Great article - and so so true!

[doublebogey7]

Crass?

Reality. Fact. Honesty.

No other sport promotes mediocrity and thinks everyone should have an equal chance regardless of ability.

And what other sport has thousands competing every week for not insubstantial prize pots.

 

[cliveb]

In strokeplay you can lose all your shots and possibly more on one hole.
In matchplay you just lose the hole.
There is a big difference.

In matchplay you can beat me on one hole by many shots but I only lose one hole.
In stroke play I would end up several shots behind you.
There is a big difference.

 

[garyinderry]

I think what some people are getting at is by virtue of match play itself, the shots a higher handicap receives are nicely spaced out on each of the holes potentially allowing him to play stronger in this format as opposed to stoke play for example where he may blow all his shots by the front 9 or on one disastrous hole or two.
The volly of shots coming hole after hole is a powerful weapon.
Its certainly an opinion that players dont need as many shots and they would in stroke play to compete.

 

[Jacko_G]

And what other sport has thousands competing every week for not insubstantial prize pots.

Eh?

 

[backwoodsman]

The short answer overall, is that you either have handicapping or you don't. But there is absolutely no point in giving someone a handicap to "even the field" and then letting them use only a bit of it.

 

[doublebogey7]

Eh?

The point is that without the level playing field that the handicap system successfully provides there would not be the same number of golfers playing competitively. In fact it is very doubtful that the game would have any where near the number of players.

 

[clubchamp98]

In matchplay you can beat me on one hole by many shots but I only lose one hole.
In stroke play I would end up several shots behind you.
There is a big difference.

Pretty sure that’s what I said!

But handicaps are based on strokeplay and most people have at least one or two bad holes.
In matchplay that dosnt really matter as your strokes are evenly spread out and you can’t loose half of them on one or two holes.

 

[clubchamp98]

I always thought the % was to even out that nobody would get more than one shot a hole.
This is what I don’t like now in matchplay when someone can double bogey a hole and get a half to my par.
Or worse they par a hole with two shots so even eagle won’t win me a hole!

A lot of people are under the impression that low cappers play well all the time, they don’t.
I have only ever given two shots a couple of times and it’s really tough to work out what to do.
Do I play aggressively in case he makes par/ bogey or play conservative in case he blows up.?

You can’t please everyone all the time and imo most people’s take on this goes hand in hand with their handicap.
That’s golf.

 

[duncan mackie]

Pretty sure that’s what I said!

But handicaps are based on strokeplay and most people have at least one or two bad holes.
In matchplay that dosnt really matter as your strokes are evenly spread out and you can’t loose half of them on one or two holes.

Case of yes, but...

In matchplay you are playing the opponent so the high handicap disaster hole can certainly matter relative to the low handicap, giving shot(s) if they don't deliver their par!

You argument is entirely valid for a Par/Bogey comp relative to Medal (and to a degree even Stableford) but in matchplay it isn't.

Going back to a previous reference to WHS allowances, you cannot seperate the handicap system from the allowances - they are fundamentally integrated.

Arguably we have only got the issues, associated more with change than absolutes, because of the last fundamental handicap change.

For those to young to remember (probably many!) once upon a time your handicap was based on your best gross score (ultimate illustrated capability). The difference in bell curves (distribution) associated with increasing handicap levels meant that on that basis allowances for competition other than medal play were introduced, and were quite significant. Basically 3/4 in matchplay and 7/8ths in stableford.
The handicap system evolved to a more refined adjusted average (if you think of a graph of any players scores it moved from close to the extreme edge of the curve to about 1/3 from the best side) which we have fundamentally had for a few decades now, allowances were changed to reflect the calculated impact but (in a misguided attempt to avoid wholesale revolt from the lower handicaps) a rolling implementation was planned and implemented. You only have to look at the various 'marketing' documents around why changes were appropriate to see the reality - some of the views are of course continued in this thread!
With the changes in WHS (yes, there are significant changes for everyone including USGA) allowances have been changed, or re-introduced, for everyone. Personally I believe that the retention of the inherent reward for excellence within the handicap calculation routine to remove the need for an allowance in normal stroke play events was a better option...having the default competitive situation (no allowance %) for singles matchplay seems to be more relevant to the situation over 100 years ago (when match play was the core form of the game) rather than a reflection of the modern game - but they must have had their reasons🤔

 

[clubchamp98]

Case of yes, but...

