80% rule for plus handicaps?

[codylowrygolf]

Question: a club event is implementing a local rule to adjust handicaps by 80% for guests to protect the field against inflated handicaps.

 

In the champ flight, there are guests who have plus handicaps. How should you account for that?

 

Some numbers...

 

Course Slope = 136

Guest 1: 4.0 index X 0.8 = 3.2 Index

CH moves from a 5 to a 4.

 

Guest 2: 2.0index X 0.8 = 1.6

CH stays the same.

 

guest 3: +2.0 (this is where I need help)

 

How would you do the math?

A) +2.0 X 0.8 = +1.6

CH stays at +2, or...

 

B) +2.0 X 1.2 = +2.4

CH goes from a +2 to a +3

 

My opinion is that it is more equitable to use option B since anyone above scratch is penalized. Makes sense to go linear towards a lower handicap. But I’m less worried about my opinion and curious what the rules of golf says to do.

 

Any takers? ?

[rogolf]

The Rules of golf do not cover such questions - they are the jurisdiction of the Handicapping Authority. In the US, it's also the USGA, but not the Rules dept.

[BM5D]

My club takes 80% of the course handicap, not the index. Doing it your way, if someone is 0.0 to 2.0 they don't change either so I don't see why a plus would need to change. The 80% rule is generally considered to favor the scratch golfer.

[mark m]

A couple of things. BM5D is correct regarding the procedure.

 

1. You first determine the CH for each player.

* Guest 1 is a 4.0 x 136/113 = 4.8 = CH of 5

* Guest 2 is a +2.0 x 136/113 = +2.40 = CH of +2

A difference of 7

2. Then do the allowance:

* Guest 1 = 5 x .80 = 4

* Guest 2 = +2.0 x .80 = +2

This maintains the 80% difference. The original spread/difference = 7.

The spread with the allowance should be 80% of the original difference.

7 x .80 = 5.6, which rounds to 6

 

From the USGA Handicap Manual, 9-3b.:

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14387

 

A player with a plus Course Handicap must add strokes according to the allocation table beginning with the 18th stroke hole. For example, when a player with a plus Course Handicap competes in a partnership stroke play competition, a side with a Course Handicap of plus 1 must add a stroke to its score on the hole designated as the 18th stroke hole. In a match play competition, if the lower-handicapped side has a Course Handicap of plus 1, that side plays at scratch, and the other side adds one stroke to its Course Handicap. (See Decisions 9-3a/1, 9-3a/2, and 9-3a/3.)

 

When a plus-handicap player is part of a side, the percentage allowances, for different types of play (as described in Section 9-4), bring that player's Course Handicap closer to zero (e.g., 50% of a 1 and +1 is .5 and +0.5, which rounds to 1 and 0 respectively. This is 50% of the original spread of 2). This occurs in order to keep as close as possible the proper percentage spread between the plus-handicap player and the other members of the side.

 

Example: On side A-B, Player A has a Course Handicap of +5 and Player B has a Course Handicap of 10. The total spread between Course Handicap is 15 strokes. In a competition where 80% of each player's Course Handicap is used, Player A becomes a +4 (+5 x 80%) and Player B becomes an 8 (10 x 80%). The spread between Course Handicap, after the allowance is 12, which is 80% of their original spread of 15.

 

 

 

[codylowrygolf]

Thanks @BM5D !

 

Hi @"mark m" - Thanks for that. Looks like the rules for handicapping are meant to protect the lower handicap (plus) from sandbaggers. The rule assumes that the higher your course handicap, the the more variance for discrepancy. But if you are a scratch or better, you are rewarded with less of a spread closer to par. To me, the fair thing is to do the same thing for everyone vs. giving an advantage to a smaller group.

 

And trust me, I'm a 0.9 index and appreciate the attempt for equity with higher handicaps. Just seems odd to favor the plus handicappers like this..

 

Regardless of how I "feel", those are the rules. Thanks for the help!!

 

Best,

Cody

[QEight]

> @codylowrygolf said: Just seems odd to favor the plus handicappers like this..

 

The purpose is to not favor anyone. Purpose is to reduce the effect of handicap until ultimately playing HC reaches zero, i.e. scratch.

[Mr. Bean]

No matter how many times this is explained to me I still am of the opinion that players with a plus handicap are favored here as they sort of get more handicap strokes while negative handicaps need to dispense with some. As QEight said the purpose is to reduce the effect of handicap but in the case of a plus capper the effect is not reduced but increased. The difference of two handicaps is certainly reduced by the relevant percentage but at the cost of the high capper.

[QEight]

In handicapped play the difference between players' handicaps is important, not the absolute values of the handicaps. Players are playing against each other, not against the par (or their handicap).

 

It will not matter if the handicaps are 2 and 10 or +2 and 6. Their difference is always 8. Now you just take 80% of it. Nobody (even the plus) is favoured more than others.

[Mr. Bean]

> @QEight said:

> In handicapped play the difference between players' handicaps is important, not the absolute values of the handicaps. Players are playing against each other, not against the par (or their handicap).

