Low handicap laments

[archie_struthers]

 

As a quasi low handicapper, and playing in a group that gambles a little, in the winter when the entries are thin we sometimes get odd matches that pit two 10-15 handicappers against us wannabe (LOL) tournament players (0-5 handicap)

 Having been around the golf course since I was eleven, I do everything possible  not to get into  these matches, for fear of sure and certain economic ruin! When it does happen I keep up a stiff upper lip, and try like hell to win my individual matches or some skins. However the team match is generally moot! They higher handicappers win.

How about this match. Tiger and Phil, 6700 yard golf course against two good(not vanity) low handicappers better ball full handicap. Of course this means that a three (3) gets ten shots and a five(5) get twelve blows, as both our heroes  are plus seven(7).  

 Who is the favorite over time?? Be careful!

[Garland Bayley]

It is well known that you don't play full handicap in four ball competitions.

[archie_struthers]

Try to sell that to the masses! I can't! In fact the USGA doesn't go so far as to recommend this, despite my pleadings.

[Garland Bayley]

Try to sell that to the masses! I can't! In fact the USGA doesn't go so far as to recommend this, despite my pleadings.

Funny, I could have sworn I saw something to the effect in the rule book.

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm not sure about your Phil/Tiger scenario, but I guarantee you that playing full handicaps at match play will KILL the low handicapper relative to the guys who are 10-15 if both handicaps are honest.  Even at 80% of full, the low cappers are in very serious trouble; when you calculate the handicap on stroke play, then use it for match play, low guys are cooked more often than not.

[Tom Huckaby]

The USGA website is a pretty cool place... it seems this question is answered - that is, how to handicap 4balls...

http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/survival_kit/different_strokes.html

[Dan_Callahan]

For the answer, just watch the People vs. the Pros tournament that is on TV each year. In 2005, Justin Leonard and Ben Crenshaw both won, although in Crenshaw's case it was more a case of his opponent choking (Crenshaw had to give him 14 strokes).

In 2004, both Daly an McCord lost. In 2003, Daly won and Trevino got smoked.

Not sure how it went last year. Goosen and McCord were the pros, I think.

[archie_struthers]

Tom, thanks for the help with kudos to Woodstock>

The USGA has been vacillating on this issue for years, with the differntial an ever moving target. Just throw this into the pot with the arcane idea that all scores don't count. LOL

Haiving been round and round with this discussion for nigh on twenty years, and finally giving up and just taking a beating when you can't split a and b players, I guessing that 65% not 90% is much closer to the right number.

Tiger and Phil are history at 90%, for sure!

[Matthew Hunt]

I'm not sure about your Phil/Tiger scenario, but I guarantee you that playing full handicaps at match play will KILL the low handicapper relative to the guys who are 10-15 if both handicaps are honest.  Even at 80% of full, the low cappers are in very serious trouble; when you calculate the handicap on stroke play, then use it for match play, low guys are cooked more often than not.

The lowman wins 60% of the time in matchplay

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom, thanks for the help with kudos to Woodstock>

The USGA has been vacillating on this issue for years, with the differntial an ever moving target. Just throw this into the pot with the arcane idea that all scores don't count. LOL

Haiving been round and round with this discussion for nigh on twenty years, and finally giving up and just taking a beating when you can't split a and b players, I guessing that 65% not 90% is much closer to the right number.

Tiger and Phil are history at 90%, for sure!

I'd agree with 65%, I think.  For instance, at my club this year the fourball matchplay championship was contested at 80% of the course handicaps, with all four players between 12 and 16 handicaps, and none were sandbaggers.  It is more or less that way every year, with the occasional sandbagger just adding to the problem.

[A.G._Crockett]

I'm not sure about your Phil/Tiger scenario, but I guarantee you that playing full handicaps at match play will KILL the low handicapper relative to the guys who are 10-15 if both handicaps are honest.  Even at 80% of full, the low cappers are in very serious trouble; when you calculate the handicap on stroke play, then use it for match play, low guys are cooked more often than not.

The lowman wins 60% of the time in matchplay

Matthew, I would beg to differ.

[archie_struthers]

 

Matt,

Where do you come up with that stat?? From Snoopy? lol
see Huckaby above.

No way the low guys win at 100% as the USGA suggests, Ive got the tire tracks on my back to to prove it. Remember this is better ball of partners.

