Playing Handicap Allowances

[rulefan]

By all means

 

[woofers]

Just to add, the majority of courses have a slope over 113, and usually a lot more than 113 (say between 125-145 as pretty standard). So, golfers will almost always have an upwards adjustment from Index to Course Handicap, whith obviously the higher the handicap, the higher the upwards adjustment.

Yes, but the Index will most likely be arrived at the players home course and be ‘de sloped’ so the upward adjustment will just bring them back to the average of the best differentials which is likely to reflect their ability. To then apply a 5% reduction in individual competitions seems illogical. Until someone can explain the reasons, handicap committees will have a hard time and only be able to say “thats‘s the rule“.

But interestingly, the full allowance will still be given in individual match play and any “best of 3 or best of 4” stroke play events.

 

[Old Skier]

. Until someone can explain the reasons, handicap committees will have a hard time and only be able to say “thats‘s the rule“..

CONGU/EG cannot explain it, they just spent the last 5 years explaining to handicap committees why full handicap was the fair way to go. They don’t have to face the questions so they really don’t care.

 

[rulefan]

CONGU/EG cannot explain it, they just spent the last 5 years explaining to handicap committees why full handicap was the fair way to go. They don’t have to face the questions so they really don’t care.

The CONGU values were based on data from over 10 years ago. More recent data (and in far greater quantity) is now available from around the world.

 

[Old Skier]

The CONGU values were based on data from over 10 years ago. More recent data (and in far greater quantity) is now available from around the world.

So they still use the same argument based on data. That means then that for the last 5 years everyone playing in individual comps where playing of the wrong handicap.
Trying to explain to a genuine high handicap player that he is going to lose more shots than someone with a better handicap and ability will drive even more players away from competitive golf IMO having been involved in this for a number of years now.

 

[Colin L]

So they still use the same argument based on data. That means then that for the last 5 years everyone playing in individual comps where playing of the wrong handicap.
Trying to explain to a genuine high handicap player that he is going to lose more shots than someone with a better handicap and ability will drive even more players away from competitive golf IMO having been involved in this for a number of years now.

For none of those 5 years were we basing the number of strokes we got on the relative difficulty of the course for a scratch and a bogey golfer.

Don't form a judgement about an orange on the basis of the what an apple is like.

 

[Old Skier]

For none of those 5 years were we basing the number of strokes we got on the relative difficulty of the course for a scratch and a bogey golfer.

Don't form a judgement about an orange on the basis of the what an apple is like.

Wasn’t that what the standard scratch was there to address

 

[rulefan]

So they still use the same argument based on data. That means then that for the last 5 years everyone playing in individual comps where playing of the wrong handicap.

Not really. WHS is a fundamentally different system. The two major systems closest to the new WHS already operated a 'Bonus for Excellence' adjustment and had/have large volumes of data.

Trying to explain to a genuine high handicap player that he is going to lose more shots than someone with a better handicap and ability will drive even more players away from competitive golf IMO having been involved in this for a number of years now.

What is your source for this?

 

[rulefan]

Wasn’t that what the standard scratch was there to address

No. SSS only addressed CR not BR or Slope.

 

[Old Skier]

My source is at our club an increase in members with a reduction in entries

 

[rulefan]

Just to expand on my post above.

Standard Scratch Score corresponds to Course Rating in that they are designed to estimate the score that a scratch player would return. However, although the parameters are similar, they differ in detail and sophistication. As it happens they generally come out with a pretty close answer (possibly a couple of shots either way.
The Current system has no concept of how a higher handicap (20ish say) player may score on that same course. That is what Bogey Rating and Slope are about.

The stats produced in the USA, Canada and Australia apparently (I'm not a statistician) support the idea of the so called 'Bonus for Excellence' in stroke play. Those countries having used slope for many years.

 

[rulefan]

My source is at our club an increase in members with a reduction in entries

But you are not using WHS yet. How can you determine what will happen? Particularly as high cappers will get an increase in the difference between them and low cappers due to slope.

 

[Ethan]

A handicap is not a measure of some intrinsic truth about a player, it is simply a statistical summary of their golf scores.

The current system uses a push/pull style with capped increases, WHS uses a moving average style, both weighted to reflect a playing ability aimed somewhere around the 75th percentile of scores. The moving average tends to produce a more moveable handicap because there is less drag or memory, but an average player should not notice a lot of difference. A very streaky player will notice greater swings in their handicap, and fast improving players may see their handicap fall faster to its steady state.