>

> It will not matter if the handicaps are 2 and 10 or +2 and 6. Their difference is always 8. Now you just take 80% of it. Nobody (even the plus) is favoured more than others.

 

I had to figure this out once more through an example and I think I have finally got it. Here's the example:

 

Player A has hcp +5 and Player B has hcp 5. Normally A has to give the course one stroke on 5 easiest holes and B gets a stroke on 5 toughest holes. In an 80% competition A has to give the course only 4 strokes thus gaining one stroke compared to his full handicap while B gets one stroke on only 4 toughest holes thus losing one stroke compared to his full handicap.

 

Now, if both players would play their 'expected' gross scores on a par72 course A would play 67 and B would play 77, so the difference is 10 strokes, the same as the difference of their hcp's. When we now apply the competition handicaps (80%) A gets a net score of 71 and B gets 73 the difference being 2 strokes which is 20% from the difference of their handicaps.

 

So what has happened here is that seemingly A has got a net score that is too low as he has sort of gained one stroke while B lost one. However, this difference of 2 strokes is the same 2 strokes any player gets if he has hcp 10 strokes lower than another player regardless of the handicaps. (10 vs. 20 gives 8 vs. 16)

 

In a nutshell: a low capper always has an advantage when competed with partial handicaps and the advantage is directly the percentage deducted, i.e. in this case 100%-80% = 20%. This advantage is only determined by the difference of the handicaps, not by their absolute values.

[Newby]

I still don't understand why some clubs continue with the 75%, 80% or 90% myth.

The handicapping authorities have long recognised that statistically the lower handicap player wins about 55% of the time on full difference.

 

**_Myth ….._**

“It is unfair in singles match play to require the lower handicap player to concede full handicap difference to his opponent.

 

_Numerous researchers and golfing bodies including the United States Golf Association, English Golf Union and Scottish Golf Union have investigated the relative merits of full versus three-quarters difference in handicap.

• All of these independent pieces of research have come to a single conclusion – full difference between the handicaps of the two players is clearly the more equitable allowance.

• A Scottish Golf Union survey covering 4000 handicap singles matches showed:

¾ Diff - Matches won by lower handicap player 61% 55%

Full Diff. - Matches won by the higher handicap player 55%

From the above it can be seen that even when conceding full difference the lower handicap player retains an advantage._

 

The disparity is more pronounced the greater the difference in handicaps.

 

In a much smaller sample the following extreme was shown. At over 12, the balance was 100% in favour of the lower handicapper. That is a fairly dramatic example of the bias in favour of the better player but the general trend repeats in the majority of club singles handicap events.

[HatsForBats]

> @Newby said:

> I still don't understand why some clubs continue with the 75%, 80% or 90% myth.

> The handicapping authorities have long recognised that statistically the lower handicap player wins about 55% of the time on full difference.

>

> **_Myth ….._**

> “It is unfair in singles match play to require the lower handicap player to concede full handicap difference to his opponent.

>

> _Numerous researchers and golfing bodies including the United States Golf Association, English Golf Union and Scottish Golf Union have investigated the relative merits of full versus three-quarters difference in handicap.

> • All of these independent pieces of research have come to a single conclusion – full difference between the handicaps of the two players is clearly the more equitable allowance.

> • A Scottish Golf Union survey covering 4000 handicap singles matches showed:

> ¾ Diff - Matches won by lower handicap player 61% 55%

> Full Diff. - Matches won by the higher handicap player 55%

> From the above it can be seen that even when conceding full difference the lower handicap player retains an advantage._

>

> The disparity is more pronounced the greater the difference in handicaps.

>

> In a much smaller sample the following extreme was shown. At over 12, the balance was 100% in favour of the lower handicapper. That is a fairly dramatic example of the bias in favour of the better player but the general trend repeats in the majority of club singles handicap events.

 

Likely because the lower handicaps have less chance of winning when playing a net full stroke competition against a medium to large group of higher handicap players.

[Mr. Bean]

> @Newby said:

> I still don't understand why some clubs continue with the 75%, 80% or 90% myth.

> The handicapping authorities have long recognised that statistically the lower handicap player wins about 55% of the time on full difference.

>

> **_Myth ….._**

> “It is unfair in singles match play to require the lower handicap player to concede full handicap difference to his opponent.

>

> _Numerous researchers and golfing bodies including the United States Golf Association, English Golf Union and Scottish Golf Union have investigated the relative merits of full versus three-quarters difference in handicap.

> • All of these independent pieces of research have come to a single conclusion – full difference between the handicaps of the two players is clearly the more equitable allowance.

> • A Scottish Golf Union survey covering 4000 handicap singles matches showed:

> ¾ Diff - Matches won by lower handicap player 61% 55%

> Full Diff. - Matches won by the higher handicap player 55%

> From the above it can be seen that even when conceding full difference the lower handicap player retains an advantage._

>

> The disparity is more pronounced the greater the difference in handicaps.

>

> In a much smaller sample the following extreme was shown. At over 12, the balance was 100% in favour of the lower handicapper. That is a fairly dramatic example of the bias in favour of the better player but the general trend repeats in the majority of club singles handicap events.

