World Handicap System

[duncan mackie]

Best way around all this is to have a best gross prize in amongst the normal prizes.

Nope, better to smile, agree, and do absolutely nothing....if you really feel the need to do anything, include a scratch section to the competition on an entirely voluntary entry basis!

 

[jim8flog]

Best way around all this is to have a best gross prize in amongst the normal prizes.

We do.

 

[Old Skier]

Nope, better to smile, agree, and do absolutely nothing....!

Im more interested in getting more people to play and it worked for us.

 

[duncan mackie]

Im more interested in getting more people to play and it worked for us.

Never had any issues with getting low handicappers to play in our club comps - we recently considered having handicap divisions (we don't have any in any comps) and straw polled the membership; the cat 1s were dead against it as it would reduce the amount they won over time!

Seriously, if it takes prizes to entice people to enter the monthly medal somethings a little out of kilter...

 

[garyinderry]

Do this new system have a slight flaw in it?


It works well if everyone tries their best in each round. Does it fall down if there are loads of players who essentially give up on their rounds after they have a few bad holes.

There is loads of these types of players. Head goes down and dont push to score the best they can on the day.

They will have a pile of awful cards and then a cracker when they eventually play well and keep it going.

Their average scores won't be representative of their scoring ability.

Anyone have an opinion on this?

I can see this being a real problem. As it stands sandbaggers pull up if they feel they won't score well. many players who aren't bandits have a habit for not giving their all when a round gets away from them. Their average scores will be terrible.

 

[Nosevi]

Anyone have an opinion on this?

I can see this being a real problem. As it stands sandbaggers pull up if they feel they won't score well. many players who aren't bandits have a habit for not giving their all when a round gets away from them. Their average scores will be terrible.

As it’s the average of their best 8 of the last 20 rounds it shouldn’t be too much of a snag unless they do this almost the whole time. When they give up it’ll just be one of the 12 rounds in the last 20 which don’t count.

 

[Nosevi]

We do.

And us.

I like the handicap system as it means I can have a good ‘grudge match’ with plenty of banter against my Dad but I see nothing wrong with having a best gross score win as well as a best nett. Why would that be an issue? If you shot the lowest score on the day it should be ok to feel chuffed shouldn’t it? Golf’s a sport after all. Nothing wrong with being good at a sport. I’d still enter comps without a gross winner but in reality, if I’m feeling competitive, I’m only ever looking at the gross scores to see how I did.

It works both ways though. I have a mate who was off plus 4 and played for his international team prior to turning pro so I’m the ‘high capper’. We always play straight up. If he gave me shots I’d never feel I’d actually won and he’d never feel he’d lost. And I never have won. I’ve taken him close a time or two and taken him up the 18th not long ago which got his attention. The day I beat him I’ll feel as if I’ve acheived something.

Each to their own but coming from other sports to golf I think the handicap system is great for ‘social’ golf and I wouldn’t want to lose it. But for serious competition may the best player win. And against my mate that’s yet to be me

 

[duncan mackie]

This reminds me of one guy at our club who believes we should do away with handicaps and it should be the best gross that wins. He no doubt has this view because he is a low handicapped senior and only ever plays in seniors comps where we have a fairly limited number of single figure golfers who play in those comps.

Best way around all this is to have a best gross prize in amongst the normal prizes.

We do.

I'm confused; your initial post suggested you didn't have a gross award, but apparently you do?

I just find it strange that, as an example, in a field of 40 players where younhave 1 cat 1, 2 high cat 2s and 37 cat 3&4 players anyone would think it sensible to chuck in a gross prize. Clearly I'm alone in this view.

 

[duncan mackie]

Anyone have an opinion on this?

I can see this being a real problem. As it stands sandbaggers pull up if they feel they won't score well. many players who aren't bandits have a habit for not giving their all when a round gets away from them. Their average scores will be terrible.

I understand where you are coming from; I believe that one element of your concern results from behaviour driven by the current system - this should change over time (pretty quickly really).

The underlying element applies to every system - the WHS has taken the protection (against this) brought into the USGA system to the next level, after which the committee has responsibility as previously.

 

[Nosevi]

I'm confused; your initial post suggested you didn't have a gross award, but apparently you do?

I just find it strange that, as an example, in a field of 40 players where younhave 1 cat 1, 2 high cat 2s and 37 cat 3&4 players anyone would think it sensible to chuck in a gross prize. Clearly I'm alone in this view.

I think you’re slightly looking at it through the ‘prism’ of your seniors’ (at a guess?) monthly medal. We’ve got about 30 Cat 1 guys at my club although obviously not all play every comp. Woodhall where I’m coached has about 65 Cat 1 guys.

Just to be clear, I meant to say that we don’t always have a gross score prize, we just have a gross score winner. If it’s a handicap comp the nett winner gets the prize, if it’s a scratch comp the gross winner gets the prize. But you can view the leaderboard by nett or gross whether it’s a scratch or handicap comp, the gross is the only one the cat 1 guys are honestly bothered about winning though.

I’ll always take the gross win with no prize over the nett win with a prize. Why wouldn’t I? The object of the sport is to get round the course in less strokes than the rest of the field. Trying to do so can’t be seen as a bad thing unless the view is that golf is a game and in no way a sport. What I love about golf is that it’s very much a game AND a sport. My Dad and his mates can all go out and ‘battle’ it out for bragging rights in the bar having had a great social afternoon with plenty of niggle thrown in. The guys like myself can hit the gym, spend hours on the practice ground or on the range and treat it far more like a sport trying to beat the other guys with this view of golf as more of a sport. And what’s fantastic is we can all do it on the same course, at the same time, in the same competition.

I’d hate to lose the handicap system as was touted earlier in the thread because you’d lose the ‘golf as a social game’ element of golf. But equally there’s nothing at all wrong with treating golf as a sport and trying to beat other players treating it as such, by simply trying to shoot a lower score than them. You don’t want to kill the former but personally, if you honestly want to grow the game you’ll only do it if you push the latter.

 

[FairwayDodger]

In all my time doing HC and Comp sec there is always that one person that always complains about High HCs , normally calls them bandits and it’s normally because they are bitter about being beaten by someone with a higher HC - my answer to them is always the same - play better or accept being beaten graciously. The HC system isn’t biased towards any HC - they have shown that factually and if you can’t handle getting beaten by a higher HC and actually refer to them as bandits then the simple answer for you is to not play in them.

I know what you mean but, pedantically, the HC system is obviously biased towards high handicaps. That is the very reason for its existence!

 

[Old Skier]

I know what you mean but, pedantically, the HC system is obviously biased towards high handicaps. That is the very reason for its existence!

Strange, I thought the system was to produced a level playing field.

 

[Nosevi]

Strange, I thought the system was to produced a level playing field.

What, so that the most skilled player wins? Nope.

A level ‘playing field’ is one where all competitors compete on the same terms, not where everyone scores the same regardless of ability. The ‘playing field’ isn’t level with a handicap system, the playing field is deliberately tilted (or biased) to ensure players of different abilities are able to compete against each other.

It’s a great thing and golf wouldn’t be what it is without it. But it doesn’t create a level playing field. It quite deliberately does the opposite.

 

[duncan mackie]

This reminds me of one guy at our club who believes we should do away with handicaps and it should be the best gross that wins. He no doubt has this view because he is a low handicapped senior and only ever plays in seniors comps where we have a fairly limited number of single figure golfers who play in those comps.

Best way around all this is to have a best gross prize in amongst the normal prizes.

I think you’re slightly looking at it through the ‘prism’ of your seniors’ (at a guess?) monthly medal. We’ve got about 30 Cat 1 guys at my club although obviously not all play every comp. Woodhall where I’m coached has about 65 Cat 1 guys.

Just to be clear, I meant to say that we don’t always have a gross score prize, we just have a gross score winner. If it’s a handicap comp the nett winner gets the prize, if it’s a scratch comp the gross winner gets the prize. But you can view the leaderboard by nett or gross whether it’s a scratch or handicap comp, the gross is the only one the cat 1 guys are honestly bothered about winning though.

