[Jud_T]

You have to give the player on the longer set of tees more strokes. He opponent is playing a shorter course.

Imagine two scratch players in a match. One of them plays the course at 7,000 yards and one at 6,000 yards. No way it's a fair match to say "Hey, we're both scratch. Teeing off 50 yards forward on every hole isn't an advantage. We just play straight up".

You can either give the player on the back tee more strokes or take away from the player on the front tee.

Here is the USGA's "simple" explanation:  http://www.usga.org/handicapping/publications/Competing-From-Different-Tees/

Bookmarking this link for my next match with Jud Tigerman.

Quit whining, this is exactly how we always do it.  Just cause you can't break 80 when there's real money involved if you're life depended on it, don't slag the guy getting strokes...It's an interesting negotiating point at a place like Kingsley though where clearing large fairway slopes from various tees can be several shots more advantageous than would be indicated by this formula.

[Carl Johnson]

. . .

FWIW, I do think the GHIN system is broken, almost beyond repair, but it's not really related to the concepts behind the system.  My issues are execution of the course rating and slope by rating teams . . . .

K

Ken, the rating and slope teams cannot be consistent, of course, for many reasons.  Is that what you see as a problem?  Human judgment differing on how to apply the standards?  Or is it the standards themselves?  How do you see fixing the system - assuming that one way or another we golfers (at least some of us) want a handicap system?

[Jud_T]

I cannot for the life of me understand the point of a match played between players playing from different tees.  It's not far different from playing a "match" based on scores against par on different courses.  

Why wouldn't you want both players in a casual friendly match to each be able to play the most enjoyable tees for their abilities yet have an equitable match for a small (or large) sum of money?  It's what separates Golf from Tennis and Skiing...

[Carl Johnson]

I cannot for the life of me understand the point of a match played between players playing from different tees.  It's not far different from playing a "match" based on scores against par on different courses.  

Why wouldn't you want both players in a casual friendly match to each be able to play the most enjoyable tees for their abilities yet have an equitable match for a small (or large) sum of money?  It's what separates Golf from Tennis and Skiing...

For myself (not Mark): (1) Do we want golf to grow, to be a more popular sport?; (2) If no, stop here.  (3) If yes, then why not the handicapped match?  (4) I play mostly with old, retired guys, at handicaps and from different tees.  (5) We pay our dues to the club.  (6) Net at the end of the match it's a couple of bucks at the most.  (7)  What's wrong with that?  Should we resign and go over to the publics?

[Keith Grande]

I guess no one ever plays against females (for those in non male-only clubs)?

Or would losing become further emasculating than usual? 

[Carl Johnson]

I guess no one ever plays against females (for those in non male-only clubs)?

Or would losing become further emasculating than usual? 

Keith, of course the HC adjustment rules include adjustments for men and women competing against each other, and that is the point of this thread.  I only rarely play against females.  Chance, not choice.  The last time, in a four-ball, the two females beat us two males.  We lost a couple of $$.  In my earlier life I did lots of road racing (running) in large fields.  Plenty of women finished ahead of me.  Not an issue then or now.

[Keith Grande]

Carl, I agree with you. I was responding to those who feel that different tees don't provide the same challenge in a match. Being married for more than 10 years , I've become accustomed to losing to women, quite often. Good thing my wife hasn't taken up golf yet.

[Jim Sherma]

I'm not sure that there is an algorithm that can do his for all cases. Once different tees are in the mix all match specific handicaps should be negotiated. Length penalizes different players differently. If you don't know the competition well enough to negotiate a fair match then just start playing scratch and adjust on the back nine.

[JESII]

As Jim alludes to at the end of his post just above...there is always the option to use the 'reasonable man' approach...i.e. What would a reasonable man do?

[Jud_T]

I'm not sure that there is an algorithm that can do his for all cases. Once different tees are in the mix all match specific handicaps should be negotiated. Length penalizes different players differently. If you don't know the competition well enough to negotiate a fair match then just start playing scratch and adjust on the back nine.

Jim.  Length does penalize different players differently.  Doesn't this apply equally as well to players playing off the same tee?

[Brent Hutto]

Occasionally, I will play a game with someone a little better than myself to also wants to play longer tees than I do. It can work out that me playing up serves well enough in lieu of strokes.

It works particularly well combined with what I think is called "Sunningdale Rules" or some name like that. Players of differing handicaps play straight up but at any juncture where one play is 2-down (or worse) he gets a stroke a hole until he gets back to 1-down.

