Matchplay and most likely score for handicap

[IanM]

Not without the collusion of the marker certifying the scores.

Oooooh, that never happens!

What next? Mulligans in medals?

 

[D-S]

Not without the collusion of the marker certifying the scores.

But it is down to the judgement of the player him or herself as to whether it was 4 or 6 feet, 2 or 3 shots, 19 or 20 yards, 3 or 4 shots.

 

[wjemather]

But it is down to the judgement of the player him or herself as to whether it was 4 or 6 feet, 2 or 3 shots, 19 or 20 yards, 3 or 4 shots.

The rules state 5 feet (1.5 metres) and 20 yards (20 metres), yet 1.5 metres is more than 5 feet and 20 metres is almost 22 yards.

The judgement of proximity just needs to be reasonable, not accurate. The same goes for judging the difficulty of the stoke and ability of the player.

And any score still has to be certified by a marker; anything thought to be potentially unreasonable should not be certified and reported to the committee for a decision.

 

[HeftyHacker]

Ah got you. My mistake I'd completely ignored the bit about most likely score - which I am equally skeptical about. I don't see why you can't just say both players need to putt out unless they can't even get a net double.

Even in better ball comps this would be preferable and hopefully at least reduce some of the banditry that comes as a result of this format - the trade off being slow play I guess.

The argument I often hear is that people won't be trying as hard but I know from experience that even people in medals stop caring as much once their score ends up a few over handicap.

There's no perfect way that i can see unfortunately. I never played the old system but this is where the 0.1 increase made sense i guess.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I have suggested on here in the past that match play should be used in handicap calculations and been shot down for it.

Well...my experience of matchplay would probably see me with a HI a good bit lower than my current 8.5. After my match today that finished on the 16th I was three over gross. I'm guessing I'd have finished bogey, par. So four over? As I afterwards mentioned to one of the pros in the shop - I play and score so much better in matchplay than I do in any individual strokeplay format. I'd be knackered for medals.

 

[D-S]

The rules state 5 feet (1.5 metres) and 20 yards (20 metres), yet 1.5 metres is more than 5 feet and 20 metres is almost 22 yards.

The judgement of proximity just needs to be reasonable, not accurate. The same goes for judging the difficulty of the stoke and ability of the player.

And any score still has to be certified by a marker; anything thought to be potentially unreasonable should not be certified and reported to the committee for a decision.

Oh the fun of arguing the toss over whether someone would have got down in 2 or 3 shots or 3 or 4? - was that ball off the green 17 yards away or 23? - trying to define whether someones judgement of distance or shot difficulty is unreasonable or reasonable.
I am fairly sure that all this would lead to considerably less faith in the accuracy of the system, which surely cannot be a good thing.

 

[wjemather]

Oh the fun of arguing the toss over whether someone would have got down in 2 or 3 shots or 3 or 4? - was that ball off the green 17 yards away or 23? - trying to define whether someones judgement of distance or shot difficulty is unreasonable or reasonable.
I am fairly sure that all this would lead to considerably less faith in the accuracy of the system, which surely cannot be a good thing.

Perhaps the real problem is that handicapping can never be as accurate as some people seem to think/want; the reality is that handicapping is so imprecise that even two or three questionable MLS judgements every round wouldn't make any significant difference to it's accuracy.

 

[D-S]

Perhaps the real problem is that handicapping can never be as accurate as some people seem to think/want; the reality is that handicapping is so imprecise that even two or three questionable MLS judgements every round wouldn't make any significant difference to it's accuracy.

The good thing, from my perspective, is that it is extremely unlikely to be adopted in the short or medium term by EG as at a meeting with several regional handicap advisors and those in charge of policy, there was significant distrust of MLS voiced by all and without a major change in personnel it is a non starter. The reasons for the experts’ mistrust were as have been articulated above as well as experience in other countries.

 

[wjemather]

The good thing, from my perspective, is that it is extremely unlikely to be adopted in the short or medium term by EG as at a meeting with several regional handicap advisors and those in charge of policy, there was significant distrust of MLS voiced by all and without a major change in personnel it is a non starter. The reasons for the experts’ mistrust were as have been articulated above as well as experience in other countries.

No doubt. Changing a culture/mentality takes rather a long time, even moreso when those who are supposed to be leading the change haven't changed their mentality from the old system. It's also common for people to mistrust things they do not understand.

 

[Backsticks]

Perhaps the real problem is that handicapping can never be as accurate as some people seem to think/want; the reality is that handicapping is so imprecise that even two or three questionable MLS judgements every round wouldn't make any significant difference to it's accuracy.

I think there is also a culture clash to some degree, and it is the root cause of most of the WHS questioning/mistrust discussion that appear here. General play cards versus competition cards, HIs can rise too quickly, PCC, most likely score, winning scores in competitions, etc.

