Handicap system is broken for match play

[larrybud]

23 minutes ago, davep043 said:

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.  

Who updates the GHIN database with the proper stroke index? That's required so that players who enter hole-by-hole have ESC calculated properly.

[larrybud]

One other thing for the OP to consider, is that stroke allocations, even when using VS PAR, is both science and art. The reason is that you want the strokes to be spread out across all 18 holes (rather than front or back loading), so that in the event of a playoff, one player or another isn't at a big disadvantage.

 

Speaking of that, I think if you're going to have playoffs in a net tournament, it needs to be an aggregate of at least 3 holes. I say that because if it's sudden death, either the low cap or the high cap is going to have an advantage on the first hole regardless of match or stroke play.

[Newby]

A few years ago the USGA and Scottish Golf did an analysis of thousands of net individual matches.

 

The Scottish Golf Union survey covering 4000 handicap singles matches showed with full difference. 

 

APOLOGIES PLEASE NOTE CORRECTION

 

Matches won by the lower handicapper 55%

Matches won by the higher handicapper 45%

 

APOLOGIES PLEASE NOTE CORRECTION

 

The USGA found a similar outcome.

Edited October 4, 2022 by Newby

[davep043]

9 minutes ago, larrybud said:

Who updates the GHIN database with the proper stroke index? That's required so that players who enter hole-by-hole have ESC calculated properly.

That's the responsibility of the club.  They're not required to follow the USGA/WHS recommendations, so if they change the stroke indexes, they inform their local Golf Association.  The USGA delegates most of the GHIN administration to the local and regional Associations.

1 minute ago, larrybud said:

Speaking of that, I think if you're going to have playoffs in a net tournament, it needs to be an aggregate of at least 3 holes. I say that because if it's sudden death, either the low cap or the high cap is going to have an advantage on the first hole regardless of match or stroke play.

This makes sense to me, but I'd guess that its not always practical.

[Newby]

4 minutes ago, larrybud said:

Speaking of that, I think if you're going to have playoffs in a net tournament, it needs to be an aggregate of at least 3 holes. I say that because if it's sudden death, either the low cap or the high cap is going to have an advantage on the first hole regardless of match or stroke play.

Which is why Appendix E says "Apply the lowest stroke index hole (1 or 2) on each nine in the middle triad."

 

And why CONGU recommended that indices 1 & 2 should not be allocated to the start or finish holes

[larrybud]

4 minutes ago, Newby said:

Which is why Appendix E says "Apply the lowest stroke index hole (1 or 2) on each nine in the middle triad."

 

And why CONGU recommended that indices 1 & 2 should not be allocated to the start or finish holes

 

In which in those cases, hurts the higher capped player in a sudden death scenario.

[Newby]

4 minutes ago, larrybud said:

 

In which in those cases, hurts the higher capped player in a sudden death scenario.

I believe it was intended to protect the higher capper when there was only 1 stroke difference in their caps.

 

I was given as an example when I first saw the CONGU note :-

 

A (scratch) & B (+1) all square on the 1st tee of the play off hole. Index 1. Short par 3. 

Who do you put your money on?

[Krt22]

It is not broken at all. 

 

Some players thrive in match play vs stroke play based on their game (esp mid to high caps). The guy who is a 10 because he makes lots of doubles and birdies is typically a better match player than the steady eddy par and bogey 10. (unless he has a bad day, then hell get wrecked).

 

The second is large cap deltas, if a high index guy has a good day and you are slightly off, you will likely get wrecked. Flighted net events exist for a reason

 

 

[larrybud]

7 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

The second is large cap deltas, if a high index guy has a good day and you are slightly off, you will likely get wrecked. Flighted net events exist for a reason

 

That's the exact reason it's broken for net stroke play tournaments. 

[Krt22]

21 minutes ago, larrybud said:

 

That's the exact reason it's broken for net stroke play tournaments. 

Hence my statement about flighted net events. The last flight at my club's net events is the wild wild west, some crazy scores at times lol

[larrybud]

15 minutes ago, Krt22 said:

Hence my statement about flighted net events. The last flight at my club's net events is the wild wild west, some crazy scores at times lol

Sure. I only see flighted net stuff once in a great while. Usually not enough players to make flighting them worthwhile.

