Why aren't exact handicaps used?

[shortgame]

Reading the Countback thread and find myself questioning why exact handicaps aren't used to determine the placings in the event of a tie?

Why do we use the countback system - why not use exact handicaps rather than rounded 'playing' ones?

I know there's no perfect solution but countback seems a bit arbitrary (and of course play-offs only make sense or are feasible for the odd comp such as maybe the club champs)

Am I missing something obvious?
Anybody any idea?

 

[fundy]

Been asking the same question for many years, would reduce the need for countback ten fold!

 

[Hobbit]

Good question. I don't like count back but would readily accept losing on exact. Equally, thinking about it, count back is a measure of how you played on the day whereas exact is a measure of countless rounds...

 

[IanG]

Agreed, I see only upsides in adopting this. For most club competitions it could be automated no problem, for opens you'd need to write your exact handicap on the card but that would be worth it to avoid the somewhat arbitrary tie break procedures. I always felt the 'winner is the player with better inward 9' decider would be harder to justify if you phrased it as its exact equivalent' winner is the player with worse outward 9'.

 

[rosecott]

It's difficult enough getting our seniors to put their correct playing handicap on the card, never mind getting them to find out exact handicap.

This could pose a little problem for handicap secretaries - particularly unpaid volunteers. Committees are currently required to post changes of playing handicaps as soon as possible after competitions are closed. Under the suggestion, all changes of exact handicaps would have to be posted - this will extend, by a little, the workload.

Let's say a player thought he had failed to buffer. He assumed his handicap went up by 0.1 but he didn't realise that CSS went up and he did make buffer. Would you DQ him if he put a higher exact handicap - only by 0.1 - on his card. I foresee chaos if that was introduced.

 

[jim8flog]

I have always disliked the countback system when 2 or more tees are used as the start position for a round.

I have lost twice on countback when I started on the 12th tee, a harder start to the course when you have not had time to warm up.

 

[fundy]

It's difficult enough getting our seniors to put their correct playing handicap on the card, never mind getting them to find out exact handicap.

This could pose a little problem for handicap secretaries - particularly unpaid volunteers. Committees are currently required to post changes of playing handicaps as soon as possible after competitions are closed. Under the suggestion, all changes of exact handicaps would have to be posted - this will extend, by a little, the workload.

Let's say a player thought he had failed to buffer. He assumed his handicap went up by 0.1 but he didn't realise that CSS went up and he did make buffer. Would you DQ him if he put a higher exact handicap - only by 0.1 - on his card. I foresee chaos if that was introduced.

OR the simple version that you use the current system, then if it goes to countback the first thing you do is then calculate the scores based off the accurate handicaps

 

[SimonC]

How about if the nett scores are tied then it goes down to the gross score? I'm pretty sure that the higher handicappers would not like this but I would have no issue in losing out to a scratch golfer if we shot the same nett score, after all they have shot a better score than me.

 

[cliveb]

At my club we have a three tee start (1, 8, 13), and as it happens until a few years ago we did indeed use exact handicap to resolve ties in comps, which I thought made a lot of sense.

It was changed to the standard countback system a few years ago. So now regardless of whether you start on 1, 8 or 13, your score on holes 10-18 is used to resove ties. Seems bonkers to me, but I think at the time we were told it was something to do with CONGU recommendations.

 

[UlyssesSky]

Exact handicap is based on your performances in the past. Do you really want the result of a competition to be based on something you and your opponent did in the past rather than your performances on that day?

 

[fundy]

Exact handicap is based on your performances in the past. Do you really want the result of a competition to be based on something you and your opponent did in the past rather than your performances on that day?

arent all handicaps based on your performances in the past? So arent all net competitions decided on how you played on the day compared to your past anyway?

id rather that than a random way of splitting equal scores which it exactly what count back is

 

[r0wly86]

Definitelty a good idea I think.

Especially when you thing a 9.5 handicapper and a 10.4 handicapper receive the same number of shots but in reality the first golfer is essecentially better by 1 shot. The count back has always seemed arbitary. Perhaps they could just pick 3 holes at random and the lowest score wins. but I would prefer using exact

 

[shortgame]

Especially when you thing a 9.5 handicapper and a 10.4 handicapper receive the same number of shots but in reality the first golfer is essecentially better by 1 shot. The count back has always seemed arbitary

This was my thinking
Only downside I see is maybe a little extra admin but then presumably it could all be done automatically anyway

I generally do quite well on countback (play the back 9 better in relative terms) but can't help but think there must be a better way... even more so on 2-tee or shotgun starts

 

[rulefan]

How would you handle stableford and matchplay?
Particularly ties?

 

[ScienceBoy]

I've both won and lost on coubtback.

Both times I was playing in the group with the player on the other end.

Seeing the round and the cards and the finish we had it was agreed that the system worked.

I think it will pretty much always work when the players are in the same group. When they are not I can see how it would look arbitrary and random.

I don't like the alternatives as it should be the scores on the day that decide who wins.

In the end countback looks like the least worst option.

 

[jamielaing]

I lost on countback at the weekend. I had a bit of a whinge and moan about it and was adamant that there should be a play-off (obviously in a bad loser kinda mood!).

My feeling is that countback is as random as tossing a coin however I can't see how this could be changed. Yes, using exact handicaps in this situation would be easier or seem more fair but countback will exist because, at some stage someone decided that finishing stronger signalled the better player. Ultimately I think we would all feel aggrieved losing a trophy when you had tied. But until we are all willing to wait until the end of the competition incase someone equals our score and play in a play off I think any system will be flawed.

In the end, I wasn't bemoaning contback. I was bemoaning the bogey on 17 that I should've played better. And if I had got my par then it would've been a completely different story.

 

[the smiling assassin]

I lost on countback at the weekend. I had a bit of a whinge and moan about it and was adamant that there should be a play-off (obviously in a bad loser kinda mood!).

My feeling is that countback is as random as tossing a coin however I can't see how this could be changed. Yes, using exact handicaps in this situation would be easier or seem more fair but countback will exist because, at some stage someone decided that finishing stronger signalled the better player. Ultimately I think we would all feel aggrieved losing a trophy when you had tied. But until we are all willing to wait until the end of the competition incase someone equals our score and play in a play off I think any system will be flawed.

In the end, I wasn't bemoaning contback. I was bemoaning the bogey on 17 that I should've played better. And if I had got my par then it would've been a completely different story.

a bogey at 17 is a like a double for you mate

 

[jamielaing]

Also, if we used exact handicaps I still would have lost. So that's obviously not the answer...........

 

[jamielaing]

a bogey at 17 is a like a double for you mate

Iron off the tee for safety....... guarantees the par supposedly.

 

[Crow]

Definitelty a good idea I think.

Especially when you thing a 9.5 handicapper and a 10.4 handicapper receive the same number of shots but in reality the first golfer is essecentially better by 1 shot. The count back has always seemed arbitary. Perhaps they could just pick 3 holes at random and the lowest score wins. but I would prefer using exact

But that might go against your wishes as going to exact would mean that the higher exact handicapper would win.
82 gross - 9.5 = 72.5 net
82 gross - 10.4 = 71.6 net
10.4 handicapper wins.

(Or maybe I misread your post and you would prefer the higher exact handicap to win?)