Match play rules.

[sweatysock41]

To my way of thinking if a handicap match ends up tied after 18 then the handicaps to even the chances for both players have been proved to be correct. In a perfect world if we all played to our handicap the nett scores at the end of a round would all be the same after all. If the competition states that extra holes should decide the outcome then the same handicaps should be applied.

To say this shouldn't happen is to reject handicap calculations for individuals completely irrespective of them being high or low.

 

[jammydodger]

A couple of years ago I won our clubs h/c matchplay off 4. Our first hole was SI 6 but it was only about 330 yards and wasnt particularly difficult if you got a half decent tee shot away. Each round that year I had to give a shot away on that first hole and most times I lost it even with par. I used to dread the match going to extra holes for the obvious reason , however thankfully it never transpired that I needed extra time. It never occured to me though to think that I shouldnt have had to give shots on extra holes. Why wouldnt you if its a h/c comp ? You know the rules when signing in and paying your entry fee so get on with it or dont enter. As has been said plenty of low h/c players dont enter the h/c knockouts and thats fine.

You make a pretty lame case and make yourself look a little mean spirited with your argument. The comp is what it is and you cant manufacturer it to suit your ego about losing to a player with a higher h/c than yourself.

 

[splashtryagain]

This is just daft.
Do you enter these comps? I would suggest you stop. I try and enter all the comps I can and just get on with it, you know what you are getting into! Incidentely I don't practice either!
Have you ever voiced this belief of no more shots in an extended match? Personally you would annoy the hell out of me for holding this belief (only holding the belief, not you personally), as it is what appears to be wrong with most eliteist we are better than you/only play with each other cat 1s.
The practice = quality player argument is not totally correct (nor incorrect I should add). I know plenty of peeps who practice like a beast and get no where and those who can just 'do' sport and without one iota of practice get to cat 1! But this is nature / nurture and not for here.

 

[doublebogey7]

But we digress from the original argument.

In my mind, an 18 hole match is played over 18 holes and the handicap difference applies over 18 holes, not over however many holes it takes to settle the match.

If other people see it differently then fine, that is up to them but whatever arguments they put forward, it won't change my point of view. That is my final word on the subject.

There seems little point to me in expressing your views if you won't at least listen to others.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

I have listened to other views, I just dont happen to agree with them. Just like other people dont agree with my views.

 

[rosecott]

But we digress from the original argument.

In my mind, an 18 hole match is played over 18 holes and the handicap difference applies over 18 holes, not over however many holes it takes to settle the match.

If other people see it differently then fine, that is up to them but whatever arguments they put forward, it won't change my point of view. That is my final word on the subject.

I have listened to other views, I just dont happen to agree with them. Just like other people dont agree with my views.

Are you sure you have nothing else to add? I think we all know your opinion.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

Are you sure you have nothing else to add? I think we all know your opinion.

OK, just for you rosecott I'll add one last comment.

Hypothetical match between a scratch player and an 18 handicapper in an 18 hole knockout match.........

Matches are now played over full allowance so the 18 hcp gets a shot a hole. At the end of the match it is all square so they carry on to extra holes. The 18 hcp wins the match on the 2nd extra hole. The 18hcp has received 20 shots.

If you think that is fair then that is fine, it just so happens that I don't.

That is the last thing I have to say on this thread.

 

[Imurg]

OK, just for you rosecott I'll add one last comment.

Hypothetical match between a scratch player and an 18 handicapper in an 18 hole knockout match.........

Matches are now played over full allowance so the 18 hcp gets a shot a hole. At the end of the match it is all square so they carry on to extra holes. The 18 hcp wins the match on the 2nd extra hole. The 18hcp has received 20 shots.

If you think that is fair then that is fine, it just so happens that I don't.

Over 20 holes....

A Match lasts as many holes as it takes someone to win.
If the Scratch player had won 5&4 then the 18'er hasn't received all their shots - is that fair?

