Handicaps- "Equal" Chance or Winning, Regardless of Ability?

[jim8flog]

I thought the first port of call would be to analyze why high handicappers are going to get an an increase.

e.g. I know one of the worst players in our club, currently 39 is going up to around 45 but it is very much evidence based. He plays in as many comps as he can but during the past couple of years has only bettered his handicap once.

 

[Swango1980]

Why not give gross prizes and net prizes?

But of course, hi cappers winning with good scores will see their handicaps come down and lo caps with poor scores will ultimately go up. Even with 95%, stats show that there is still an advantage to lo cappers. It's called a "bonus for excellence"

It is not really a bonus for excellence.

As discussed on another thread, the 95% likely accounts for the fact that the best 8 scores of 20 a low handicapper will shoot will be much narrower than the best 8 a higher handicapper would shoot. When the average of those is worked out, the higher handicapper can then potentially shoot much lower than their average on their best day compared to a low handicapper, so a low handicapper would rarely stand a chance against a high handicapper on their best days. In a large field, the chances of a lower handicapper diminish, as there are more high handicappers, and therefore higher odds at least one will shoot a great round. So, applying 95% alleviates this imbalance (and interestingly, the WHS Guidelines, but not to be implemented in UK, suggest 95% if the field is over a certain size, but 100% for smaller fields)

So, it is not a bonus for excellence. It is an adjustment to help promote balance the odds for a lower handicapper to win (i'm unsure if this statistically provides perfect balance, or slightly edges it either way). USA historically used 93%.

 

[Swango1980]

I thought the first port of call would be to analyze why high handicappers are going to get an an increase.

e.g. I know one of the worst players in our club, currently 39 is going up to around 45 but it is very much evidence based. He plays in as many comps as he can but during the past couple of years has only bettered his handicap once.

He was unlucky to avoid the Continuous and Annual Reviews

 

[GB72]

It's a valid point. As I said, I want to get my handicap down. I could do out tomorrow and play a supplementary off the yellows, no pressure of competition, shorter course, pick whatever day I want with the most favourable conditions etc. But I won't win anything even if I have the best round of my life.

As it was, I played a few decent rounds in August and September without getting a cut but had a run of 3rd and 4th places with shooting +1 or +2 over CSS. It's not fortunes, but it builds up if you can play 2 comps a week and it is definitely a factor in me not going and playing supplementary too often. Other point being if I'm good enough, I'll be able to do it in competitions and get cut at the same time as building up a fund towards new equipment.

The fact I'm placing without shooting under par suggests that my club doesn't have any sandbaggers, and it's also a good test of golf where you can't nurse a score in after a good front 9.

My view is that, as a starting point, people are less inclined to worry about whether there are handicaps applied or not if they are not putting money in a prize pot and there are no prizes to win. If the prize is simply handicap adjustment and a chance to see how you stack up against the rest of the club on any given day then people would be less concerned about the whole handicap system. As soon as people are paying to enter and there are prizes on offer, people have at least an expectation of being competitive.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

BTW, my personal aim is to get as low as possible. Winning competitions is not really a goal for me anymore. I raised the topic purely based on the sort of things I hear discussed around the club over the years, especially from the "moaners".

But, I thought it an interesting point. In any other sport in which I was to start for the first time, I would accept I'd be fairly rubbish to begin with. But practice practice practice would make me more and more competitive. Of course, in any other sport, it still means the players with less ability would have no chance against those with lots of it. The beauty of golf is that this gulf in ability is taken care off with the handicap system. I am a great lover of this. However, I was just curious as to whether it should be designed to completely cancel out ability (in general terms of course). I understand that the American handicap system used to have a 93% reduction to get to Playing Handicap, and so there seemed to be a touch of a factor there to slightly edge things towards the better players. I just felt it is not necessarily a terrible thing to reward golfers who put more effort into their game to improve, in terms of being competitive with other players

My way of looking at it is that the handicap system should eliminate ability from the equation, and then you succeed or fail in handicap competitions by reference to your performance against your ability (ability being measured by your handicap). Those that practice and improve will have a continual advantage as they get better relative to their historic "ability", as opposed to those that have a static handicap and rely on having a good day - and that's the reward for effort, isn't it? That's how you get an advantage over the rest of the field.

I'm hopeful that this system will actually be fairer because handicaps will adjust quicker (up and down). I'm not fully across how the calculations work, but I'd hope that there is a mechanism that takes into account the greater volatility in scoring that happens with higher handicappers. Maybe the stats show this isn't necessary!

The issue of course, and this is unavoidable in any system, is that it's open to abuse if some want to try and manipulate their handicap so that it doesn't reflect their ability.

 

[jim8flog]

The only scratch comps we hold are The Club Champs on both courses

We have divisions for club comps so not a problem in singles but I do see the problem in pairs and multi-man team comps.

 

[Swango1980]

My way of looking at it is that the handicap system should eliminate ability from the equation, and then you succeed or fail in handicap competitions by reference to your performance against your ability (ability being measured by your handicap). Those that practice and improve will have a continual advantage as they get better relative to their historic "ability", as opposed to those that have a static handicap and rely on having a good day - and that's the reward for effort, isn't it? That's how you get an advantage over the rest of the field.

