Playing to or below your handicap

[rksquire]

Not once this year - it's not a slide, it's a collapse!

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Really? All but 2 of the last 15 winners of our handicap knockout were single figure golfers (and that includes last year, held under WHS); higher handicappers usually represent the majority of entries.

So just KO’s ?

We have a whole club KO - normally won by someone around 10-15 , winter one normally won by a high handicap

What about strokeplay events which ultimately it more about playing to someone’s handicap as opposed to KO which is vastly different

 

[Backsticks]

Sorry I’m confused but when did low handicappers have the advantage ?

Throughout the Congu UHS era. Until the introduction of the WHS, when slope came in, which is specifically to correct that anomaly and remove the low handicappers advantage.
It would seem from the comments here that low hcs didnt lnow they had it. But if you think about the rationale for slope, and understand it, which I think everyone does now, you will also flow the corrallary that without slope, there was a favouring of low handicappers.

 

[Jimaroid]

There's a fairly common but false assumption that better players work harder on their game than higher handicappers.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Throughout the Congu UHS era. Until the introduction of the WHS, when slope came in, which is specifically to correct that anomaly and remove the low handicappers advantage.
It would seem from the comments here that low hcs didnt lnow they had it. But if you think about the rationale for slope, and understand it, which I think everyone does now, you will also flow the corrallary that without slope, there was a favouring of low handicappers.

There was no “low handicapper” advantage

 

[wjemather]

So just KO’s ?

We have a whole club KO - normally won by someone around 10-15 , winter one normally won by a high handicap

What about strokeplay events which ultimately it more about playing to someone’s handicap as opposed to KO which is vastly different

Regular comps are always in divisions; leading scores in each are usually comparable, with the odd exceptional score, and the very low players often claiming top 3 honours in div 1. Our club handicap championship has also been more often won by a single figure golfer (scratch won last year) than higher, but the ratio is not as dramatic as it is for the KOs.

 

[wjemather]

There was no “low handicapper” advantage

There is plenty of research out there that confirms the bias of the old systems; a quick search turned up these...

• CONGU: WF Mitchell/SGU
• USGA: New Scientist, Science Daily, Chan/Madras/Puterman
• GA: Golf Australia

 

[Imurg]

Throughout the Congu UHS era. Until the introduction of the WHS, when slope came in, which is specifically to correct that anomaly and remove the low handicappers advantage.
It would seem from the comments here that low hcs didnt lnow they had it. But if you think about the rationale for slope, and understand it, which I think everyone does now, you will also flow the corrallary that without slope, there was a favouring of low handicappers.

So the 95% rule hands advantage back to the lower handicapper.....under 10 you don't lose any shots, a 31 CH loses 2....
If there was low handicap advantage beforehand why level the playing field , as you imply, then give it back to the lower guy..?
Makes no sense.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Why shouldn’t a system be biased towards a better player? Reward those that are willing to put the effort in to improve.

 

[wjemather]

So the 95% rule hands advantage back to the lower handicapper.....under 10 you don't lose any shots, a 31 CH loses 2....
If there was low handicap advantage beforehand why level the playing field , as you imply, then give it back to the lower guy..?
Makes no sense.

WHS handicaps are calculated to be equitable on an individual basis and in small fields; indeed WHS recommends 100% for individual strokeplay with smaller fields (fewer than 30). However CONGU have mandated that the allowances apply to all field sizes, presumably for simplicity, and they are content to accept the resultant bias in favour of lower handicappers in smaller fields).

 

[wjemather]

Why shouldn’t a system be biased towards a better player? Reward those that are willing to put the effort in to improve.

Rewarding effort (which does not directly translate into ability) is not the job of a handicap system. There are countless higher handicappers who put more time and effort in than most low handicappers.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I guess they never lost any shots under the 90/95% rule in comps.
But think it was only anyone 5 cap or under.
Once you got to losing .6 you lost a shot.

Plus a max cap of 28.

Our comp last Saturday was Captains Day strokeplay (not Stableford scoring) with handicap limit 28 and nett and gross prizes.

Weather was windy, but not a gale - difficulty was mainly the rough and fast greens not the weather. First five nett places were high handicappers, 16-22, but there were a bunch of good SF handicappers within 3 shots, so a SF guy could well have won it (Winning score was just 3 under handicap).

 

[Backsticks]

There was no “low handicapper” advantage

There certainly was. It was built into the system deliberately. 'Bonus for excellence' I thing was the phrase Congu used for it. WHS type systems didn't have it, and we moved to that with WHS, so removing that bias.

What do you thing Slope is if not a corrective to remove the bias to low hcs ?

 

[Backsticks]

Why shouldn’t a system be biased towards a better player? Reward those that are willing to put the effort in to improve.

Certainly in the minority there. Golf is not a competition for effort.
How would you even measure effort ? Should it be effort alone.Or effort that yields improvement ? Impossible.

 

[Springveldt]

Sorry I’m confused but when did low handicappers have the advantage ?

I can’t recall many low handicappers dominating the club handicap comps - it was mainly mid to high handicappers

and I certainly haven’t seen any “levelling”out because of WHS - if anything it’s not even more unbalanced towards the higher handicaps

Agree with this. The only times I've come close to winning board comps was when I was still improving and a 15 and 12 handicap. Now off 7 I know I'll probably never win another board comp as I'd have to shoot level par to have a chance most weeks during the summer. I don't think I've got a level par round in me, I make too many mistakes and can't keep it together for a full 18 holes.

Since WHS we have seen at numerous clubs on social media etc of people winning comps with 50 points. Even under the old system I can't ever recall seeing that no matter the course.

 

[Deleted member 29109]

Certainly in the minority there. Golf is not a competition for effort.
How would you even measure effort ? Should it be effort alone.Or effort that yields improvement ? Impossible.

Effort is probably the wrong word. Lots of people do put lots of effort in and don’t get any better. I would say they need to re-evaluate how they practice.

And I probably am in the minority. Most golfers say they wan to improve l, but in reality don’t have the will to.

There does seem to be a significant number of people who like to massage they HI to be in just the right slot to clean up at the majors.

The handicap system doesn’t encourage anyone to improve. Almost the opposite now.

 

[Backsticks]

The handicap system doesn’t encourage anyone to improve

I don't think it is fair to charge the system with not achieving something it doesn't set out to do. Encouraging to improve is not relevant, but up to the individual to set as a goal or not.

 

[bobmac]

There are countless higher handicappers who put more time and effort in than most low handicappers.

Can you back up that statement with any evidence ?

 

[KenL]

So the 95% rule hands advantage back to the lower handicapper.....under 10 you don't lose any shots, a 31 CH loses 2....
If there was low handicap advantage beforehand why level the playing field , as you imply, then give it back to the lower guy..?
Makes no sense.

But, a golfer with a 31 index might get a 3 shot or so course hcp via the x slope / 113 calculation.

 

[clubchamp98]

There's a fairly common but false assumption that better players work harder on their game than higher handicappers.

That’s not what I see.
I see high cappers smashing driver down at the range.
But I see low cappers practicing their short game / putting and scoring clubs.
I don’t think it’s a false assumption