Low handicap laments

[Tom Huckaby]

Bill:

Games like that, and the vanity handicaps they produce, likely exist at every club with a large group of regular players.

As for why one would want to keep a handicap lower than his true abilities:

a) vanity - he can call himself a 3 or whatever whether it's real or not;

b) to get into tournaments with handicap maximums.

Not that I personally have ever been guilty of either of those.
 

[Garland Bayley]

...Plus, it wouldn't surprise me if quite a few pros had flirted with 59 in casual rounds.

Of course they have. Probably have bettered it. But, they course rating and the course set up was nowhere near what it is in a tournament. DD did his at the Hope. The course setup is easy the first four days when the amateurs are playing. However, he shot his on the final day when it was set up for the pros.

[George Pazin]

I don't think it's really vanity in this case, but why would anyone want to sport a lower handicap than reality suggests?

Shame.

 

[George Pazin]

...Plus, it wouldn't surprise me if quite a few pros had flirted with 59 in casual rounds.

Of course they have. Probably have bettered it. But, they course rating and the course set up was nowhere near what it is in a tournament. DD did his at the Hope. The course setup is easy the first four days when the amateurs are playing. However, he shot his on the final day when it was set up for the pros.

If you're seriously clinging to Double D shooting 59 on The Hope for your reasoning behind not doubting a high handicapper significantly bettering his handicap, then we're certainly at or well past the agree to disagree stage, and I bid you a fond farewell.

 

[A.G._Crockett]

...
Second, most of us pick up at least occasionally using ESC in casual rounds, whereas in the tournament you are playing until it drops.  Especially for the high capper, this means that they might make a 10 rather than a 7 on a hole, and do that several times a round.

Third, stroke and distance is in full effect.  In a casual round, most players will NOT go back to the tee if the ball is lost and they didn't hit a provisional.  They either pick up (see above) or play on after assessing themselves a penalty stroke.  Again, this is a bigger factor for the high capper; he'll have more lost balls or unplayable lies, or whatever.

That's why there is so much distrust among low cappers when a 15 shoots a 78 and cleans house.

Your logic for your conclusion escapes me.
 Edit: It is my belief that the people experiencing the first two paragraphs are not going to be the ones shooting a 78 off of a 15.

Garland,
Not sure why I lost you here; seems pretty simple to me as an explanation of why a high handicapper is LESS likely to better his handicap in tournament play.  

Given that the math of handicaps means that you should only better your handicap one round out every 5, would you expect that to be in a tournament when there is no ESC in effect, stroke and distance IS in effect, and more is at stake?  I shouldn't think so.

All three of those things tend to effect high handicappers MORE than low handicappers, thus the surprise and dismay when a high handicapper shatters his handicap in a tournament.  Which happens all the time in handicapped competition, by the way.

However, that is NOT what the thread was originally about, nor what concerns me the most.  It is the problems with using the handicap system for match play that grind my gears, and I'm NOT including sandbagging in that!

[Garland Bayley]

...Plus, it wouldn't surprise me if quite a few pros had flirted with 59 in casual rounds.

Of course they have. Probably have bettered it. But, they course rating and the course set up was nowhere near what it is in a tournament. DD did his at the Hope. The course setup is easy the first four days when the amateurs are playing. However, he shot his on the final day when it was set up for the pros.

If you're seriously clinging to Double D shooting 59 on The Hope for your reasoning behind not doubting a high handicapper significantly bettering his handicap, then we're certainly at or well past the agree to disagree stage, and I bid you a fond farewell.

 

Not clinging to that at all. My main argument is that lots of people fold under pressure, but many others do not.
I added an edit to my response to A.G. explaining why his logic escapes me.

[Tom Huckaby]

Sean - I treat betting the same way - I find no fun in playing for stakes that piss people off.  I feel bad if I lose because I lost money I don't want to lose, and I feel bad if I win because the other guy feels the same way.  But this too is a subject we've discussed before in here... Shivas and others find me quite the wuss for this take.  So join me in wuss-hood.

And I get what you're saying about your club and I don't doubt it works out that way there.  That example is just VERY VERY different from the US examples we've cited.  For us, it's usually groups where no one is all that battle-hardened... sure the lower-cappers are a bit more so typically, but the really good ones aren't playing in net events to begin with... so in the group of 40 you're gonna have 10 inconsistent single digits, 15 inconsistent 10-20s, 15 inconsister 20s or greater... so the probability remains good that one of the higher cappers exceeds his abilities on that day.  Given his margin for error is also SO much higher, you can understand why that's easier for him to do.

Your example is indeed very different from this.  In a field of equal numbers of battle-hardened low cappers mixed with higher cappers who may or may not be so, the low cappers will come closer to reproducing their score abilities in competition for sure.  So in your example I too would bet on the low cappers.

That example just doesn't happen much over here.  Most battle-hardened low cappers play gross.

TH

[A.G._Crockett]

...Plus, it wouldn't surprise me if quite a few pros had flirted with 59 in casual rounds.

