Calculating 95% allowance along with course rating - par

AussieKB

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2020
Messages
962
Location
Australia
Visit site
It was a bit over the top I admit, but at my club that is true, we went over a year and we play two events a week no weather problems here, that is over 100 comps, and single figure golfer did not win a nett event.....
 

Swango1980

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
11,709
Location
Lincolnshire
Visit site
often discussed in the past.

Basically in layman's terms the way it works higher handicap players get a proportionally higher number of strokes added to their H.I. than a low handicap player gets added to their's 95% goes some way to maintaining the 'correct' differential between the two.

Very very roughly (for those pedantic about the maths) 2 players one with a 10 HI and another with a H.I. 30 have a difference of 20 shots in their ability when the maths is applied the 10 may become 11 and the 30 becomes 33 now a 22 difference with 95% the 11 stays 11 the 33 becomes 31 so the difference remains at 20 shots.

Rounded or unrounded and where it occurs - given that you are giving 2 of the players fictional handicaps I would round as appropriate - you are not going to have machine precision for them so why apply it to the other 4.
I have to say, do you honestly believe this is the reason???????

If so, some questions:

  1. If the 95% is to maintain the difference between the Indexes, why not just play of the Indexes to begin with?
  2. In your specific example, the Slope could be around 124ish. How does your logic hold if the Slope was 113, or 150?
 

Alan Clifford

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
1,098
Location
51.24545572099906, -0.5221967037089511
Visit site
I didn't post a simple question for it to descend into squabbling and rudeness.

Perhaps time to close?
The "Yeah, yeah, blah blah" was aimed at the illogical whs gods. Slope ratings over 113 give more to high handicapers then the 95% etc is justified by saying the low handicaper are at a disadvantage. There is no logic in the nonsensical, arithmetic convolutions.
 

wjemather

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
3,415
Location
Bristol
Visit site
The "Yeah, yeah, blah blah" was aimed at the illogical whs gods. Slope ratings over 113 give more to high handicapers then the 95% etc is justified by saying the low handicaper are at a disadvantage. There is no logic in the nonsensical, arithmetic convolutions.
Why not just say you don't understand it rather than lashing out?
 

wjemather

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 3, 2020
Messages
3,415
Location
Bristol
Visit site
Get 50 high handicappers in the field and a few of them are going to have the game of their lives. If this is seen as a problem, then more arithmetic is not the solution. In my opinion.
Divisions have always been the only fair solution under every handicap system. Manipulating handicaps or allowances always disadvantages one end of the scale.
 

rulefan

Tour Winner
Joined
Feb 21, 2013
Messages
14,793
Visit site
Get 50 high handicappers in the field and a few of them are going to have the game of their lives. If this is seen as a problem, then more arithmetic is not the solution. In my opinion.
Given that the US and Australia have operated this for many years, in your opinion the correct solution is?
 
Top