[Doug Ralston]

Seems to me [who never has had a handicap], that a large part of a handicap is that highers have 'blowup' holes, where they shoot doubles and triples, much more often that the 'Pros'. That mean only one hole loss in match play. So if a player with an eight handicap is getting 8 stokes against a scratch, the one or two blowups will more than be balanced by the 'freebie' pars they get on the low number holes.

Isn't the entire handicap system only even marginally valid for stroke play?

Doug

[Garland Bayley]

Seems to me [who never has had a handicap], that a large part of a handicap is that highers have 'blowup' holes, where they shoot doubles and triples, much more often that the 'Pros'. That mean only one hole loss in match play. So if a player with an eight handicap is getting 8 stokes against a scratch, the one or two blowups will more than be balanced by the 'freebie' pars they get on the low number holes.

Isn't the entire handicap system only even marginally valid for stroke play?

Doug

         
If double is your average score on a hole, then of course you shoot more doubles than pros. The handicap system has adjustments for blowup holes. You can't use blowup holes as an excuse.

[Jim Sweeney]

If all handicaps were 100% accurate, higher handicappers would win most stroke play events simply because there are more high handicappers!

However, lower handicappers would win most handicap matches- by about 55% to 45%. That's the way the system is designed.

UNfortunately, IMHO relatively few handicaps are 100% pure, mainly due to benign inattention to things like equitable stroke control and posting score for incomplete rounds of at least 13 holes and corectling assigning score for unfifished holes.

The biggest problem in handicapping, again IMHO, is failure of the peer revue system at the local (club) level. I firmly believe that better education and peer review at the club level would make honest men and women of almost all golfers.

There will always be cheaters. My advice is don't play with them.

Doug Ralston:

I am of the impression that you play at many courses throughout Kentucky. Correct? I would recommend you to affiliate with the men's association at one of them (may I suggest Kearney Hill since offers two competitive dates each month in season- all at handicap) and establish a handicap. Read the Manual online if you wish- its pretty interesting- but learn a few very simple rules and you're on your way to enjoying fair competition anywhere you go. I think the KHMGA is $60.00 per year; other courses offer handicap service only at a lesser amount.

The handicap system is equally applicable to match or stroke play.

[Chris Cupit]

Archie,

Assuming the handicaps are accurate and the proper handicap allowances are given for the particular match, the lower handicap players will always have a slight statistical advantage.

Remember this about most 10-15 handicappers:
When they play, they cheat.  They may not mean to, they may try hard not to, but they do.

If two 10-15 handicap players played Tiger and Phil, they would get drilled.  Here's why:
1.  Statistics and facts demonstrate that the lower handicap golfer has an advantage.
2.  The 10-15 will be so nervous, they will soil their pants and lose the first hole guarranteed
3.  The 10-15 can't play "winter rules"  They will play what very few amateur golfers do--the ball as it lies--no leaf rule, no root rule, no nudging the ball cause its kinda mushy ground--real golf.
4.  They will not have gimmees.  They will be surprised how the constant strain of actually making all their putts adds up.  
5.  Assuming the greens are fast and there is any rough--2 inches of bermuda is usually enough to ruin a 10-15 handicappers day in the south.  No problem for the pros.
6.  Tiger/Phil better ball will be 10-12 under gross

The better the course conditioning, the worse it gets for the 10-15--faster,firmer greens, a little rough and tightly cut fairways 28-34 yards wide will kill them.

Best hope is they play a course in bad shape--sparse rough, long fluff for fairways and slow bumpy greens--then they have a chance.

Forget Tiger/Phil, I'll take another true scratch golfer and play a 10-15 team anytime as long as we play by the rules and the course is in great shape--I love my chances!  

[Tom Huckaby]

Chris:

I concur with damn near all of that... but...

You say Tiger and Phil we be 10-12 under gross.  I believe that.  But given each of their +7 handicaps, that makes them about 5-7 under net, correct?

I'd take my chances with two "strong" 12's getting to way more under par net than that.  Hell I've seen it many many times... just check the scores of the various net better ball events on NCGA.org.  Look at the winners.

And why is this?  Because while I agree about the ways you say these 10-15s cheat, well... they aren't the only ways.  You of course know all about the 12 handicap with 5 ability, right?

