Handicap question

Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,303 ✭✭
The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.



Assume a course rating of 72 and slope of 135 for these examples.



Golfer A scores



80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86



Golfer B scores



76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86



Both golfers would have an index of 7.1, but clearly Golfer B has more "potential ability" as witnessed by his three scores (76, 78, 76) lower than any that Golfer A shot. This is not an extreme example.



So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?



Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?



It looks like moving from 10 lowest to 8 lowest is a step in the right direction, but maybe it's not moving far enough.
Tagged:
«1345

Comments

  • FadeFade Members Posts: 1,147 ✭✭
    Golfer A scores



    80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86



    Golfer B scores



    76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86



    I was curious who won more often, turns out it is golfer A. : )
  • AugustokAugustok Members Posts: 77 ✭✭
    Which handicapped tournament formats would favor Golfer A over B? I haven’t really studied this but I think quota would be won more often by A. If you post your scores on your GHIN app on phone then compare score graphs with a group it’s interesting to see whose graph line is relatively level and whose is erratic.
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,101 ✭✭


    The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.



    Assume a course rating of 72 and slope of 135 for these examples.



    Golfer A scores



    80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86



    Golfer B scores



    76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86



    Both golfers would have an index of 7.1, but clearly Golfer B has more "potential ability" as witnessed by his three scores (76, 78, 76) lower than any that Golfer A shot. This is not an extreme example.



    So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?



    Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?



    It looks like moving from 10 lowest to 8 lowest is a step in the right direction, but maybe it's not moving far enough.


    As it stands, the USGA system favors (slightly) a lower-handicap player in a single match. If we move towards using a smaller percentage of scores, I believe the system would favor the lower-handicap player to a greater extent. Obviously not always, as @Fade's analysis suggests, but in general the better player's average would be closer to his "net par" score than would a poorer player, who typically has greater variance in scores. Using fewer scores would favor a more consistent player over a more erratic player, and generally speaking, higher handicaps are more erratic.

    I do agree, the system, even using 8 of 20, doesn't assess my real "potential", but identifies "pretty good for me".
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,303 ✭✭
    My point isn't who would win. It's that if you ask somebody about their potential to do something they have been doing, their best effort is the most accurate way of estimating their potential.



    If you asked about Mickey Mantle's potential for hitting home runs in 1963, it would be 54, not his average of his ten best.



    If you asked about Usain Bolt's potential for the 100 meter in 2010, it would be 9.58 seconds.
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Members Posts: 25,890 ✭✭
    edited Dec 4, 2018 #6
    Yea. I agree with the op... My handicap has never reflected my potential. But I’m relatively new to the game. So I think maybe in time it will. But I have more than 4 - 9 hole scores this summer in the low 30s. And one 29. But low 18 this year is 69. With an average as of today of 75.8. And a handicap of 2.4. ( it’s up since two months ago ). Low round last year was 65 T round. Never got to a plus. Why ? I’m still able to throw up on myself and shoot 85. ( driver penalty shots and putter ). Truth. Hasn’t happened in last 3 months. But haven’t kept them all below 75 either. One of these days I’ll string 2 -9s together and be called a bagger I guess. Lol. But that’s when it will start to reflect my potential. Until then it really doesn’t.



    And I don’t think it reflects plenty of 6-14 guys out there either. If you can shoot in the 70s any given day you should be less than an 8. Period. I don’t care how many 85s you shoot.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    TM Tour M5 19.8 * Aldila Synergy Blue 70TX  
    Titleist Tour Proto MB 3-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged   54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,303 ✭✭


    Yea. I agree with the op... My handicap has never reflected my potential. But I'm relatively new to the game. So I think maybe in time it will. But I have more than 4 - 9 hole scores this summer in the low 30s. And one 29. But low 18 this year is 69. With an average as of today of 75.8. And a handicap of 2.4. ( it's up since two months ago ). Low round last year was 65 T round. Never got to a plus. Why ? I'm still able to throw up on myself and shoot 85. ( driver penalty shots and putter ). Truth. Hasn't happened in last 3 months. But haven't kept them all below 75 either. One of these days I'll string 2 -9s together and be called a bagger I guess. Lol. But that's when it will start to reflect my potential. Until then it really doesn't.



    And I don't think it reflects plenty of 6-14 guys out there either. If you can shoot in the 70s any given day you should be less than an 8. Period. I don't care how many 85s you shoot.




