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

[nsxguy]

> @Augster said:

> 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 **** a person out of money.

 

Did you guys ever go to TWO sets of numbers ?

 

Brother, if you think changing them brought the HC Chair grief, I can only imagine what 2 sets of numbers would bring.

 

And its ounds as though you often have mixed comps going on. Medal play here, individuals matches there. IF there were 2 sets of numbers, which set would be used for the upcoming ESC (I expect the medal play ones but).

 

I've never played a course where I've seen 2 sets of HC rating numbers. I can just imagine my old club where we played a team game of gross medal play but guys often "matched cards" after the round between themselves for their match play bets.

 

Figuring out ESC strokes off and then matching cards with different HC numbered holes,,,,,,,, what a nightmare. LOL

[Augster]

Our chair is hosting a meeting Wednesday night to hopefully sort everything out and listen to the whiners.

 

I’m HOPING he shows them the numbers and the process from the website and explains it step by step. Trying to make them understand are a comparison of difficulty between a good player and a bad player. Not necessarily “this hole is tougher than that hole”.

 

You are correct if there were two sets of numbers it’d be a complete cluster and why the chair is trying to keep it to ONE. Playing the medal handicaps for net skins and stableford and the match handicaps for any casual matches being played would be ridiculous.

 

In the end, I’m just hoping nobody starts throwing punches and they all try to act like adults.

[Augster]

An update for anyone keeping track. They had the meeting and our chair explained the change as kindly as he could. I heard he had all the data out on sheets for anyone to pick up and look at. And he was there to explain what the data means and how the handicap manual says to do the hole allocations.

 

Basically he was just telling them that he didn’t just pull the numbers out of thin air.

 

The email that came from the meeting said as follows:

 

“Handicap Hole Assignments

There was some unhappiness in the announced Assignment of Handicap Holes both in regards to the new values assigned and the manner that the new numbers appeared and/or were announced. It was decided that we would continue to use the current values into the immediate future and monitor how they seem to be working out. “

 

So, basically, no change. I’m sure there will still be grousing about the numbers. I’m just hoping, less.