Handicap system is broken for match play

[T_Golf_23]

I struggle severely with the handicap system in match play. 
 

I understand exactly how it works. So this is not the challenge.

 

I play in lots of net tournaments and gross tournaments. Have won some tournaments on a gross and place high on others, but frequently struggle in net matches. 
 

I actually played a mid handicapper the has beaten me on multiple

occasion in net play. Mostly on the stoke holes. I generally give me 10 stroke. He wanted to play straight up one day. Match was over by the 12 hole. Also played no gimme’s. It was an empty weekday…. We didn’t slow play….. I am convinced the handicap system is broken logic for match play. 

 

I do not understand how In normal match play I would be giving a player like this strokes on handicap holes 1-10. In theory, I am expected to bogey the #1 handicap hole and he is expected to bogey the #1 handicap. On our 1 handicap there are players on the green in 2, net 1. I can’t drive a 440 yard par 4 to lie 1.  Best is when you get 20 cappers on the green in 2, lying net 0.
 

would it not make more sense to look at the differential in holes? 
 

so as a 5 I would be expected to bogey HCP 1-5. As a 15 he would be expected to bogey HCP 1-15. 
 

would it not be more fair to give strokes on HCP holes 6-15 where I am expected to par and he is expected to bogey. We are both expected to bogey 1-5…. So they cancel out, no strokes given. 

Thoughts? 

 

[JJFWebster]

It works as long as the handicaps are accurate. I played in an open match play at my club this year and nearly all my matches came down to the last couple holes. 

 

I will agree though that when a mid to high handicapper is having a good game, there is basically no chance. I had a 13 index shoot 78 on me and I think I picked up 2 birdie putts because I had already lost the holes.

[Pastit]

37 minutes ago, JJFWebster said:

It works as long as the handicaps are accurate. I played in an open match play at my club this year and nearly all my matches came down to the last couple holes. 

 

I will agree though that when a mid to high handicapper is having a good game, there is basically no chance. I had a 13 index shoot 78 on me and I think I picked up 2 birdie putts because I had already lost the holes.

The low man has little chance in U.K. winter conditions I.e. when tees are moved forward and preferred lies operate allowing easier striking than otherwise.

[T_Golf_23]

32 minutes ago, JJFWebster said:

It works as long as the handicaps are accurate. I played in an open match play at my club this year and nearly all my matches came down to the last couple holes. 

 

I will agree though that when a mid to high handicapper is having a good game, there is basically no chance. I had a 13 index shoot 78 on me and I think I picked up 2 birdie putts because I had already lost the holes.

But it shouldn’t come down to the last holes. I’m theory, yes…. But why should better players be penalized for being better?? 
 

what other sport, aside from bowling, gives people a bump because they are not as good as the better players. 
 

when I played college baseball, we never have another team extra runs to even out the game. We never did this at any level of any sport. 
 

Wouldn’t it be even better to use handicaps to rank players in a “level” or flight and then they play straight up. 
 

For example, the 8-12 handicap flight plays with no strokes. On any given day, any of those guys can best each other. 
 

Why should a match between a 18 and 9 capper ever be close…. Or a 30 capper ever have a chance against a 5 index? 

[MPAndreassi]

19 minutes ago, T_Golf_23 said:

But it shouldn’t come down to the last holes. I’m theory, yes…. But why should better players be penalized for being better?? 
 

what other sport, aside from bowling, gives people a bump because they are not as good as the better players. 
 

when I played college baseball, we never have another team extra runs to even out the game. We never did this at any level of any sport. 
 

Wouldn’t it be even better to use handicaps to rank players in a “level” or flight and then they play straight up. 
 

For example, the 8-12 handicap flight plays with no strokes. On any given day, any of those guys can best each other. 
 

Why should a match between a 18 and 9 capper ever be close…. Or a 30 capper ever have a chance against a 5 index? 

Your answer seems quite simple, don’t play in net events. 

[hammersia]

I don't totally understand the question, but I think you are mainly saying that on the "most difficult, lowest stoke index holes" your shots cancel each other out.