Who said Golf was supposed to be fair?
I disagree with CSS - that ain't gonna change anytime soon.
Nor is this rule.

Time to get over it.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Over 20 holes....

A Match lasts as many holes as it takes someone to win.
If the Scratch player had won 5&4 then the 18'er hasn't received all their shots - is that fair?

Who said Golf was supposed to be fair?

Spot on

 

[Parless State]

OK, just for you rosecott I'll add one last comment.

Hypothetical match between a scratch player and an 18 handicapper in an 18 hole knockout match.........

Matches are now played over full allowance so the 18 hcp gets a shot a hole. At the end of the match it is all square so they carry on to extra holes. The 18 hcp wins the match on the 2nd extra hole. The 18hcp has received 20 shots.

If you think that is fair then that is fine, it just so happens that I don't.

That is the last thing I have to say on this thread.

This is nearly a good argument for your case, it's just a bad example.

A better example is when a scratch player is against a 4-handicapper. The 4 hcp receives shots on roughly 22% of holes over the full round. At the second play-off hole he receives a shot. He has now received a shot on 5 out of 20 holes, or 25%. If he wins this hole, the scratch player has no comeback, unlike over the initial full round. So the 4 hcp has effectively received more shots in total than his handicap warranted (almost 5 shots per 18 holes).

This effect is greater or lesser depending on the handicaps involved and the SI layout of the course.

Congu would no doubt say that the lower handicap has a slight advantage over the initial 18 holes anyway, so the higher handicapper has in effect earned this advantage in the play-off.

Personally I think I agree with you. In most sports, if you're not good enough then you don't get to play, let alone win, and nobody think that's unfair...

Obviously it's a good thing that the handicapping system exists to allow large numbers of people to play golf semi-seriously, but seeing the worse player winning, in matchplay in particular, never really sits that easily with me, so I'd rather the advantage was skewed a little further towards the better player. (And yes, that's whether it happens to benefit me on the day or not).

 

[Parless State]

Over 20 holes....

A Match lasts as many holes as it takes someone to win.
If the Scratch player had won 5&4 then the 18'er hasn't received all their shots - is that fair?

Of course they have - they've received one shot per hole, which is what they're supposed to get.

 

[Imurg]

Over 20 holes....

A Match lasts as many holes as it takes someone to win.

If the Scratch player had won 5&4 then the 18'er hasn't received all their shots - is that fair?

.

Of course they have - they've received one shot per hole, which is what they're supposed to get.

No they haven't....
They haven't played 18 holes.

The OP complains about a high handicapper getting extra shots on extra holes.
In a 5&4 loss the bigh handicapper has only received 14 shots.....

Same principle.....

 

[pbrown7582]

I think tha ratioed example s a better argument if you are for the OP stance the shot a hole example is ideal for the argument against whether you play 14, 18 or 20 hes the 18 h.cap against act each had received the correct number of shots.
This is obviously something congu tr to ease when recommended SI be in position around the course at certain points and nt on the level of difficulty of the hole as we mostly think.

 

[Foxholer]

Hypothetical match between a scratch player and an 18 handicapper in an 18 hole knockout match.........

Matches are now played over full allowance so the 18 hcp gets a shot a hole. At the end of the match it is all square so they carry on to extra holes. The 18 hcp wins the match on the 2nd extra hole. The 18hcp has received 20 shots.

If you think that is fair then that is fine, it just so happens that I don't.

That is the last thing I have to say on this thread.

Matches are played 'Hole by hole' - in fact, I believe a Scottish term for Matchplay is 'hole-on-hole' - so the allocation of shots against holes is entirely appropriate. And it doesn't matter whether a hole is won by a single shot or loads either. Anything else is hybridising Stroke-play into the match - though that's just about how handicaps work. The method of allocating the strokes can be a bit iffy, though so would any other. As the lower handicap player has a statistically greater likelihood of winning anyway, they should do it in 18 holes and avoid the risk associated with sudden death holes!

