in the near future, because clearly the allowances are unfair at the moment.

Congo do not "choose". If anything, it is the mathematics that simply chooses the direction in which numbers move after adjustments. But, the mathematics also ensures the relative change is consistent and fair for all.

I assume you are OK with + handicappers getting the allowances in singles?

 

[Swango1980]

I would propose that + handicaps use their full handicap, not 35% of it. In the case of our winners that would mean the partner (Index 9.0, not 14 as I stated earlier) would still contribute his 15% of CH, which is 1.5 shots, but the +4.4 lad would get his full +4.4, giving a Team Playing handicap of +2.9, rounded to +3. The way it is just now, the team played off 0 (-1.75 contribution from the low handicapper, added to the 1.5 from the higher, giving -0.25, playing 0)
That 3 shot difference would, in this case at least, have brought their score back to the field.
I know it is not mathematically sound, but I believe most golfers would be happier with this arrangement.

Just another add on:

Imagine a 2 ball scramble with 4 Teams, and current handicaps based on WHS:

Team A: Handicaps +4 and +4 (Team Handicap = +2)
Team B: Handicaps 0 and 0 (Team Handicap = 0)
Team C: Handicaps 4 and 4 (Team Handicap = 2)
Team D: Handicaps 8 and 8 (Team Handicap = 4)

I've used nice even numbers to make it a simply demonstration.

If we used your proposal, would Team A have to play off +8 instead? If so, would that not seem unfair to Team A, given the difference in shots between B, C and D is only 2 shots in each case, then the difference suddenly and dramatically increases once players have handicaps below the value of zero (with there being an 8 shot difference, instead of 2, between Teams A and B)

 

[IanMcC]

I would still bet on Team A winning this, even off +8.

 

[Swango1980]

So why do they suddenly become mega stars compared to the 2 scratch golfers (8 shots difference), yet the 2 scratch golfers are not considered mega stars compared to the 2 4 handicappers (only 2 shots difference)?

 

[IanMcC]

Scratch golfers are ten a penny. Someone off +4 is exponentially better, to use one of your mathematical phrases.? Those 2 +4 players would win by at least 6 shots every time playing off +2. + 8 would make it competitive.

 

[Swango1980]

Scratch golfers are ten a penny. Someone off +4 is exponentially better, to use one of your mathematical phrases.? Those 2 +4 players would win by at least 6 shots every time playing off +2. + 8 would make it competitive.

So, to confirm, you are actually saying something magical happens at the zero point on the handicap scale?

I'm not trying to be overly blunt or anything, but your methodology is completely illogical unless there is a unique shift in ability as soon as a player goes below zero.

I'd also point out, I'd imagine the expected score of 2 scratch golfers in a scramble would be very very low, especially on a decent day. To expect two +4 handicappers to shoot 8 better than the 2 scratch guys would seem almost impossible.

 

[Voyager EMH]

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.

Because when applying the Slope Rating adjustment to Handicap Index, the movement is always away from zero for Slope Ratings above 113.

Our Handicap Indices put us all on a scale.
Slope Ratings stretch that scale out. (when above 113)
Playing Handicap adjustments shrink it back.
The integrity of the scale is maintained.

 

[Backsticks]

I think I see it makes sense to tend towards zero.
If a 20hc is reduced, therfore advantaging a lower hc, then plus hc s must tend to zero too, not ever lower. A +5 moving to +6 would disadvantage him, not advantage him.

 

[Voyager EMH]

The misconception lies in players perceiving their Course Handicap as something equivalent to their 'old' handicap then compounding this misconception with "losing a shot" when a handicap allowance is applied. Misconception upon misconception as a result of attempting to find a non-existent equivalence to the old system.

The new system is there to be learned.
If anyone does not want to learn or refuses to learn, then there is little hope that they ever will learn.

 

[Jason.H]

Would I be right in thinking a plus handicapper loses his 1st shot on hole index 18?