3/4 handicap allowance; fair or unfair?

First topic message reminder :

there was an article in golf monthly about this, didn't really understand it though.

I think 3/4 handicap is unfair as it favours low handicappers.
i.e: 20 handicapper has to play of 15
4 handicapper has to play off 3

There seems to be a hell of a lot of comps at my club that is 3/4 allowance and the only thing I have ever won (fortnight ago captains night) was off full allowance which resulted in me being cut from 25 to 22.1 due to a great round of 43 pts.

My modus operandi is to have as low a handicap as possible, not to win 8 quid so I won't achieve this by having 3/4 of my handicap taken into consideration as 36 pts (par) would be based on a handicap of 17 or so, so
A. It is very unlikely that I will ever be in contention for prizes
B. get my handicap reduced by a significant level.

The congu guy says in golf monthly that all club comps should be off full handicap 9granted this is the case for medal) but I don't think I have ever played stableford at my club with full allowance.

I may be wide of the mark here and missing something, if so let me know.

N.B I would love to have a handicap of 15 or so and that is my objective for this year

Good thread folks.Some of the older posters may back me but 30 years back singles stablefords were nearly always 7/8 allowance as pointed out by golferstephen above often with 18 limit.
Although I think things may have altered more recently regards to scoring and the  net double bogey thing in strokeplay.Personally I always encourage players to hit a provisional if theres any doubt about the first shot to keep things going.Although yesterday exact 5 hour round and none of us looked like loosing a ball just wind/rain/slow groups in front.
I know a couple of guys called Chris but no personal details im afraid

Balance isn't right for me.
I entered the singles this year for the first time in a couple of seasons having been thumped twice in the first round by bandits off 19 and 21 despite shooting under handicap on both previous occasions.
Played my second round tie last night and made it through despite being up against a 19 handicapper.
Won 4&2. For the record, the result would have been 4&3 with 3/4s allowance.
I played well but for a couple of silly holes, but was level handicap over the 16 holes.
So. This whole allowance thing is based on stableford handicapping isn't it, so lets look at the stats...
1up thru 9 - 17pts versus 13pts
4up thru 16 - 32pts versus 22pts.
So, I was level handicap, if my 19 handicap opponent had been anywhere near level handicap, equipped with the 14 shots I was giving him he would have absolutely destroyed my sorry ass!

Individual comp whether match or stroke play - full handicap. It's fair. Only tends to be a kicking for the lower handicap if the higher has a flyer (recent starter enjoying that year in the sun when en route to a more realistic handicap). The only thing is the anomalous higher handicap flyer out of nowhere (always against me!) but I don't think you should legislate for that. It can happen.

Team (so BB4B matchplay) - s/be adjusted to take into account probability of par between 2.

Roller, is that your club just joined 1895 club? Spotted a list of new member courses in our newsletter.

barragan wrote:
So, I was level handicap, if my 19 handicap opponent had been anywhere near level handicap, equipped with the 14 shots I was giving him he would have absolutely destroyed my sorry ass!

That makes absolutely no sense at all

If you were level handicap then you were averaging 2 pts a hole. If he was "anywhere near" level handicap he would be averaging "somewhere near" 2 pts a hole. His 2 pts are no better than your two points

To be level handicap you are either scoring consistent nett pars or are mixing equal amounts of nett birdies and bogeys - either way the scoring of holes should be equal

The only way that doesn't work actually works more in your favour! He, as a higher handicapper, is perhaps more likely to score nett eagles (or ever better?) than you - and therefore, if he does, has TWO corresponding nett bogeys to balance that out if he is "anywhere near" level handicap. So where his nett eagle may be wasted (if you only parred it) - you'd have two chances when he bogeys to get back at him

Davie
He could have feasibly beaten me 7&5 by shooting level handicap to my level handicap. I can't work a scenario that would see me win by that margin if we both shot level handicap. Best I could do would be win by a couple of holes. Imbalance in favour of the high handicapper.

I'd love to hear that scenario where you both shoot level and he wins 7&5

Hey barrigan, can you post that updated 1895 list. Ours has not been updated for a while now. Cheers.

