Fair handicap for first time golfer (stableford match)

[Whatever]

Morning all, not sure if this is the right forum but hoping the collective minds here can help settle a debate.

We have a stableford round with 8 people coming up and to make it more interesting we wanted to put some money on the game but try to make it as fair as possible as there is a real mix of handicaps.

Most are fairly regular players with handicaps between 15 - 30 but we have one guy who we are not sure what he should play off. He has only played three times in the last 20 years - 67 over 9 holes twice, and c. 125 over 18.

Obviously we want to give the guy a fair chance to win the pot, without giving him a handicap that blows everyone else out the water.

One thought is that he should get a 54 handicap for the round (which would be adjusted slightly when taking the slope rating into account). Obviously this seems insanely high but over a par 65 course my maths says he would get an extra 3 shots per hole to hit 36 points - or to put it another way, playing to that handicap he would take 119 strokes. This seems right as it tallys with his previous efforts (broadly) or is it too generous?

Some people say this is too lenient and he should play off something lower (36 for example). Essentially 2 shots per hole, or expecting him to go round in c. 100 (20 odd shots better than any previous round he has played).

I think the issue is that 54 seems like a ridiculous number, but the maths seems to back it up?

Anyone want to throw an opinion into the mix?

 

[rulefan]

If this 3 score has been put in for an initial handicap he would have been given the best differential (ie gross score - CR/SSS) minus 2. I don't know the SSS but 54 seems about right.

 

[Swango1980]

It is finger in the air really. Can't really give any sound advice on what handicap to give the guy when there is scant evidence as to his current playing ability You could give him an Index (could give him a very high course handicap if slope is high (although playing handicap would bring it down a bit again). However, ultimately if he wins, even by 1 stableford point, there are likely to be comments that his handicap was far too high. If you give him a lower handicap, and he ends up with 20 points, there might be comments you never gave him a chance.

The question really is, do you give him a high handicap and possibly upset the rest of the field, or give him a lower handicap and possibly only upset him? And, how upset would he really be? Maybe he is just happy to be involved in taking part, he might even feel a little bad if he ended up winning with a very high handicap? You'll know the personalities of everyone involved, so you'll be best placed to decide a value that everyone will be comfortable about.

 

[wjemather]

Morning all, not sure if this is the right forum but hoping the collective minds here can help settle a debate.

We have a stableford round with 8 people coming up and to make it more interesting we wanted to put some money on the game but try to make it as fair as possible as there is a real mix of handicaps.

Most are fairly regular players with handicaps between 15 - 30 but we have one guy who we are not sure what he should play off. He has only played three times in the last 20 years - 67 over 9 holes twice, and c. 125 over 18.

Obviously we want to give the guy a fair chance to win the pot, without giving him a handicap that blows everyone else out the water.

One thought is that he should get a 54 handicap for the round (which would be adjusted slightly when taking the slope rating into account). Obviously this seems insanely high but over a par 65 course my maths says he would get an extra 3 shots per hole to hit 36 points - or to put it another way, playing to that handicap he would take 119 strokes. This seems right as it tallys with his previous efforts (broadly) or is it too generous?

Some people say this is too lenient and he should play off something lower (36 for example). Essentially 2 shots per hole, or expecting him to go round in c. 100 (20 odd shots better than any previous round he has played).

I think the issue is that 54 seems like a ridiculous number, but the maths seems to back it up?

Anyone want to throw an opinion into the mix?

Your sample size is simply too small to give a reasonable estimate for allocating a handicap. In addition, actual gross scores do not give a good indication of potential Stableford scoring, due the likely influence of a handful of very bad holes.

The best solution may be to use a Peoria system to allocate him a handicap for the day, e.g. select 6 holes which will be used as the basis for the calculation (suggest using a range of lengths, pars and SIs); total his scores against par for those holes (adjusting each hole score to a maximum of double par); multiply the result by 3; take 80% to give him his handicap for the day; then apply that to his actual scores.

 

[fundy]

If you give him 54, he'll shoot 110 and win by a country mile. If you give 36 he wont break 130 and wont have a chance good luck

 

[rulefan]

It is finger in the air really. Can't really give any sound advice on what handicap to give the guy when there is scant evidence as to his current playing ability You could give him an Index (could give him a very high course handicap if slope is high (although playing handicap would bring it down a bit again). However, ultimately if he wins, even by 1 stableford point, there are likely to be comments that his handicap was far too high. If you give him a lower handicap, and he ends up with 20 points, there might be comments you never gave him a chance.

