Matchplay and most likely score for handicap

[Alan Clifford]

Due to the inaccuracy and greater ease of manipulation of a matchplay/team handicap (I.e. when the ball is not holed out and assumptions/estimations have to be made).

That avoided answering the question.

 

[D-S]

That avoided answering the question.

OK, Its because I don't believe a matchplay derived handicap is accurate enough to be used for matchplay competitions (or for stroke play) - better?

 

[IanM]

Then why apply a handicap garnered from Strokeplay only to Matchplay competition.

Due to the inaccuracy and greater ease of manipulation of a matchplay/team handicap (I.e. when the ball is not holed out and assumptions/estimations have to be made).

Made up scores shouldn't count for handicap. That's why.

 

[Backsticks]

Made up scores shouldn't count for handicap. That's why.

Any score, even one fully rules compliant and holed out, is only an approximation of ones golf level anyway. On its own, it is only accurate within a range of about 15.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

This is the very reason all formats should count for handicapping, players such as yourself have huge advantage in match play that is unfair to the rest if the field. Their are also players who score better in stroke play or singles and they suffer an unfair disadvantage in all formats.

Yup, it felt unfair to my opponent that I was only giving him 8 shots - I didn’t lose any sleep over it Mind you in the last winter KO I gave a bloke 10 shots and he beat me on the 15th. Truth is I should do better in strokeplay than I do. But that’s just me. I would much rather be a better strokeplay golfer than matchplay golfer. I can win a match playing total rubbish and it can look good. But I’m unlike to win a medal playing rubbish.

 

[IanM]

Handicaps are not constants. So I'm not sure your comment in #64 is a reason for guessing what someone might have scored in matchplay.

Fundamentally, players are not playing to shoot their best score in matchplay. They are trying for one shot less than their opponent.

Hence, handicapping matchplay scores is problematic.

Will 5 and 60 feet become the new "3 minutes??"

 

[Springveldt]

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

It will for most people in this instance. "Oh look I've got a 4 footer but I've just lost the hole. Will I add 1 or 2 shots for my handicap now?" The vast majority of people will only add 1 and will always only add 1. They aren't going to think to themselves "oh that's a tricky left to righter downhill, there's a chance I might miss that so I'm going to add 2 this time".

For 99% of all golfers it will mean that they hole out 100% of the time that they have less than 5 foot and have lost the hole. No one likes to think that they would miss a short one, especially in the middle of a match. You don't want to start doubting yourself.

 

[doublebogey7]

I've got no idea. But why do you think this would make any difference? A dedicated handicap manipulator would simply put more crap cards in to counter it.

It's clearly much more difficult to manipulate your handicap to win prizes when all competition scores are counting for handicap. It would also mean that handicap committees would have access to all competitive competition scores making it much easier for them to monitor wrong doing.

 

[wjemather]

Surely most clubs have rules in place by now saying players must have at least 8 active cards in the last year etc etc.

All sensible clubs will have a set number of cards in a given time frame to allow entry to matchplay and team comps. I much prefer this to the Wild West of ’non holed out’ handicaps that I have witnessed.

Such terms only provide a false sense of security.

 

[Backsticks]

As we know, it takes 20 cards, over as short a period as possible, to give a good estimate of someones level. The longer the period the less accurate. The fewer the cards, the less accurate.
Minimums such as 4 or 6 are a fig leaf - people with handicaps based on such low numbers of cards are exactly the people complained about winning competitions with romantically good scores.

 

[D-S]

Such terms only provide a false sense of security.

So we don’t need them?

 

[wjemather]

So we don’t need them?

Correct. They don't prevent any of the problems people are looking to solve or provide even the slightest deterrent to people looking to cheat the system.

 

[Backsticks]

Correct. They don't prevent any of the problems people are looking to solve.

They dont. But they still serve a purpose in giving some security to the wider playing field. It reduces some of the scepticism and concern, even if the remedy presented doesnt actual do what many assume it will do.

 

[LincolnShep]

I play more pairs and team golf, than I do singles strokeplay. I've played 33 rounds this year but only 14 of them have counted towards my handicap due to the format. I'd like to be able to put every round in, so I would if I was given the opportunity, whatever the system.
I record all my scores in a spreadsheet and calculate what my handicap would be if all rounds counted. The difference between my official handicap and my 'all rounds' handicap is rarely very big. At the moment, the difference is 0.2 (16.6 v 16.8). In seven out of 33 rounds this year, this difference has been bigger than 1.0, but that's not much when your handicap is mid teens. This suggests to me that my mindset doesn't change much between singles strokeplay and pairs/team golf - I'm still trying to get my best score either way.