| |
Main
Date: 02 Nov 2006 04:57:58
From:
Subject: Assigning Handicaps?
|
At my home course it's been generally assumed that the first hole is
kedly easier
than the second hole...yet the scorecard lists the first as the #5
handicap hole and
the second as #11. The same situation exists on the back nine with the
sixteenth
hole considered easier than the last, but the sixteenth is the #2
handicap hole and
eighteen is #8. As the men's club secretary I did a study using our
men's club
tournament scorecards over the last two years and the results have
fully supported
these suspicions: The second hole was proven to be the second most
difficult on the
front while the first was shown to be the sixth most difficult.
Likewise, the sixteenth
was discovered to be the fourth most difficult on the back with the
last hole the most
difficult by far.
I'm told that in figuring course handicap holes that consideration is
given to the order;
in our case the first hole gets "extra" consideration because some
people aren't
"ready to play." In the case of the back nine the last hole gets
lesser consideration
because if a competitor in match play only gets one stroke per side he
may get shut
out before he could redeem his handicap stroke. Both of these
explanations sound
ridiculous to me...does anybody have any experience in this sort of
matter?
|
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 04:46:00
From:
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
"sfb" wrote:
> Handicap assignments are based on golfers of somewhat similar abilities.
> The #1 handicap hole is where a 1 handicap gives a stroke to a 2, a 7 to an
> 8, 14 to a 15, etc. The #2, a 1 to a 3, 7 to a 9, 14 to a 16. etc.
And your point is...?
|
| |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 12:30:10
From: Carbon
Subject: Re: Republicans will win!
|
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 20:54:07 -0500, Jack Hollis wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 00:12:33 GMT, Carbon
> <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>William did not say that IQ was distributed differently by state. You seem
>>to have somehow assumed that he did.
>
> That's exactly what the data he presented said.
Uh, no. The data claimed that the *scores* were distributed differently by
state. Not the same thing at all.
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 10:14:44
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
fucking top post fixed.
> http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/ which does not uses the terms
> scratch and bogey to describe golfer's skill levels.
>
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162911194.664158.86300@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > montmach@aol.com wrote:
> >> "sfb" wrote:
> >> > Handicap assignment isn't about true hole difficulty. It is about
> >> > equalizing
> >> > match play.<
> >>
> >> I can't think of a better way to equalize a match between golfers of
> >> different abilities than giving the lesser golfer strokes on holes that
> >> are demonstrably more difficult than others, can you?
> >
> > Yes. A hole that is "difficult" in comparison to par is difficult for
> > both the scratch and bogey player. Let's give an example. Let's say
> > you have stats from 100 scratch golfers, and 100 bogey golfers for two
> > holes:
> >
> > Hole #6, 380 yard par 4, water on the right, bunkers in front.
> > Hole #7, 230 yard par 3.
> >
> > On hole #6, (par 4) the scratch players average 4.05, and the bogey
> > golfers average 5.25
> > On hole #7, (par 3) the scratch players average 3.50, and the bogey
> > golfers average 4.50.
> >
> > Now, you might think #7 is harder, because you average more over par
> > (1.5) than the par 4 (1.25). But the scratch golfer average 0.5 over
> > par on the par 3, and only 0.05 on the par 4. Hole #6 should be a
> > lower handicapped hole (i.e. "harder") than #7 because the difference
> > between the scratch and bogey golfer is greater, even though the bogey
> > golfer will average more over par on the par 3.
> >
sfb wrote:
> Comparing scratch and bogey golfers is the wrong way to assign handicaps.
> The #1 handicap hole should be comparing scratch to scratch or bogey to
> bogey not scratch to bogey.
That makes no sense. A scratch player playing another scratch player
doesn't need strokes.
> One would hope anybody explaining how things work would have read Section 17
> on the USGA Handicap System Manual
Including yourself:
"The Handicap Committee should review the course hole by hole, bearing
in mind that the basic principle is to equalize the abilities of
players at different handicap levels."
"Allocate the first stroke to the hole on the first nine on which the
higher-handicapped player most needs a stroke as an equalizer and the
second stroke to the hole on the second nine on which the
higher-handicapped player most needs a stroke as an equalizer.
Alternate in this manner for the full 18 holes."
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 06:53:14
From: Larry Bud
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
montmach@aol.com wrote:
> "sfb" wrote:
> > Handicap assignment isn't about true hole difficulty. It is about equalizing
> > match play.<
>
> I can't think of a better way to equalize a match between golfers of
> different abilities than giving the lesser golfer strokes on holes that
> are demonstrably more difficult than others, can you?
Yes. A hole that is "difficult" in comparison to par is difficult for
both the scratch and bogey player. Let's give an example. Let's say
you have stats from 100 scratch golfers, and 100 bogey golfers for two
holes:
Hole #6, 380 yard par 4, water on the right, bunkers in front.
Hole #7, 230 yard par 3.
On hole #6, (par 4) the scratch players average 4.05, and the bogey
golfers average 5.25
On hole #7, (par 3) the scratch players average 3.50, and the bogey
golfers average 4.50.
Now, you might think #7 is harder, because you average more over par
(1.5) than the par 4 (1.25). But the scratch golfer average 0.5 over
par on the par 3, and only 0.05 on the par 4. Hole #6 should be a
lower handicapped hole (i.e. "harder") than #7 because the difference
between the scratch and bogey golfer is greater, even though the bogey
golfer will average more over par on the par 3.
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 10:53:02
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
Comparing scratch and bogey golfers is the wrong way to assign handicaps.
The #1 handicap hole should be comparing scratch to scratch or bogey to
bogey not scratch to bogey.