 

This comes from a common misconception. 

 

Stroke index is not actually worked out on "difficulty", but, if done properly, on the greatest differential holes between a high and low handicapper. That is why, for example, a long par 3 can be quite a high stroke index, because both a low and high handicapper will bogie it quite frequently. 

 

And it's why the lowest stroke index holes tend to be long par 4s, because a low handicapper will have a good shot at par, and a high handicapper is usually not reaching the green in two and fighting for bogie.

[T_Golf_23]

1 hour ago, hammersia said:

I don't totally understand the question, but I think you are mainly saying that on the "most difficult, lowest stoke index holes" your shots cancel each other out.

 

This comes from a common misconception. 

 

Stroke index is not actually worked out on "difficulty", but, if done properly, on the greatest differential holes between a high and low handicapper. That is why, for example, a long par 3 can be quite a high stroke index, because both a low and high handicapper will bogie it quite frequently. 

 

And it's why the lowest stroke index holes tend to be long par 4s, because a low handicapper will have a good shot at par, and a high handicapper is usually not reaching the green in two and fighting for bogie.

Yes….. I understand this fully. 
 

so when you have a scratch player against a handicap player this theory works. Because a scratch player is expected to par the 1HCp hole while the Handicap player is supposed to bogie.  
 

So let’s say I am a 10 and another player is an 11. I am giving him 1 stroke. 
 

that stroke would be on the 1HCP hole. 
 

but if you were to look at a stableford format or a net stroke format, we are both expected to bogie the 1 HCP hole. 
 

 In Match play, if he bogies the hole and i bogie the hole, as we are both expected to, he wins the hole, but i technically shot the score I was supposed to shoot on the hole and still lose it. 
 

compare that to if I am giving him a stroke on the 11hcp hole, I am supposed to par it and he is supposed to bogie it. If I bogie that hole, then I scored a net bogie while he was net par. …. This seems a more logical way to score match play. 
 

 

[T_Golf_23]

5 hours ago, MPAndreassi said:

Your answer seems quite simple, don’t play in net events. 

Yes exactly…. Which is what I mostly do now….. but it doesn’t change the fact That I think the structure of the handicap system in Match play is broken….

[hammersia]

15 minutes ago, T_Golf_23 said:

Yes….. I understand this fully. 
 

so when you have a scratch player against a handicap player this theory works. Because a scratch player is expected to par the 1HCp hole while the Handicap player is supposed to bogie.  
 

So let’s say I am a 10 and another player is an 11. I am giving him 1 stroke. 
 

that stroke would be on the 1HCP hole. 
 

but if you were to look at a stableford format or a net stroke format, we are both expected to bogie the 1 HCP hole. 
 

 In Match play, if he bogies the hole and i bogie the hole, as we are both expected to, he wins the hole, but i technically shot the score I was supposed to shoot on the hole and still lose it. 
 

compare that to if I am giving him a stroke on the 11hcp hole, I am supposed to par it and he is supposed to bogie it. If I bogie that hole, then I scored a net bogie while he was net par. …. This seems a more logical way to score match play. 
 

 

Because it would get incredibly complicated if you were playing with someone with a handicap differential greater than your index - e.g. a 10 handicapper playing against a 23. 

 

Sure they would get strokes against you on indexes 11 to 18, but where are the other 5 shots allocated? The hardest? Easiest? 

 

Always bear in mind that the universal answer to this sort of question is......

 

Play better golf.

 

 

[ShortGolfer]

Why?  Because good golfers want the opportunity to win bets against anyone willing to play them, and not just other good golfers.

 

As always, it is all about the money.

[jvincent]

@T_Golf_23 I'll start by saying no system is perfect but @hammersia has it right when he talks about the scoring differential. 

 

The problem is that the differential has to be done between two groups of golfers when hole assignments are done.

 

At our club the 4 par 3s are rated the lowest. When you compare the score differentials between the first flight of our men's league (ave index about 3) to the third flight (ave index about 18) guess what you see? The score differential is the closest on the par 3s.