So in D4S's example of 1 shot per hole, it is absolutely fair that the 18-diff guy continues to get a shot per hole!

 

[Snelly]

If a match is played over 18 holes and after 18 you're level then it should be declared a draw or the tie decided by the toss of a coin....

It isn't because the tie should be decided by Golf.

Therefore you continue down the 19th etc etc until somone wins.
So a Match isn't over 18 holes - it is over a minimum of 18 holes.
And if you have to go round again - all 18 if necessary - then handicaps have to be taken into account.

You say that if the high handicapper can't take advantage and win with all the shots he has, why can't a 5 handicapper take advantage and win playing better golf over 18 holes...?

If it's a HANDICAP competition then handicaps have to be taken into account.

If it's a scratch comp then fill yer boots...

I'm afraid you're wrong on this one.....

Totally agree. Well said.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Seems simply to me that handicap is a measure of ability and the fairest way for the lower handicapper is for the shots to be given on prescribed holes rather than as and when the high handicapper chooses to take them - and so we have SI. As a result (assuming handicaps are correct) the playing advantage is always going to be with the lower handicap player (as match can finish without some shots having been taken). I'm guessing the change to full handicap difference was to redress this advantage in some way.

So when we go to extra holes in a handicap competition the match has to continue under the same conditions where ability is balanced by handicap - and so shots are given at holes as prescribed by SI. And if the first hole the lower handicapper gives a shot is say the 4th - then for three holes the lower handicapper has the advantage through ability.

So completely agree with Imurg (as I just repeated his argument - d'oh)

 

[Tignanello97]

What a load of codswallop!!rules are rules & golf is all about following it's strict etiquette. This is what helps make it the sport that it is. Those not in favour should maybe take up bridge and moan about the demise of "their" game in the clubhouse.
Another theory would be that if the lower handicap golfer " who has so obviously put more time in to his game "( smells of a stampede) can't beat the higher handicapper after 18 holes then the higher player should get double his allowance!! Either that or the lower player blackballed for bringing shame down on all those who practice hard.

 

[Fader]

I look at this in simplistic terms.

18 handicapper has those shots because he needs them. Scratch player has none because he has damn good ability. Therefore in the course of 18 holes the higher handicapper is likely to throw more shots away than the scratch player, thus meaning the scratch player should be good enough to win over the course of 18 holes.

To say shots shouldn't be given in the playoff holes doesn't add up to me, as the match takes as long as it takes. Plus the holes they are playing after 18, havent changed or got any easier so the shots should stand. The 18 handicappers ability to a par a shot hole hasn't changed nor has the SI. Handicaps are there to make it a level playing field and a scratch player should always beat and 18 anyway, by pure level of ability.

The rules are there for all and if it's not liked then don't play.

 

[Crow]

I've never been able to see the argument made by lower handicappers that they should get an advantage in handicap competitions.

The whole idea of the handicap system is to allow players of different abilities to have a good match and to have to play to the best of their ability in order to win, and for each to have a fair chance of winning.

Withlout the handicap system there would be a small number of players of similar handicap to your own who you could play a close and enjoyable match with.

If all you really want is for the best player to win then why not just put everybody in order of their exact handicap and award places, first to lowest and last to highest, without having to have the dreadful possibility of a player of lesser ability beating a "superior" player.

As has already been said many times, it's a handicap competition and that makes it a competition that will give most people who enter a chnace of winning.

 

[richart]

I actually like the idea that you should get handicap difference only over 18 holes. If you are getting 18 shots, and the match goes down the 19th, no shot given as you have already had your allowance. A scratch golfer could end up giving 27 shots to an 18 handicapper if the match finished on the 9th extra hole.

Despite this I still think D4S is a very bad man, and should be avoided at all costs for having his own opinion.(whistle )