GM debate opportunity - full or 3/4 difference in singles matchplay

[JezzE]

Afternoon all,
We're opening up the next issue's debate to two forumers and are going for the slightly vexed subject of handicap difference in singles matchplay.
CONGU's stance is that it should be full difference rather than the old 3/4, but not all golfers are convinced, especially low handicappers, despite CONGU quoting stats that they say prove it is the fairest option.

I'm looking for one person to argue the case for full difference and one for three-quarters.

The end result will be a 250-word argument per side to be published in our October issue.

If you fancy having a go, please send me the outline of any arguments/reasoning you would use (bullet points would be fine at this stage) to jezz_ellwood@ipcmedia.com

I will then select two people and get back in touch with them next week. If you haven't heard from me by the middle of next week, please presume that on this occasion you have been unsuccessful (as the old job reject letters I used to regularly receive politely phrased it!)

Two other things

1) I will be looking for people who haven't already been featured on the debate page previously
2) If selected, we would need a face-on head shot to run alongside the copy

 

[john0]

I think that bob and smiffy should do this!

 

[NWJocko]

I think that bob and smiffy should do this!

Beat me to it

 

[CallawayKid]

What's the point in having a handicap then...??!!

Light blue touchpaper and stand well back...

CK

 

[Mungoscorner]

I've seen some 18 handicappers play par golf for 9 or 10 holes,i'd rather not have to give somebody 13 shots,if they are capable of that.

 

[richart]

I think that bob and smiffy should do this!

They 'debate' this every day already.

 

[AuburnWarrior]

I think that bob and smiffy should do this!

Oh yes!!!

Could they video it in the style of 'Alas Smith and Jones'???

 

[One Planer]

I've seen some 18 handicappers play par golf for 9 or 10 holes,i'd rather not have to give somebody 13 shots,if they are capable of that.

Did they look Mexican?

 

[Tiger]

Possibly contentiously as a high handicapper I think 3/4 is fair. I play off 27 around a track that is par 71 but I don't play consistently 1.5 shots above handicap for the whole round. Instead I'll play to about 18 h/c and monumentally mess up 3/4 holes. As a result I think I'd have an unfair advantage off full handicap in matchplay.

 

[grumpyjock]

only those who have a low HC would be for a 3/4 difference.
Those of us who play off a high HC want all the shots we can get.
If I play off 3/4 I will score 25-26 points, when I play full HC I may get 34-35 point which is about right for a 23 HC person.
We do not have a high HC for the fun of it, its because we can not get it down to single figures.
If those who have low HC have made the effort good for them but you take the rough with the smooth, it means your good at the game and should allow those who are high HC the shots they are entiteled to.
Over to you Bob.

 

[bobmac]

Would love to guys, but it's only Smiffy I wouldn't give 13 shots to. Besides, I'm washing my hair that day AND Smiffy was just featured with his Golf Monthly centenary freebies

 

[forefortheday]

I'm surprised Bob hasn't been in this thread already!!!

It's a shame he doesn't apply the 3/4 difference rule to his V-Easy price!

** Edit*** the old git has beaten me to it!

 

[HomerJSimpson]

It works another way too. I played with a 19 handicapper yesterday who shot 36 points over a 7028 yard course. Not long off the tee but in play everytime and always putting on the 4's and 5's for a 4. I've got to give him 6 shots in a match off full handicap and to be honest he'd be a nightmare to play. He never missed a thing and you can imagine the damage he'd do to someone off 9 or lower on a much shorter track that he could get home on some holes.

Is it fair? In my mind yes otherwise why have handicaps if you aren't allowed to use the full benefit. Why penalise this 19 handicapper (or even me off 13) just because we are playing a low single figure guy who by the nature of the handicap is a far better golfer and more accurate, consitent and probably longer.

 

[bobmac]

Isn't it something to do with higher h/caps being able to play 3,4 or 5 or more under their h/cap for 15 holes and have 3 bad ones which gives them the rest of their h/cap.
So in stroke play, they may lose 8-10 shots in 3 holes but in match play, it's only 3 holes.

 

[Tiger]

Isn't it something to do with higher h/caps being able to play 3,4 or 5 or more under their h/cap for 15 holes and have 3 bad ones which gives them the rest of their h/cap.
So in stroke play, they may lose 8-10 shots in 3 holes but in match play, it's only 3 holes.

Which was the point I was trying to make. Feel like Cassandra

 

[Doc]

Handicap is handicap, either it's a fair system or it's not?

If it's not fair then scrap it and we'll all play off scratch, can really see the sport appealing to the masses then.

Cake and eat it maybe...

 

[bobmac]

Isn't it something to do with higher h/caps being able to play 3,4 or 5 or more under their h/cap for 15 holes and have 3 bad ones which gives them the rest of their h/cap.
So in stroke play, they may lose 8-10 shots in 3 holes but in match play, it's only 3 holes.

Which was the point I was trying to make. Feel like Cassandra

Rodney's wife?

 

[GB72]

Handicap is handicap, either it's a fair system or it's not?

If it's not fair then scrap it and we'll all play off scratch, can really see the sport appealing to the masses then.

Cake and eat it maybe...

I agree with this point. Either handicaps are fair as a whole and we all play off full allowance or they are not and you find a new system for everyone. 3/4 is a hell of a cut for some people.

 

[Crow]

Isn't it something to do with higher h/caps being able to play 3,4 or 5 or more under their h/cap for 15 holes and have 3 bad ones which gives them the rest of their h/cap.
So in stroke play, they may lose 8-10 shots in 3 holes but in match play, it's only 3 holes.

So let's say they play 4 under handicap over 15 holes and have three bad holes where they lose 8 or 10 shots.
The "4 under handicap" might equally only have been made on just two holes where they scored gross par and birdie.
That's two holes up and three down, so in effect they're one down in matchplay.

I believe in full difference, CONGU say they have analysed thousands of rounds (and I believe them) which show that low handicaps still have the advantage over high.
As has been said, the handicap system intends to give a level playing field for a match enjoyable to both parties, I think what we have is about as close as you can get, there will always be excpetions as you can't legislate for every eventuality.

The biggest problem, to borrow from another post, is dodgy handicaps!

 

[Ethan]

Handicap is handicap, either it's a fair system or it's not?

If it's not fair then scrap it and we'll all play off scratch, can really see the sport appealing to the masses then.

Cake and eat it maybe...

But the point is that handicap is based on stroke in which all shots are counted, but different mathematics apply in matchplay, and using 3/4 roughly settles the difference.