 

Like all statistical exercises hole rankings rely on large populations. There will always be individual cases which don't follow the trend. This falls under the category of first world problems.

[T_Golf_23]

11 minutes ago, hammersia said:

Because it would get incredibly complicated if you were playing with someone with a handicap differential greater than your index - e.g. a 10 handicapper playing against a 23. 

 

Sure they would get strokes against you on indexes 11 to 18, but where are the other 5 shots allocated? The hardest? Easiest? 

 

Always bear in mind that the universal answer to this sort of question is......

 

Play better golf.

 

 

Yes, if you met the strokes, they would be getting 2 on the 1HCp normally but this would cancel out to 1 under the proposed system. 
 

I agree play better golf, but the handicap system in net matcha is penalizing to better players in my view. 

[itsame]

I always found handicap match play to be more fair using half of the differential.

So a 5 vs 15 would only give 5 strokes, not 10.

 

That means the better player is more likely to win, instead of the other way around.

[Socrates]

The current system is still the way to go.  One of the issues I see, is that the lower hcp player has mentally allowed themselves to think that they are going to lose to the higher hcp player.  Match play has always been about not only the golf score, but also the mental aspect.  There is a bit of gamesmanship and strategy involved and that can be almost as important as the strokes given.   

 

Your course may also examine which holes are being assigned what strokes.  It is possible that they are done incorrectly.  I've seen some weird stuff on scorecards over the years.

[jdl]

6 hours ago, T_Golf_23 said:

 

would it not make more sense to look at the differential in holes? 
 

so as a 5 I would be expected to bogey HCP 1-5. As a 15 he would be expected to bogey HCP 1-15. 
 

would it not be more fair to give strokes on HCP holes 6-15 where I am expected to par and he is expected to bogey. We are both expected to bogey 1-5…. So they cancel out, no strokes given. 

Thoughts? 

 

 

I have had some of the low handicappers in my league ask this same question but no, that does not make sense. All that does is push those stokes out to *easier* holes.

 

Say you're a 17 cap playing an 18. Would giving him a stroke on the easiest hole on the course, probably a short par 3 or 4 make sense? I don't think so.

[smoova]

I agree that the current system is backwards because it gives strokes to the worse player on the holes where the two players are most likely to have the same score.  That said, I always figured that the (relatively unfair) system creates an incentive for worse players to play more match play since they are (IME) less inclined to play in competitive events of that nature.

[dfeldss]

6 hours ago, T_Golf_23 said:

But it shouldn’t come down to the last holes. I’m theory, yes…. But why should better players be penalized for being better?? 
 

what other sport, aside from bowling, gives people a bump because they are not as good as the better players. 
 

when I played college baseball, we never have another team extra runs to even out the game. We never did this at any level of any sport. 
 

Wouldn’t it be even better to use handicaps to rank players in a “level” or flight and then they play straight up. 
 

For example, the 8-12 handicap flight plays with no strokes. On any given day, any of those guys can best each other. 
 

Why should a match between a 18 and 9 capper ever be close…. Or a 30 capper ever have a chance against a 5 index? 

 

Comparing college baseball to amateur golf is pretty silly. Is the HC perfect? Flights are the best way to do it, but not always possible depending on how many people sign up and the range of their HCs so it is what it is

 

Absolutely not, but it allows people to compete on a somewhat level playing field. I don't think a 30 capper is walking off the course thinking he truly beat a 5 capper, even if he won the match. Like others have said, don't play net events

[klebs01]

This is very odd. My experience is the exact opposite of the OP. Match play is the only format where 100% handicap is fair. Clearly there is a lack of understanding of the system. The stroke aren’t applied to the most difficult holes, but the holes with the larges differential (adjusted for place in the round if necessary). 

[larrybud]

7 hours ago, T_Golf_23 said:

would it not be more fair to give strokes on HCP holes 6-15 where I am expected to par and he is expected to bogey. We are both expected to bogey 1-5…. So they cancel out, no strokes given. 

