[Tommy Williamsen]

An interesting article in GOLF DIGEST. Some guys play our course 95% of the time. When they travel for our league, they have a difficult time playing to their handicap, yet when other teams visit us, they dominate.


https://www.golfdigest.com/story/home-course-disadvantage-handicap-calculation-member-concern

[Matt Schoolfield]

This is a statistics problems that could be answered with access to the USGA database. I suspect that it is true, but is likely course specific.


The ability of a course to align with an individual’s play style, and knowledge of course nuances, seems to be what would drive that phenomenon if it exists.

[A.G._Crockett]

An interesting article in GOLF DIGEST. Some guys play our course 95% of the time. When they travel for our league, they have a difficult time playing to their handicap, yet when other teams visit us, they dominate.


https://www.golfdigest.com/story/home-course-disadvantage-handicap-calculation-member-concern

Tommy,


This a topic that is near and dear to my heart b/c I’m an interclub captain for the 65+ team at my club. Home course advantage is real and massive, probably bigger any other home advantage in all of sports.  I think the home team wins over 70% of the CGA Interclub matches, and that’s bases on a pretty huge sample size; there are well over 300 interclub teams in the Carolinas, with each team playing 6 matches a year.




When I make out my lineups, there are guys that I will NOT put in the lineup for an away match; there are other guys that I think have a pretty good chance of playing well wherever we go.




Some of this is GCA-related; knowing what club to pull on layup shots, knowing the correct line of play, and especially knowing the greens.




But here’s the other factor: Pretty much every time I hear a conversation about whether or not “our handicaps travel well”, the person asking the question plays most of his golf in a regular group in a format that keeps him from playing fully under the Rules.  Gimmes, preferred lies, S&D penalties, picking up at double, etc, all make individuals who play that who especially unsuited to playing real golf in competition on the road.  Add that to the obvious difficulty of the unfamiliar course, and they just have no chance of playing well.

[DFarron]

Over the years I have taken many “low handicappers” to Pro-Am’s where they fail to break 90 and many times are near 100.


Their handicap is low because 1) They know where to hit it at their course 2) They are generally poor adapters 3)They don’t know their realistic carry distances and 4)They don’t usually play by the rules (putt everything out, etc).


I’ve had opportunities to join a club but have passed because I play a lot of competitive golf and I feel playing different courses and conditions prepares me better.

[Carl Johnson]

Quote from A.G. Crockett, Reply 2:


"But here’s the other factor: Pretty much every time I hear a conversation about whether or not “our handicaps travel well”, the person asking the question plays most of his golf in a regular group in a format that keeps him from playing fully under the Rules.  Gimmes, preferred lies, S&D penalties, picking up at double, etc, all make individuals who play that who especially unsuited to playing real golf in competition on the road.  Add that to the obvious difficulty of the unfamiliar course, and they just have no chance of playing well."

Concerns about how well handicaps travel.  I think about this a lot, not because it means anything to me personally as I no longer play interclub matches or guest tournaments where handicaps come into play, but because other people worry about it and talk about it and may do things (that might be inappropriate) to try to rig the system.  I love "numbers," too, and when you come down to it the handicap system is just a numbers game.

I too believe that A.G.'s observation highlights a significant problem affecting how well some players' handicap's travel.  The resulting handicaps may not be vanity handicaps in the sense that they are intentionally manipulated to keep one's handicap low, but the net result is the same.

I've read a fair amount about the handicap system, ratings and slopes, and served on a ratings team for a short time, which was eye-opening.  For many reasons it's not a perfect system.  Moreover, I can't envision one.

Here's an article by the pope, which points out the "par" issue with the new world handicap system (2020).  One thing he says it does is screw high handicappers of a certain age who play from the forward tees (e.g., me). https://www.golfdigest.com/story/voices-the-flaw-in-the-new-world-handicap-system-dean-knuth

I've also read somewhere that rating and sloping involves taking into account 460 factors from each set of tees on a course.  Frankly, based on my experience, I do not recall quite that many, but there were a heck of a lot.  I have no paperwork from my years of rating and sloping, but I've looked on the web for the forms and instructions that are used and haven't been able to find them.  Does anyone have a good link to such?