Barra - on the 1895, I haven't heard back but I was in contact with the guy and he was doing the admin to get us added so maybe it is us. What's the newbie on your list?

On the 3/4 vs full. I guess if a higher guy is erratic and mixes good scores with trebles and quaddies - a kicking is eminently possible for the lower. If both are generally consistent, it should work itself out to a pretty even game.

I'm off 5 but my holes are generally between the sublime and the ridiculous. (see my game today thread where I was -1 on 12th tee to +4 on 13th one to + 6 on 14th tee - whilst quite extreme even for me - I can see I may well have done a lower handicapper because of the frequency of my good holes being better than how bad my few bad holes were!

rowany
updated list according to our club website:

Spoiler:

Yup - That'll be us then.

Now to plot all future trips to co-incide with the location of other 1895 clubs. "Yes dear, I've always wanted to visit <xxxxxx>. No, I don't think there's a golf club near there. Why are the clubs in the car? Erm..."

http://ow.ly/biztW
This link is quite handy, though I'm not sure how up-to-date it is.

Davie wrote:I'd love to hear that scenario where you both shoot level and he wins 7&5

Apologies Davie - slight miscalculation...it was only 6&5

Spoiler:

What were the h/caps?

5 and 19

Anyway, this should be pleasing research for all high handicappers worried about taking on someone considerably lower. You know all you have to do is play to around handicap to force your opponent to go under handicap just to compete with you. Unfortunately for lower handicappers, you need to rely on scoring well below handicap or hope your opponent has a mare. Of course there's always gamesmanship as a last resort...

Probably missed that earlier on, ta.

I know it doesn't work that way in the real world but, he should have shot all bogies (and a double) to hit his handicap. B's hit 6 gross pars (5 on shot holes in the match) and A's doubled 5 and bogied 6 (non-shot holes too) offset against the 2 dogs A got. Does illustrate your point about level stableford handicap resulting in matchplay kicking.

Per my earlier post, I don't think it's the system that's unfair in individual play. If you'd both shot what you "should" have shot it'd be level (apologies for stating the obvious!). That scoreline is down to a flyer by him whilst having relatively few catastrophes. 19 handicappers shouldn't be parring nearly half the holes played (IMO). Double shafted by the SI a bit too as the non-shot holes are "lumpy" being in pairs (losing those two must have been psychologically tough knowing there were 7 shot holes in a row next!)

I'd probably have come off that kicking thinking that his handicap was unfair rather than the system (unless they were skutchy pars of course then the standard golfer's riposte of "all the luck in the world's against me!" would apply).

To me 3/4s of difference is unfair in individual.

Roller_Coaster said what I was trying to say. It's not the full difference that is unfair - but maybe your opponents handicap is.

RC points out it is stating the obvious to say that if you'd both played "normally" according to h/c then it would be level. But it didn't work that way. There were only 4 holes where you weren't giving a shot and you didn't capitalize on the two that were actually played - your opponent didn't exactly set them alight (bogey and par on what are presumably "easier" holes)

He seems to have played the par 3s well (level par for the 3 par3s) - other than that he has also parred two of the three par5s played (unless they are very long or difficult I don't find that surprising when for better players they are presumably good birdie chances)

I'd say you were just a little unlucky on the day the way it worked out - and nothing particularly unfair overall

The issue is that the handicap system is calculated on the basis of stableford results, which have a poor correlation with the match play format. I think the reason for this is down to the fact the stableford handicapping system caters for scores of up to nett double bogey - which we all know is irrelevant in matchplay - as nett birdies, nett pars and nett bogeys tend to be the currency. Perhaps a handicap system which rounded all high scores on holes down to nett bogey's would be more suitable. Obviously this would have the added bonus of lowering the maximum playing handicap to 18, but would allow full handicap in matches. This could still be maintained and calculated through club competitions in the same way, only you would carry 2 handicaps - the matchplay one always lower than (or very occasionally equal to) the strokeplay hcp.

barragan wrote:Obviously this would have the added bonus of lowering the maximum playing handicap to 18

Why is that a bonus? Are you so keen on limiting the number of people who can compete in competitions? Seems a little selfish

hmm, probably just the wrong way of saying it. my guess is most 20 odd handicappers would be closer to 16 or less under my suggestion above. getting a lower handicap is a bonus for whoever you are, as it leads to increased confidence - the placebo effect - lower scores.

