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

[MashieNiblick]

I don't really have strong feelings on this one and see both sides of the argument. The CONGU reasoning is set out here and is based on actual match results rather than data about how players with different handicaps score when playing.

http://www.congu.com/Myth%207.pdf

Given that the purpose of handicaps is to give less good players a fair chance to beat better players (and hence are simply an artificial way of levelling the playing field) their approach of looking at whether that is actually happening rather than at whether higher handicappers lose more shots on particular holes doesn't seem unreasonable.

 

[Smiffy]

Copthorne golf club. 3 par 5's where if you play James or Pieman around there they are all reachable with a mid iron second shot for them. And they are high enough stroke indices to mean I don't get a shot on them either.
If we all play those holes to the best of our abilities, I can guarantee that I will lose them all. They are almost guaranteed birdies for Paul and James.
I don't moan about it though.
Just accept it and get on with it.
Golf is golf, and it's all on the day

 

[DCB]

Agree with Mashie, I can see both sides of the argument so don't really stand in one camp or the other.

We've had full difference for a little while longer than our Southern cousins, so perhaps we're just used to it now

 

[bobmac]

Copthorne golf club. 3 par 5's where if you play James or Pieman around there they are all reachable with a mid iron second shot for them. And they are high enough stroke indices to mean I don't get a shot on them either.
If we all play those holes to the best of our abilities, I can guarantee that I will lose them all. They are almost guaranteed birdies for Paul and James.
I don't moan about it though.
Just accept it and get on with it.
Golf is golf, and it's all on the day

Well practice your wedge play then ya duffer.

Sorry, forgot who I was talking to there

 

[needmoreclub]

Smiffy,who knows what the final outcome would have been as he was playing well below his h'cap but if he was only getting 7 as against 9 i'm sure the game would have gone further. I'm not pointing the finger mate i know most guys are up front and genuine, i'm just fed up coming up against these guys who claim they don't usually play that well.It would just be interesting to see what the stats say when the allowance was 3/4 if more single figure guys won, or is modern equipment kicking in and making the game easier for higher handicappers.

 

[Tiger]

Mashie having looked at the statistical analysis provided by CONGU ana as an evaluation expert by trade I see a couple of areas that need to be further analysed in order for this to actually be compelling.

1. It presents a case of matchplay in isolation. I would need to see statistics of performance in stableford and medal competition to see if there were a higher proportion of wins for higher handicappers here. My reason being that the h'cap system is a fallacy, an artificial mechanism to level the playing field. As such a holistic view of all competition needs to be taken to determine the proportional likelihood of success against a suite of competitions rather than just one.

2. It fails to acknowledge the fact that proportionally Cat 4 players are massively under represented in match play competition. This potentially reflects the impact of not having full allowance on deterring them from participating but also fails to address the impact on competition of a significant number of entries from players in this handicap bracket. Increasing to full allowance may encourage more high h'caps to enter BUT simultaneously it may overshift the balance of power in their favour.

For me the current analysis has too narrow a focus to be salient

 

[Tiger]

I'd also add that the pyschology of golf has been completely overlooked. We all recognise how important the mental aspect of the game is and it surely becomes even more important in matchplay. I wonder whether there is a pyschological advantage being offered to lower handicaps as a result of a 3/4 cut. And if so what bearing this might have on result. A study establishing individuals state of mind prior to matchplay knockout competition with half playing to 3/4 and half playing to full h/cap and subsequent analysis of results might show an interesting dimension to the debate.

 

[bobmac]

What he said^^^



Whatever it was

 

[MashieNiblick]

Needmoreclub,

According to CONGU a Scottish Golf Union survey covering 4000 handicap singles matches showed that
with 3/4 difference lower handicappers won 61% of matches and higher handicappers won 39%
with full difference lower handcappers won 55% and higher handicappers won 45%

Tiger,

Interesting comments, not my area of experise but in case it helps there is some additional data on the CONGU site about results in other competitions which indicates that these correlate fairly closely to the numbers of different handicap categories competing.

http://www.congu.com/Myth%201.pdf

As I said I see both sides of this. CONGU seems justified in looking at actual results rather than scoring patterns ("outcomes" rather than "inputs" if you like) which I guess should take into account "soft" factors such as psychological state etc.