[Dan_Callahan]

Sometimes, a handicap that doesn’t travel is a result of the design of your home course. I was a member of a nice 9-hole course where I didn’t have to hit driver. In fact, most of the time I would take driver and 3-wood out of my bag to lighten the load. My handicap got down to a 3. But when I would travel with friends and played long courses where it was super important to be able to hit driver far and straight, I struggled. After a few years of that, I started spending way more time at the range hitting only my woods to get rid of that hole in my game.

[Thomas Dai]

Not convinced any trends even more so travelling trends are accurate given the WHS.
Atb

[Rob Marshall]

I can’t imagine anyone on average not scoring better on their home course. I’ve had some good rounds my first time out with no guidance because you are oblivious to the hidden trouble. Out sight out of mine works great in golf.

[Michael Felton]

This is from quite a long time ago and was based on a different handicapping system than any that is in play now. My mother used to play in an interclub league within our county. The county ladies association did a fairly deep dive into the results of those matches and found that on average, home field advantage was worth around 3 shots. So a 9 and a 12 where the 12 had home field advantage would result in a roughly 50/50 split. Two 9s playing each other would be won by the home player significantly more than the other way.


That was handicaps based purely on competition play and 95+% of those rounds would have been on a player's home course. That variance would depend a little on handicap level in general. Lower handicaps tend to travel better. They have more well-rounded games that can handle different courses better and they also play more competition rounds away from home, so their handicaps were a little more even anyway.


The above is obviously an "in general" thing and there will be some players whose handicaps travel better or worse than others and some courses that will have handicaps that travel better. Three shots feels about right to me too as an average.

[Ally Mcintosh]

If I only played away courses, I would shoot a lot lower. I worked that out last year… not sure how it would translate to handicap though.

[A.G._Crockett]

This is from quite a long time ago and was based on a different handicapping system than any that is in play now. My mother used to play in an interclub league within our county. The county ladies association did a fairly deep dive into the results of those matches and found that on average, home field advantage was worth around 3 shots. So a 9 and a 12 where the 12 had home field advantage would result in a roughly 50/50 split. Two 9s playing each other would be won by the home player significantly more than the other way.


That was handicaps based purely on competition play and 95+% of those rounds would have been on a player's home course. That variance would depend a little on handicap level in general. Lower handicaps tend to travel better. They have more well-rounded games that can handle different courses better and they also play more competition rounds away from home, so their handicaps were a little more even anyway.


The above is obviously an "in general" thing and there will be some players whose handicaps travel better or worse than others and some courses that will have handicaps that travel better. Three shots feels about right to me too as an average.

Good post; thanks!

[A.G._Crockett]

If I only played away courses, I would shoot a lot lower. I worked that out last year… not sure how it would translate to handicap though.

Can you elaborate?  If you play consistently better on away courses, what’s going on at your home course?  In my experience, such results would be unusual, bordering on unique.

[Kalen Braley]

If I only played away courses, I would shoot a lot lower. I worked that out last year… not sure how it would translate to handicap though.

Can you elaborate?  If you play consistently better on away courses, what’s going on at your home course?  In my experience, such results would be unusual, bordering on unique.

I would expect this to be the case if your home course is Butler National or Oakmont..

[Michael Felton]

If I only played away courses, I would shoot a lot lower. I worked that out last year… not sure how it would translate to handicap though.

Can you elaborate?  If you play consistently better on away courses, what’s going on at your home course?  In my experience, such results would be unusual, bordering on unique.

I would expect this to be the case if your home course is Butler National or Oakmont..

Wild hitter who's a member at Sahalee? Only way I see this going like this is if your game is deeply unsuited to your course. Or as you say someone who plays somewhere extremely difficult.

[Jeff M Johnson]

After reading the attached article, I am still confused as to why the USGA doesn't use it's database of rounds to readjust the course slope/rating combos (and the slope/rating combos from any given tee at a course) to make it the most even that they can given the data distributions. Literally adjust the slopes and ratings until it is most likely that any given golfer, regardless of their handicap or home course, has a roughly even chance of winning a match/tournament. It wouldn't be perfect, but I suspect it would be a lot closer to perfect than the current system. If you always play your home course from the same tees with the same golfers, then slope/rating don't even really matter.

