Calculating 95% allowance along with course rating - par

[AussieKB]

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]

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?

 

[rulefan]

Try this

WHS explained: Why do I play off 95% in an individual stroke play competition?

For many of you, this is the most annoying thing about. We asked an expert to explain

www.nationalclubgolfer.com

 

[Alan Clifford]

Try this

WHS explained: Why do I play off 95% in an individual stroke play competition?

For many of you, this is the most annoying thing about. We asked an expert to explain

www.nationalclubgolfer.com

Yeah, yeah, blah blah. So why isn't it in the handicap index already?

 

[KenL]

I didn't post a simple question for it to descend into squabbling and rudeness.

Perhaps time to close?

 

[Alan Clifford]

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]

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]

Yeah, yeah, blah blah. So why isn't it in the handicap index already?

There is no increased probability of very good scores in individual matchplay, and a negligible difference in small groups.

 

[Alan Clifford]

There is no increased probability of very good scores in individual matchplay, and a negligible difference in small groups.

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.

 

[wjemather]

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]

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?

 

[Alan Clifford]

Given that the US and Australia have operated this for many years, in your opinion the correct solution is?

Time doesn't mean they are correct. If it is considered a problem then post #30 seems a better solution.

 

[rulefan]

Time doesn't mean they are correct. If it is considered a problem then post #30 seems a better solution.

Upto a point but where would you split divisions?

 

[wjemather]

Upto a point but where would you split divisions?

It really doesn't matter. The field should just be split into reasonable sized chunks of reasonably similar ability.

 

[KenL]

It really doesn't matter. The field should just be split into reasonable sized chunks of reasonably similar ability.

Clubs often have different group for the sweep in their comps.
But, only one medal awarded to the overall winner.

 

[tobybarker]

I didn't post a simple question for it to descend into squabbling and rudeness.

Perhaps time to close?

You know what forums are like, don't you?