I'm hopeful that this system will actually be fairer because handicaps will adjust quicker (up and down). I'm not fully across how the calculations work, but I'd hope that there is a mechanism that takes into account the greater volatility in scoring that happens with higher handicappers. Maybe the stats show this isn't necessary!

The issue of course, and this is unavoidable in any system, is that it's open to abuse if some want to try and manipulate their handicap so that it doesn't reflect their ability.

It will certainly allow much more rapid increases to handicap than CONGU

 

[jim8flog]

He was unlucky to avoid the Continuous and Annual Reviews

When 54 came in he was increased from 28 to 40. His one score better than handicap excluded him from a continuous review and some of his scores were not sufficiently bad enough to warrant an increase in the last review. It is the best 8 average that causes the big increase because some in that are around the 50 mark.

 

[Canary_Yellow]

It will certainly allow much more rapid increases to handicap than CONGU

Hmmm....yes, I can see the issue with that!!

Proof of the pudding is in the eating, as they say....lets wait and see how it pans out. I can see the potential of this system.

 

[Grant85]

My view is that, as a starting point, people are less inclined to worry about whether there are handicaps applied or not if they are not putting money in a prize pot and there are no prizes to win. If the prize is simply handicap adjustment and a chance to see how you stack up against the rest of the club on any given day then people would be less concerned about the whole handicap system. As soon as people are paying to enter and there are prizes on offer, people have at least an expectation of being competitive.

True, but the rules and format are there to use to your advantage or not. If you really care about winning then you can take on some high risk shots and bust your score more often, but shoot the lights out every so often.
If you just care about handicap, you don't need to pay the sweep or 2s, but you can still play the comp and have a chance to win.

Ultimately the sweep and 2s prizes effectively allow many clubs to have a pro shop and golf pro, that otherwise would not be a viable business. So it would be throwing the baby out with the bath water to remove these.

 

[Tommy10]

With regard to all of above, I think the order of merit at my club was unfair to lower handicap guys due to the following.....

Div 1 (approx 25 players every comp), Div 2 (approx 40 players per comp), Div 3 (approx 12-15 players per comp)

If you place 1/2/3 in your division you are awarded 10/6/3 points which over the course of the condensed season (14 comps) was rolled up to give final placings, the person at the top winning the order of merit.

I play in Div3 and played every comp, I'm pretty consistent for my level and managed 3 1sts, 1 2nd and 3 3rd places from 14 comps giving me 45 points. It was much easier for me to accrue points than it is for lower guys, in that they get the same points as I do for placing but there are far more people in their division to compete against ,and it's also harder in my opinion for a lower guy to hit handicap than it is for me.

 

[rulefan]

It is not really a bonus for excellence.

As discussed on another thread, the 95% likely accounts for the fact that the best 8 scores of 20 a low handicapper will shoot will be much narrower than the best 8 a higher handicapper would shoot. When the average of those is worked out, the higher handicapper can then potentially shoot much lower than their average on their best day compared to a low handicapper, so a low handicapper would rarely stand a chance against a high handicapper on their best days. In a large field, the chances of a lower handicapper diminish, as there are more high handicappers, and therefore higher odds at least one will shoot a great round. So, applying 95% alleviates this imbalance (and interestingly, the WHS Guidelines, but not to be implemented in UK, suggest 95% if the field is over a certain size, but 100% for smaller fields)

So, it is not a bonus for excellence. It is an adjustment to help promote balance the odds for a lower handicapper to win (i'm unsure if this statistically provides perfect balance, or slightly edges it either way). USA historically used 93%.

The USGA originally called it a 'bonus for excellence'. Prior to WHS, Australia introduced a 96% value and described it similarly. The argument you present above is a good explanation of why the stats arrive at the figures they do. Whatever it is called.
As it was applied in the 'handicap index' calculation both applied to matchplay also. Old and new stats from CONGU, USGA and others show that in matchplay the lower cap beats the higher cap more than 50-55% of the time so the 95% is not applied for the matchplay playing handicap.

 

[Swango1980]

With regard to all of above, I think the order of merit at my club was unfair to lower handicap guys due to the following.....

Div 1 (approx 25 players every comp), Div 2 (approx 40 players per comp), Div 3 (approx 12-15 players per comp)

If you place 1/2/3 in your division you are awarded 10/6/3 points which over the course of the condensed season (14 comps) was rolled up to give final placings, the person at the top winning the order of merit.

I play in Div3 and played every comp, I'm pretty consistent for my level and managed 3 1sts, 1 2nd and 3 3rd places from 14 comps giving me 45 points. It was much easier for me to accrue points than it is for lower guys, in that they get the same points as I do for placing but there are far more people in their division to compete against ,and it's also harder in my opinion for a lower guy to hit handicap than it is for me.

That is a very good point, as we had exactly the same issue a few years ago. We had about 30 people in Div 1, but only 10 or so in Div 2 (when we had 1-18 in Div 1, everyone else in Div 2).

