Handicap Adjustment... what would you expect a handicap secretary to do (if anything)

[Swango1980]

Why build in an advantage to the 'better' player for a handicap competition? The whole point of handicaps is to equalise all players' chances. Why would anyone want to enter a biased event?
Anyway its going soon.

CONGU (where there is no adjustment) has already shown that a lower capper will beat a higher 55% of the time in matchplay and that all cappers win stroke play events in proportion to the numbers of each category in the field

In any other sport I can think of outside golf, people enter events all the time that will naturally be biased towards the best players, as handicaps are not used.

I certainly agree that golf is great, as it gives people of all abilities to compete much more closely together. But, if there was a slight bias towards the better players, that may appease those arguments. For example, in four ball competitions, I still hear loads of bickering and moaning that it is now 90% the difference, not 75%.

I'm fully aware that CONGU / handicap authorities have done all the research and so on, and I fully respect their recommendations as they come along. This is only my opinion, where I don't think it would be a disaster if better players were at a "slight" advantage. After all, you've already said that under the current system a lower handicapper will win 55% of the time in match play, and a higher proportion in stroke play. If this really is the case, then surely to take bias out of it, we should really be giving higher handicappers an extra shot or 2? Otherwise, as it stands, all golfers are entering a biased event.

 

[duncan mackie]

In any other sport I can think of outside golf, people enter events all the time that will naturally be biased towards the best players, as handicaps are not used.

I certainly agree that golf is great, as it gives people of all abilities to compete much more closely together. But, if there was a slight bias towards the better players, that may appease those arguments. For example, in four ball competitions, I still hear loads of bickering and moaning that it is now 90% the difference, not 75%.

I'm fully aware that CONGU / handicap authorities have done all the research and so on, and I fully respect their recommendations as they come along. This is only my opinion, where I don't think it would be a disaster if better players were at a "slight" advantage. After all, you've already said that under the current system a lower handicapper will win 55% of the time in match play, and a higher proportion in stroke play. If this really is the case, then surely to take bias out of it, we should really be giving higher handicappers an extra shot or 2? Otherwise, as it stands, all golfers are entering a biased event.

We have a lot of 4BBB match stats from IG, and there is still a clear correlation of handicap and results at 90%.
The underlying issue remains the expectation of the lower handicap golfers, especially the very low, and their right to win.

 

[Grant85]

In any other sport I can think of outside golf, people enter events all the time that will naturally be biased towards the best players, as handicaps are not used.

I certainly agree that golf is great, as it gives people of all abilities to compete much more closely together. But, if there was a slight bias towards the better players, that may appease those arguments. For example, in four ball competitions, I still hear loads of bickering and moaning that it is now 90% the difference, not 75%.

I'm fully aware that CONGU / handicap authorities have done all the research and so on, and I fully respect their recommendations as they come along. This is only my opinion, where I don't think it would be a disaster if better players were at a "slight" advantage. After all, you've already said that under the current system a lower handicapper will win 55% of the time in match play, and a higher proportion in stroke play. If this really is the case, then surely to take bias out of it, we should really be giving higher handicappers an extra shot or 2? Otherwise, as it stands, all golfers are entering a biased event.

It's an imperfect system, but it's better than most other sports where you would always have to find players of a similar standard to play against to have a decent game.

I also think the course matters a lot. If you say that current competitions are biased towards higher handicappers, I'd suggest that's because most members clubs are set up reasonably easy and most are relatively short by current standards. So plenty of scope for a higher handicapper to have a decent day, not get punished for the few wayward shots he does hit, and end up posting a score that most low guys can't get near.

If you were to take stats from longer / championship courses I'd reckon that would tilt the balance quite a bit in favour of lower handicap players. Even assuming that's the courses where people have 'earned' their handicaps on.

I'd certainly be much happier getting my 19 shots round a short 5,800 yard members course v a scratch player. But put us out at Carnoustie or Wentworth stretched out to 7,000 and likely I'd need all my shots, and then some.

 

[Swango1980]

We have a lot of 4BBB match stats from IG, and there is still a clear correlation of handicap and results at 90%.
The underlying issue remains the expectation of the lower handicap golfers, especially the very low, and their right to win.

Indeed. And I'm only playing devil's advocate here. I am constantly defending the right of the higher handicappers right to win when lower handicap players complain when they do win (e.g. all Majors should be stroke play, all comps should have a handicap limit, in winter should always play 75% handicap, etc. etc). Yet, when you look at the stats just from our club, there is no evidence that higher handicappers have a clear advantage.