[T_Golf_23]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

A few years ago the USGA and Scottish Golf did an analysis of thousands of net individual matches.

 

The Scottish Golf Union survey covering 4000 handicap singles matches showed with full difference. 

Matches won by the higher handicapper 55%

Matches won by the lower handicapper 45%

 

The USGA found a similar outcome.

If this is the case, the system is bias against low handicap, favoring high. 

[Krt22]

45 minutes ago, larrybud said:

Sure. I only see flighted net stuff once in a great while. Usually not enough players to make flighting them worthwhile.

Every net even is flighted at my club, usually 10 or so per flight, so never more than a few strokes from top to bottom. Top flights are typically gross only. It works out well except for the last flight that serves as a catch all for basically anyone in the teens or higher

[Pepperturbo]

Well over ten years, I played in stroke and pvt interclub match play events, plus limited regional amateur tournaments.  My index was 2-3 during those years, now a bit higher.  Thing is, I never had a problem with the handicap system then or now.  If someone's index is NOT true, like a sandbagger, that could be a problem but I never concerned myself with issues that I can't control. 

[Newby]

43 minutes ago, T_Golf_23 said:

If this is the case, the system is bias against low handicap, favoring high. 

APOLOGIES PLEASE NOTE CORRECTION

 

Matches won by the lower handicapper 55%

Matches won by the higher handicapper 45%

 

APOLOGIES PLEASE NOTE CORRECTION

[Mr. Bean]

12 hours ago, T_Golf_23 said:

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? 

 

 

 My thought is that in my country MP scores are not postable and for a very good reason.

[T_Golf_23]

7 minutes ago, Newby said:

APOLOGIES PLEASE NOTE CORRECTION

 

Matches won by the lower handicapper 55%

Matches won by the higher handicapper 45%

 

APOLOGIES PLEASE NOTE CORRECTION

Then I stand corrected. 
 

I am victim of sampling bias and potentially maybe there are way to many sandbaggers at my club. 
 

and quite possible I just suck at golf. 

[klebs01]

35 minutes ago, Newby said:

APOLOGIES PLEASE NOTE CORRECTION

 

Matches won by the lower handicapper 55%

Matches won by the higher handicapper 45%

 

APOLOGIES PLEASE NOTE CORRECTION

thats better. I was a bit confused when you first posted. Seems accurate as well from my experience. 

[davep043]

1 hour ago, T_Golf_23 said:

Then I stand corrected. 
 

I am victim of sampling bias and potentially maybe there are way to many sandbaggers at my club. 
 

and quite possible I just suck at golf. 

I won't comment about either sandbaggers or your own prowess.  I have definitely seen some better players who really believe they are at a disadvantage when giving strokes, and who consequently beat themselves trying to do silly things trying to overcome that perceived disadvantage.  If you believe going in that you're going to lose, you're going to lose.

[T_Golf_23]

12 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I won't comment about either sandbaggers or your own prowess.  I have definitely seen some better players who really believe they are at a disadvantage when giving strokes, and who consequently beat themselves trying to do silly things trying to overcome that perceived disadvantage.  If you believe going in that you're going to lose, you're going to lose.

I think that is part of what I deal with. I play differently trying to do things I normally would not do, trying to overcome the stroke deficit on certain holes. 
 

ultimately this forces errors. In gross play, I just play my game. 

 

it’s tough to not feel at a disadvantage when you are giving 9,10 or more strokes in a round. Nothing like getting a birdie and pushing a hole. 
 

 

[davep043]

1 hour ago, T_Golf_23 said:

 

it’s tough to not feel at a disadvantage when you are giving 9,10 or more strokes in a round. Nothing like getting a birdie and pushing a hole.

Just try to remember that you're going to win a few holes with bogeys, occasionally even a double.  They really do even out.

[david.c.w]

6 hours ago, Newby said:

A few years ago the USGA and Scottish Golf did an analysis of thousands of net individual matches.