The WHS is essentially the US hc system, certainly in philosophy, even if some of the details were teaked.

But golf in the US is less competition based than we are used to here, and fast and loose is part of the culture of playing your $10 nassau between a handfull of buddies in carts with music and beers. Gaming your handicap just adds to the fun and joshing.
We are more used to playing against 100+ competitors on a regular basis, or organised matchplay competitions. That needs a tighter system, Which UHS gave us, with its tighter range of movement, a tendency to anchor towards your best capability score, and not rising more than a shot in a calander year. It mitigated against gaming the system, which we saw as a necessary sluggishnes to suit our way of golf. Now we have a more imprecise system, that isnt really designed to cope with a few borderline MLS judgements as you are debating. It is outside its scope. As wj says, WHS just isnt that precise. It isnt meant to be. It comes from a different golfing world, and we have adopted it in the name of conformity, even though it isnt a great fit for us.
We just have to learn to live with its new philosophy, and not expect it to be what it is not.

 

[IanM]

This isn't a culture clash.

It's fundamentally changing the basis of a part of the game and how it is scored.

You either think it is a good idea or not.

 

[rulefan]

Not without the collusion of the marker certifying the scores.

Which of course would apply to stroke play also

 

[Backsticks]

This isn't a culture clash.

It's fundamentally changing the basis of a part of the game and how it is scored.

You either think it is a good idea or not.

It depends on the goal of the handicap system.

 

[D-S]

I think there is also a culture clash to some degree, and it is the root cause of most of the WHS questioning/mistrust discussion that appear here. General play cards versus competition cards, HIs can rise too quickly, PCC, most likely score, winning scores in competitions, etc.

The WHS is essentially the US hc system, certainly in philosophy, even if some of the details were teaked.

But golf in the US is less competition based than we are used to here, and fast and loose is part of the culture of playing your $10 nassau between a handfull of buddies in carts with music and beers. Gaming your handicap just adds to the fun and joshing.
We are more used to playing against 100+ competitors on a regular basis, or organised matchplay competitions. That needs a tighter system, Which UHS gave us, with its tighter range of movement, a tendency to anchor towards your best capability score, and not rising more than a shot in a calander year. It mitigated against gaming the system, which we saw as a necessary sluggishnes to suit our way of golf. Now we have a more imprecise system, that isnt really designed to cope with a few borderline MLS judgements as you are debating. It is outside its scope. As wj says, WHS just isnt that precise. It isnt meant to be. It comes from a different golfing world, and we have adopted it in the name of conformity, even though it isnt a great fit for us.
We just have to learn to live with its new philosophy, and not expect it to be what it is not.

I agree with most of this as it admits that for the way golf is played in the UK, the WHS as conceived is not fit for our purpose. If we go all the way to conformity, by adopting MLS, it will threaten the nature of competitive inter and inter club handicap golf - not a big issue in the US but the foundation of club golf over here

 

[IanM]

It depends on the goal of the handicap system.

Now, that's an additional really interesting question

Regardless. Matchplay and Strokeplay have a different mind set and are played with a different "goal."

Even the Rules are different!

 

[Backsticks]

Now, that's an additional really interesting question

Regardless. Matchplay and Strokeplay have a different mind set and are played with a different "goal."

Even the Rules are different!

17 yards or 23 yards, or thinking there is too much room for opinion and/or manipulation is looking too deeply into it. MLS works when such things dont matter, whether someones HI is a shot or too high or too low, or whether you lose your $10 today. They will buy the drinks anyway. WHS HI gives a means for people of different golf level to play together and have fun. 'Serious' handicapped competition with large numbers of golfers supposedly competing on an perfectly equal footing, is not what WHS is about. UHS wasnt perfect either, though was better suited to this type of club golf. It had its weaknesses too, the low stickiness discouraging players of declining ability or time to dedicate to maintain a previous level. If you look at WHS a little more light heartedly and dont expect it to be more accurate than somewhere in a 5 shot range, then it will work for you. Getting too het up about how someone went up two shots in a fornight of GP cards, or whether the MLS is accurate enough, is wasted effort - WHS doesnt set out to handle such precision.

 

[Springveldt]

And yet it's still more likely that you hole from within 5 feet.

73% this season according to Shot Scope from 3-6 feet. Still not 100% like this is proposing.

 

[Backsticks]

73% this season according to Shot Scope from 3-6 feet. Still not 100% like this is proposing.

It isnt proposing 100%. It is proposing most likely.

 

[wjemather]

73% this season according to Shot Scope from 3-6 feet. Still not 100% like this is proposing.

"Most likely" does not mean 100% or anything close to it.
Anything that happens over 50% of the time is the most likely result.

 

[IanM]

51% of something isnt "most likely." Or maybe it's "more likely" or "slightly more likely" or a tiny majority more likely.

But only just