So, the angle I'm coming from is that, if lower handicappers already had a slightly better advantage (as they do now), that would help appease them. And, I don't think higher handicappers are ever too disappointed in the handicap system when they just miss out in winning a comp when beaten by a player with a much lower handicap. I mean, they would naturally be disappointed in not winning, like anyone, but won't start moaning about the unfairness in the handicapping system.

 

[Swango1980]

It's an imperfect system, but it's better than most other sports where you would always have to find players of a similar standard to play against to have a decent game.

I also think the course matters a lot. If you say that current competitions are biased towards higher handicappers, I'd suggest that's because most members clubs are set up reasonably easy and most are relatively short by current standards. So plenty of scope for a higher handicapper to have a decent day, not get punished for the few wayward shots he does hit, and end up posting a score that most low guys can't get near.

If you were to take stats from longer / championship courses I'd reckon that would tilt the balance quite a bit in favour of lower handicap players. Even assuming that's the courses where people have 'earned' their handicaps on.

I'd certainly be much happier getting my 19 shots round a short 5,800 yard members course v a scratch player. But put us out at Carnoustie or Wentworth stretched out to 7,000 and likely I'd need all my shots, and then some.

I didn't say that competitions are biased towards higher handicappers. Or, if I did, it was a typo

 

[woofers]

I guess if you just think about it for a minute.... if you're in buffer does your H/cap change??.... No!!..... There for you've just played to it..... dangerous or not... that's the situation.

Thank you, I know that, you know that...but I have played with a lot of people who seem to think that “playing to your handicap“ means scoring net par in medal or 36 points in Stableford.
I was only seeking clarification, not trying to make a point.

 

[Colin L]

That 0.93 caught my attention also. As I recall, the "excellence" factor has been totally eliminated.

It has.

 

[rulefan]

and a higher proportion in stroke play.

I didn't actually say that.
From CONGU
When the distribution of winners by handicap category is related to their representation in the field, all handicap categories win in reasonable proportion to their entry i.e. Category 1 and Category 3 players typically comprise 8% and 40% of a club competition and in a ‘single class’ competition win 10% and 38% of the time.
This would suggest that handicapping is acceptably fair and equitable throughout the handicap range.

 

[2blue]

Thank you, I know that, you know that...but I have played with a lot of people who seem to think that “playing to your handicap“ means scoring net par in medal or 36 points in Stableford.
I was only seeking clarification, not trying to make a point.

Yes there's lots that believe that they've got to make 36pts to play to their H/cap..... get a bit of a shock when it's clarified for them.

 

[cliveb]

The best 8 out of your 20 most recent desloped Score Differentials will be averaged. Score Differential is the difference between your gross score (adjusted to a maximum of a net double bogey at any hole) and the Course Rating.

Is that really how the handicap index is calculated - using the *gross* differentials (ie. gross score - CR)?
Because if it is, then I'm having difficulty figuring out how that makes sense.
I know that what follows can be considered slightly contrived, but bear with me...

Suppose we have two courses, A & B, both with a CR of 70.
Course A is easy for the bogey golfer, with a BR of 85 (giving a slope rating of 81).
Course B is hard for bogey golfers, with a BR of 95 (giving a slope rating of 135).
Now suppose player X always shoot 90 around course A.
Meanwhile player Y always shoots 90 around course B.
It is clear that Y is a better player than X, and yet they both get a handicap index of 20.
So (apart from averaging rather than ratcheting) it's fundamentally no different than the current system based on differential from SSS.
But I thought one of the core goals of the WHS is to make handicaps portable, and I don't see how this changes anything.
Isn't that the whole point of having a bogey rating - but it seems it's not being used to calculate handicap indexes?

I must be missing something.

 

[rulefan]

Edit: Just spotted that you said they both have an index of 20. They couldn't have if they both had played 20+ rounds of 90.

I think Colin simplified the formula to make his case.
The Stroke Differential is calculated after 'de-sloping' as (113 / Slope Rating) * (Gross Score - Course Rating - Playing Conditions Calculation)

If they both played 20 rounds of 90 on their 'own course' their indices would be:
For X (113 / 81) * (90 -70) = 27.9
For Y (113 / 135) * (90 -70) = 16.7

 

[Swango1980]

Is that really how the handicap index is calculated - using the *gross* differentials (ie. gross score - CR)?
Because if it is, then I'm having difficulty figuring out how that makes sense.
I know that what follows can be considered slightly contrived, but bear with me...

