Handicap allowance in matchplay

[Birdman]

Hi All
This the 1st time on this forum and have had a great read.
My topic for comments is the one of Full handicap allowance in matchplay singles for 2010 as opposed to 3/4 in 2009. It has been debated on occassions at my club and I would be interested to read any comments put forward. At my club the guys that are in favour are all high handicappers that would receive more shots.
Thanks
Roger

 

[chrisd]

Hi and welcome!

I know that CONGU in proposing the chage said that statistics showed that even with full handicap allowance most singles matchplay comps would be won by the lower handicappers who enter. But that the higher h/c player who would normally crash out early in the comp, would get further and make it fairer.

Not sure whether the statistics have proven there argument or not but I know at my club a number of lower h/cappers dont enter the comps now but insisted in having a scratch knockout to play in!


Chris

 

[Smiffy]

At my club the guys that are in favour are all high handicappers that would receive more shots.

You surprise me

 

[Imurg]

My problem with full handicap allowance is highlighted by playing Fragger.
Off 22 he gets 14 shots from me. Ok I'm 14 shots better than him so no foul there. But.......
His 22 comes from parring 4-5 holes and doubling the rest with a few bogeys thrown in. We had a matchplay a few weeks back. Around the turn (8-10) I parred all 3 holes - 2 x3's and a longish 4 - trouble is so did Fragger. From being 2 up I was now 1 down having parred 3 holes. Having to birdie for a half is not easy as I'm more of a par machine than a Birdiemeister.

 

[bobmac]

Compared to say a cat I player, a 25 h/capper will be more inconsistent.
6 pars, 5 bogeys 4 doubles and 3 triples.
Now in matchplay, a triple versus a par is only 1 hole won whereas in medal its 3 shots difference.
That is why there used to be and should still be 3/4 h/cap in singles match play.
I played a match this year which I lost on the last green under the new rules.
Had we played the same match last year, I would have won comfortably. I'm not bitter

 

[Smiffy]

I played a match this year which I lost on the last green under the new rules.
Had we played the same match last year, I would have won comfortably. I'm not bitter

I think you actually "lost" it on the 17th Bob.
A half on the last from the better player on the day actually secured the win.
Don't fret too much.
You will get over it

 

[bobmac]

I played a match this year which I lost on the last green under the new rules.
Had we played the same match last year, I would have won comfortably. I'm not bitter

I think you actually "lost" it on the 17th Bob.
A half on the last from the better player on the day actually secured the win.
Don't fret too much.
You will get over it

It wasn't your match.
It was against someone else completely at a different golf course in a different country.
Honest

 

[MashieNiblick]

Quite a bit of discussion at our place too and I was sceptical on the basis that, as someone else said, higher h/cappers use up shots on doubles and triples which don't affect a match as much as a medal score.

However just had a look here to see what EGU say

http://www.englishgolfunion.org/showpage.asp?code=0001000200090008

and I'm a bit more convinced. It seems there are 2 main arguments.

First, lower h/cappers are more consistent than higher handicappers so their average scores are closer to their handicaps. This means the real difference in how they are likely to play is more than their handicaps would indicate (4-5 shots more in a case of a cat.1 vs a cat.4 player).

Secondly, higher h/cappers don't make use of all their strokes. Those doubles and triples mean they lose holes on which they get a stroke, so they waste them.

Makes a bit more sense now.

 

[Fyldewhite]

This is CONGU's reasoning......

http://www.congu.com/faqDetail2.asp?id=174

This actually came in for 2008. Since then there has obviously been a leveling out but at our club the highest handicapper to win our singles in the last 3 years was off 12. One thing I would say is that there seems to be many many more games going down the first for a play off than there used to be. Isn't that the way it should be ??

 

[Smiffy]

It wasn't your match.
It was against someone else completely. Honest

Apologies for the assumption then Bob.
It was only because you kept on about it in the bar afterwards I thought you were talking about Forest Pines
xxx

 

[Ethan]

Quite a bit of discussion at our place too and I was sceptical on the basis that, as someone else said, higher h/cappers use up shots on doubles and triples which don't affect a match as much as a medal score.

However just had a look here to see what EGU say

http://www.englishgolfunion.org/showpage.asp?code=0001000200090008

and I'm a bit more convinced. It seems there are 2 main arguments.

First, lower h/cappers are more consistent than higher handicappers so their average scores are closer to their handicaps. This means the real difference in how they are likely to play is more than their handicaps would indicate (4-5 shots more in a case of a cat.1 vs a cat.4 player).

Secondly, higher h/cappers don't make use of all their strokes. Those doubles and triples mean they lose holes on which they get a stroke, so they waste them.