At least once recently I played off 16 against at guy who was something like a 7 or 8. I was playing one set of tees forward of him which took care of about half the stroke difference. Then we used the "Sunningdale" (or whatever you call it) deal with stroke while 2-down and had a fine match that ended up all square after 18 holes.

The tees worked out well. We were basically hitting from about the same distance on our second shots all day long, slight advantage to him hitting shorter clubs from there on approach. I think we played the Par 4's even, he was like 2-up on the Par 5's and I was 2-up on the Par 3's. As it turned out I got the "2-down" stroke for one hole and he got the "2-down" stroke for two holes but otherwise we played straight up.

Any match that be played straight up is a benefit, in my book.

[Ken Moum]

Ken,

There's no way the adjustment procedure for different lengths/tees can create a valid, large-field, stroke-play tournament if each golfer gets to choose his own tees. The adjustment only has differences in course (and possibly slope) rating to work with. That may or may not be accurate on average but it is demonstrably untrue for an individual player.

My own index went down three strokes simply by moving up one set of tees. I know other members at my club whose index did not change or even went up a tiny fraction when making exactly the same move. For a severely distance-challenged straight hitter (myself) the reduction in course rating can't come close to capturing how much easier the course plays from 500-600 yards shorter. For a slightly longer but much wilder hitter, scores don't actually go down much at all when moving up well inside 6,000 yards because they're just chipping out of the woods from closer to the hole and they weren't suffering from greens unreachable in regulation.

If my club played the Club Championship or what have you with the player being able to choose his tees, I would simply play a dozen or so rounds before the tournament from the way back (6,700 yard) tees and let me index skyrocket. Then move up two sets of tees to 5,700 yards and be virtually guaranteed of a net score well under par. Trivial to game the system.

We do have players on different tees, depending on age. But the groups playing each set of tees are in separate flights. You're assuming that 20 rounds played from the 5,000 or 5,700 or 6,250 or 6,700 or 7,000+ yard tees will result in exactly the same handicap INDEX and come tournament time the index/rating/slope arithmetic will ensure a fair competition. That is an impossibility for any handicapping system, much moreso for the actual system we're stuck with.

So you DO agree with what I said.  That our handicapping system is broken.

FWIW, I exactly the same experience as you, I'm a short hitter with a very good short game, so the difference in course rating between 5900 yards and 6500+ yards doesn't begin to account for the difference in my scores.

K

[Jim Sherma]

I'm not sure that there is an algorithm that can do his for all cases. Once different tees are in the mix all match specific handicaps should be negotiated. Length penalizes different players differently. If you don't know the competition well enough to negotiate a fair match then just start playing scratch and adjust on the back nine.

Jim.  Length does penalize different players differently.  Doesn't this apply equally as well to players playing off the same tee?

Certainly it does - but if it's a club match between players that mostly are playing the same tees on the same course than this should be adequately accounted for by handicaps. If additional allowances are needed than they should be negotiated. Most of my golfing time has been as a single digit public course golfer. Claimed handicaps were a starting point, but I never assumed that anyone's stated handicap was legitimate and should be used for anything other than an initial offer in the negotiation. Now that I am back in the private club world handicaps are claimed to mean more but instead I just see more claims of sandbagging and the like. In the public course world sandbaggers were known and everyone in the game had a pretty good idea what a fair game was and if it was not achieved no money was put on the table.

My handicapping of choice is to play ups and not strokes. Start the match with a certain number of ups and play from there. These are negotiated at the beginning of the match. My dad who grew up at Galloping Hill back in the '50's told me that this was how matches were handicapped back then.

[Carl Johnson]

Ken,


So you DO agree with what I said.  That our handicapping system is broken.

K

Ken - back to part of your earlier post, and then my question.  Any thoughts.  Carl

FWIW, I do think the GHIN system is broken, almost beyond repair, but it's not really related to the concepts behind the system.  My issues are execution of the course rating and slope by rating teams . . . .

K


Ken, the rating and slope teams cannot be consistent, of course, for many reasons.  Is that what you see as a problem?  Human judgment differing on how to apply the standards?  Or is it the standards themselves?  How do you see fixing the system - assuming that one way or another we golfers (at least some of us) want a handicap system?