    Exactly! The other alternative is for the USGA to remove the words "potential ability" from the purpose of a handicap. Maybe replace it with "potential average ability".
  • HitEmTrueHitEmTrue North TexasMembers Posts: 6,380 ✭✭


    My point isn't who would win. It's that if you ask somebody about their potential to do something they have been doing, their best effort is the most accurate way of estimating their potential.




    It is to measure potential so people can compete. Not measure potential so folks can brag (or feel miserable).



  • SawgrassSawgrass Members Posts: 14,928 ✭✭






    So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?



    Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?






    Why do you assume that a player's true potential is his lowest score? Why wouldn't "potential" be lower still?



    All of which seems to me that you have more of a quarrel with the USGA's word choice than the results the formula supplies. I agree that the formula does not produce a literal potential, that something more along the lines of "typical potential" would be more accurate.
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,101 ✭✭
    HitEmTrue wrote:



    My point isn't who would win. It's that if you ask somebody about their potential to do something they have been doing, their best effort is the most accurate way of estimating their potential.




    It is to measure potential so people can compete. Not measure potential so folks can brag (or feel miserable).


    I said in an earlier post, I agree that "potential" would be best indicated by a smaller number of the better scores. The ultimate indication of potential would be to use the single best score over the past year, or even two years. On the other hand, the USGA decided to use the term "potential" to differentiate their calculation from a simple average, and throwing out even half of the worst scores moves the handicap index toward a measure of true potential. Decreasing the number from 10 to 8 scores of the last 20 moves it slightly closer to what I would call true potential.

    Whatever number of scores is chosen, and the time period of scores to be considered, is essentially an arbitrary decision. To select one set of values over another will result in more or less of an advantage to different types of players, better v. worse, consistent v. erratic.
  • DavePelz4DavePelz4 A golf course in the Chicago area.ClubWRX Posts: 24,339 ClubWRX
    The lowest score theory has some errors. If someone plays a 18 hole par 3 course and shoots 54, is that their "potential?'



    If someone shoots 75 from the tips at Bethpage Black, is that their potential?



    Course rating, slope and ultimately differential have to be factors that ultimately go into the underlying "potential."
  • SuperbritSuperbrit Members Posts: 464 ✭✭


    The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.



    Assume a course rating of 72 and slope of 135 for these examples.



    Golfer A scores



    80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86



    Golfer B scores



    76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86



    Both golfers would have an index of 7.1, but clearly Golfer B has more "potential ability" as witnessed by his three scores (76, 78, 76) lower than any that Golfer A shot. This is not an extreme example.



    So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?



    Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?



    It looks like moving from 10 lowest to 8 lowest is a step in the right direction, but maybe it's not moving far enough.




    This is where Congu is very different



    Golfer A would have started off at 8 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores probably be off 9



    Golfer B would have started off at 4 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores be off 5.1, roughly.



    But this can depend on weather conditions when they made these scores

    Titleist TS3 8.5*
    Titleist 915F 16.5*
    Titleist 816 19*
    Titleist AP3/AP2/MB Irons 4- PW
    Titleist SM7 Black 52/58*
    Scotty Cameron California fastback

  • ShilgyShilgy Members Posts: 11,394 ✭✭
    Fade wrote:


    Golfer A scores



    80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86



    Golfer B scores



    76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86



    I was curious who won more often, turns out it is golfer A. : )
    I would take A for a partner. He is a lot more likely to help any given day than is B
    WITB
    Tools for the job!

    To paraphrase Dr Seuss: Don't cry because the round of golf is over-smile because it happened . :)

    Game is recovering from total ankle replacement. Getting there and glad to be pain free!
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,101 ✭✭
    Superbrit wrote:



    The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.



    Assume a course rating of 72 and slope of 135 for these examples.



    Golfer A scores



    80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86



    Golfer B scores



    76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86



    Both golfers would have an index of 7.1, but clearly Golfer B has more "potential ability" as witnessed by his three scores (76, 78, 76) lower than any that Golfer A shot. This is not an extreme example.



    So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?



    Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?



    It looks like moving from 10 lowest to 8 lowest is a step in the right direction, but maybe it's not moving far enough.




    This is where Congu is very different



    Golfer A would have started off at 8 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores probably be off 9



    Golfer B would have started off at 4 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores be off 5.1, roughly.



