D
Deleted member 36483
Guest
Think about this example for a moment.Is that not the nature of sport though?
One on one, only a small percentage of the time an underdog having a go will beat the odds against superior opposition.
But, if a field contains a large number of underdogs all having a go at a comparatively small number of their superiors then the odds are tipped in their favour.
I'm still struggling to fathom a system other than reduced PH on a sliding scale for the field make-up that would work in amateur golf.
But then maybe the person who has a go and gets lucky deserves to beat the person who plays it safe.
But then there are other factors in golf.
If the weather or the course is brutal or there are multiple rounds then the consistent player should win.
If the weather and course are easier and it's a single round then a player who throws caution to the wind is more likely to run away with it.
As you or Duneguy suggested, one size rarely fits all.
A 4 handicapper who is inconsistent, and they do exist, might be shooting between 2 under and 10 over. His mate is consistent and is between 2 over and 6 over most of the time.
When you apply, say 90%, to a field containing our 4 examples, including the 18 handicappers I already mentioned, who's getting a fair deal?
Both 4 stay off 4, both 18 handicaps reduce to 16. Inconsistent 4 handicap has the best deal there.
This is why I think they should be applying an adjustment that is more specific to the player. Subtraction of 1 standard deviation is an example of that and why not just do it as part of the HI calculation in the first place?
Last edited by a moderator: