Hole handicap ratings. Help me explain it to old timers that hate change.

[Sawgrass]

My city has two munies. The one I play the least often had separate handicap hole allocations for stroke and match, and I always admired them for it. Just came out with new scorecards and the two handicap hole allocation listings has been dropped.

 

I’m told that no one understood the dual listing.

 

I wish it weren’t so! (Why can’t everyone be like me?)

[Shilgy]

> @Sawgrass said:

> My city has two munies. The one I play the least often had separate handicap hole allocations for stroke and match, and I always admired them for it. Just came out with new scorecards and the two handicap hole allocation listings has been dropped.

>

> I’m told that no one understood the dual listing.

>

> I wish it weren’t so! (Why can’t everyone be like me?)

 

> @Sawgrass said:

> My city has two munies. The one I play the least often had separate handicap hole allocations for stroke and match, and I always admired them for it. Just came out with new scorecards and the two handicap hole allocation listings has been dropped.

>

> I’m told that no one understood the dual listing.

>

> I wish it weren’t so! (Why can’t everyone be like me?)

 

I believe it was posted earlier in the thread but just curious. I was just elected to the MGA at our club and will likely propose this idea of having two separate hole allocations. Clearly one is for match play and the other would be for Stableford and Skins? And the Quota game we play I guess. It was posted earlier that the hole allocation really does not matter for stroke play as it is just a number subtracted from you gross score.

 

Any other reasons for a separate hole rating?

 

It would certainly make some happy as we rarely play proper match play so the ratings more in line with pure difficulty make more sense in day to day play.

[deadsolid...shank]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > My city has two munies. The one I play the least often had separate handicap hole allocations for stroke and match, and I always admired them for it. Just came out with new scorecards and the two handicap hole allocation listings has been dropped.

> >

> > I’m told that no one understood the dual listing.

> >

> > I wish it weren’t so! (Why can’t everyone be like me?)

>

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > My city has two munies. The one I play the least often had separate handicap hole allocations for stroke and match, and I always admired them for it. Just came out with new scorecards and the two handicap hole allocation listings has been dropped.

> >

> > I’m told that no one understood the dual listing.

> >

> > I wish it weren’t so! (Why can’t everyone be like me?)

>

> I believe it was posted earlier in the thread but just curious. I was just elected to the MGA at our club and will likely propose this idea of having two separate hole allocations. Clearly one is for match play and the other would be for Stableford and Skins? And the Quota game we play I guess. It was posted earlier that the hole allocation really does not matter for stroke play as it is just a number subtracted from you gross score.

>

> Any other reasons for a separate hole rating?

 

Our games are all strokeplay but always involve low and total for each hole. Net. So the individual stroke holes are very important. The only time they handicap just comes off at the end is for the Nassau part of the game.

 

I’m guessing many are similar. If you look at all the people playing Wolf, Vegas, Umbilical, etc, all use net scores on individual holes.

 

Unless I’m missing something somewhere, which we both know I’m capable of doing!

 

 

[Newby]

"_Two countries separated by a common language_" - more like two countries separated by a common game

[DaveLeeNC]

Besides the fact that there are many 'stroke play like' competitions where 'not all hole scores are equal' (unlike a traditional medal play event where all that matters is the single # associated with an 18 hole score), the upcoming WW Handicap System makes hole handicaps pretty important WRT ESC and posted scores.

 

dave

[Shilgy]

To further my education....

Whose average scores by holes do you use to determine stroke play allocations? All players? Mid handicaps? And I am surmising that the most over par average score would be #1 cap? And you would still do odd and even by nine? The "normal" guideline about not wanting #1 on the first hole or last hole would not apply in this case I assume (and believe me, I hate to assume in this forum).

[nsxguy]

> @Sawgrass said:

> My city has two munies. The one I play the least often had separate handicap hole allocations for stroke and match, and I always admired them for it. Just came out with new scorecards and the two handicap hole allocation listings has been dropped.

>

> I’m told that no one understood the dual listing.

>

> I wish it weren’t so! (Why can’t everyone be like me?)

 

Well, clearly you're one of a kind !!!

 

I can say I've EVER seen a card with different handicap holes for match vs stroke play.

 

I've seen different handicap holes for different tee sets but never match vs stroke.

[cardoustie]

I was the cap chair and captain at my club for years.

We re-rated the holes twice in my time on the committee

It turned out our easiest par 5, the fifth, became the #1 hole. Guys, not surprisingly, hated the new math driven rankings.

My approach was simple. Jim, you're playing Jack and he birdies 5 every day .. and you need three strokes to reach the green. 3 chances to screw up. You have to get a pop there!!!!

Then I'd go right to the other end of the scale and talk about 13, our hardest hole, a tight long pig of a par four with a tiny green, and explain that "you guys both bogey that hole almost every time." That seemed to do the trick. Relate it to their games and players they know.

We kept a difficulty by hole rated scorecard only for our member guest. When you play big money (massive Calcutta) net medal events, this is advisable. You can't give dots on easy holes where guys can make birds for eagle.

The hardest part was juggling the numbers to make them fit the guidelines for where strokes shouldn't fall.

[rogolf]

> @cardoustie said:

> I was the cap chair and captain at my club for years.

> We re-rated the holes twice in my time on the committee

> It turned out our easiest par 5, the fifth, became the #1 hole. Guys, not surprisingly, hated the new math driven rankings.

> My approach was simple. Jim, you're playing Jack and he birdies 5 every day .. and you need three strokes to reach the green. 3 chances to **** up. You have to get a pop there!!!!

> Then I'd go right to the other end of the scale and talk about 13, our hardest hole, a tight long pig of a par four with a tiny green, and explain that "you guys both bogey that hole almost every time." That seemed to do the trick. Relate it to their games and players they know.

> We kept a difficulty by hole rated scorecard only for our member guest. When you play big money (massive Calcutta) net medal events, this is advisable. You can't give dots on easy holes where guys can make birds for eagle.

> The hardest part was juggling the numbers to make them fit the guidelines for where strokes shouldn't fall.

Similar experiences - our ninth hole is probably the toughest par on the course - long, elevated green surrounded by bunkers. The higher handicap player takes three to get there and two putts. The lower handicap player can get there, but very often ends up in a bunker, then two putts after his shot from the bunker. Both make bogey - tough to par but the higher handicap does not need a stroke in order to get a half (tie).

 

[Augster]

> @cardoustie said:

> I was the cap chair and captain at my club for years.

> We re-rated the holes twice in my time on the committee

> It turned out our easiest par 5, the fifth, became the #1 hole. Guys, not surprisingly, hated the new math driven rankings.

> My approach was simple. Jim, you're playing Jack and he birdies 5 every day .. and you need three strokes to reach the green. 3 chances to **** up. You have to get a pop there!!!!

> Then I'd go right to the other end of the scale and talk about 13, our hardest hole, a tight long pig of a par four with a tiny green, and explain that "you guys both bogey that hole almost every time." That seemed to do the trick. Relate it to their games and players they know.

> We kept a difficulty by hole rated scorecard only for our member guest. When you play big money (massive Calcutta) net medal events, this is advisable. You can't give dots on easy holes where guys can make birds for eagle.

> The hardest part was juggling the numbers to make them fit the guidelines for where strokes shouldn't fall.

 

Thanks for that! It’ll help.

 

I agree about the member/guest, or really any competition where everyone gets all their pops. As an 8 cap, when getting full shots, I get a pop on our easiest hole to birdie. A 330 yard straight ahead par 4 that is now the 6 handicap. It used to be 14 and I’d never get a shot there.

 

As we go more to Stableford and net par, having the hole handicaps set up for difficulty makes more sense.

 

I am absolutely certain that for match play, our new ratings are correct. As you explained with your example. But for net skins, I don’t think it’ll work as well.

 

[cardoustie]

We also were very transparent and the guy that became handicap chair when I was moved up to captain was a retired finance/numbers whiz.

Anybody wanted all the math - we shared it

One last comment. The HARDEST part of dealing with cap adjustments is finding a personality as Hdcp Chair than can handle sitting down with members and having "bad news meetings." Firm but fair and more than willing to take heavy abuse

[DaveLeeNC]

> @Shilgy said:

> To further my education....

> Whose average scores by holes do you use to determine stroke play allocations? All players? Mid handicaps? And I am surmising that the most over par average score would be #1 cap? And you would still do odd and even by nine? The "normal" guideline about not wanting #1 on the first hole or last hole would not apply in this case I assume (and believe me, I hate to assume in this forum).

 

17-2 in the USGA Handicap Manual describes the procedure. Relative to your question you would have two groups of 200 or so scores where the low group would be 15-20 strokes (course handicap) higher than the high group. From that data you can do either Match Play type hole handicaps or Stroke Play types. In an ideal world the low group would be single digit index players and the high group somewhere in the 20's (for men).

 

FWIW, now that golfers (sometimes) are more sensitive to playing from the 'proper tees' it is harder to get those scorecards. The 'low CH group' is no longer playing the same set of tees as the 'high CH group'.

 

dave

 

[Shilgy]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > To further my education....

> > Whose average scores by holes do you use to determine stroke play allocations? All players? Mid handicaps? And I am surmising that the most over par average score would be #1 cap? And you would still do odd and even by nine? The "normal" guideline about not wanting #1 on the first hole or last hole would not apply in this case I assume (and believe me, I hate to assume in this forum).

>

> 17-2 in the USGA Handicap Manual describes the procedure. Relative to your question you would have two groups of 200 or so scores where the low group would be 15-20 strokes (course handicap) higher than the high group. From that data you can do either Match Play type hole handicaps or Stroke Play types. In an ideal world the low group would be single digit index players and the high group somewhere in the 20's (for men).

>

> FWIW, now that golfers (sometimes) are more sensitive to playing from the 'proper tees' it is harder to get those scorecards. The 'low CH group' is no longer playing the same set of tees as the 'high CH group'.

>

> dave

>

 

It was the stroke play hole allocation I was asking about. I understand the match play allocation just fine. Would you use the same cards and determine overall difficulty for Stableford and skins allocation? By difficulty only? That was the question.

[DaveLeeNC]

You use the same set of cards and rank holes by difficulty against par rather than relative difficulty between the 2 groups. dave

[Augster]

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> You use the same set of cards and rank holes by difficulty against par rather than relative difficulty between the 2 groups. dave

 

Exactly this.

 

With the cards and the data, it’d be easy to see which holes average more over par and assign handicaps that way.

 

You all have convinced me for sure. I think we need two cap ratings. We already have the old ratings, but can probably do better, for net skins/stableford, and the new ratings that are most definitely done correctly for match play.

 

I think I have a way to discuss this with the old timers in my daily/weekend group. Just so they remember, when they play an actual match, they need to use the OTHER ratings.

:)

 

 

[Shilgy]

> @Augster said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > You use the same set of cards and rank holes by difficulty against par rather than relative difficulty between the 2 groups. dave

>

> Exactly this.

>

> With the cards and the data, it’d be easy to see which holes average more over par and assign handicaps that way.

>

> You all have convinced me for sure. I think we need two cap ratings. We already have the old ratings, but can probably do better, for net skins/stableford, and the new ratings that are most definitely done correctly for match play.

>

> I think I have a way to discuss this with the old timers in my daily/weekend group. Just so they remember, when they play an actual match, they need to use the OTHER ratings.

> :)

>

>

 

Exactly this for my club as well. Looking forward to that discussion. :(

[Augster]

> @Shilgy said:

> > @Augster said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > You use the same set of cards and rank holes by difficulty against par rather than relative difficulty between the 2 groups. dave

> >

> > Exactly this.

> >

> > With the cards and the data, it’d be easy to see which holes average more over par and assign handicaps that way.

> >

> > You all have convinced me for sure. I think we need two cap ratings. We already have the old ratings, but can probably do better, for net skins/stableford, and the new ratings that are most definitely done correctly for match play.

> >

> > I think I have a way to discuss this with the old timers in my daily/weekend group. Just so they remember, when they play an actual match, they need to use the OTHER ratings.

> > :)

> >

> >

>

> Exactly this for my club as well. Looking forward to that discussion. :(

 

No doubt. “So now we need TWO handicap hole ratings? WTF?” :)

 

Fun times ahead.

 

 

[Shilgy]

> @Augster said:

> > @Shilgy said:

> > > @Augster said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > You use the same set of cards and rank holes by difficulty against par rather than relative difficulty between the 2 groups. dave

> > >

> > > Exactly this.

> > >

> > > With the cards and the data, it’d be easy to see which holes average more over par and assign handicaps that way.

> > >

> > > You all have convinced me for sure. I think we need two cap ratings. We already have the old ratings, but can probably do better, for net skins/stableford, and the new ratings that are most definitely done correctly for match play.

> > >

> > > I think I have a way to discuss this with the old timers in my daily/weekend group. Just so they remember, when they play an actual match, they need to use the OTHER ratings.

> > > :)

> > >

> > >

> >

> > Exactly this for my club as well. Looking forward to that discussion. :(

>

> No doubt. “So now we need TWO handicap hole ratings? WTF?” :)

>

> Fun times ahead.

>

>

 

And the people that don't understand it at all will say "I told you #15 was the hardest hole and should be #1 handicap hole" .

 

Every hole that changes will bring jubilation from some and cries of heresy from others.

[Augster]

Bringing this back up.

 

Sunday was our first men’s club event with the new handicaps. Our spring in MN has been so crappy, this was the first round with the new cards for, I’d say, 70% of the guys that played. How’d it go? In a word, outrage.

 

I knew there’d be a few angry guys, but this type of anger was quite unexpected. After the round, one guy actually quit the club and demanded his dues back. It’s hole handicaps for Jebus’ sake.

 

I don’t know how many guys were INSISTING that our handicap chair did it wrong because “hole 15 is harder than hole 14”. Egad.

 

So now there is a grassroots groundswell to have our handicap chair removed. He’s a retired guy that is great at what he does and really puts time and effort in to learn everything forward and backward. It’ll be a horrible loss at a thankless position. I’d hate to see him ousted.

 

Anyway, I tried to explain how the hole handicaps are calculated to the leader of the unruly mob. No dice. I explained the way they are are perfect for match play and fourball. But we should have the original numbers back for stableford and net skins. This didn’t appease them at all. It seems they don’t want 2 sets of numbers. Which is fine with me. I know our chair followed the process to a “T”.

 

I have my own hole by hole stats on the course recorded in a program over many years. About 300 rounds. The places where I make birdie most often as one of the “low cap” group (0-8) lines up pretty much in line with where a member of the high cap group would need the protection of a shot in the new hole handicaps.

 

Sorry this is so long. If anyone has an easy way to talk these morons off the ledge, I’d appreciate any assistance you can give.

 

 

[Newby]

Do they only play stableford?

[sui generis]

The March 1 debut of new hole handicap numbers at my course elicited reactions ranging from "Ho, hum," to "About time." (Our Committee collected the cards, did the arithmetic, and assigned the numbers per the book. Not that anyone who would be inclined to grumble would appreciate or even be aware of the process.)

[Sawgrass]

> @Augster said:

> Bringing this back up.

>

> Sunday was our first men’s club event with the new handicaps. Our spring in MN has been so crappy, this was the first round with the new cards for, I’d say, 70% of the guys that played. How’d it go? In a word, outrage.

>

> I knew there’d be a few angry guys, but this type of anger was quite unexpected. After the round, one guy actually quit the club and demanded his dues back. It’s hole handicaps for Jebus’ sake.

>

> I don’t know how many guys were INSISTING that our handicap chair did it wrong because “hole 15 is harder than hole 14”. Egad.

>

> So now there is a grassroots groundswell to have our handicap chair removed. He’s a retired guy that is great at what he does and really puts time and effort in to learn everything forward and backward. It’ll be a horrible loss at a thankless position. I’d hate to see him ousted.

>

> Anyway, I tried to explain how the hole handicaps are calculated to the leader of the unruly mob. No dice. I explained the way they are are perfect for match play and fourball. But we should have the original numbers back for stableford and net skins. This didn’t appease them at all. It seems they don’t want 2 sets of numbers. Which is fine with me. I know our chair followed the process to a “T”.

>

> I have my own hole by hole stats on the course recorded in a program over many years. About 300 rounds. The places where I make birdie most often as one of the “low cap” group (0-8) lines up pretty much in line with where a member of the high cap group would need the protection of a shot in the new hole handicaps.

>

> Sorry this is so long. If anyone has an easy way to talk these morons off the ledge, I’d appreciate any assistance you can give.

>

>

 

How about a club-wide vote on whether they want Match Play allocations, Stroke Play allocations or both. If Match (or both) wins, send the USGA recommended analysis method to all, and ask if anyone wished to check the Chair's numbers.

[SNIPERBBB]

You can't negotiate with a mob. Ask Lot.

[Augster]

> @Newby said:

> Do they only play stableford?

 

We almost never play stableford. BUT every event has a skins game that is both gross and net.

[Augster]

> @"sui generis" said:

> The March 1 debut of new hole handicap numbers at my course elicited reactions ranging from "Ho, hum," to "About time." (Our Committee collected the cards, did the arithmetic, and assigned the numbers per the book. Not that anyone who would be inclined to grumble would appreciate or even be aware of the process.)

 

Wow. Lucky. :)

 

To me it doesn’t matter one bit. I actually like the new numbers much better.

 

I think they are mostly mad because all of the par 5’s got a bump up. Longer hitters (lower caps mostly) will birdie those holes nearly every day and now they will go 4/3 net. In the previous iteration of the hole handicaps 3 of the 4 par 5’s were rated 8 or higher. So when an 11 cap or higher (the vast majority of the club) would get a birdie, they’d be assured a net skin unless another higher cap birdied it also. The lower caps always cancel the gross skin on all 4 par 5’s, now they are going to cancel the net skin also.

 

I believe the “mob” see the new numbers as a threat to their future earnings. Which it definitely is. On the par 5’s at least.

 

[bladehunter]

Feel for you Auguster.

Since our pro and owner put the fix in on our committees attempt to set somethings straight at our place it’s killed our events and vibe in general. 16 signed up for the match play bracket. Dogfights down to 30 people or less.

 

I don’t know what it feels like to play at a place with a lot of participation and a place that plays fairly by the rules. Must be a glorious thing.

[Augster]

And another update....

 

The situation at my club continues to devolve. Most of the people I’ve talked to about the new handicap hole allocations are irate. Lots of backstabbing comments and a move to try to get out handicap chair removed.

 

I had one friend say to me, “Who the hell gave him the authority to change those hole handicaps?” I laughed and said, he’s the handicap chair. It’s his job to do it among other things. Just because every chair before him didn’t put in the effort to make it right doesn’t mean he’s wrong to update the hole allocations.

 

There has been a lot of anger. So much so the committee has called a meeting next week to sort it out. I won’t be there as I hate confrontations. Especially over silly carp like hole allocations. Which are absolutely correct.

 

I know he’s going to show these guys the numbers and exactly how and why he changed them. And they STILL won’t stop whining about it I’m sure. Even if they eventually concede that he did his job correctly.

 

Additionally, I play a 1$ Nassau with my friend every day each of us is out there. I’m a 7, he’s a 17. Legit caps. It’s always close. Amazingly, the matches have been EVEN BETTER with the new allocations. They really do make the matches more fun.

 

Previously, our hole 14 is a 330 yard par 4 with no trouble. “Easiest” par 4. It used to be the 14 cap, now it’s the 6. The next hole, a 420 yard dogleg used to be the 2, now it’s the 12. What I’ve seen in my matches with my friend is, before, I’d make a 3 or 4 on 14 while my friend Bill makes 4 or usually 5. So I’d win 14 most every day. Then on 15, I’d make 5 and he’d make 5 and he’d win that most every day.

 

Now with the new caps, both holes we compete on. Bill mostly makes 5 on 14, but that is now 5 for 4. If I want to win the hole, I need to make 3. So we tie a lot. If he hits the green or gets up and down, I then have a ton of pressure to make 3 to tie. On 15, he doesn’t get a shot anymore. But most of the time we tie with 5’s. When he makes an occasional 4 and I make my usual 5, he no longer wastes one of his shots.

 

It’s better and more fun.

 

Here nor there. Sorry for the long post.

[DaveLeeNC]

Augster - one comment that I would have for your handicap committee is that it is important that they recognize both the pluses (which you have shown by example) and the minus'es of the new hole handicaps. And there are some minus'es here.

 

If players are playing a game where net individual score by hole matters (e.g., a Stableford or a four person team game playing the 2 best scores of 4 net by hole-as an example), these match play handicaps are just not as 'good' as hole handicaps done on a difficulty basis.

 

And next year when ESC is going to be 'by hole net against par based', it is actually going to be something of a posting issue (IMHO).

 

Even though I am not a match play golfer, I would personally not object to the way the new hole handicaps were done. But I don't think your handicap committee will have any success in convincing members to willingly accept this if they don't, up front, accept the whole story here. "Match Play Hole Handicaps" is not the only correct answer. And if the HC does not have a good answer for why this choice is the better choice for your club, then they deserve some criticism (IMHO).

 

dave

[Augster]

Thanks Dave. That makes a lot of sense.

 

But our previous hole handicaps, especially one hole, were put together without any data for the most part.

 

Number 11 is our longest par 5. It used to be the 4 handicap. I used to be REALLY long. So I played it as a par 4 every day. My cap is always between 4-7. In events where we have gross and net skins, I’d get at least one of those nearly every time out. Going 4/3 or 3/2. The committee at the time didn’t like me using 11 as an ATM and one day moved the hole handicap to 8. And there it stood for the past decade or more.

 

Our chair redid the caps, and 11 is now the 2 handicap. It is where a higher cap needs the most protection on that side.

 

I don’t get there in 2 every day anymore as I’m nowhere near as long. But I’m happy the hole cap is back to where it should be based on data instead of just trying to screw a person out of money.

[DaveLeeNC]

Augster, I have the same problem .. "I don't get there in 2 every day anymore". But in my case I am referring to long par 4's :)

 

dave