    But this can depend on weather conditions when they made these scores


    Thanks for doing the math on this. So we have two golfers, fairly evenly matched. Looking only at stroke play, and the order in which the scores were written, Player A wins 4, loses 3, and ties 13 times, that's pretty close. In the USGA system, they have identical handicaps. Under CONGU, Player A has a handicap about 4 strokes higher than B, even though he wins slightly more when they play even. Under @Roadking's idea, using the lowest score (80 v. 76) Player A would still get 4 strokes from B, even though A has a slight edge over B playing straight up. Is this consistent with a goal of allowing even competition?
  • HatsForBatsHatsForBats Members Posts: 1,562 ✭✭
    I think Player A is clearly the better player and there is an increased chance he may be a sandbagger. Player B happened to shoot 2 rounds in the last 20 that he at best has about a 2% of shooting any given round (assuming a 7.1 index). More than likely their index is normally higher than 7.1 and they went on a hot streak. Their index is likely going back to 8.5'ish range where they normally are.
  • Deceptively ShortDeceptively Short Members Posts: 373 ✭✭
    davep043 wrote:

    Superbrit wrote:



    The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.



    Assume a course rating of 72 and slope of 135 for these examples.



    Golfer A scores



    80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86



    Golfer B scores



    76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86



    Both golfers would have an index of 7.1, but clearly Golfer B has more "potential ability" as witnessed by his three scores (76, 78, 76) lower than any that Golfer A shot. This is not an extreme example.



    So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?



    Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?



    It looks like moving from 10 lowest to 8 lowest is a step in the right direction, but maybe it's not moving far enough.




    This is where Congu is very different



    Golfer A would have started off at 8 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores probably be off 9



    Golfer B would have started off at 4 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores be off 5.1, roughly.



    But this can depend on weather conditions when they made these scores


    Thanks for doing the math on this. So we have two golfers, fairly evenly matched. Looking only at stroke play, and the order in which the scores were written, Player A wins 4, loses 3, and ties 13 times, that's pretty close. In the USGA system, they have identical handicaps. Under CONGU, Player A has a handicap about 4 strokes higher than B, even though he wins slightly more when they play even. Under @Roadking's idea, using the lowest score (80 v. 76) Player A would still get 4 strokes from B, even though A has a slight edge over B playing straight up. Is this consistent with a goal of allowing even competition?




    That would be right if they are playing Medal matchplay, a format that is almost never used over here at least. In matchplay obviously without hole by hole scores we cannot know the result.

    Off the same handicaps player A will probably never win any event with more than a handful of players, similarly in a team event I think I would prefer to have two Bs rather than two As in order to give our team a chance of wining, but then again not sure how these scores are achieved hole by hole so this is just a guess .



  • _Red__Red_ Members Posts: 32
    Superbrit wrote:



    The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.



    Assume a course rating of 72 and slope of 135 for these examples.



    Golfer A scores



    80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86



    Golfer B scores



    76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86



    Both golfers would have an index of 7.1, but clearly Golfer B has more "potential ability" as witnessed by his three scores (76, 78, 76) lower than any that Golfer A shot. This is not an extreme example.



    So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?



    Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?



    It looks like moving from 10 lowest to 8 lowest is a step in the right direction, but maybe it's not moving far enough.




    This is where Congu is very different



    Golfer A would have started off at 8 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores probably be off 9



    Golfer B would have started off at 4 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores be off 5.1, roughly.



    But this can depend on weather conditions when they made these scores




    How did you calculate the CONGU handicap?
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,101 ✭✭

    davep043 wrote:


    Thanks for doing the math on this. So we have two golfers, fairly evenly matched. Looking only at stroke play, and the order in which the scores were written, Player A wins 4, loses 3, and ties 13 times, that's pretty close. In the USGA system, they have identical handicaps. Under CONGU, Player A has a handicap about 4 strokes higher than B, even though he wins slightly more when they play even. Under @Roadking's idea, using the lowest score (80 v. 76) Player A would still get 4 strokes from B, even though A has a slight edge over B playing straight up. Is this consistent with a goal of allowing even competition?




    That would be right if they are playing Medal matchplay, a format that is almost never used over here at least. In matchplay obviously without hole by hole scores we cannot know the result.

    Off the same handicaps player A will probably never win any event with more than a handful of players, similarly in a team event I think I would prefer to have two Bs rather than two As in order to give our team a chance of wining, but then again not sure how these scores are achieved hole by hole so this is just a guess .