I’ll always take the gross win with no prize over the nett win with a prize. Why wouldn’t I? The object of the sport is to get round the course in less strokes than the rest of the field. Trying to do so can’t be seen as a bad thing unless the view is that golf is a game and in no way a sport. What I love about golf is that it’s very much a game AND a sport. My Dad and his mates can all go out and ‘battle’ it out for bragging rights in the bar having had a great social afternoon with plenty of niggle thrown in. The guys like myself can hit the gym, spend hours on the practice ground or on the range and treat it far more like a sport trying to beat the other guys with this view of golf as more of a sport. And what’s fantastic is we can all do it on the same course, at the same time, in the same competition.

I’d hate to lose the handicap system as was touted earlier in the thread because you’d lose the ‘golf as a social game’ element of golf. But equally there’s nothing at all wrong with treating golf as a sport and trying to beat other players treating it as such, by simply trying to shoot a lower score than them. You don’t want to kill the former but personally, if you honestly want to grow the game you’ll only do it if you push the latter.

I completely agree with just about every word you have written - but would point out that I wasn't using a prism, I was responding specifically to the post that started this aspect (which is why i multiquoted It!) and simply overlaying our current handicap map for that particular situation to make it real.

Equally, printing the best gross on the results sheet is both a norm, and source of satisfaction for those achieving it in every walk of golf. Long may it continue. However, other posts advocated prizes, by inference all the time, which surprised me - hence part of the post.

 

[duncan mackie]

I know what you mean but, pedantically, the HC system is obviously biased towards high handicaps. That is the very reason for its existence!

To be really pedantic.....the existence of the system provides support for the weaker golfer; but within the system (all systems and retained in the WHS calcs) there is a bias (reward for excellence) to the lower handicap. I believe it is around 9.3%.

As with every application of arithmetic advantage in normal distribution events, the larger the incidence the more accurately it's reflected - 72 hole medal events are usually enough to illustrate it!

 

[Nosevi]

I completely agree with just about every word you have written - but would point out that I wasn't using a prism, I was responding specifically to the post that started this aspect (which is why i multiquoted It!) and simply overlaying our current handicap map for that particular situation to make it real.

Equally, printing the best gross on the results sheet is both a norm, and source of satisfaction for those achieving it in every walk of golf. Long may it continue. However, other posts advocated prizes, by inference all the time, which surprised me - hence part of the post.

Fair enough

 

[jim8flog]

I'm confused; your initial post suggested you didn't have a gross award, but apparently you do?

I just find it strange that, as an example, in a field of 40 players where younhave 1 cat 1, 2 high cat 2s and 37 cat 3&4 players anyone would think it sensible to chuck in a gross prize. Clearly I'm alone in this view.

My original post referred to the thoughts and opinions of one player and not what we do at our club.

With regard to your field cat dispersion. I have recently done a review of our divisions and most competitions we were Division 1 heavy rather than the other way round. One comp had 40 + players in division 1 and just 8 in Division 3.

 

[jim8flog]

Best gross prize -

I would put forward the view of the best player at our club.

He enters every weekend comp that he can but his view is that he is very unlikely to win the nett comp but he goes in with the hope of winning the best gross prize and a near virtual certainty the he will win twos money. (he has been known to frequently score a 2 on a particular par 4)

 

[garyinderry]

I understand where you are coming from; I believe that one element of your concern results from behaviour driven by the current system - this should change over time (pretty quickly really).

The underlying element applies to every system - the WHS has taken the protection (against this) brought into the USGA system to the next level, after which the committee has responsibility as previously.

The current system has the option to grind out a score to try and avoid a 0.1 . These types of players are only interested in wins or nice cuts. The threat of a rising handicap only leads to a better chance of winning so they won't be particularly worried about that.

 

[Jacko_G]

Strange, I thought the system was to produced a level playing field.

Actually it doesn't. How many cat 1 golfers come in with net 62 or below? Yet almost every medal you get a higher handicap coming in with a result like this. I played an open last season with a 17 handicap how had a gross 78!