 

The Scottish Golf Union survey covering 4000 handicap singles matches showed with full difference. 

 

APOLOGIES PLEASE NOTE CORRECTION

 

Matches won by the lower handicapper 55%

Matches won by the higher handicapper 45%

 

APOLOGIES PLEASE NOTE CORRECTION

 

The USGA found a similar outcome.

 

It would be interesting to know if this study was done before or after the change in handicap calculations (8 vs 10 scores).   Assuming the study was done with 10 scores, my gut tells me using 8 scores it would be closer to 50/50.  

[david.c.w]

I really just skimmed the thread, but seems like there is too much analysis, and the whole premise of OP's complaint is the whole point of the handicap system.

 

OP is a decent player and beats most of his friends in stroke play because he is better.  Once handicaps are applied the playing field is leveled, and he loses a match to a high handicapper having a good day.  Duh.

 

Isn't this why we have handicaps?

[T_Golf_23]

15 minutes ago, david.c.w said:

I really just skimmed the thread, but seems like there is too much analysis, and the whole premise of OP's complaint is the whole point of the handicap system.

 

OP is a decent player and beats most of his friends in stroke play because he is better.  Once handicaps are applied the playing field is leveled, and he loses a match to a high handicapper having a good day.  Duh.

 

Isn't this why we have handicaps?

My argument is that the system applies the handicap holes incorrectly in match play. 
 

they should be applied to the net differential holes and not just arbitrarily to the top HcP holes. 
 

 

[klebs01]

2 hours ago, T_Golf_23 said:

I think that is part of what I deal with. I play differently trying to do things I normally would not do, trying to overcome the stroke deficit on certain holes. 
 

ultimately this forces errors. In gross play, I just play my game. 

 

it’s tough to not feel at a disadvantage when you are giving 9,10 or more strokes in a round. Nothing like getting a birdie and pushing a hole. 
 

 

You just need to relax and know they are a high cap for a reason. That flubbed chip or slice ob is coming. Just relax and don’t play yourself out of the match. 

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, T_Golf_23 said:

My argument is that the system applies the handicap holes incorrectly in match play. 
 

they should be applied to the net differential holes and not just arbitrarily to the top HcP holes. 
 

 

 

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

 

Appendix E: Stroke Index Allocation

The Rules of Golf state: “The Committee is responsible for publishing on the scorecard or somewhere else that is visible (for example, near the first tee) the order of holes at which handicap strokes are to be given or received.” (See Rules of Golf, Committee Procedures, Rule 5I (4)).

 

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. The difficulty of each hole can be determined objectively using hole-by-hole data provided from the Course Rating procedure as follows:

 

Scratch Value    +    Bogey Value    –    (2 x par)
For example, on a par 4 hole where the Scratch Value is 4.2 and the Bogey Value is 5.3: 

 

4.2    +    5.3    –    (2 x 4)    =    1.5 over par

The recommended methodology and procedures for determining a stroke index allocation within the six triad structure, designed to accommodate both stroke play and match play formats, is as follows:

 

Apply odd stroke index allocations over the front nine and even stroke index allocations over the back nine. If, however, the back nine is significantly more difficult than the front nine, as determined by the Course Rating, the even stroke index allocations can be switched to the front nine and the odd stroke index allocations to the back nine.

Spread stroke index allocations evenly over the 18 holes so that players receiving strokes will have the opportunity to use a high proportion of these strokes before a match result has been decided.

Apply the lowest stroke index hole (1 or 2) on each nine in the middle triad. If no hole within the middle triad is ranked within the lowest 6 holes relative to par, then it can be moved into an adjacent hole at the end of the first triad or the beginning of the third triad on each nine. 

Apply the second lowest stroke index hole (3 or 4) on each nine in either the first or third triad, unless the lowest stroke index hole has been allocated in that same triad.   

If possible, avoid low stroke indexes (6 or less) on consecutive holes.
When a player receives more than 18 strokes, the same allocation order is used with stroke index 1 repeating as stroke index 19, 37 and 55, with all additional strokes going up sequentially.

These recommended procedures support the guidance contained in the Rules of Golf, Committee Procedures, Rule 5I (4).