    I agree with the underlined bit, but if we only have total scores, there's only one way we can compare them.



    I remember reading this article on Dean Knuth's webpage about partners.

    http://www.popeofslope.com/guidelines/picking.html

    He suggests that in fourball match play, you should look for a partner with a handicap significantly different from yours, who is also a different "type" of player (i.e. an erratic player should pair with a steady player).
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,101 ✭✭
    _Red_ wrote:




    How did you calculate the CONGU handicap?


    Others may be able to explain better, but in essence your "exact handicap" is increased or decreased by a set amount, based on your new score. It can only go up by 0.1 at a time, but can decrease a much larger margin based on a single low score. You can read about it here:

    http://www.congu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2019-CONGU-Manual.pdf

    on page 48, or in Appendix E on page 76
  • _Red__Red_ Members Posts: 32
    davep043 wrote:

    _Red_ wrote:


    How did you calculate the CONGU handicap?


    Others may be able to explain better, but in essence your "exact handicap" is increased or decreased by a set amount, based on your new score. It can only go up by 0.1 at a time, but can decrease a much larger margin based on a single low score. You can read about it here:

    http://www.congu.co....ONGU-Manual.pdf

    on page 48, or in Appendix E on page 76




    I know how CONGU works - I've had my handicap calculated off it for years.



    My query was with the suggestion Player B's handicap would have started off at 4.



    I'd have thought it would have started at 7.



    That would be on the basis on the first three scores (76, 84, 82) being submitted for the calculation. The worst score would be thrown out, so it'd be the average of the 76 and the 82 that would be used. So that would be 79 on a 72 rated course giving a 7 handicap.
  • Deceptively ShortDeceptively Short Members Posts: 373 ✭✭
    I believe the initial CONGU handicap is based on your best card not an average.
  • bladehunterbladehunter Today was a good day.... Members Posts: 25,890 ✭✭


    I think Player A is clearly the better player and there is an increased chance he may be a sandbagger. Player B happened to shoot 2 rounds in the last 20 that he at best has about a 2% of shooting any given round (assuming a 7.1 index). More than likely their index is normally higher than 7.1 and they went on a hot streak. Their index is likely going back to 8.5'ish range where they normally are.




    lol. Say it ain’t so !



    Brother. You hit the nail on the head.
    TM Tour M6 11.2 * KK Tini XTS 70X
    TM Tour 17 M1 14.5* Graphite Design ADDI 8x
    TM Tour M5 19.8 * Aldila Synergy Blue 70TX  
    Titleist Tour Proto MB 3-pw Modus 130X
    Ping Glide Forged   54 60 S400
    Cameron GSS 009 1.5 tungsten sole weights, sound slot
  • _Red__Red_ Members Posts: 32


    I believe the initial CONGU handicap is based on your best card not an average.




    You may be correct - it's that long since I was involved in an initial handicap allocation.



    I had it in my head best two of three were used.
  • davep043davep043 Members Posts: 3,101 ✭✭
    _Red_ wrote:



    I believe the initial CONGU handicap is based on your best card not an average.




    You may be correct - it's that long since I was involved in an initial handicap allocation.



    I had it in my head best two of three were used.


    It does appear to be the single lowest 18-hole score of the first 54 holes posted (any combination of 9 or 18 hole scores)
    Initial Handicap = (LAGD + (LAGD*0.13))/ 1.237 truncated to provide a whole number.


    where LAGD is Lowest Adjusted Gross Differential
  • FadeFade Members Posts: 1,147 ✭✭
    The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.




    The way I read the above premise doesn't seem to represent the USGA very well. You are putting too much emphasis on what the handicap number means or doesn't mean, IMO. I like their wording better.



    The purpose of the USGA Handicap System is to make the game of golf more enjoyable by enabling players of differing abilities to compete on an equitable basis.

    http://www.usga.org/...tml#!rule-14367



    The handicap numbers used to accomplish that are primarily a means to that end.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,303 ✭✭
    Sawgrass wrote:



    So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?



    Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?






    Why do you assume that a player's true potential is his lowest score? Why wouldn't "potential" be lower still?






    Yes, you could say his forecasted potential is quite a lot lower. But basing potential on past results is probably more accurate.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,303 ✭✭
    DavePelz4 wrote:


    The lowest score theory has some errors. If someone plays a 18 hole par 3 course and shoots 54, is that their "potential?'



    If someone shoots 75 from the tips at Bethpage Black, is that their potential?