TH

[George Pazin]

Because while I agree about the ways you say these 10-15s cheat, well... they aren't the only ways.  You of course know all about the 12 handicap with 5 ability, right?

I'm guessing Chris would call that 12 a cheat.

As for the rest, I have no idea, since I rarely play these types of handicap events. Strike that, I never play these types of handicap events.

[A.G._Crockett]

If all handicaps were 100% accurate, higher handicappers would win most stroke play events simply because there are more high handicappers!

However, lower handicappers would win most handicap matches- by about 55% to 45%. That's the way the system is designed.

UNfortunately, IMHO relatively few handicaps are 100% pure, mainly due to benign inattention to things like equitable stroke control and posting score for incomplete rounds of at least 13 holes and corectling assigning score for unfifished holes.

The biggest problem in handicapping, again IMHO, is failure of the peer revue system at the local (club) level. I firmly believe that better education and peer review at the club level would make honest men and women of almost all golfers.

There will always be cheaters. My advice is don't play with them.

Doug Ralston:

I am of the impression that you play at many courses throughout Kentucky. Correct? I would recommend you to affiliate with the men's association at one of them (may I suggest Kearney Hill since offers two competitive dates each month in season- all at handicap) and establish a handicap. Read the Manual online if you wish- its pretty interesting- but learn a few very simple rules and you're on your way to enjoying fair competition anywhere you go. I think the KHMGA is $60.00 per year; other courses offer handicap service only at a lesser amount.

The handicap system is equally applicable to match or stroke play.

Jim,
I agree with some of this, but I have a couple of questions.

ESC favors the double digit guys in match play, doesn't it?  They can put down triples and quads, along with doubles, and thereby get strokes in match play.  Yet that same triple or quad in match play will only cost them one hole.  For a five playing a 15, and both honest, this is a big advantage, even at 80%.

You say the lower handicapper should win 55% of the time, that the system is designed that way.  Where do you get that info?  Is it a guess, or is there data on that?

Finally, you say the handicap system is equally applicable to stroke or match play.  I can't see how a system that is calculated on stroke play could possibly be EQUALLY applicable to match play.  In fact, the USGA effectively admits that it isn't, by recommending 80% be used in a fourball.  Archie's contention, and I wholeheartedly agree, is that it should be more like 65%.

[Tom Huckaby]

Because while I agree about the ways you say these 10-15s cheat, well... they aren't the only ways.  You of course know all about the 12 handicap with 5 ability, right?

I'm guessing Chris would call that 12 a cheat.

As for the rest, I have no idea, since I rarely play these types of handicap events. Strike that, I never play these types of handicap events.

Call them whatever you want - they'd still win the match.

Here are winning scores of NCGA associate club 4ball net for the last several years... I'd bet anything few if any single digit indices are among these...

ASSOCIATE CLUB FOUR-BALL NET
1992 *Ralph Franzen and Dick Paradis 62-64-126
1993 *Sherm Steever and Matt Wooldridge 64-63-127
1994 *Scott DiSalvo and Doug Kyer 60-65-125
1995 *George Brown and Tom Rien 62-62-124
1996 Dan Juchau and P.C. Sien at Poppy Ridge GC 63-58-121
1997 *Derek Pehle and Steve Robinson 61-62-123
1998 Bill Hardin and Joe Vuica at Spyglass Hill GC 58-60-118
1999 *Bill Hardin and Vincent Massero 63-59-122
2000 Bill Hardin and Joe Vuica at Spyglass Hill GC 63-53-116
2001 *Ronald Blanchette and John Langston 61-60-121
2002 Dennis Alaburda and Amy Warner at Spyglass Hill GC 63-60-123
2003 Dennis Merrill and Paul Gin at Poppy Hills GC 56-64-120
2004 Elliot Dun and Blair Chikasuye at Spyglass Hill GC 63-65-128
2005 Emiliano Miranda and Ed Aquino at Poppy Hills GC 58-61-119
2006 Gary Figueroa and Mark Stanley at Spyglass Hill GC 61-61-122
*Played at Poppy Hills GC  

Now of course doing this in the presence of Tiger and Phil presents its own problems... but assuming that could be overcome, well... note that these events are played under real rules of golf.  

I'd take my chances with Emiliano Miranda and Ed Aquino, thank you very much.  I'e bet my mortgage on Bill Hardin and Joe Vuica.