Thoughts? 

 

There are other issues with handicapping match play events, but this isn't one of them.

While it *could* make a difference in a match, you would lose anyway if you lost 7&6. You probably would have lost 8&7, 7&6, or 6&5.

 

Why don't you figure out what it WOULD have been with your methodology and report back on the outcome?

 

[davep043]

3 hours ago, hammersia said:

Stroke index is not actually worked out on "difficulty", but, if done properly, on the greatest differential holes between a high and low handicapper. That is why, for example, a long par 3 can be quite a high stroke index, because both a low and high handicapper will bogie it quite frequently. 

The recommendations for stroke indexing have changed form the previous USGA recommendation.  Now they ARE intended to be based on hole difficulty, as measured by the Course Rating Process, and with some additional considerations applied.  You can review the current recommendations in Appendix E of the Handicapping Rules.

 

51 minutes ago, itsame said:

I always found handicap match play to be more fair using half of the differential.

So a 5 vs 15 would only give 5 strokes, not 10.

 

That means the better player is more likely to win, instead of the other way around.

The better player is already likely to win.  Generally, a higher handicapper is more erratic than a lower handicapper, there is more spread in his scores.  Since the Handicaps are based on the better 40% of the scores, the higher handicappers "average" net score is further over par than the better player's.  If both players play "average", the better player will have maybe a 1 stroke advantage, which is enough to skew the odds very slightly in his favor.  If they play well, they're evenly matched.  If the high handicapper plays at his very best, he's really really hard to beat.  If he plays really poorly, its nearly impossible for a low-handicapper to lose to him.

 

When I think about handicapped match play, I think in portions of a stroke, rather than full strokes.  Consider a match with a 9 stroke difference in handicaps.  Without strokes, the better player will have something like 1/2 stroke difference on every hole.  Once the 9 strokes are applied, the high-handicapper will have about a 1/2 stroke advantage on 9 holes, the better player will have the same advantage on the other 9 holes.  Seems fair to me.  The better players seem to focus on the holes where they are at a disadvantage, while ignoring the fact that the have a positive advantage on the others.

[larrybud]

3 hours ago, hammersia said:

Stroke index is not actually worked out on "difficulty", but, if done properly, on the greatest differential holes between a high and low handicapper. That is why, for example, a long par 3 can be quite a high stroke index, because both a low and high handicapper will bogie it quite frequently. 

 

While that used to be the case, that's not the recommendation any longer. 

https://www.usga.org/handicapping/roh/2020-rules-of-handicapping.html

See appendix E

"It is recommended that a stroke index allocation be applied over 18-holes, split into six triads with each hole ranked on its playing difficulty relative to par."

So what we probably have now is a mix of courses who have been rerated since the WHS went into effect, with hole handicaps allocated against par, vs the old method of bogey/scratch difference.

[larrybud]

13 minutes ago, davep043 said:

When I think about handicapped match play, I think in portions of a stroke, rather than full strokes.  Consider a match with a 9 stroke difference in handicaps.  Without strokes, the better player will have something like 1/2 stroke difference on every hole.  Once the 9 strokes are applied, the high-handicapper will have about a 1/2 stroke advantage on 9 holes, the better player will have the same advantage on the other 9 holes.  Seems fair to me.  The better players seem to focus on the holes where they are at a disadvantage, while ignoring the fact that the have a positive advantage on the others.

The problem is there's no way a single index can be equitable in both stroke AND match play for a player of a certain handicap range. The reason for this is what you pointed out: higher capped players are more erratic hole by hole.

If the system is equitable for match play, then it's unequitable in stroke play, and vice versa.

 

Those triple/net doubles only lose a player 1 hole in match play, but contribute fully to his score for posting purposes.

(and that's assuming players are doing ESC right, which IME isn't the case, even among prolific players).

 

 

 

[davep043]

4 minutes ago, larrybud said:

So what we probably have now is a mix of courses who have been rerated since the WHS went into effect, with hole handicaps allocated against par, vs the old method of bogey/scratch difference.