    Course rating, slope and ultimately differential have to be factors that ultimately go into the underlying "potential."




    And they are included in potential. The 54 on a par 3 would probably produce high differential since the course rating would be quite low.
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,303 ✭✭
    Fade wrote:

    The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.




    The way I read the above premise doesn't seem to represent the USGA very well. You are putting too much emphasis on what the handicap number means or doesn't mean, IMO. I like their wording better.



    The purpose of the USGA Handicap System is to make the game of golf more enjoyable by enabling players of differing abilities to compete on an equitable basis.

    http://www.usga.org/...tml#!rule-14367



    The handicap numbers used to accomplish that are primarily a means to that end.




    I understand the goal is to allow everyone to compete on an equal basis.



    [background=rgb(239, 240, 242)]USGA "A Handicap Index intends to reflect potential ability,...."[/background]



    https://www.usga.org...r.asp?FAQidx=22



    USGA "[background=rgb(239, 240, 242)]The USGA Handicap Index is widely recognized in America and elsewhere as a reliable measure of a player's potential ability."[/background]



    http://www.usga.org/...e-23c19d10.html
  • Roadking2003Roadking2003 AustinMembers Posts: 5,303 ✭✭
    davep043 wrote:
    Decreasing the number from 10 to 8 scores of the last 20 moves it slightly closer to what I would call true potential.






    I agree.
  • jlbos83jlbos83 Members Posts: 559 ✭✭
    It's tricky to find the right balance. As a high handicapper, I believe that I am much more likely than a low handicapper of popping out a round several shots better than any of my previous twenty rounds. That said, I am also pretty likely to shoot one a few shots off the high end. For be, using fewer scores is going to (I think) put me a something of a disadvantage, since my actual scores are more likely to be more spread out. I have to confess to not reading the whole thread, but I got the feeling at the start that the issue seen by the OP might not be so much the actual numbers, but the definition, or application, of the word potential. And I could see that. I certainly have the potential to shoot 85, maybe lower. Now and then I get under 90, so it's certainly in there. But if my handicap was based on that, I would be out of luck, because it's probably not happening (at least it hasn't yet!) I know we'd like a perfect system, but what we have doesn't seem awful too me, We use a very similar (just not official) method in our summer golf league, and on any one day we find that pretty much any team can beat any other, and vice-versa. It's not perfect, but we have fun. And that's what I'm looking for!
    Jeff, an Arizona hacker
  • rogolfrogolf Members Posts: 3,706 ✭✭
    Golf Australia did an exhaustive statistical review prior to developing their new handicap system and implementing it on January 1, 2014. Here is a review after implementation



    https://www.golf.org.au/2016-stat-review



    A summary:



    Five Key Findings from the Statistical Reports

    * Since the introduction in January 2014 of Slope, DSR, and Stableford handicapping of Stroke rounds, there has not been any significant change to ‘equity in competition results patterns’. ‘Equity in competition results patterns’ means the balance of players at each handicap level who are winning competitions, and also who are finishing as placegetters in competitions.

    * Overall across Australia, players of all handicap levels are winning close to their fair share of competitions, and players of all handicap levels are achieving close to their fair share of prizes in competitions. The profile of competition winners and prize winners does shift from season to season, from state to state, and even from club to club. There is a very small number of clubs that exhibit competition results patterns that are notably different to the national patterns – such outcomes can be the result for example of the unusual nature of a course, or of the profile of the membership (such clubs are always welcome to contact their state association to discuss potential solutions).

    * Over the course of a year for women the current GA Handicap System produces a slight bias towards players with single-figure handicaps. This is the case when equity is measured by the chance of a golfer to finish as a placegetter in a competition, and also when equity is measured by the chance of a golfer to win the competition.

    * Over the course of a year for men the current GA Handicap System produces a slight bias towards players with single-figure handicaps when equity is measured by the chance of a golfer to finish as a placegetter in a competition. The reverse is true when equity is measured by the chance of a golfer to win the competition – in this case the bias is slightly towards players with high handicaps. (Note: If GA was to fine-tune the handicap system to further enhance the chances of male single-figure players winning competitions, a direct side effect would be to create a severe bias towards the chance a single-figure player to finish as a placegetter in a competition.)

    * The competiveness of players with single figure handicaps improves in winter whereas the competitiveness of players with high handicaps improves in summer. This effect is more notable in the southern states.
Sign In or Register to comment.