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/rules/rules-2019/rules-of-golf/rules-and-interpretations.html#!ruletype=cp&section=rule&rulenum=5&subrulenum=9

Edited October 4, 2022 by sui generis

[pingfool]

1 hour ago, david.c.w said:

I really just skimmed the thread, but seems like there is too much analysis, and the whole premise of OP's complaint is the whole point of the handicap system.

 

OP is a decent player and beats most of his friends in stroke play because he is better.  Once handicaps are applied the playing field is leveled, and he loses a match to a high handicapper having a good day.  Duh.

 

Isn't this why we have handicaps?

it really can be that simple if you choose to believe the player that plays closest (or better) to his index should win

[Augster]

2 hours ago, T_Golf_23 said:

My argument is that the system applies the handicap holes incorrectly in match play. 
 

they should be applied to the net differential holes and not just arbitrarily to the top HcP holes. 
 

 

No they shouldn’t. 
 

A 17 plays an 18. Where should the 18 get his shot? On the 1 handicap, the hardest hole, or the 18 handicap, the easiest hole? 
 

On the 1 cap, they are both going to bogey, or worse. On the 18 cap, they are both going to make par. It’s an easier hole. 
 

If you ask the 17 cap, I guarantee he’d want the 18 to get the shot on a hole both of them are going to louse up. There’s a chance the 17 can tie that hole with a bogey. On the 18 cap hole, if the 17 bogeys it, he’s dead. 
 

We give shots on the hardest holes because that’s where worse players need them. They don’t need them on the easier holes because they are easier holes. 
 

In individual match play, over time, I think you’d get drubbed.  Giving a guy 10 shots, you’d kill him on caps 1-8, but then he’d kill you on 9-18. He’s getting shots on the easy holes.  
 

The system works just fine from my experience. 

[T_Golf_23]

13 minutes ago, Augster said:

No they shouldn’t. 
 

A 17 plays an 18. Where should the 18 get his shot? On the 1 handicap, the hardest hole, or the 18 handicap, the easiest hole? 
 

On the 1 cap, they are both going to bogey, or worse. On the 18 cap, they are both going to make par. It’s an easier hole. 
 

If you ask the 17 cap, I guarantee he’d want the 18 to get the shot on a hole both of them are going to louse up. There’s a chance the 17 can tie that hole with a bogey. On the 18 cap hole, if the 17 bogeys it, he’s dead. 
 

We give shots on the hardest holes because that’s where worse players need them. They don’t need them on the easier holes because they are easier holes. 
 

In individual match play, over time, I think you’d get drubbed.  Giving a guy 10 shots, you’d kill him on caps 1-8, but then he’d kill you on 9-18. He’s getting shots on the easy holes.  
 

The system works just fine from my experience. 

Technically the 18 cap is expected to bogey the 18 hcp hole while the 17 is expected to par it. In the proposed system, the 18 capper gets 1 stroke on the 18hcp hole.

 

if the 18 capper shoots his expected score of +1 or a 5 on a par 4. He nets a par. 
 

the 17 capper shoots their expected score of par. Now they push the hole. If the 17 capper scores below his expected score to bogie, then the 18 caper wins. He shot his expected score, while the 17 capper did not. 

under the existing system, the the 18 capper gets a stroke on the 1HCp hole. But both of the players are expected to bogey the 1HCp hole. 
 

let’s say they each shot +1 on the 1HCp hole. They each score a 5 on a par 4. Each player scored as expected according to their handicap. But the 17 capper actually Loses the hole because the 18 went 5 net 4. The 17 capper would have had to score a net birdie, legit 4, to push the hole. Statistically the 17 capper will not par this hole. 
 

why should the 17 capper lose the 1HCp hole to the 18 if they both score as expected according to their handicaps? Another words, they both shoot a 5 on a par 4 is is expected by their handicaps. 

Edited October 5, 2022 by T_Golf_23

[kmak]

18 hours 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.

According to the USGA, the odds of a 13 index shooting 78 (assuming course rating of 72.0) is 552 to 1, considered in the range of sandbagging.