[Lou_Duran]

I'm not sure that there is an algorithm that can do his for all cases. Once different tees are in the mix all match specific handicaps should be negotiated. Length penalizes different players differently. If you don't know the competition well enough to negotiate a fair match then just start playing scratch and adjust on the back nine.

Agree.  Our Dixie Cup singles match is a good example, I think.  I don't think it was a fair match given our age and driver distance differences, in your favor by 20+ years and 40-60 yards, respectively, playing even from the second set of tees.  Had you played the backs and me the second set, I think it would have been a better, more competitive game.  You may have putted better and still prevailed, but I would have had a chance to hit a few more greens with shorter approaches near yours.  Had we done this and adjusted our handicaps as Mike Whitaker's link suggests, I would have had to give you strokes.  To me, this would be adding insult to injury.

[Sean_A]

Brent

I too like Sunningdale Rules when playing against guys I don't know well for a friendly few quid.  It can be slightly irksome if someone ends up giving more strokes than normal then loses the match  , but hey ho, its a few quid.   The important thing is to try and set up a competitive match because handicaps just don't do the trick sometimes.  I think the crux of the problem is length, but it isn't clear how to properly handicap from different tees.  I know the USGA thinks they have it sorted,  but I don't trust their handicap system in the least.  I strongly disagree with the idea of trying to get everybody handicapped at the expense of accurate handicapping.  Caps should be determined from competition scores and attested by a playing partner.  Deviating from these basic principles is a recipe for screwing it up.

Ciao

[Brent Hutto]

I would prefer to have my handicap computed on a very different basis, as you suggest.

But particular numerical recipes aside it's still a sensible principle to dock someone X number of stroke for playing forward several hundred yards from the guy they're playing against. The USGA as with all things offers an overly precise incredibly scientific sounding three decimal place computation. Or you can just say "Yeah play up there but it'll cost you three strokes".

The thing I like about Sunningdale Rules in my experience is that when the players differ by more than a couple strokes but use the "2-down" handicapping, the stronger player almost always wins. If a 16 plays an 8 handicap straight up but with the "2-down" stroke he'll usually get two down pretty early on and stay somewhere in the 1-down, 2-down, 3-down range for the whole match. Even if it manages to get back to 1-down late in the round he won't then be getting stroke and the stronger player tends to prevail.

I think a game that lets me stay close (within 3 or 4 holes at worst) against a stronger player but ensures he has maybe an 80% chance of winning is an eminently fair game. It always seems a bit off to handicap fully and give a bogey golfer a 50/50 chance of beating a single-digit 'capper. But no fun if you don't do *something* and the match predictably ends 8-and-7.

[Jim Sherma]

I'm not sure that there is an algorithm that can do his for all cases. Once different tees are in the mix all match specific handicaps should be negotiated. Length penalizes different players differently. If you don't know the competition well enough to negotiate a fair match then just start playing scratch and adjust on the back nine.

Agree.  Our Dixie Cup singles match is a good example, I think.  I don't think it was a fair match given our age and driver distance differences, in your favor by 20+ years and 40-60 yards, respectively, playing even from the second set of tees.  Had you played the backs and me the second set, I think it would have been a better, more competitive game.  You may have putted better and still prevailed, but I would have had a chance to hit a few more greens with shorter approaches near yours.  Had we done this and adjusted our handicaps as Mike Whitaker's link suggests, I would have had to give you strokes.  To me, this would be adding insult to injury.

Lou

You are doing a disservice to yourself if you thought that the match was in any way a walkover in my mind. Saying that, if you had the option from playing from 200 or so yards less I would have needed more than a mediocre putting day to stay with you. In fact, I switched back to a short putter shortly thereafter as I was saddened by not taking better advantage of my ball-striking down at the Dixie Cup.

Thinking back on the match I think handicapping it by starting you 1 to 2 up would have handicapped the match nicely. It would have pressed me to take advantage of the length differential by having to make a couple of birdies in order to make up the handicapping. I don't think strokes on a couple of holes really accomplish that the same way.

I know it might have been 40-60 on a couple of holes but I doubt the average was quite that much of a differential. Really fun match and a great day with great company. The Dixie Cup plus a few competitive rounds earlier in the year has energized my desire for more competitive rounds this year. Hopefully the putting cooperates.  

Jim  

[Garland Bayley]

... It always seems a bit off to handicap fully and give a bogey golfer a 50/50 chance of beating a single-digit 'capper. ...