In matchplay you are playing the opponent so the high handicap disaster hole can certainly matter relative to the low handicap, giving shot(s) if they don't deliver their par!

You argument is entirely valid for a Par/Bogey comp relative to Medal (and to a degree even Stableford) but in matchplay it isn't.

Going back to a previous reference to WHS allowances, you cannot seperate the handicap system from the allowances - they are fundamentally integrated.

Arguably we have only got the issues, associated more with change than absolutes, because of the last fundamental handicap change.

For those to young to remember (probably many!) once upon a time your handicap was based on your best gross score (ultimate illustrated capability). The difference in bell curves (distribution) associated with increasing handicap levels meant that on that basis allowances for competition other than medal play were introduced, and were quite significant. Basically 3/4 in matchplay and 7/8ths in stableford.
The handicap system evolved to a more refined adjusted average (if you think of a graph of any players scores it moved from close to the extreme edge of the curve to about 1/3 from the best side) which we have fundamentally had for a few decades now, allowances were changed to reflect the calculated impact but (in a misguided attempt to avoid wholesale revolt from the lower handicaps) a rolling implementation was planned and implemented. You only have to look at the various 'marketing' documents around why changes were appropriate to see the reality - some of the views are of course continued in this thread!
With the changes in WHS (yes, there are significant changes for everyone including USGA) allowances have been changed, or re-introduced, for everyone. Personally I believe that the retention of the inherent reward for excellence within the handicap calculation routine to remove the need for an allowance in normal stroke play events was a better option...having the default competitive situation (no allowance %) for singles matchplay seems to be more relevant to the situation over 100 years ago (when match play was the core form of the game) rather than a reflection of the modern game - but they must have had their reasons🤔

I totally agree but the thing is with stats they can make it look what they like.
My position on matchplay is I love it , but still think peoples opinions ( as in this thread) are based on their cap and experience.
Giving somebody two shots on 10 holes is very difficult ,but only elite golfers would know what that is like and frames their opinion.
Receiving two shots on 10 holes must be great but you are playing a formidable opponent.
The stats tell us it’s fair but golf is played on grass not paper and having a little moan is part of your green fees imo.
Nobody takes any notice anyway.

 

[Swinglowandslow]

The point is that without the level playing field that the handicap system successfully provides there would not be the same number of golfers playing competitively. In fact it is very doubtful that the game would have any where near the number of players.

Yes, that is correct. I've never been really competitive to the point of being concerned about whether the handicap system is "unfair" .
There are clearly two point of view here and both are valid.
In our senior group some years ago, one of us , who had been a very good golfer, was still off 7. He used to say to me that in the comps ( seniors, handicaps) he had to be on top form. He'd say, "I can't afford a mistake if a 20 handicap is playing well."
And someone off 20 or so would play well that day.
But of course, in the scratch competition the rest of us didn't have a prayer.
He was content to enter our weekly handicap comps, but if he had felt strongly about the need to win, he would have realised he was on a hiding to nothing.

To my mind, if you want badly to win, and you are Cat 1, then scratch comps are for you.
I have not played golf competitively other than as a senior, and we are more interested in the social side than winning. Nobody as a senior, where I play, is scratch level so being miffed at inferior golfers besting you isn't a problem.
But I can see why non seniors being low handicap would be miffed if never having a chance against high handicaps- and some are now ridiculously high.
I don't know what happens at any age competitions, but is it the case that Cat 1 youngsters have to play against 30 -40 handicap opponents?
If so, they'd not stand much of a chance.
In my younger day, most non senior competitions seemed to have a handicap limit (18 , 24)? Is it different now?.

Then, again, if the only completions were scratch ones, then there'd be about 3 of our senior members entering.😀

 

[duncan mackie]

I don't know what happens at any age competitions, but is it the case that Cat 1 youngsters have to play against 30 -40 handicap opponents?
If so, they'd not stand much of a chance.

according to the actual results at our club last time i looked, it's the opposite. The lower handicap players dominate results relative to high handicaps.
from time to time a new improving golfer will upset the underlying statistics but that's a completely seperate issue, and shouldn't be confused with steady state data.

we don't even have competition divisions - the cat 1 golfers don't want to compete for a smaller 'pot'!