 

That may be true for singles matches but for a stroke play competition the high and medium cappers have a clear edge, at least at my club. Probably due to higher number of them in the comp as well as larger latitude in scores.

[Newby]

Yes. The same report (with various graphs which I haven't got the technology to reproduce without hand keying) says of handicap stroke play competitions:

_When the distribution of winners by handicap category is related to their representation in the field, it can be seen that all handicap categories win in reasonable proportion to their entry._

But the chance of a named individual winning is the same as any other named individual.

 

[HatsForBats]

> @Newby said:

> Yes. The same report (with various graphs which I haven't got the technology to reproduce without hand keying) says of handicap stroke play competitions:

> _When the distribution of winners by handicap category is related to their representation in the field, it can be seen that all handicap categories win in reasonable proportion to their entry._

> But the chance of a named individual winning is the same as any other named individual.

>

 

Can you post a link?

[Newby]

Afraid not. It was on the CONGU website but they introduced a new one a couple of years ago and the Myths & Misconceptions section didn't reappear.

[HatsForBats]

this? https://www.scottishgolf.org/wp-content/uploads/Myths-and-Misconceptions1.pdf

 

[Newby]

Yes, but can't cut and paste tables and bar charts

[HatsForBats]

I am not very familiar with the CONGU system. I wonder how they broke ties if there was only 1 winner for each stroke play comp. I assume there were a lot of ties that somehow had to be broken. It also seems strange that they put the word Winners in quotes in the summary section.

[Mr. Bean]

I guess they broke the ties to get the one and only winner. After all, there can only be one winner in a golf competition.

[SkiSchoolPro]

Yes, if playing 80%, move everyone towards 0 (and round everyone in same direction, typically up so a +1.5 becomes a +1 and a 1.5 becomes a 2).

Lots of mathematically valid reasons to play a % of HC (but I prefer adjusting index to avoid multiple rounding)...it all depends on the FORMAT being played. If all indexes are legit, I agree that the low cap is favored slightly in a heads up match (especially stroke play), but not necessarily in a large field event. Unadjusted HCs were not designed to cover all formats. The most obvious case where handicaps need to be adjusted is in a scramble, but there are others- https://www.usga.org/handicapping-articles/what-the-multiball-allowances-mean-to-you-25506.html

http://docs.golfgenius.com/article/show/22435-tournament-handicap-options

 

[HatsForBats]

I wondered how not why they broke ties. Many casual or even somewhat more formal competitions do not break ties for 1st.

[Deceptively Short]

We, a typical UK club, always break ties for 1st place. The only exception is our Club

Championship, 36 hole medal, in which we have a sudden death playoff - partly because it is easy to arrange as 2nd is played in score order so normally two or more tied players finish close, in time, to each other.

[larrybud]

Why is the championship flight using handicaps in the first place?

[Deceptively Short]

In the UK we don’t use ‘flights’, or certainly I have not heard of them. For this Club Championship, 36 hole medal, there are two main prizes a gross and a net. Obviously the most prestigious is the gross as they become Club Champion but there is a trophy for the net champion too.

In a normal monthly medal we have 2 divisions; Division 1 for 12 and below handicappers, Division 2 for 13 and above, both are net competitions - there is also a prize (equivalent to 3rd prize) for the best gross score of the day.

[HatsForBats]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> We, a typical UK club, always break ties for 1st place. The only exception is our Club

> Championship, 36 hole medal, in which we have a sudden death playoff - partly because it is easy to arrange as 2nd is played in score order so normally two or more tied players finish close, in time, to each other.

 

How does your typical UK club break the ties for 1st?

[Newby]

Either a play off or conventional card count (back 9, 6, 3, 1) as per USGA & R&A recommendations. Depending on the club and/or the competition terms.

[Mr. Bean]

> @HatsForBats said:

> I wondered how not why they broke ties. Many casual or even somewhat more formal competitions do not break ties for 1st.

 

I have never been a part or heard of a golf competition where there are more winners than one. What would be the point?

[Deceptively Short]

In a normal Saturday full medal of circa 120 players we have prizes for top 3 net Div 1 and the same for Div 2 plus 1 gross prize - no ties. Also there is an optional sweep for 2s, sometimes if only a couple of 2s are scored this can be worth more than 1st prize. Traditionally at our Club we share 2s in the 3 ball you are playing with so we always root for your playing partners to get one - just tradition.

[Mr. Bean]

> @"Deceptively Short" said:

> In the UK we don’t use ‘flights’, or certainly I have not heard of them.

 

Surprised to hear that. When I visited St. Andrews the word 'flight' meant a group of golf players starting at the same time as a group. Later I have found out that a flight in the USA means the entire field of player in a competition. Although based on the experiences of these past two days the language seems to vary dramatically even within the States, not to mention within English speaking countries.

 

 

[QEight]

In many competitions in Finland flights are somewhat used, but usually only two. For example 12 and under playing hc stroke play and above playing Stableford.

Also best gross score gets a price.