Competitive vs Recreational handicaps

[wjemather]

He probably considers himself to be a 24 handicapper who "loses a shot" in club comps.

Or a ~19 handicapper (based on his index at the time).

 

[Voyager EMH]

Or a ~19 handicapper (based on his index at the time).

Far less likely that he would consider himself a 19 handicapper than a 24 handicapper.
He could be playing off 24 with his mates or on his own against the course, because the big board on the wall tells him he "gets 24 shots".

 

[wjemather]

Far less likely that he would consider himself a 19 handicapper than a 24 handicapper.
He could be playing off 24 with his mates or on his own against the course, because the big board on the wall tells him he "gets 24 shots".

Now you're bumping his handicap up to 24, which makes a SD of 11.3 look even more spectacular/ridiculous than the true comparison to his ~19 HI.

Anyway, back to the subject of this thread, his handicap record is an example of why we occasionally see such proposals. Has your annual review been done yet?

 

[Voyager EMH]

Now you're bumping his handicap up to 24, which makes a SD of 11.3 look even more spectacular/ridiculous than the true comparison to his ~19 HI.

Anyway, back to the subject of this thread, his handicap record is an example of why we occasionally see such proposals. Has your annual review been done yet?

Its not me bumping up his handicap.
As so many golfers want to view 36 points as "playing to handicap" it is reasonable to accept that this player will see himself as a 23 or 24 handicapper (at the time of the comp)

Don't know about my club's annual review. And I shan't bother wasting H&C chairman's time by asking about it. I'm not very interested in it.

 

[wjemather]

Its not me bumping up his handicap.
As so many golfers want to view 36 points as "playing to handicap" it is reasonable to accept that this player will see himself as a 23 or 24 handicapper (at the time of the comp)

Don't know about my club's annual review. And I shan't bother wasting H&C chairman's time by asking about it. I'm not very interested in it.

What an odd thing to say. You certainly wouldn't be wasting anyone's time - it's literally their job!

 

[Voyager EMH]

What an odd thing to say. You certainly wouldn't be wasting anyone's time - it's literally their job!

Its their job to do the review.
Its not my job, duty or requirement to ask questions about it.

 

[Swango1980]

Its their job to do the review.
Its not my job, duty or requirement to ask questions about it.

It would be less effort to discuss it with your handicap sec though, than go on about it on an online forum. And much more useful, as your handicap committee are the only ones that can actually do anything about it.

Unless, of course, they have already acted?

 

[doublebogey7]

Its not me bumping up his handicap.
As so many golfers want to view 36 points as "playing to handicap" it is reasonable to accept that this player will see himself as a 23 or 24 handicapper (at the time of the comp)

Don't know about my club's annual review. And I shan't bother wasting H&C chairman's time by asking about it. I'm not very interested in it.

What would they see themselves as when visiting a course where they get 15 shots.

In any when discussing the odds quoted, the USGA would be talking about a HI of 23 not a PH of 23. So any discussion about feelings is mute.

 

[Voyager EMH]

It would be less effort to discuss it with your handicap sec though, than go on about it on an online forum. And much more useful, as your handicap committee are the only ones that can actually do anything about it.

Unless, of course, they have already acted?

Read the posts again.
I did not raise the issue of annual review.
I was asked whether my club had done theirs.
I stated that I was not inclined to find out or ask.
This is quite the opposite of "going on about it".
I have expressed the desire to not go on about it with anyone.

 

[Voyager EMH]

A. What would they see themselves as when visiting a course where they get 15 shots.

B. In any when discussing the odds quoted, the USGA would be talking about a HI of 23 not a PH of 23. So any discussion about feelings is mute.

A. I imagine they would see themselves as a 15 handicapper on that day at that course.

B. I accept your point about the USGA referencing HI not PH. But I have not been part of the discussion that was introduced about odds of a 23 handicap returning a certain SD and I will remain outside it, because I do not feel I have sufficient knowledge regarding those types of probabilities.

 

[wjemather]

A. I imagine they would see themselves as a 15 handicapper on that day at that course.

B. I accept your point about the USGA referencing HI not PH. But I have not been part of the discussion that was introduced about odds of a 23 handicap returning a certain SD and I will remain outside it, because I do not feel I have sufficient knowledge regarding those types of probabilities.

However, it was your post that led to someone looking up the odds of achieving an 11.3 SD for a 23 HCP, rather than a 19 HCP, as the player actually was.

 

[Voyager EMH]

However, it was your post that led to someone looking up the odds of achieving an 11.3 SD for a 23 HCP, rather than a 19 HCP, as the player actually was.

Does that make me responsible for his post and answerable for it? I think not.
I quoted the facts of PH and scores.
If other people introduce something else, address your comments to the correct person, otherwise it gets very tiresome for everyone.

 

[wjemather]

Does that make me responsible for his post and answerable for it? I think not.
I quoted the facts of PH and scores.
If other people introduce something else, address your comments to the correct person, otherwise it gets very tiresome for everyone.

As per my initial comment, sharing SDs (without HIs to compare them to) could mislead people. Seems like it did.

 

[rulie]

What is "peer review" and what should be its outcome?

 

[Voyager EMH]

As per my initial comment, sharing SDs (without HIs to compare them to) could mislead people. Seems like it did.

I do not believe I misled anyone by the omission of HI information.
The HI of each player at the time of the comps was not available for me to be able to include it. The playing handicap and score made were available to me.

To accuse someone of being misleading by omission of something they could not possibly include is a strange accusation.

It is possible that someone might misconstrue from the facts that I presented.
I would say "seems like that happened".

As to what a "23 handicapper" might or might not do with a calculated probability, is another discussion.
Whether someone with a playing handicap of 23 is a 23-handicapper is another discussion.

I do not think that I merit chastisement or criticism for the misconstruing of others or be answerable for the introduction of new avenues of discussion by others.

 

[rulefan]

Whether someone with a playing handicap of 23 is a 23-handicapper is another discussion.

Surely a PH is only relevant when related to a specific course. HI is the foundation of all 'handicaps'.

 

[Voyager EMH]

Surely a PH is only relevant when related to a specific course. HI is the foundation of all 'handicaps'.

Yes