Its possible to re-establish the Stroke Indexing without having a course re-rated.  In the US areas, the State or Regional golf association is responsible for doing the ratings, and they have the data available, not just the individual hole ratings but all of the measurements made in coming up with the individual hole Scratch and Bogey ratings.  But knowing that doesn't mean it happens in a timely manner, my own home club hasn't changed our Stroke Indices.  I'm advocating for it to be done, and time it with the purchase of a new batch of scorecards.

[davep043]

3 minutes ago, larrybud said:

The problem is there's no way a single index can be equitable in both stroke AND match play for a player of a certain handicap range. The reason for this is what you pointed out: higher capped players are more erratic hole by hole.

If the system is equitable for match play, then it's unequitable in stroke play, and vice versa.

 

Those triple/net doubles only lose a player 1 hole in match play, but contribute fully to his score for posting purposes.

(and that's assuming players are doing ESC right, which IME isn't the case, even among prolific players).

After reading statistics that show the results are pretty dang even when higher and lower handicappers compete against each other, with a very small edge to the better player, I'm not sure how we'd improve on the system without making it much much more complicated.  There's some discussion of past analyses here:

https://content.iospress.com/articles/journal-of-sports-analytics/jsa184

I admit, I just scanned it, my brain started to hurt when I read " he employed logistic, multinomial and generalized ordinal regression models to investigate fairness", but the general conclusion of past studies was that lower-handicappers have an edge.

[hammersia]

22 minutes ago, larrybud said:

 

While that used to be the case, that's not the recommendation any longer. 

https://www.usga.org/handicapping/roh/2020-rules-of-handicapping.html

See appendix E

"It is recommended that a stroke index allocation be applied over 18-holes, split into six triads with each hole ranked on its playing difficulty relative to par."

So what we probably have now is a mix of courses who have been rerated since the WHS went into effect, with hole handicaps allocated against par, vs the old method of bogey/scratch difference.

To answer you and Dave, I'm one of thousands of people who don't live in the US and don't recognise US laws. 

 

Royal and Ancient me. Red coats.

 

And it's The Open. 

[larrybud]

18 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Its possible to re-establish the Stroke Indexing without having a course re-rated.  In the US areas, the State or Regional golf association is responsible for doing the ratings, and they have the data available, not just the individual hole ratings but all of the measurements made in coming up with the individual hole Scratch and Bogey ratings.  But knowing that doesn't mean it happens in a timely manner, my own home club hasn't changed our Stroke Indices.  I'm advocating for it to be done, and time it with the purchase of a new batch of scorecards.

While that's true, I doubt most courses would go through the cost associated with it (including the printing of new scorecards) if they aren't required to be re-rated.

[davep043]

1 minute ago, larrybud said:

While that's true, I doubt most courses would go through the cost associated with it (including the printing of new scorecards) if they aren't required to be re-rated.

There is no cost associated with a phone call to the appropriate Golf Association, and they'll respond with a suggested Stroke Indexing, in accordance with current recommendations.  So time it with the printing of new cards, and all is good.  

[Augster]

This is preposterous. Of course the handicap system works. I’ve literally played 1000’s of matches. It works flawlessly. 
 

What you have is ONE sandbagger. Don’t play a net match against a sandbagger. 
 

Don’t hate the game, hate the player. 

[Klubster]

I played in a match play league for years and the handicap system worked quite well on our course and most matches were fair.  Of course, the handicap system favors the better player.  The biggest problem I see on courses if the handicap designation.  Rather than actually using the hardest hole, they use the longest hole as the #1 handicap hole.  Just lazy.

[larrybud]

27 minutes ago, hammersia said:

To answer you and Dave, I'm one of thousands of people who don't live in the US and don't recognise US laws. 

 

Royal and Ancient me. Red coats.

 

And it's The Open. 

Sorry, but it's the same for the R&A!!
 

https://www.randa.org/roh/appendices/appendix-e