USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
To all you high handicappers......get off your lazy arses and start practicing
:rofl:
Why? There's no point? It just makes the game harder. Better to mess about in the high 20s and clean up.
Do 3/4 handicap comps favour good golfers too much?
- Thread starter ColchesterFC
- Start date
Why? There's no point? It just makes the game harder. Better to mess about in the high 20s and clean up.
G1BB0
Money List Winner
miaow, thats harsh Murph, a lot of us would love to be in the teens or even lower!
USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
Kellfire
Blackballed
Yet the stats and the powers that be disagree.
If you continually choke against high handicaps because you can't handle the mental pressure of knowing you have to give shots, fair enough. Don't write that up to high handicaps having an advantage... they don't, they're lesser players.
bladeplayer
Money List Winner
Golf is many things for many people ...
I do agree stableford does favour the higher handicapper,
Strokeplay - some can say favours the low handicapper , i think i favours good mid handicappers off 9 to 13 , not necessarialy one v one but in say a weekly club comp , one or two of the mid guys are sure to have a good day..
Gross prizes favour low handicappers..
Then you have scratch cups , surely they favour the low handicapper in each section, i play in the 5-9 , surely they favour the 5 handicapper ...
Golf for me is purely that , for me .. i play to lower my handicap & get better for me ..
Andy808
Tour Winner
I read in an article somewhere (GM mag I think) where a study had been done to see how the full allowance had affected the win ratio between high and low handicappers in singles comps.
Interestingly it was low handicappers who were moaning about the change to full allowance from 3/4 in singles as they thought it would mean the high HCers had an unfair advantage. The results showed a different story with results being closer to 50/50 but still slightly in favour of the low HCers but not to the extent it had been before the change.
As for BB comps 3/4 is far fairer.
Interestingly it was low handicappers who were moaning about the change to full allowance from 3/4 in singles as they thought it would mean the high HCers had an unfair advantage. The results showed a different story with results being closer to 50/50 but still slightly in favour of the low HCers but not to the extent it had been before the change.
As for BB comps 3/4 is far fairer.
Oddsocks
Ryder Cup Winner
I like the 3/4 rule, it makes you focus, what I notice is if you look at comp wins, if a high carpet wins its normally a massive win ( 42/44+) where as a win from a cat 1 or cat 2 normally seems to be around the 38/39 mark.
A high capper on a day where he's swing is grooved can run away with things, the lower the HC, the lower the margin of success...
A high capper on a day where he's swing is grooved can run away with things, the lower the HC, the lower the margin of success...
Foxholer
Blackballed
Can't agree with that - as handicap is a Stableford metric! Compared to Strokeplay it does though.
Compared to Stableford, I'd say it favours the low guys. Comps seems more likely to be won by someone off 11-16, only because that's where most 'reasonable or improving' guys are. On a good day, one of them (but no idea which) can shoot 5-6 below handicap. Much harder for a Cat 1 to do so and there are far fewer of them anyway.
When you use 3/4 handicap, you definitely give an advantage to the lower guys!
Ethan
Money List Winner
It should be full for medal and stableford and 3/4 for matchplay. The reason is that the difference in hole scores in matchplay matter less, whether you lose the hole by 1 or 3 shots makes no difference.
If handicaps are accurate, higher handicappers should have an advantage in medal play, because the range of variation of their scores should be larger, and the winning score is essentially won by the player who has the biggest variation from normal (handicap) on the lower end of the range. Equally, higher players should have the biggest variation from normal on the high end, but that matters less.
If handicaps are accurate, higher handicappers should have an advantage in medal play, because the range of variation of their scores should be larger, and the winning score is essentially won by the player who has the biggest variation from normal (handicap) on the lower end of the range. Equally, higher players should have the biggest variation from normal on the high end, but that matters less.
Kellfire
Blackballed
Whoa, are you for real? This is exactly the opposite of the truth in my experience. Stableford can cull those nasty 7, 8, 9+ scores off a high handicaps card but one bad hole in medal and a high handicapper's race is run.
Medal is most definitely for the low handicaps on average.
BTatHome
Tour Winner
Can't remember the last singles comp that I played that was 3/4 !!
rosecott
Money List Winner
Can I assume that you never had a handicap over 18 before you achieved your current handicap? I know some lower handicappers who say no-one should get a shot on a par 3 - in fact the Winter Alliance in our county is run on that basis.
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
indeed - the classic situation of everyone's idea of making something inclusive is different, and the line is drawn in a different place; but drawn it is!
Ethan
Money List Winner
No, I am not real. I am entirely in your imagination.
Stableford benefits kick in at nett triple bogey, so not less than a 6 (par-3 with no shot), but possibly as high as 10 (par-5 with 2 shots). Will mostly be a 8 (par-4 with one shot). Not too many people win comps of any sort with those on their card.
It is a simple fact, whether you like it or not, that the variation (range of scores) is higher and wider for higher handicap players. It therefore follows that since we are looking for a score which departs from the norm by the greatest amount, that higher handicappers are more likely, although not certain on any given Saturday, to have that score.
USER1999
Grand Slam Winner
Yes, but you are looking at it from the perspective of one high handicappers score. If there were 100 of them, one at least would have a hot round, with nothing worse than a double.
Kellfire
Blackballed
So you're sticking by your notion that, in medal, high handicappers have the advantage?
Kellfire
Blackballed
You're doing the low players a disservice here, like you're saying they too won't have players who shoot out of their skin.
Low beats high in medal on average.
Kellfire
Blackballed
Not sure who had this in their signature but it proves my point beyond any doubt...
http://www.scottishgolf.org/files/Myths___Misconceptions_Report_1_June_2005.pdf
http://www.scottishgolf.org/files/Myths___Misconceptions_Report_1_June_2005.pdf
moogie
Tour Winner
Disagree Marc
Just been through results at my place last year, havent included monthly medals as they have 2 divisions to get 2 seperate winners
17 Strokeplay events, 3 single figure H/cap winners, (4,5,5 ) , 4 winners of 18, 20, 21, 22 H/caps, average H/cap winner 12.58
10 Stableford events, 4 single figure H/cap winners, (3, 7, 7, 8 ) , others are 11, 14, 15, 15, 16, 17, average H/cap winner 11.3
So, at my place, Low DOESNT BEAT High in Medal on average..............
duncan mackie
Money List Winner
I understand your argument, but it's flawed to apply it to medal as opposed to stableford.
The reality is that given a large enough sample you would expect a higher handicap player to produce an 'unbeatable' score in a stableford event.
In a medal event this isn't the case because they start at a significant disadvantage in that they are handicapped to a nett double bogey not a medal score - note that the argument for variation is also negated in the case of the higher handicapper who plays a consistent game such that they are less likely to higher (and lower) scores.