So you are saying that a 20 handicapper would get approximately a 15 (matchplay) handicap but retain 20 for strokeplay? Just a backhanded way of going back to 3/4 difference if you ask me

Obviously it would depend on the scores submitted. It could be 15, it could be lower or higher depending on their scores submitted. Not every 20 handicapper is a bogey catcher. There are loads that knock in plenty of pars, and the odd birdie, but suffer with a card in their hand and make trebles, quadruples etc. The point is, a seperate handicap designed for matchplay situations could solve 'to a degree' some of the silly results you get in handicap knockouts. I'm not saying i've tried and tested my solution and it's perfect, I'm just suggesting it's something that could be looked at as the current system is NOT tailored to matchplay, its tailored to stroke and stableford play. In the same way, i'd expect to have a lower matchplay handicap - as i mix decent golf with an occasional hacker moment on most rounds - perhaps 3 or 4, whereas some 3 or 4 handicappers who are super steady might keep theirs the same.

Personally I'd just lower the maximum handicap to 18; anyone who needs more than a stroke a hole shouldn't be playing golf in the first place..  

Hmmm - so if your "matchplay" handicap was reduced to (say) 4 and your opponents to (say) 15, you'd be giving away 11 shots instead of 14 - so you'd have halved the 10th instead of losing it and instead been dormie 5 down at the point your match finished.

If you still think your system is fairer then that would confirm what roller_coaster and I are trying to say - that this match was a particularly strange one in terms of skewed score and therefore not a good example for either the current or your proposed system

I still maintain that on "normal" play for the relative handicaps the current system is fine

What is unusual to me are the SI's. Is it not a general rule that all even numbers will be on one nine and all the odds on the other?

Correct Hibbz - I believe that is only a recommendation though. Also the index 1 hole is not in the middle of a 9. Index 1 and 2 are generally supposed to be in the middle of front and back nine.

Suggests to me that someone has arbitrarily allocated SIs on the overly subjective basis of what is the hole's difficulty - which shouldn't be the case

Difficulty is only about 4th on the list of recommendations when allocating SI and is a very subjective measure anyway

It's one of my biggest pet hates hearing people say "why is this index 18, it's nowhere near the easiest hole on the course" (or substitute "index 1" and "hardest") - people should realize that SI is NOT a measure of difficulty as many people think

agree, our stroke indexing does need a review. it's ridiculous that in a match going to extra holes, giving 11 strokes, you'd give one on each of the first 4 holes for a start. its not something i've ever looked into in any detail, but i will be involved if there is a review, so will no doubt update as and when.

Best description I've seen is here - http://www.englandgolf.org/page.aspx?sitesectionid=337

great link davie - thanks - very interesting.

the stableford indexing link is also worth looking at.

Our SI were due for a change to come more in line with the recommendations but then we ordered a truckload more cards with the old ones - cue a year or two delay so due earlier of expiry of current stock or 1/1/2014.

Is not a widely known concept to the majority of club golfers I've mentioned it to that the SI is based on shot frequency/spreading for matchplay rather than hole difficulty.

What is the rationale? I suppose that strokeplay "pure" golf is medal so where shots happen doesn't matter hence the option for a pure stableford SI.

barragan wrote:

Davie wrote:I'd love to hear that scenario where you both shoot level and he wins 7&5

Apologies Davie - slight miscalculation...it was only 6&5

Spoiler:

Barra,

As said before, this is more down to the scoring pattern on the day than respective handicaps. The 2 holes you birdied your opponent scored triple bogeys. What if he had scored a net par on those holes, and then posted his triple bogeys on your weak holes? It would have been a different story... I'm sure you can re-distribute these scores to show a different outcome.