However I agree that closer analysis would be interesting as it might be a lot of those results occur in matches where there is very little difference between 3/4 and full difference (e.g 8 h/cap vs 12 h/cap) - where it is just enough to even up the match. But what is the effect when a 4 h/cap plays 20 h/cap? Does full allowance give the 20 h/cap too much advantage?

 

[Snelly]

Whilst I agree that Ethan is correct and the argument put forward is sound, I am of the view that full allowance makes for a better game.

My view is based on personal experience. In our society, (Hove Hobblers) of 50 players, we played our annual knockout with 3/4 difference. Up until two years ago, I cannot remember in 11 years, a time when the final was not contested by two single figure golfers. Since 2009, we changed to full allowance and now, anyone can beat anyone else. It is a much more level playing field and the high handicappers are no longer classed as cannon fodder.

This puts me at a disadvantage as my society HC is 3 but I don't mind as I would much rather be challenged to the last few holes in a match that could go either way.

So in summary, I agree with Ethan's argument at a theoretical level but in practice, firmly believe that full allowance makes for a more open matchplay competition and for that reason, believe it is the better approach.

 

[JezzE]

Varied opinion here as I would have expected.

Personally, I don't have strong views either way - every high handicapper has his good day, every low handicapper his bad day, and of course when the two coincide you get the kind of matchplay hammering some have referred to here. But it happens in strokeplay too - five-handicappers shoot 85 and 13-handicappers shoot 81 - but no-one gets so het up about it then.

Equally I accept that a high handicap probably reflects the ability to throw in the odd high number or two which is then diluted down in matchplay, though as murph says this effectively happens in strokeplay too at least for handicap purposes thanks to the net double bogey adjustment, though in strokeplay a couple of 10s on the card will probably stop you winning.

Anyway, does anyone fancy actually arguing it one way or the other in the mag? If so, please drop me an email (jezz_ellwood@ipcmedia.com), even if it's just to say you're happy for any sentiments expressed in this thread to be worked into 250 words.

Many thanks

 

[JezzE]

I now have a taker for the 3/4 side of the debate, so if anyone else fancies the full difference side, please let me know - jezz_ellwood@ipcmedia.com

 

[Redwood]

I'd also add that the pyschology of golf has been completely overlooked. We all recognise how important the mental aspect of the game is and it surely becomes even more important in matchplay. I wonder whether there is a pyschological advantage being offered to lower handicaps as a result of a 3/4 cut. And if so what bearing this might have on result. A study establishing individuals state of mind prior to matchplay knockout competition with half playing to 3/4 and half playing to full h/cap and subsequent analysis of results might show an interesting dimension to the debate.

Yeah, but this is impossible to quantify!!

 

[Tiger]

I'd also add that the pyschology of golf has been completely overlooked. We all recognise how important the mental aspect of the game is and it surely becomes even more important in matchplay. I wonder whether there is a pyschological advantage being offered to lower handicaps as a result of a 3/4 cut. And if so what bearing this might have on result. A study establishing individuals state of mind prior to matchplay knockout competition with half playing to 3/4 and half playing to full h/cap and subsequent analysis of results might show an interesting dimension to the debate.

Yeah, but this is impossible to quantify!!

Why? Take two competitions at different clubs A & B. Before competition ask participants a series of questions about their mental state. These would be questions designed to elicit actual confidence and expectation rather than direct questions about their liklihood of victory. Collect data at the end on their handicap and that of their opponent. Record the match result afterwards. With a sufficient sample you would get an indicative sense of whether the handicap system affected mindset, with a large enough sample significance testing would tell you whether any variations were significant.

 

[Bacardibatman]

Why not compromise and make it 7/8ths. like Stableford used to be.

this^

this^^

and This^^^

it truly isnt rocket science