Handicap Allowances In Team Formats

[Mozza14]

We all know about the change of handicap allowance for 4BB from 75% to 90%.

Our Club like many others play formats such as 2 from 4 (Am/Am) or 2 from 3 Alliances. Congu have not prescribed any rules for this. Until now, 75% was used for both of these formats.

What is the fairest allowance to be used for these formats?

My own view is that 75% is still the best option as selective scoring from a team of 4, on a hole by hole basis, unduly favours the higher handicaps.

Does your view change if the format is played as a Stableford ? Do white tees affect your thoughts?

Thanks.

 

[rulefan]

My own view is that 75% is still the best option as selective scoring from a team of 4, on a hole by hole basis, unduly favours the higher handicaps.

Have you any evidence to support that?

 

[Mozza14]

Have you any evidence to support that?

Only my observational evidence. Choosing the two best scores out of four players, allows a combination effect where the greater variabilty of performance of a high handicapper maximises their potential. If they have two shots on a hole and play their best golf they can score 3, 4 or even 5 stableford points. Their inevitable downside holes are potentially covered by the other three players. I would have thought the greater the number of players, that cushioning effect allows greater potential. For a low handicapper to shoot four points they essentially have to eagle the hole.

If 90% i.e a 10% deduction, is correct for 4BB and supported by evidence to allow for this combination effect, then doesn't it follow that even more selection gives rise to a larger deduction?

Do I take it you think 90% is correct for an Am/Am and why?

 

[Colin L]

Mozza, I have to say I would go with CONGU’s analysis of over 18,000 rounds over one player’s observational evidence. The conclusion from the study was that 75% was not sufficient for the high handicapper, 100% was too much and that 7/8 (87.5%) was right. For the sake of ease of calculation it was decided to “round up” to 90%.
.

 

[Mozza14]

Mozza, I have to say I would go with CONGU’s analysis of over 18,000 rounds over one player’s observational evidence. The conclusion from the study was that 75% was not sufficient for the high handicapper, 100% was too much and that 7/8 (87.5%) was right. For the sake of ease of calculation it was decided to “round up” to 90%.
.

With respect, CONGU's analysis related only to Fourball Better Ball. i.e. best ball from two players.

The lack of any study into these other popular team formats leads to my question.

2 from 4 isn't anywhere near the same format at all as that changed for 4BB.

 

[rulefan]

Do I take it you think 90% is correct for an Am/Am and why?

I don't know what is the correct figure. But 75% was 'correct' for 4BBB and has now been reconsidered. Who is to say that 75% was or is correct for am/am, 2 from 4 or 3 from 4.
My social group of 80+ (usually turning out 25-40 on any given day) have played full handicap for over 20 years for 3 from 3 or 3 from 4 format, without anyone questioning it . No stats to prove it, it just seems to turn out right.

 

[Mozza14]

I don't know what is the correct figure. But 75% was 'correct' for 4BBB and has now been reconsidered. Who is to say that 75% was or is correct for am/am, 2 from 4 or 3 from 4.
My social group of 80+ (usually turning out 25-40 on any given day) have played full handicap for over 20 years for 3 from 3 or 3 from 4 format, without anyone questioning it . No stats to prove it, it just seems to turn out right.

Thank you for your input.

I can see that in a 3 from 3 or a 3 from 4 that full handicap would work. 3 from 3 is effectively three single scores being aggregated. 100% must be the right answer for that. 3 from 4 is still a demanding format where all the players have to be in the game over the full round.

Quite a lot of Senior Opens and also other Team Opens seem to be based on 2 from 4 (AM/AM) because it is a much easier and relaxing format which attract a lot of Senior Golfers.

It's actually quite a bizarre format when you think about it.

 

[rulefan]

It's probably faster also.