Bottom line is that this is a handicap competition designed to give everyone an equal chance of winning regardless of ability. You are not discriminated against for being a low handicap player. I know it feels like that... last weekend I was dumped out of my club knockout after giving 11 shots to a player who then reeled in 5 net birdies and a net eagle on the front nine. I'm sure you have a scratch knockout comp (club championship?) which is more prestigious and is won by the best golfers at the club.

for the handicap sytem to succeed, you'd expect the stableford nett double bogey reduction thing to occur on the toughest holes otherwise it could be rather more erratic. If you're a 19 handicapper - you need those 2 shots on the toughest hole.

Absolutely Ray, it is an extreme situation, but it highlights an unfair advantage where the high handicapper, using full handicap difference, can rack up a massive win against the low man despite both shooting level - a scenario which is not achievable by the low man. I think the old 3/4 allowance was in place to even out this type of situation from occurring, but I feel it is more down to the handicap allocation being based on stableford handicapping system which, while it works perfectly well for stroke or stableford play, is less suited to matchplay situations. We need matchplay handicaps which are tailored to be suited to matchplay and not strokeplay.

I'm not sure Barra. I think it's equally likely to work in the favour of the low handicapper. Take your example whereby you're giving 14 shots. Come SI 18 say for example a short par 4 the 19 handicapper scores a 4 which in stableford is worth three points. Due to it being a short par 4 you expect to birdie it pretty regularly and score 3 on the hole which is also worth 3 points but you win the hole.

Handicap golf is designed to be fun but not necessarily taken massively seriously in the sense the best player will not always win.

All the important (relatively) county level competitions are played off scratch regardless of the fact competitors won't all have the same handicap.

Hibbz - exactly right.

The low handicapper can still beat the high handicapper when both shoot level.

If you want to play in a competition where the best players win, then play in a scratch KO.

i think you're both missing my point, probably in fairness because you don't consider it relevant or necessary which i accept. to reiterate, the issue i have is not giving a lot of shots - it is giving a lot of shots based on a system which is designed to calculate a handicap for stroke play, when match play is an entirely different kettle of fish. i don't accept full handicap allowance based on the stableford system gives an accurate reflection of the difference in ability between players for the specific format of matchplay, in the same way that applying 3/4 wouldn't be an accurate reflection. obviously it's not a million miles away - on many occasions it will be right on the money, but occasionally it could be wildly incorrect. in the grand scheme of things isn't that big a deal, but i don't think it would be too difficult to implement an additional handicap system to cater for matchplay. i mean, it'd only mean we'd have to remember 2 numbers instead of 1 - hardly taxing.

anyway...it's never going to happen, so i'm giving up my argument to focus on other more worthwhile pursuits

As much as I sympathise with your perspective Barra (being nearer the lower end of the scale than the higher myself), I'm sure I've read somewhere that statistically, lower handicappers still prevail in matchplay. The percentages are a lot closer than they were when it was 3/4 but still they are slightly tilted in the lower's favour.
I'd put that down to lower handicaps being more consistent in playing to their handicap. Sure it hurts when you're playing decent, good even, and along comes a high handicapper having a blinder but...that's golf...them's the breaks sometimes :-/

The one thing that can slightly bug me is the higher handicapper that plays the absolute minimal amount of qualifiers but consistently shoots 5-6 under handicap in matchplay. I'm not sure it could ever be administered effectively but perhaps there should be a sliding scale of allowance based on frequency of qualifiers played.

I have a mate (was 17 now 16) who plays in almost every medal he can at my home club. a couple of weeks ago he shot mid 80's in quite awful conditions and got a 1.5 cut. A week later in better conditions he shot 103. Had I played him the first week in matchplay I'd have been tearing my hair out, the following week however I'd have been walking the fairways with a smile. On both rounds there would have been acceptance of the result either way, I KNOW his handicap is genuine. On the other hand I got pumped out of the handicap matchplay at my 2nd club last year despite having a blinder (2 over gross off 7). Lost at 19th to a 22 handicapper who then went all the way to the final, which he lost 2&1 to another guy I know who also had a blinder - but by the time he got to the final he was off 17). He'd played the minimal 3 medals before the matchplay started and managed to lose 5 shots over 4 medals between May and October. If I'm honest, yes it stuck in the throat a bit.

Think Hibbz has hit the nail on the head if your a low handicap. Sure, you would like to win some handicap comps, but there is nothing better than winning your club scratch knockout or scratch division in your club champs. Everyone whos serious about golf or practice their nuts off knows these are the only comps that matter and shows who has the skills at your home club. I won scratch knockout two years ago and rate this well above any medals where I shot net sub 70's etc...

It's a fair sentiment, and I'd love to win gross comps, but there's a lot of us that are not good enough to win scratch but too low to have much of a chance of winning nets either (I'd say 4/5/6 poss 7 in that basket at our place).

I don't have the time to put in the effort to get that good for gross prizes but it would be nice if the handicaps meant that you felt like you had a chance before you started, but I know there will be someone net -6 every week and that's usually the worst the winning score will be.

Good job I really enjoy just being out and having a laugh and don't covet the inevitable plastic/glass golfer/golf ball on a plinth or the hippo golf bag for the big comps!!!

JAS wrote: On the other hand I got pumped out of the handicap matchplay at my 2nd club last year despite having a blinder (2 over gross off 7). Lost at 19th to a 22 handicapper who then went all the way to the final, which he lost 2&1 to another guy I know who also had a blinder - but by the time he got to the final he was off 17). He'd played the minimal 3 medals before the matchplay started and managed to lose 5 shots over 4 medals between May and October. If I'm honest, yes it stuck in the throat a bit.

There is a facility within CONGU's labyrith handicap calculations for an Exceptional Score Reduction - which effectively replaced the old "known play" thing.

To have reduced his handicap from 22 to 17 in 4 medals meant he was scoring about six better than his handicap in each of those medals. Presumably he won some of those medals too. The handicap software would have identified him as a rapidly improving player and the committee would have had the option and opportunity to reduce his handicap further. The committee should have done something about this. It does require the committee to be paying attention though, and sadly the advent of howdidido has allowed a lot of these guys (and girls) to do a lot less work without anyone really noticing. That example should have been picked up for sure.

Matchplay handicap allowance at ¾ was historically because of the way handicaps used to be calculated. No account was made of the high handicapper's "one bad hole" syndrome. Assuming they brought the same game to a matchplay competition, the omnipresent 10 represented just the loss of one hole. On the other 17 holes they may have scored four or five below their handicaps and swept away a better player scoring roughly to his handicap. So the ¾ allowance was brought into correct the imbalance a bit.

Now that single bad holes are corrected for handicap purposes to a nett double bogey, that situation doesn't occur as much now. Most people have a handicap they play to (or better) perhaps 25-33% of the time. The rest of the time, they are playing worse than their handicap.

Across the UK the change to full difference has meant that matchplay competitions are now (typically) being won by players off 10-16, rather than 3-7 as was the case before the change. Why high handicappers don't win is unclear - maybe it's because they get nervous when in a winning position because they are inexperienced or just aren't capable of seeing it through. One thing is clear though - if you are a single figure handicapper, in matchplay, you'd better be scoring to your handicap - or better - or you'll be out.

Stroke indices only really matter as far as matchplay is concerned. You aren't likely to win any stableford competition if you aren't scoring on every hole. That's why the indices are now supposed to be be spread out across the course, with only minimal reference to how difficult a hole is. Although it's only a recommendation, most clubs will follow the recommendation because - frankly - it's easier to do that than have members complaining about having to give shots on the last hole.

The ESR only seems to have rolled out across England Wales and Ireland - Scottish UHS doesn't recognise it at present.

The SGU hasn't adopted the ESR yet, but the committee is still supposed to look for exceptional scores, defined as "four under CSS or better". They can adjust handicaps on that basis.

The fact that this guy did an exceptional score on (probably) four occasions means someone on the committee was asleep at the wheel.

This is quite helpful - http://www.prestonfieldgolf.com/assets/SGU-Handicapping/ScottishGolfClubHandicappingandRARulesofGolfSlides.pdf