Makes a bit more sense now.

Both arguments make sense. You can consider the handicap as reflecting a score a bit better than average for the player, say the 20th or 25th centile score. This is not the typical (median) score, however, which is the 50th centile score, but for a lower handicapper, the difference between the 25th and 50th centile will be less than for a higher handicapper, because the distribution of scores is likely to be narrower and by definition will be grouped around a lower point.

In this explanation, the EGU uses consistent but in statistical terms, that means the distribution of scores is not as skewed as for a higher handicapper.

 

[Smiffy]

Both arguments make sense. You can consider the handicap as reflecting a score a bit better than average for the player, say the 20th or 25th centile score. This is not the typical (median) score, however, which is the 50th centile score, but for a lower handicapper, the difference between the 25th and 50th centile will be less than for a higher handicapper, because the distribution of scores is likely to be narrower and by definition will be grouped around a lower point.

That's just what I was thinking. You got in just before me with the post

 

[JustOne]

Both arguments make sense. You can consider the handicap as reflecting a score a bit better than average for the player, say the 20th or 25th centile score. This is not the typical (median) score, however, which is the 50th centile score, but for a lower handicapper, the difference between the 25th and 50th centile will be less than for a higher handicapper, because the distribution of scores is likely to be narrower and by definition will be grouped around a lower point.

That's just what I was thinking. You got in just before me with the post

Me too!........ (what's a centile?)

 

[Smiffy]

Me too!........ (what's a centile?)

Aren't they something to do with religion? God and going out into the wilderness and all that?

 

[jammydodger]

Obviously as a cat 1 player i'd like it to go back to full h/c allowance. But , I won this years matchplay having beaten 7 guys along the way of which the lowest was 10 and the highest was 17 with the rest spread between. Thats an awful lot of shots to give away but only one match went to the last hole.

My point is that in the majority of these games I didnt shoot the lights out but just played nice consistent golf around my h/c. My opponents would blow up 2 or 3 holes in a row to gift me holes whereas I would force them to par nett birdie to win or half.

Last year an 8 h/c won too so in our club either it doesnt matter that its gone to full allowance or the higher h/cs are pooh or just get intimidated by the lower h/c player and take on risky shots instead of using the strokes wisely.

 

[Ethan]

Centiles should be familiar to anyone with kids. They are used to compare kids' weights and heights to the general population, but you can use them to examine the characteristics of any set of data.

If you arrange all your scores from lowest to highest, the 50th centile is the measure in the middle, so it has 50% of other scores higher and 50% lower than it. The 25th centile is the score which has 25% of scores lower and 75% higher. This is therefore a score you would shoot roughly 1 in 4 times.

 

[JustOne]

Centiles should be familiar to anyone with kids. They are used to compare kids' weights and heights to the general population, but you can use them to examine the characteristics of any set of data.

If you arrange all your scores from lowest to highest, the 50th centile is the measure in the middle, so it has 50% of other scores higher and 50% lower than it. The 25th centile is the score which has 25% of scores lower and 75% higher. This is therefore a score you would shoot roughly 1 in 4 times.

Ethan, we were JOKING. Both of us know what centiles are.


Smiffy prefers them to TopFlite and I got some from B&Q for the kitchen walls.

 

[JustOne]

We had a matchplay a few weeks back. Around the turn (8-10) I parred all 3 holes - 2 x3's and a longish 4 - trouble is so did Fragger. From being 2 up I was now 1 down having parred 3 holes. Having to birdie for a half is not easy as I'm more of a par machine than a Birdiemeister.

In matchplay you really have to forget about both your strokeplay score and par and just try to beat (at least match) the score the other guy gets.

If you are a par machine then there's no shame in making 18 of them

 

[Ethan]

Centiles should be familiar to anyone with kids. They are used to compare kids' weights and heights to the general population, but you can use them to examine the characteristics of any set of data.

If you arrange all your scores from lowest to highest, the 50th centile is the measure in the middle, so it has 50% of other scores higher and 50% lower than it. The 25th centile is the score which has 25% of scores lower and 75% higher. This is therefore a score you would shoot roughly 1 in 4 times.

Ethan, we were JOKING. Both of us know what centiles are.


Smiffy prefers them to TopFlite and I got some from B&Q for the kitchen walls.

You never know. After our first was born, the health visitor explained to my wife and I what they were. We then had to explain to the HV what they really were.

 

[bobmac]

It wasn't your match.
It was against someone else completely. Honest

Apologies for the assumption then Bob.
It was only because you kept on about it in the bar afterwards I thought you were talking about Forest Pines
xxx

What if it was?

I have a feeling there'll be another time, another place and the right result.