 

[cliveb]

But handicaps are based on strokeplay and most people have at least one or two bad holes.
In matchplay that dosnt really matter as your strokes are evenly spread out and you can’t loose half of them on one or two holes.

Ok, I think I've finally understood your point.

I'll just note that it's lucky for the elite players that the handicapping system is based on stableford rather than medal scores - it means that the high cappers who routinely have horror holes end up with lower handicaps than they otherwise would.

How do you feel about having to give a modest number of shots to a mid-teens player who rarely gets a triple bogey?

 

[Jacko_G]

Ok, I think I've finally understood your point.

I'll just note that it's lucky for the elite players that the handicapping system is based on stableford rather than medal scores - it means that the high cappers who routinely have horror holes end up with lower handicaps than they otherwise would.

How do you feel about having to give a modest number of shots to a mid-teens player who rarely gets a triple bogey?

Does that only work one way? Do cat 1 golfers not have a bad hole and get effected by the net double bogey? Yes less often but it's a two way street.

Can't wait for this new handicap system to come in so I can put in 7 95's in seven days ahead of any ties I have to play. This new system is going to make bandits even more dangerous.

 

[rulefan]

Can't wait for this new handicap system to come in so I can put in 7 95's in seven days ahead of any ties I have to play. This new system is going to make bandits even more dangerous.

So those 7 scores will form part of your best 8? If by some chance they did, I suspect the soft cap will have an effect.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Does that only work one way? Do cat 1 golfers not have a bad hole and get effected by the net double bogey? Yes less often but it's a two way street.

Can't wait for this new handicap system to come in so I can put in 7 95's in seven days ahead of any ties I have to play. This new system is going to make bandits even more dangerous.

A lot of scaremongering going on tbh

Regardless of whatever system is in place there will always be a very small minority of people that will look to manipulate their handicap to help them win stuff - but the clear majority will always be looking to get their handicap reduced.

I’m glad the majority just go out there and try their best and if they do well they reap the rewards of a handicap cut - but if you begrudge those doing well relative their handicap then maybe it’s more about your bitterness and more worried about others

 

[Jacko_G]

So those 7 scores will form part of your best 8? If by some chance they did, I suspect the soft cap will have an effect.

Do that over a period of 3 weeks your handicap is rising.

In a system where you can shoot a 75 and rise because it knocks out a72 which is currently your 20th round I'd say it's flawed but hey ho the golf authorities the world over say it's the bee's knees.

 

[Jacko_G]

A lot of scaremongering going on tbh

Regardless of whatever system is in place there will always be a very small minority of people that will look to manipulate their handicap to help them win stuff - but the clear majority will always be looking to get their handicap reduced.

I’m glad the majority just go out there and try their best and if they do well they reap the rewards of a handicap cut - but if you begrudge those doing well relative their handicap then maybe it’s more about your bitterness and more worried about others

Where have I begrudged anyone? Again your failure to stick within the bounds of an argument are abundant. I agree 100% that most club golfers want to do well but there is also a large proportion who also like to manipulate their handicap.

 

[rulefan]

according to the actual results at our club last time i looked, it's the opposite. The lower handicap players dominate results relative to high handicaps.

Together with our Comps chair, I have looked at the results of our 8 annual matchplay comps over the last three years. Only 10% were won by the higher handicapper.
Last year, all matches (not comps) were won by the lower h'capper. In the other two years, only 9 matches were won by the higher capper. In all of those the h'cap difference was < 5.
Each KO section was the result of a stroke play eliminator where maximum handicap was limited to 24 for the top 32 to progress to the KO rounds (where full handicap was used as per EG regulation).

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Where have I begrudged anyone? Again your failure to stick within the bounds of an argument are abundant. I agree 100% that most club golfers want to do well but there is also a large proportion who also like to manipulate their handicap.

Large proportion ? Really ? I think it’s actually a very small proportion, a very small minority

As for begrudging others - have a read back through your posts on just one subject and your attitude towards higher handicaps is quite clear.