 

[Pete Lavallee]

author=A.G._Crockett You say the lower handicapper should win 55% of the time, that the system is designed that way.  Where do you get that info?  Is it a guess, or is there data on that?

The USGA multiplies your final index by .95, this is sometimes called the "incentive to improve factor". So the higher your handicap the less statistical chance you have to win in the long run.

[A.G._Crockett]

Archie,

Assuming the handicaps are accurate and the proper handicap allowances are given for the particular match, the lower handicap players will always have a slight statistical advantage.

Remember this about most 10-15 handicappers:
When they play, they cheat.  They may not mean to, they may try hard not to, but they do.

If two 10-15 handicap players played Tiger and Phil, they would get drilled.  Here's why:
1.  Statistics and facts demonstrate that the lower handicap golfer has an advantage.
2.  The 10-15 will be so nervous, they will soil their pants and lose the first hole guarranteed
3.  The 10-15 can't play "winter rules"  They will play what very few amateur golfers do--the ball as it lies--no leaf rule, no root rule, no nudging the ball cause its kinda mushy ground--real golf.
4.  They will not have gimmees.  They will be surprised how the constant strain of actually making all their putts adds up.  
5.  Assuming the greens are fast and there is any rough--2 inches of bermuda is usually enough to ruin a 10-15 handicappers day in the south.  No problem for the pros.
6.  Tiger/Phil better ball will be 10-12 under gross

The better the course conditioning, the worse it gets for the 10-15--faster,firmer greens, a little rough and tightly cut fairways 28-34 yards wide will kill them.

Best hope is they play a course in bad shape--sparse rough, long fluff for fairways and slow bumpy greens--then they have a chance.

Forget Tiger/Phil, I'll take another true scratch golfer and play a 10-15 team anytime as long as we play by the rules and the course is in great shape--I love my chances!  

Chris,
Archie's scenario was Tiger and Phil against two low handicappers, no vanity, not two double-digit guys.  

I think I agree with you about the two double-digit guys, although Tiger and Phil would be giving each a stroke a hole and two shots on several holes.  If they are legit 12's, let's say, and make 6 or 7 natural pars, one birdie, 7 or 8 bogeys, and then a couple of big numbers, that won't be a blowout.

As to the pros vs. the two low handicappers, say two 2's, Tiger and Phil are giving them 9 shots each, or thereabouts.  If the 2's make 11 or 12 pars , two birdies, and the rest bogeys, and don't have their bad holes together, giving them 9 shots is going to be a load!  And that's not with either of the 2's having a great day.

How would you like you and Don Marsh against Tiger and Phil, getting 4 a side each, back tees at Rivermont?  I know you guys are both better than a 2 handicap, but how would you predict that match?

[TEPaul]

Archie:

Don't feel bad about getting pummeled by higher handicappers too often. One time at my own club I played this higher handicapper, I shot 67 and got beat about nine ways. That was about a dozen years ago and the last time I played handicappers for money.

How would you like to be Rich Goodale who actually just doesn't believe in handicapping at all?

Apparently he thinks he should play Tiger and Phil straight up for some reason. Im not sure what that reason is but I'd say it's somewhere between ultra purism and semi-permanent insanity.

Imagine Rich taking on Tiger and Phil straight up evey week for the stakes those guys probably play for.

In a month they would have every asset he ever owned.

[John Kirk]

1998 Bill Hardin and Joe Vuica at Spyglass Hill GC 58-60-118
1999 *Bill Hardin and Vincent Massero 63-59-122
2000 Bill Hardin and Joe Vuica at Spyglass Hill GC 63-53-116


What are the odds of a legitimate best ball 53?  From a guy who won the handicap tournament three years running?  Scores like this irritate me.

[Tom Huckaby]

AGC:

Note the scores I posted... you really think Tiger and Phil could beat those, net?

Whoa... to do so would require them getting into low 50s gross.  That I don't see, as great as they are.

Nope, give me Bill Hardin and Joe Vuica.

BTW, I was responding to Chris Cupit re this, contemplating Tiger and Phil against two middle handicappers who miraculously continue to have career rounds, like these winners I posted.  Make it to low cappers and the equation changes - I concur with you - no two 3s will get low enough to beat Tiger and Phil even if they are baggers.  There's just not enough bagging room.