 

[woofers]

But you are not using WHS yet. How can you determine what will happen? Particularly as high cappers will get an increase in the difference between them and low cappers due to slope.

I’m not sure I agree with this yet.
Let‘s take a couple of hypothetical players, both have a home club with a slope of 125 and play the majority of their golf there, certainly their qualifiers.
Player A‘s 8 best gross differentials all happen to be 18. His HI is 18 / 125 x 113 = 16.3
Player B‘s 8 best gross differentials all happen to be 8. His HI is 8 / 125 x 113 = 7.2
When they play in an individual stroke play event at home, A‘s playing handicap is 17 whereas B‘s is 8.

Still not sure why 95% doesn‘t apply to singles match play if ‘data‘ or logic is correct.

 

[woofers]

Also, just found this on the USGA site:
Handicap Competitions
Q. What are handicap allowances and why are they recommended for various formats of play?

A. A handicap allowance is the percentage of a Course Handicap recommended to create equity based on the format of play.

Since higher-handicap players typically have more variance in their scores and an increased potential to shoot lower net scores, when full Course Handicaps are used in certain formats, players with lower Course Handicaps are generally at a disadvantage. By taking a percentage of Course Handicap, the higher handicap players are impacted more, which brings the expected scores for all players or teams to a more consistent level. Handicap allowances are mainly applied in team formats, where the combination of players can produce lower scores compared to other teams.

Millions of scores and/or simulations were used to determine and validate the handicap allowances used under the WHS, and the recommendations for each format of play can be found here. (Appendix C, Rules of Handicapping)

 

[Colin L]

The 95% Handicap Allowance is to make things fairer. At the most, it brings the highest handicappers 3 strokes closer to the lowest. This is the effect:


Course Hanicap up to 10: No reduction
11 to. 30: 1 stroke
31 to 50: 2 strokes
Above 50 : 3 strokes

 

[woofers]

But the average member won‘t see it as ‘fairer‘.
They will argue that their handicap has been obtained by taking account of their scores including course difficulty, and is therefore a reflection of their ability. Why is it being further manipulated ? To tell them it is ‘fairer’ when all handicaps have been derived by the same process won’t make sense.

And why isn’t 95% applied in match play if it makes it ‘fairer’?

 

[rulefan]

Since higher-handicap players typically have more variance in their scores and an increased potential to shoot lower net scores, when full Course Handicaps are used in certain formats, players with lower Course Handicaps are generally at a disadvantage.

The format being discussed is strokeplay.
In singles matchplay there is no adjustment because the stats still suggest that a lower handicapper still win most matches against a higher capper.

 

[jim8flog]

I’m not sure I agree with this yet.
Let‘s take a couple of hypothetical players, both have a home club with a slope of 125 and play the majority of their golf there, certainly their qualifiers.
Player A‘s 8 best gross differentials all happen to be 18. His HI is 18 / 125 x 113 = 16.3
Player B‘s 8 best gross differentials all happen to be 8. His HI is 8 / 125 x 113 = 7.2
When they play in an individual stroke play event at home, A‘s playing handicap is 17 whereas B‘s is 8.

Still not sure why 95% doesn‘t apply to singles match play if ‘data‘ or logic is correct.

Your calculations are wrong
Course Handicap = Handicap Index x (Slope Rating ÷ 113)
Player A is 20 Course Playing =19
Player B is 9 Course Playing= 9

So there is still a 10 shot difference between them.

 

[Old Skier]

But the average member won‘t see it as ‘fairer‘.
They will argue that their handicap has been obtained by taking account of their scores including course difficulty, and is therefore a reflection of their ability. Why is it being further manipulated ? To tell them it is ‘fairer’ when all handicaps have been derived by the same process won’t make sense.

And why isn’t 95% applied in match play if it makes it ‘fairer’?

Your correct, the average handicapper (majority of any club falls above 16) will never improve more than one or two shots through natural ability, a stat available to CONGU if they were really interested. An individual who sees his playing handicap discounted more than another players will never see it as “fairer“.

Stating that I won’t know what will happen ones the WHS comes into play can work both ways as CONGU has no idea what will happen.