As handicap chair, I can't wait to see the tools that will be at my disposal to adjust handicaps so the folks are more competitive. Can't wait for the arguments just before the member member that "my handicap is too low". 

[Ally Mcintosh]

If I only played away courses, I would shoot a lot lower. I worked that out last year… not sure how it would translate to handicap though.

Can you elaborate?  If you play consistently better on away courses, what’s going on at your home course?  In my experience, such results would be unusual, bordering on unique.

Yes - last year I played more golf than I had since I was a young fella: About 100 rounds, 60 at home, 40 away.


I know this because for the first time ever, I kept track, as I did with my (approximate) scores. The away rounds were ~ 2 shots lower to par on average than the home rounds were.

I’ve no idea how that might have related to handicap given I only submit home competition rounds; but nonetheless I find the ultra-firm greens at home far harder to negotiate, even when compared to other top-tier links where - frankly - I find it easier to stop / control the ball and hence score.

[Carl Johnson]

After reading the attached article, I am still confused as to why the USGA doesn't use it's database of rounds to readjust the course slope/rating combos (and the slope/rating combos from any given tee at a course) to make it the most even that they can given the data distributions. Literally adjust the slopes and ratings until it is most likely that any given golfer, regardless of their handicap or home course, has a roughly even chance of winning a match/tournament. It wouldn't be perfect, but I suspect it would be a lot closer to perfect than the current system. If you always play your home course from the same tees with the same golfers, then slope/rating don't even really matter.

As handicap chair, I can't wait to see the tools that will be at my disposal to adjust handicaps so the folks are more competitive. Can't wait for the arguments just before the member member that "my handicap is too low".

Interesting idea, although I wonder if enough golfers post enough away rounds to be meaningful.  Just wonder.


Also: " . . . has a roughly even chance of winning a match/tournament."  I'm not sure what you mean.  The HC system is not intended to equalize, but rather to improve the odds of a less-skilled player against a more-skilled player."  I don't know whether you intend to override this objective, or to incorporate into your data.

Finally, based on my limited personal experience, lots of luck getting the USGA interested in something like this.

[Matt Schoolfield]

The HC system is not intended to equalize, but rather to improve the odds of a less-skilled player against a more-skilled player.

Wait, is this written somewhere?

[A.G._Crockett]

The HC system is not intended to equalize, but rather to improve the odds of a less-skilled player against a more-skilled player.

Wait, is this written somewhere?

I believe the actual wording is “fair and equitable”.

[Joe Zucker]

If I only played away courses, I would shoot a lot lower. I worked that out last year… not sure how it would translate to handicap though.

Can you elaborate?  If you play consistently better on away courses, what’s going on at your home course?  In my experience, such results would be unusual, bordering on unique.

I would expect this to be the case if your home course is Butler National or Oakmont..

Wild hitter who's a member at Sahalee? Only way I see this going like this is if your game is deeply unsuited to your course. Or as you say someone who plays somewhere extremely difficult.

I have a buddy who falls into this category. He is extremely long (near 200mph ball speed) and our home course is shorty and tight.  His greatest strength is reasonably accurate 350 yard drives and he can only hit those on 4-5 holes.  On other courses, his advantage is more accessible.

[Tommy Williamsen]

The more I play other courses, the more the difference between success at home vs away diminishes. The different grasses, sand, firmness, etc., are easier to negotiate. Some seniors at my club only play home matches because they play so poorly away.

[Carl Johnson]

The HC system is not intended to equalize, but rather to improve the odds of a less-skilled player against a more-skilled player.

Wait, is this written somewhere?

I believe the actual wording is “fair and equitable”.

Rule 1 of the Rules of Handicapping does use the "fair and equitable basis" language.  Of course, this begs the question:  What is meant by "fair and equitable."  "Fair and equitable" is not precise when you're dealing with the complexity of handicap calculations, which are precise (whether you agree with them or not).  There should be a data answer.  I'm not going to take the time do to the research right now, but two things stick out.  First, I have in fact read that the HC numbers are not intended to "equalize," both by a general statement to that effect, and by reference to the way handicaps are calculated.  Common sense says the the lower handicapper will normally play closer to his handicap (consistently) than a high handicapper, and would be expected to win more head-to-head matches, although I can't say for sure this is the basis of my "better odds" theory.  Maybe some experts could chime in here.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()