[Jason Thurman]

Jason I'm with you on the math and we just think differently about it .  We play for money all the time, and put everything in the hole even if it's a kick in in my regular group. So the consistent player typically wins most of his individual matches if he plays enough guys in the group. Everyone is pretty competitive , maybe more so than many would like here. But that's ok it's my preference as we have been doing that since we were caddies as kids.


So if someone is getting murdered we will often make the game on the first tee based on recent performances , we used to play the trend. So the guy who has talent but not consistency wins when he plays good , most of the time he donates.


i just think if you generally shoot eighty you shouldn't be a 2/3 handicap based on the occasional low score

I definitely get where you're coming from.


And there's room for rational people to disagree on how many of the last 20 scores should factor. I like 8, but maybe 10 was better, or 12 would be.


Really, in your case, it seems like the 20 that's the problem moreso than the 8. I've been fortunate the last couple years to play pretty frequently (for a working stiff). My oldest score currently is from April. But in your case, you've had to play a lot of costly matches as you've recovered from injury, and there's no way for your cap to reflect your current status until you've played about 20 of them.


So one option would be to reduce the 20-round denominator to, like, a 10 round denominator so that caps cycle more quickly. But there's another option that I sorta like off the top of my head:


What if all scores older than 6 months (or 3, or whatever) were dropped? A score from two years ago doesn't really tell me anything about your current potential, right? For a lot of guys who play sporadically, or guys who are recovering from an injury, or young parents who play more when they're not caring for infants or kids in a sport season or whatever, something like that could really help.


You'd probably have to establish a minimum number of rounds to calculate a viable index so that a guy doesn't have a hot streak in November, play a single trainwreck round in April, and then kick everybody's ass all summer when tournament season starts. But that seems pretty simple to solve, really.

[Jerry Kluger]

I recently played in a 2 day event at my club and format called for 85% of handicaps and my course handicap under the new system is a 10 and 85% is 8.5 and the rules would round up from .5.  Seems simple enough but no, the USGA handicap system has some new method of computing 85% and the computation came out to 8.475 so I lost a stroke each day - missed first place by one stroke.

[Rob Marshall]

I recently played in a 2 day event at my club and format called for 85% of handicaps and my course handicap under the new system is a 10 and 85% is 8.5 and the rules would round up from .5.  Seems simple enough but no, the USGA handicap system has some new method of computing 85% and the computation came out to 8.475 so I lost a stroke each day - missed first place by one stroke.

If the handicap system is so great why use 85%? What’s the theory there?

[Steve Lang]

   85%... Its Toonamint factor for sandbagging


Jerry K.  i have to ask, what was your final net score?

[Jerry Kluger]

It was a two man two day Stableford where 144 would have been net even par for the two days - we had 133.

[Bill Brightly]

I think the new handicap system is even worse than the last version. Having eight scores out of twenty is even less of an indication of your present ability than before.

Have a slight tear in my shoulder and haven't been able to hit driver at all for a month or two.  So playing from the junk all day has made it hard to score , refuse to blame y advanced age , yet 

Ten straight scores over 80 a couple 90's (ouch) and yet my handicap hasn't moved from 5....pretty ridiculous.

In an attempt to give a frank response to your post, I think the problem is that you are injured, not the handicap system. I'm sure there were many times in your golfing life when you developed swing problems, shot a stretch of rounds in the low to mid 80's, fixed the problem, and then your scores returned to normal. I highly doubt you would have asked for a handicap adjustment during those periods, and your buddies would have screamed bloody murder if you went to a 7 hdcp, right?


Injuries are a problem under any handicap system. You can't simply play more to let the handicap correct itself.

[Rob Marshall]

It seems to me I see a lot of double digit handicappers shooting net 65. I don’t see scratch to 4 handicaps doing that as often.

[archie_struthers]

 


You know Bill I've been ranting to the powers that be over this for thirty years. Think I drove Dean Knuth into retirement.


I know plenty of guys who have some talent that can't play. On occasional days that their athletic ability kicks in they are punished because it counts more than their normal score. It's not my personal problem historically but I've argued the math for years. Golf more than any sport we play demands consistency and not just speed or strength.


The system for handicaps ignores this...it is set up to prevent cheating , which in one of the few games where you police yourself makes no sense to me 

[Jason Topp]

The new system seems to work well enough for setting up matches and the adjustments to make a net score of even par equal to a good round seems about right. 


I think it screws people up that when one person identifies himself as an eight handicap, that could mean an 8 index which could convert to a 14 handicap on a tough course or a two handicap on a short one.  It could also mean an 8 handicap on either of those courses which would mean something different.


There was a Rick Shiels video on YouTube where he calculated his handicap at plus 1.1 which shocked him because he thought he was a two or three.  He probably is a two or three on a 7,000 yard championship course. 

[Kalen Braley]

I agree on the cheating aspects.

I had a two year period where I played a bunch of summer weekend tourneys and I was in the 12 to 18 HC group. There was always one or two guys in every tourney who played to a 13 or 14 and shot two rounds in the 70s and destroyed the group. It was what it was, I still enjoyed the competitive aspect of it, but it was a shame that it happened every. single. time. I finished a very distant net 3rd one time and figured I was the actual winner. 

[Sean_A]

I can understand if folks don't like system. I can't understand folks thinking they are getting screwed by the system. Besides, for guys in the US, this is basically the same system as before. It's been tinkered with, but the idea remains the same.

Ciao

[Tim Martin]

There was always one or two guys in every tourney who played to a 13 or 14 and shot two rounds in the 70s and destroyed the group.

These same one or two guys are well represented at every golf course/club in the country. There’s nothing craftier than the same 14 shooting 79 for net 65 every weekend

[Kalen Braley]

There was always one or two guys in every tourney who played to a 13 or 14 and shot two rounds in the 70s and destroyed the group.