The question really is, do you give him a high handicap and possibly upset the rest of the field, or give him a lower handicap and possibly only upset him? And, how upset would he really be? Maybe he is just happy to be involved in taking part, he might even feel a little bad if he ended up winning with a very high handicap? You'll know the personalities of everyone involved, so you'll be best placed to decide a value that everyone will be comfortable about.

What would you have done if he had returned those 3 scores for a legitimate initial allocation?

 

[rulefan]

Your sample size is simply too small to give a reasonable estimate for allocating a handicap. In addition, actual gross scores do not give a good indication of potential Stableford scoring, due the likely influence of a handful of very bad holes.

The best solution may be to use a Peoria system to allocate him a handicap for the day, e.g. select 6 holes which will be used as the basis for the calculation (suggest using a range of lengths, pars and SIs); total his scores against par for those holes (adjusting each hole score to a maximum of double par); multiply the result by 3; take 80% to give him his handicap for the day; then apply that to his actual scores.

Why 80% specifically?

Peoria ?

 

[Swango1980]

What would you have done if he had returned those 3 scores for a legitimate initial allocation?

Well, firstly I would tell him to put them in the bin and do it again, given that those 3 rounds were spread over a 20 year period. I also have no idea how accurate they are, in terms of adjusted gross scores rather than actual gross score. Once I had 3 more recent rounds, then I'd process them as per normal WHS requirements, knowing they at least are more reflective of current ability.

However, if you have read some of my other threads, you will know my views on the award of initial handicaps, and that I think they are appallingly generous to those that end up with higher handicaps (i.e. the -2.0 is very little protection to the rest of the field to a player who was awarded, say, an Index of 40 after 3 rounds, and could well shoot well under that shortly afterwards). However, that is a separate argument, and for now I can only really operate under WHS guidelines, so 1st paragraph is relevant

 

[Whatever]

Well, firstly I would tell him to put them in the bin and do it again, given that those 3 rounds were spread over a 20 year period. I also have no idea how accurate they are, in terms of adjusted gross scores rather than actual gross score. Once I had 3 more recent rounds, then I'd process them as per normal WHS requirements, knowing they at least are more reflective of current ability.

However, if you have read some of my other threads, you will know my views on the award of initial handicaps, and that I think they are appallingly generous to those that end up with higher handicaps (i.e. the -2.0 is very little protection to the rest of the field to a player who was awarded, say, an Index of 40 after 3 rounds, and could well shoot well under that shortly afterwards). However, that is a separate argument, and for now I can only really operate under WHS guidelines, so 1st paragraph is relevant

Those 3 rounds are all in the last year - sorry, I should have said not played in the last 20 years up until last summer.

 

[wjemather]

Why 80% specifically?

Peoria ?

Peoria is just one of many (and possibly the most widely used in the US) ad-hoc one-day handicapping systems. There are countless variations; 80% is standard Peoria (other allowances may be used). Other variations include double-bogey as the maximum hole score.

 

[rulefan]

Peoria is just one of many (and possibly the most widely used in the US) ad-hoc one-day handicapping systems. There are countless variations; 80% is standard Peoria (other allowances may be used). Other variations include double-bogey as the maximum hole score.

I had just googled 'peoria' on its own. Nothing relevant shown.

 

[3offTheTee]

I would ask the other 7 players after reading what you posted initially what they think he should play off. Allow for age, normal sporting ability eg if he was a professional cricketer I would expect his hand/eye coordination to be excellent. Suggest what you think, ask what the others feel and I expect given his “125 score “ they would state a figure between 36 and 54. Take the average of the 7 scores. Probably a friend match and “the pot” will not be 8k!

 

[hairball_89]

If you give him 54, he'll shoot 110 and win by a country mile. If you give 36 he wont break 130 and wont have a chance good luck

45 it is then! Surefire 36 points.

 

[clubchamp98]

Give him a handicap of 27 for the front nine holes .
If he gets more than 20pts give him 18 on the back nine .
If he gets less than 18 pts just call it another 27 shots so 54 cap.
If it’s only a friendly just make sure he gets the first round in.
Most would like him to do well but there is always one who dosnt like parting with a fiver.
Just don’t wager to much, or use side bets for the regular players.
Just have a good day .

 

[Region3]

Considering the guy hardly plays, is he just there for the social and a bit of a giggle?

If so, I’d consider asking if he actually wants to be in the pot and if he’s not bothered let everyone else duke it out for the £ and he just plays for fun. To be honest he (and you if you are responsible for deciding his handicap) is in a no win situation.