Of course they have. Probably have bettered it. But, they course rating and the course set up was nowhere near what it is in a tournament. DD did his at the Hope. The course setup is easy the first four days when the amateurs are playing. However, he shot his on the final day when it was set up for the pros.

If you're seriously clinging to Double D shooting 59 on The Hope for your reasoning behind not doubting a high handicapper significantly bettering his handicap, then we're certainly at or well past the agree to disagree stage, and I bid you a fond farewell.

 

Not clinging to that at all. My main argument is that lots of people fold under pressure, but many others do not.
I added an edit to my response to A.G. explaining why his logic escapes me.

The point is that the 15 who shoots a 78 in competition ISN'T losing balls, being assessed stroke and distance, yipping under pressure, chili-dipping chips, etc. UNDER TOURNAMENT PRESSURE when he normally does ALL of those things!  That's why he's a 15 in the first freakin' place!  And now, all of a sudden, he is consistent?

I'm not saying he does all of that AND shoots 78, Garland.  I'm saying that he STOPS doing the things that make him a 15 at the least likely moment!  THAT is sandbagging, my friend.

[Dan_Callahan]

Dan, didn't it wind up being the case that Crenshaw played some total sandbagger?  I remember the guy was up big on Crenshaw (4 or 5?) before falling in the end.

Yup. I got the sense that Crenshaw knew it, too. The guy was way up with only a few holes to play and then self-destructed.

The best was watching Trevino get waxed. He was all chatter in the beginning. Once he got down, every word out of his mouth was either an excuse as to why he hit a bad shot or a comment about the incredible luck of his competitor. He really came off as a jackass.

[Garland Bayley]

The point is that the 15 who shoots a 78 in competition ISN'T losing balls, being assessed stroke and distance, yipping under pressure, chili-dipping chips, etc. UNDER TOURNAMENT PRESSURE when he normally does ALL of those things!  That's why he's a 15 in the first freakin' place!  And now, all of a sudden, he is consistent?

I'm not saying he does all of that AND shoots 78, Garland.  I'm saying that he STOPS doing the things that make him a 15 at the least likely moment!  THAT is sandbagging, my friend.

I think you are overestimating the number of times a high handicapper loses balls or hits it OB. I play a very tight course with significant opportunity to hit it OB, but seldom do, or adjust my play. For example, it is very possible to hit it OB close to a par 3 green at my home course. Therefore, in tournament play, I have often layed up short and chipped on. This may have sacrified a stroke on the odd chance of saving two.

As for pressure, it affects people differently. For example, when I played college BBall, my crunch time free throw percentage was higher than non-crunch time. I don't think you can say I was sandbagging during the rest of the game, because I had no reason to.

[A.G._Crockett]

The point is that the 15 who shoots a 78 in competition ISN'T losing balls, being assessed stroke and distance, yipping under pressure, chili-dipping chips, etc. UNDER TOURNAMENT PRESSURE when he normally does ALL of those things!  That's why he's a 15 in the first freakin' place!  And now, all of a sudden, he is consistent?

I'm not saying he does all of that AND shoots 78, Garland.  I'm saying that he STOPS doing the things that make him a 15 at the least likely moment!  THAT is sandbagging, my friend.

I think you are overestimating the number of times a high handicapper loses balls or hits it OB. I play a very tight course with significant opportunity to hit it OB, but seldom do, or adjust my play. For example, it is very possible to hit it OB close to a par 3 green at my home course. Therefore, in tournament play, I have often layed up short and chipped on. This may have sacrified a stroke on the odd chance of saving two.

As for pressure, it affects people differently. For example, when I played college BBall, my crunch time free throw percentage was higher than non-crunch time. I don't think you can say I was sandbagging during the rest of the game, because I had no reason to.

Garland,
The 15 doesn't have to hit a LOT of balls OB; just one or two.  Or in the water.  Or leave it in the bunker. Or whatever.  The point is that WHATEVER makes him a 15 in the first place has to stop for him to better his handicap in competition.  He should only play TO his handicap once out of every 5 rounds even in casual play.

As to the basketball analogy; I coached HS basketball for 26 years, and coached several players who were at least as good under end-of-game pressure than they were earlier in the game.  I NEVER coached a player who shot a higher % in games than in practice, though.  Not one, ever.  Many players can make 85 or 90 out of a 100, or 25 or 30 in a row, in practice; virtually NOBODY does that in the games.

The practice-to-game analogy is a better one, IMO, than the crunch time analogy.  Think of casual rounds as practice, tournament rounds as the game.  I just don't know any golfers who play better in tournament play than in casual rounds.  There is no reason that they should, and LOTS of reasons that they shouldn't.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
The 15 doesn't have to hit a LOT of balls OB; just one or two.  Or in the water.  Or leave it in the bunker. Or whatever.  The point is that WHATEVER makes him a 15 in the first place has to stop for him to better his handicap in competition.  He should only play TO his handicap once out of every 5 rounds even in casual play.

As to the basketball analogy; I coached HS basketball for 26 years, and coached several players who were at least as good under end-of-game pressure than they were earlier in the game.  I NEVER coached a player who shot a higher % in games than in practice, though.  Not one, ever.  Many players can make 85 or 90 out of a 100, or 25 or 30 in a row, in practice; virtually NOBODY does that in the games.