These same one or two guys are well represented at every golf course/club in the country. There’s nothing craftier than the same 14 shooting 79 for net 65 every weekend

Much less doing it two rounds in a row on a standard course rated 70/120.  I looked up the USGA odds sheet, did a few calculations, and doing that two rounds in a row for that HC level has a probability of about 1 in 20,000.  But its all legit! 

[Garland Bayley]

There was always one or two guys in every tourney who played to a 13 or 14 and shot two rounds in the 70s and destroyed the group.

These same one or two guys are well represented at every golf course/club in the country. There’s nothing craftier than the same 14 shooting 79 for net 65 every weekend

Maybe not every club. I played my club's club championship for many years. The winner of net seldom, if ever, shot more than two strokes under the course rating. For a par 70, there were no net 65s.

[JohnVDB]

There was always one or two guys in every tourney who played to a 13 or 14 and shot two rounds in the 70s and destroyed the group.

These same one or two guys are well represented at every golf course/club in the country. There’s nothing craftier than the same 14 shooting 79 for net 65 every weekend

Much less doing it two rounds in a row on a standard course rated 70/120.  I looked up the USGA odds sheet, did a few calculations, and doing that two rounds in a row for that HC level has a probability of about 1 in 20,000.  But its all legit! 

So get on the handicap committee at your club and do something about it.  The Committee can lower the handicap of people like that.  Also make sure those scores get posted.


If clubs are going to let sandbaggers get away with it, they deserve it.

[Thomas Dai]

This is a curious one. Surprising or not? - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BfbVjq3csP8
Atb

[Jason Topp]

This is a curious one. Surprising or not? - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BfbVjq3csP8
Atb

Not at all.  The courses he played included some very long difficult courses of 7,000 yards.  Shooting even par at such courses will yield a handicap in the plus range under this system. 


The idea is to make shooting even par net equally difficult from course to course.  If 5.

[Jason Topp]

I do get sick of low handicap guys bitching about high handicaps winning net competitions.  High handicap players that are good under event pressure and can play their normal game often beat low handicap players who choke.


 When that happens the low handicap guys complain relentlessly even though on a day to day basis they win more often than they lose.

[Wayne_Kozun]

They also have a chance to win low gross for tournaments that have that category as well.

[Garland Bayley]

This is a curious one. Surprising or not? - https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BfbVjq3csP8
Atb

Not surprising, because the handicap index is based on an easy course. This is why Buda competitors from the US objected in the past to using their handicap index as the handicap for the Buda competitions.

[Garland Bayley]

I do get sick of low handicap guys bitching about high handicaps winning net competitions.  High handicap players that are good under event pressure and can play their normal game often beat low handicap players who choke.


 When that happens the low handicap guys complain relentlessly even though on a day to day basis they win more often than they lose.

Jason,

I think you just made the argument for only posting event scores. The rest of the world thanks you.

[Rob Marshall]

I do get sick of low handicap guys bitching about high handicaps winning net competitions.  High handicap players that are good under event pressure and can play their normal game often beat low handicap players who choke.


 When that happens the low handicap guys complain relentlessly even though on a day to day basis they win more often than they lose.

So a 1 handicap who shoots 72 choked. When he gets beat by an 11 who shoots 76? That’s too funny.

[Pete_Pittock]

I ran a very large tournament which had three flights 0-9,10-19, 20 and above. The high and low flights had winning net scores at par. But if you were in the middle flight -10 was out of contention.

[Jason Topp]

I do get sick of low handicap guys bitching about high handicaps winning net competitions.  High handicap players that are good under event pressure and can play their normal game often beat low handicap players who choke.


 When that happens the low handicap guys complain relentlessly even though on a day to day basis they win more often than they lose.

So a 1 handicap who shoots 72 choked. When he gets beat by an 11 who shoots 76? That’s too funny.

No.   Of course there are situations where the low handicap player has no chance, either due to greater variance in high handicapper’s scores or a funny handicap.


It seemed to be the general consensus at our member guest last weekend despite the scratch player missing the green on a green side bunker shot and missing a five footer resulting in a team double when bogey would have won.   


He did not complain but others did. 


My experience has been that this type of result is more common than a high handicap guy going crazy - particularly in a multi round event. 

[A.G._Crockett]

Most of the "problems' with the system that are being referenced here aren't problems with the system at all; they are issues of personal integrity combined with insufficient oversight by clubs.  And remember, the ultimate answer to better players who don't like losing to lesser players is simply, "Don't play in net events!" 


But assuming not only players who "do the right thing" and proper oversight by clubs, here's the reality:

1. the handicap system works best for match play, either individual or two-man better ball.

2. the system works less well for larger fields, simply because somebody is going to catch lightning in a bottle and shoot an outlier score.  Low index guys have less variation in their scores, higher index guys have LOTS of variation, and so the odds are that the lightning in a bottle guy is going to be a high handicapper.  That's just the way it is.

3. Typically, the higher index guy who shoots the great round in competition has a couple of things going for him.  He plays all his rounds by the Rules, including posting scores that include net double bogey, and a realistic "most likely" score if he picked up.  In four balls, I see guys with a 15' putt for 5 pick up when their partner makes that score or better, and then take the 5, even though they haven't made a putt of that length all day.  And the higher index guy who prospers in competition tends to play a lot of competitive events, and it just doesn't bother him to be under the gun.

4. There are a LOT more guys with vanity caps than there are true sandbaggers; a LOT more!  And those guys NEVER prosper in competition because they don't play by the Rules and aren't as good as they think they are anyway.  In my personal experience, those are the guys who do the most complaining about the system, endlessly so.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()