Playing to or below your handicap

[clubchamp98]

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 gals - 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).

Possibly but 3 shots is a lot to a SF golfer and that’s hard to make up on five people in front of you.

 

[wjemather]

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

What folks practice (and the quality/benefit of it) is a completely different argument.

 

[clubchamp98]

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.

The effort put in to lower your handicap to a stage where you don’t need more than one shot per hole should be rewarded. Imo of course.

 

[Rlburnside]

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).

I never knew WHS recommended 100% for smaller fields, our club have many stroke play competitions with less than 30, it has been discussed at our club that we should do away with 95%.

Could we do this even with CONGO mandating it should be 95% for all fields?

 

[wjemather]

I never knew WHS recommended 100% for smaller fields, our club have many stroke play competitions with less than 30, it has been discussed at our club that we should do away with 95%.

Could we do this even with CONGO mandating it should be 95% for all fields?

Union affiliated clubs and organisations do not have the authority to overrule CONGU.
However, others (e.g. individuals, groups of individuals, societies, and other independent competition organisers) are free to do whatever they wish.

 

[Rlburnside]

Why ? Its a handicapped competition. Why shouldnt a high handicapper win ?

Because I think all competitions should be divisions, that way a it’s fairer for everyone, a low h/capper could shot 3/4 over par and loose to a high h/capper who has a mediocre round.

 

[Rlburnside]

Union affiliated clubs do not have the authority to overrule CONGU.
However, others (e.g. individuals, groups of individuals, societies, and other independent competition organisers) are free to do whatever they wish.

Ok thanks for the clarification

 

[pokerjoke]

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.

You could win a board comp
You’ve just got to make less mistakes (something a low handicapper does less than a high handicapper.
Holding it together is a mental thing,something to work on perhaps.

 

[Jimaroid]

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

• CONGU: WF Mitchell/SGU

I’ve seen this before. It is flawed.

1. It doesn’t include all clubs, only those that reported to the Herald.
2. By extension to 1. it doesn’t include any club outwith Scotland.
3. It only uses data for the summer season (fair enough but not competitive reality)
4. It only uses competions with more than 75 competitors (and doesn’t reason why)

The statement “It can be seen from direct comparison of the two distributions that there is good correlation” is laughable when there are obviously outlying data points that merit further analysis but that is not performed.

 

[Backsticks]

The effort put in to lower your handicap to a stage where you don’t need more than one shot per hole should be rewarded. Imo of course.

That may be your opinion, but it is very much at odds with the rest of the world of golf that you play in.
- handicap golf is not intended to reward effort to lower your handicap. It is intended to reward the best relative player on a given day
- one shot per hole is entirely arbitrary, has no meaning in the handicap system, and so it doesnt set out to reward that either.

 

[Backsticks]

a low h/capper could shot 3/4 over par and loose to a high h/capper who has a mediocre round.

Which is perfectly fine. Its handicap golf.
Am I feeling the low handicapper seems to want a cake-and-eat-it system where they are playing handicap golf....but not fully. They want the gross score to mean something...but not fully.
No wonder they are frustrated !

 

[Springveldt]

Which is perfectly fine. Its handicap golf.
Am I feeling the low handicapper seems to want a cake-and-eat-it system where they are playing handicap golf....but not fully. They want the gross score to mean something...but not fully.
No wonder they are frustrated !

I think most low handicappers are just wanting reasonable winning scores were they would also have a chance on their best day. When you have players returning with 50 points, then what’s the point?

I’d guess at our place it is almost impossible for a plus golfer to win a board comp now.

 

[Backsticks]

I think most low handicappers are just wanting reasonable winning scores were they would also have a chance on their best day. When you have players returning with 50 points, then what’s the point?

I’d guess at our place it is almost impossible for a plus golfer to win a board comp now.

What proportion of competitions are won with 50 points ?

 

[clubchamp98]

I think most low handicappers are just wanting reasonable winning scores were they would also have a chance on their best day. When you have players returning with 50 points, then what’s the point?

I’d guess at our place it is almost impossible for a plus golfer to win a board comp now.

Yes nail on the head!
I think the 50 pts is quite rare but 44/45 pts is the norm now.

 

[clubchamp98]

That may be your opinion, but it is very much at odds with the rest of the world of golf that you play in.
- handicap golf is not intended to reward effort to lower your handicap. It is intended to reward the best relative player on a given day
- one shot per hole is entirely arbitrary, has no meaning in the handicap system, and so it doesnt set out to reward that either.

My opinions usually are
That’s why I said golf has changed and not for the better.!

 

[Springveldt]

What proportion of competitions are won with 50 points ?

Not a lot but it actually did happen once at our place. It’s a par 70, CR 71.1, slope 139 so a pretty testing course. It should be impossible for someone with a handicap that is anywhere near reflective to have 50 points. It’s 14 under par and 15.1 under the course rating.

To be fair that was a bit of an anomaly though. Scores this year so far have been fairly sensible, probably due to a combination of all the wind we have been having and our first and second cuts being very, very lush. The kind of cuts that are a couple of inches long but your club just sticks in it. They used some fancy fertiliser on those cuts this year as well as the fairways. It really is tough to play out of.

 

[clubchamp98]

What proportion of competitions are won with 50 points ?

More than with 36 pts I would wager.

 

[Backsticks]

More than with 36 pts I would wager.

No doubt. Doesnt really answer the question though.

 

[RRidges]

I’ve seen this before. It is flawed.

1. It doesn’t include all clubs, only those that reported to the Herald.
2. By extension to 1. it doesn’t include any club outwith Scotland.
3. It only uses data for the summer season (fair enough but not competitive reality)
4. It only uses competions with more than 75 competitors (and doesn’t reason why)

The statement “It can be seen from direct comparison of the two distributions that there is good correlation” is laughable when there are obviously outlying data points that merit further analysis but that is not performed.

As a Stats grad, I'd take issue with your view that its 'flawed'.
75 * 10 comps is more than enough for a representative sample. It's irrelevant that the selection criteria was - those that reported to The Herald.
I very much doubt results from England would have been dramatically different. Along the same lines, Summer results are more representative than Winter ones, purely because of participation and weather.
75 competitors is more than enough to remove surprise results that can happen with small fields.

Overall, the figures reported show excellent correlation between Categories and Score ranges.
It also suggests, to me, that running handicap comps in Categories is appropriate.

 

[clubchamp98]

No doubt. Doesnt really answer the question though.

It’s not the fact that this sort of score wins.
It’s the fact that WHS has enabled someone to do it!
But you need a lot of shots to score that and no SF golfer will ever get anywhere near that. Imho.