Where do you get handicaps that give the bogey golf a 50/50 chance of beating a single-digit 'capper?
If there were such a system, why would the single-digit bother with using it? Doesn't his ability count for something?

[Brent Hutto]

When I play a match against a 6 (and I'm a 16) the negociation generally results in about eight stokes. Maybe 7 strokes if it's my home course and not his. And sure enough, I will win about as often as the other guy. Now if you go full 100% handicap difference in match play that's usually a slight edge for the guy getting the strokes. But somewhere around 3/4 of the difference seems to give 50/50 chances more or less.

Garland,

Do you actually play golf? Or are you a Dan King type who discusses the game as an abstract proposition? It's getting hard to tell the difference.

[John Kavanaugh]

... It always seems a bit off to handicap fully and give a bogey golfer a 50/50 chance of beating a single-digit 'capper. ...

Where do you get handicaps that give the bogey golf a 50/50 chance of beating a single-digit 'capper?
If there were such a system, why would the single-digit bother with using it? Doesn't his ability count for something?

Every tournament I play in has a high handicap shoot a net score in the 50's. I've never seen a single digit manage that feat. Low handicaps play for gross while high handicaps play for net. We all know that but only you seem to ignore why.

[Brett_Morrissy]

GJB,
I think the Current Australian system, certainly allows a 21 marker to beat a 6 marker. 50/50.

I believe we are about to tick over to our new system next week, a combination of the USGA but have spent the last 4 years adapting it to the Australian way, which is mostly competition golf, where all rounds are handicapped.

Can someone confirm, that in all the discussions above, each different set of tees is rated separately, so usually a longer set of tees will be rated harder?

[BHoover]

... It always seems a bit off to handicap fully and give a bogey golfer a 50/50 chance of beating a single-digit 'capper. ...

Where do you get handicaps that give the bogey golf a 50/50 chance of beating a single-digit 'capper?
If there were such a system, why would the single-digit bother with using it? Doesn't his ability count for something?

Every tournament I play in has a high handicap shoot a net score in the 50's. I've never seen a single digit manage that feat. Low handicaps play for gross while high handicaps play for net. We all know that but only you seem to ignore why.

This is why I HATE playing in handicapped events. I'm not saying I mind playing with a high handicap golfer, but not if it's for anything other than a friendly wager. My former athletic club holds an annual golf event. They had to move to gross and net divisions because of one a$$hat who swore he was a 13-15 handicap at his club. Despite his "13-15" handicap, he managed to win every year directly as a result of his being an unabashed sandbagger. One year, he managed to shoot a gross 70, net 57. The only way to describe that is bullshit. Finally, the club went to gross and net divisions. The most satisfying moment came when he shot his customary 75 (despite his handicap) and then, sure of his victory, a new member and former college player shot a gross 66. The sandbagging prick had the nerve to claim he deserved the first prize because his net score beat the gross score. The rest of the members told him to stick his complaint up his ass.

Look, I know not all high handicaps are bogus (nor are all low handicaps legit). But in my experience, inflated handicaps are a much bigger problem than vanity handicaps. In any event, I prefer to play without worrying about handicaps. Fortunately, most of the guys I play with are all roughly equal, so we play without thinking about our handicaps.

[Jim Sherma]

... It always seems a bit off to handicap fully and give a bogey golfer a 50/50 chance of beating a single-digit 'capper. ...

Where do you get handicaps that give the bogey golf a 50/50 chance of beating a single-digit 'capper?
If there were such a system, why would the single-digit bother with using it? Doesn't his ability count for something?

Every tournament I play in has a high handicap shoot a net score in the 50's. I've never seen a single digit manage that feat. Low handicaps play for gross while high handicaps play for net. We all know that but only you seem to ignore why.

I always assumed that it had as much to do with the fatter tails of the distribution of scores that higher handicappers have. Better players rarely shoot too far from their averages while higher handicappers will naturally have a higher average spread. Even in a fair field if you put a bunch of higher handicaps in the field and a few of them will probabilistically shoot a higher amount below their average. I believe that is why 75 or 80% of handicap is what is usually used in net events.

[John Kavanaugh]

Let's not forget that Garland reminded  us how he knew an event was coming up so he went out and practiced. Wa la...a 22 is six under on his first six holes and takes home the bacon. There is more than one way to fill a bag. The ole suck it up until the week of the member guest is the oldest trick in the book. Did I forget to mention that most events they win are in unpostable formats.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()