Suppose we have two courses, A & B, both with a CR of 70.
Course A is easy for the bogey golfer, with a BR of 85 (giving a slope rating of 81).
Course B is hard for bogey golfers, with a BR of 95 (giving a slope rating of 135).
Now suppose player X always shoot 90 around course A.
Meanwhile player Y always shoots 90 around course B.
It is clear that Y is a better player than X, and yet they both get a handicap index of 20.
So (apart from averaging rather than ratcheting) it's fundamentally no different than the current system based on differential from SSS.
But I thought one of the core goals of the WHS is to make handicaps portable, and I don't see how this changes anything.
Isn't that the whole point of having a bogey rating - but it seems it's not being used to calculate handicap indexes?

I must be missing something.

But, if they both had a handicap Index of 20, would player B not have a higher playing handicap because he is playing at the course with the higher slop rating? If so, his nett score would surely be lower than Player A, which would indicate they playerd better on the day?

Also, if their handicap index is 20, it would be clear Player B had a better round than Player A on the day. If they both played off scratch, would both players have had a similar round, as the CR is 70 for both?

 

[cliveb]

I think Colin simplified the formula in his case.
The Stroke Differential is calculated after 'de-sloping' as (113 / Slope Rating) * (Gross Score - Course Rating - Playing Conditions Calculation)

Ah, thank you. It was the "de-sloping" aspect of it that I missed.
In my (contrived) example, player X would get a HCP index of 28, while player Y would get 17. Makes more sense now!

 

[Colin L]

I'm not surprised you missed it. The term Score Differential by definition means the de-sloped difference between your gross adjusted score and the course rating as rule fan has explained. I did say "The best 8 out of your 20 most recent desloped Score Differentials will be averaged" but didn't explain what that meant.

A difficulty with all of this is the way an explanation of one thing can necessitate an explanation of something else, then something further and before you know it you've reproduced the rule book!

 

[cliveb]

I'm not surprised you missed it. The term Score Differential by definition means the de-sloped difference between your gross adjusted score and the course rating as rule fan has explained. I did say "The best 8 out of your 20 most recent desloped Score Differentials will be averaged" but didn't explain what that meant.

A difficulty with all of this is the way an explanation of one thing can necessitate an explanation of something else, then something further and before you know it you've reproduced the rule book!

Yes, thanks to you and rulefan it is now clear to me how it works and makes perfect sense.

My apologies for missing the crucial term "de-sloped". I should have spotted that and researched what it meant.

But once again this rules forum has served its purpose well - to educate us on matters we don't understand.

 

[rulefan]

Ah, thank you. It was the "de-sloping" aspect of it that I missed.
In my (contrived) example, player X would get a HCP index of 28, while player Y would get 17. Makes more sense now!

Not quite. A Handicap Index is to 1 dec place. In this case 27.9 & 16.7.

 

[cliveb]

Not quite. A Handicap Index is to 1 dec place. In this case 27.9 & 16.7.

Yep, agreed. I actually realised that soon after I posted, but forgot to edit.

 

[IanMcC]

I suspect you were overcapped when you put the 3 cards in. But given the cuts you've already had I don't see a real justification for doing anything now.
As others have suggested, I would wait for the Annual Review.

But you'll get a new handicap in November next year anyway.

Will M&H Secretaries still perform an Annual Review under WHS? Apart from illnesses and injuries, surely all adjustments are captured by the best 8 differential system anyway.

 

[Swango1980]

Will M&H Secretaries still perform an Annual Review under WHS? Apart from illnesses and injuries, surely all adjustments are captured by the best 8 differential system anyway.

Would they still not be required. After all, players still don't submit any of their match play, team events and social rounds (unless supplementary), same as now.

I guess, in terms of declining players, their handicap will go up quicker with WHS? However, if a player all of a sudden gets much better and starts to rapidly improve, will their handicap fall as quickly as it would now, or could it take some time for the average of the best 8 to gradually fall?

 

[rulie]

FWIW, this is a view of my handicap index history over this year, recognizing that it used the 10 best of the last 20 score differentials. Using the best 8, imo, will lower the index and make it change a little quicker, plus there are the soft caps and hard caps that will be included in WHS.