The practice-to-game analogy is a better one, IMO, than the crunch time analogy.  Think of casual rounds as practice, tournament rounds as the game.  I just don't know any golfers who play better in tournament play than in casual rounds.  There is no reason that they should, and LOTS of reasons that they shouldn't.

No one computed my shooting percentage from the field during practice, but I was reputed to be a poor shot. However, I was the first in the history of the school to break the 50% field goal barrier in games for a season.
I guess that under pressure situations, I think about relaxing and that helps, whereas most of the time I don't think about relaxing and should.

[archie_struthers]

 

Oh lord, look what I started!  I don't even mind paying my ten to twenty handicap chums a little quid on the occasions we do play , my mathmetical mind just wants them to admit they have the edge.  Most of the money gets eaten up by lunch and beverages afterward.

I've heard all kinds of logic on this subject. None has swayed me radically. Perhaps the USGA should employ an oddsmaker (LOL) to help Snoopy figure out the percentages. I'm pretty confident the coefficient should  be around 65% in better ball of partners matches, if you are truly seeking equity.

Thanks for the help

"archie"

[Garland Bayley]

Oh lord, look what I started!  I don't even mind paying my ten to twenty handicap chums a little quid on the occasions we do play , my mathmetical mind just wants them to admit they have the edge.  Most of the money gets eaten up by lunch and beverages afterward.

I've heard all kinds of logic on this subject. None has swayed me radically. Perhaps the USGA should employ an oddsmaker (LOL) to help Snoopy figure out the percentages. I'm pretty confident the coefficient should  be around 65% in better ball of partners matches, if you are truly seeking equity.

Thanks for the help

"archie"

The USGA employed a Ph. D. in statistics to devise/revise the system.
I'm surprised your "mathematical mind" finds it to be at such fault.

What you haven't heard is the large sample that would actually be meaningful. The USGA took such a sample, and it is a meaningful analysis of the situation.

[A.G._Crockett]

Oh lord, look what I started!  I don't even mind paying my ten to twenty handicap chums a little quid on the occasions we do play , my mathmetical mind just wants them to admit they have the edge.  Most of the money gets eaten up by lunch and beverages afterward.

I've heard all kinds of logic on this subject. None has swayed me radically. Perhaps the USGA should employ an oddsmaker (LOL) to help Snoopy figure out the percentages. I'm pretty confident the coefficient should  be around 65% in better ball of partners matches, if you are truly seeking equity.

Thanks for the help

"archie"

The USGA employed a Ph. D. in statistics to devise/revise the system.
I'm surprised your "mathematical mind" finds it to be at such fault.

What you haven't heard is the large sample that would actually be meaningful. The USGA took such a sample, and it is a meaningful analysis of the situation.

Then, gosh, I guess the Ph.D. in statistics hasn't gotten his ass kicked in a handicapped tournament yet!

Garland, the original deal was about the fact that the handicap system is reckoned at stroke play, yet applied to match play with often poor results.  It doesn't matter who devised it if that is the case.
That's my last post on this thread.

[archie_struthers]

Garland,

With the utmost respect for both you and the USGA of which I am a card carrying member. Both you and they are misguided !

Go to the website, view their advice on copetitions with Snoopy et al > It is excellent but can't be right. T Huckaby posted it for us on page 1

Recommendations for match play are to play at scratch off the low ball, while at medal they recommend 90% of handicap to be used.

Doesn't it stand to reason that the higher handicappers have more chance of imploding on the same hole in medal play?

Wouldn't you rather play some one you are giving ten shots  medal play  rather than match.

It's not even a question.


Multiply the ham & egg effect of four ball

forgettaboutit!!!!

 
 

[Garland Bayley]

...
Then, gosh, I guess the Ph.D. in statistics hasn't gotten his ass kicked in a handicapped tournament yet!

...

No, he claims to be one of those kickin a. He says so many have vanity handicaps from rolling the ball, conceded putts, playing loose with OB, lost ball, and hazard rules, that the honest posting record gives him an advantage. He's a Ph. D. in statistics for gosh sakes, you don't expect him to be a low handicapper do you?
 

[archie_struthers]

 

You know, i'm really kind of about "no malice"

should I have taken umbrage when Garland questioned my math abilities

Hmnn?

OK, call the PH D in statistics, I'll get on a plane and we can play gin, poker or any card game , forget about golf

he doesn't even have to give me any weight, no  handicap  

Better still I'll bring my friend TH if he wants to get a friend and play "pardners"

see poor TH has to wear a disguise in AC because he's too good at statistics

LOL

ps   he agrees with me on the 65% number

[Garland Bayley]

...
should I have taken umbrage when Garland questioned my math abilities
...

I did not question your math abilities! I simply suggest that if you were to take a proper statistical sample, and do the statistical analysis, you might be surprised at the outcome. That is not to say that if you proved the USGA methods to be faulty, that my mathematical mind wouldn't be surprised.