However, there was a setting in Club V1 where you could ensure that order of merit points were based on position of your place in the entire field, even when you were broken up into divisions. So, if a person won Div 2 with Nett 75, they would not beat a guy in Div 1 who finished 10th with a nett 74. That cleared up that issue

 

[Swango1980]

I think the OP is correct. The purpose of handicaps is to spread the prizes around so it's not just those that are good at the game that win. I think that's OK as long as it can be done in a manner that still leaves some illusion of competition. Congu managed that to a certain extent although obviously not perfectly.

When I tee up in the handicap comps I'm really only playing myself and the course. My "prize" is a handicap cut. When I've won courtesy of my handicap it's never felt like an achievement. I genuinely worry as I get older and the handicap starts going up and I lose that goal whether I'll be able to change my mindset and enjoy handicap golf for what it is.

In the meantime, the worry with the numbers we're seeing from WHS so far is that the balance looks to be going even further in favour of high handicaps. That's not going to stop me playing the strokeplay comps but I may opt out of handicap matchplay going forward. (I've already done that for the winter knockouts as it's impossible to play off full normal handicaps on a massively shortened course with ground conditions acting as a further leveller). When the shots given reach a level that you're not even playing the same game it's just not fun any more. In that regard, current (and forthcoming) handicapping fails IMO.

The massive problem is you need handicaps that are fair and that are seen to be fair by golfers at both ends of the spectrum. Congu's requirement to submit 3 cards for handicap a year was farcically low. For WHS to do away with that altogether is just insane.

It would be OK if players submitted all their scores, the handicaps would adjust and some sort of parity might exist. But that's not going to happen and we all know lots who take the money in the rollup, who clean up on the mixed opens circuit, whose team wins most of the club's "fun" events and who seldom turn up in the medal and even more rarely shoot the sort of score you're used to seeing from them. First impression seems to be that situation is going to get worse.

Shortened course over winter is a huge issue for lower handicappers (although this precise point is a little off tangent to the original point I suppose). When we are on winter greens, our course is about 450 yards shorter. I did extremely detailed analysis (bored at work) on what the impact of slope would be on the shortened course. This involved looking at almost 100 courses and the impact of length. Ultimately, it showed that slope would be around 85% the full course slope. Or, another way of putting it, players course handicaps would be 85% of full handicap. Therefore, at my course, if we were on winter greens it shows that competition would be fairer IF handicaps were reduced to 85%. You do make other good points mind, the skill in putting is largely removed, and therefore the advantage in that aspect is lost, in which most low handicappers have over high handicappers.

 

[USER1999]

54 handicaps are mental. What other sport can you take up tomorrow, and be competitive right out of the blocks.
There is zero incentive to get better.
54? So par 72, shoot 126 and you are bang on? It's tosh.
Golf doesn't start until you can break 100.

 

[Slab]

54 handicaps are mental. What other sport can you take up tomorrow, and be competitive right out of the blocks.
There is zero incentive to get better.
54? So par 72, shoot 126 and you are bang on? It's tosh.
Golf doesn't start until you can break 100.

 

[Swango1980]

54 handicaps are mental. What other sport can you take up tomorrow, and be competitive right out of the blocks.
There is zero incentive to get better.
54? So par 72, shoot 126 and you are bang on? It's tosh.
Golf doesn't start until you can break 100.

54 will only be the INDEX. If that player went played at my club, with a fairly typical slop of 133, they have a COURSE handicap of 64. If they played a course with a high slop of 150, they'd play off 72.

Gross 140, nett 68. Happy days. Well done to the scratch player however for shooting a gross 69

 

[IanM]

54 will only be the INDEX. If that player went played at my club, with a fairly typical slop of 133, they have a COURSE handicap of 64. If they played a course with a high slop of 150, they'd play off 72.

....................only if the tables go that high!!

54 handicaps are mental. What other sport can you take up tomorrow, and be competitive right out of the blocks.
There is zero incentive to get better.
54? So par 72, shoot 126 and you are bang on? It's tosh.
Golf doesn't start until you can break 100.

1. That's a relative thought... some players would say it doesn't start till you break 90, or is it 80, or 75?....etc
2. I'd say folk not laughing/gasping/crying, when you say your handicap is 54, is a pretty huge incentive to get better!
3. It's an imperfect system, but its perfect-enough, until folk cheat to win golf bags and trips to the Algarve!

 

[rulefan]

One advantage of WHS is that for fairly regular players it reflects relatively recent play whereas the 0.1 (regardless of just how bad) could take ages to reflect current ability.
How many seniors have handicaps that really reflect their performance when middle aged?

 

[BubbaP]

I would be interested to see how memberships responded if you removed all incentives from competitions except bragging rights and handicap adjustments (except for major comps where there is already silverware). Would you get as many entries if you took away the reward of pro shop vouchers etc for winning. You would almost certainly see who was being 100% honest when they say that their only aim is get the handicap as low as possible.

I'd likely be up for that, comp entry fees has felt like a "membership tax" this year ??