One would hope anybody explaining how things work would have read Section 17
on the USGA Handicap System Manual
http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/ which does not uses the terms
scratch and bogey to describe golfer's skill levels.
"Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1162911194.664158.86300@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> montmach@aol.com wrote:
>> "sfb" wrote:
>> > Handicap assignment isn't about true hole difficulty. It is about
>> > equalizing
>> > match play.<
>>
>> I can't think of a better way to equalize a match between golfers of
>> different abilities than giving the lesser golfer strokes on holes that
>> are demonstrably more difficult than others, can you?
>
> Yes. A hole that is "difficult" in comparison to par is difficult for
> both the scratch and bogey player. Let's give an example. Let's say
> you have stats from 100 scratch golfers, and 100 bogey golfers for two
> holes:
>
> Hole #6, 380 yard par 4, water on the right, bunkers in front.
> Hole #7, 230 yard par 3.
>
> On hole #6, (par 4) the scratch players average 4.05, and the bogey
> golfers average 5.25
> On hole #7, (par 3) the scratch players average 3.50, and the bogey
> golfers average 4.50.
>
> Now, you might think #7 is harder, because you average more over par
> (1.5) than the par 4 (1.25). But the scratch golfer average 0.5 over
> par on the par 3, and only 0.05 on the par 4. Hole #6 should be a
> lower handicapped hole (i.e. "harder") than #7 because the difference
> between the scratch and bogey golfer is greater, even though the bogey
> golfer will average more over par on the par 3.
>
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 11:26:29
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:53:02 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote:
>Comparing scratch and bogey golfers is the wrong way to assign handicaps.
>The #1 handicap hole should be comparing scratch to scratch or bogey to
>bogey not scratch to bogey.
Why?
Players of the same ability don't need handicap holes. They can play
straight up.
The handicap system is designed to compensate for different abilities.
If it works, the holes where the players are most different get
compensated more than the holes where the players are the least
different.
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 21:23:36
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:jrj1l2dh5pulekj3bmjnt523ijmib5nlg0@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Nov 2006 10:53:02 -0500, "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote:
>
> >Comparing scratch and bogey golfers is the wrong way to assign handicaps.
> >The #1 handicap hole should be comparing scratch to scratch or bogey to
> >bogey not scratch to bogey.
>
> Why?
>
> Players of the same ability don't need handicap holes. They can play
> straight up.
>
> The handicap system is designed to compensate for different abilities.
> If it works, the holes where the players are most different get
> compensated more than the holes where the players are the least
> different.
Let's assume that there are two holes on the front side that are candidates
for the #1 handicap. So when (in match play) does it matter which hole we
chose to be #1 vs. #3?
It certainly doesn't matter when a 2 course handicapper plays a 15 course
handicapper. The high handicapper will get a stroke on both holes regardless
of the decision that is made.
When it does matter is when a 2 handicapper is playing a 3 handicapper (or a
15 playing a 16).
I believe the point being made (and I agree with it) is that (in an ideal
world) the statistics of relatively closer matched players should be used in
establishing the low handicap holes instead of the statistics of players
not closely matched.
But there may well be some practical issues regarding sample sizes, etc.
that would make this harder than the current methodology.
dave
|
| | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 01:55:54
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:23:36 GMT, "Dave Lee"
<DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote:
>Let's assume that there are two holes on the front side that are candidates
>for the #1 handicap. So when (in match play) does it matter which hole we
>chose to be #1 vs. #3?
>
>It certainly doesn't matter when a 2 course handicapper plays a 15 course
>handicapper. The high handicapper will get a stroke on both holes regardless
>of the decision that is made.
But let's say the 2 handicap player plays a 21 handicap player?
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 08 Nov 2006 03:14:22
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:p5e2l2910eti3uj3nt3ci3d9vf0331a6o5@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 21:23:36 GMT, "Dave Lee"
> <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com> wrote:
>
> >Let's assume that there are two holes on the front side that are
candidates
> >for the #1 handicap. So when (in match play) does it matter which hole we
> >chose to be #1 vs. #3?
> >
> >It certainly doesn't matter when a 2 course handicapper plays a 15 course
> >handicapper. The high handicapper will get a stroke on both holes
regardless
> >of the decision that is made.
>
> But let's say the 2 handicap player plays a 21 handicap player?
>
You are correct about that. But I wonder how often you see course handicap
differences greater than 18 in match play.
dave
|
| | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 16:21:14
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
"sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message
news:MZydnT8LR-h9Ns3YnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
> Comparing scratch and bogey golfers is the wrong way to assign handicaps.
> The #1 handicap hole should be comparing scratch to scratch or bogey to
> bogey not scratch to bogey.
I agree and have wondered why the USGA methodology doesn't recommend
this approach.
>
> One would hope anybody explaining how things work would have read Section
17
> on the USGA Handicap System Manual
> http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/ which does not uses the
terms
> scratch and bogey to describe golfer's skill levels.
>
Scratch Golfer and Bogey Golfer are both defined on page 2 of my 2006-2007
USGA Handicap System book.
dave
> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1162911194.664158.86300@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > montmach@aol.com wrote:
> >> "sfb" wrote:
> >> > Handicap assignment isn't about true hole difficulty. It is about
> >> > equalizing
> >> > match play.<
> >>
> >> I can't think of a better way to equalize a match between golfers of
> >> different abilities than giving the lesser golfer strokes on holes that
> >> are demonstrably more difficult than others, can you?
> >
> > Yes. A hole that is "difficult" in comparison to par is difficult for
> > both the scratch and bogey player. Let's give an example. Let's say
> > you have stats from 100 scratch golfers, and 100 bogey golfers for two
> > holes:
> >
> > Hole #6, 380 yard par 4, water on the right, bunkers in front.
> > Hole #7, 230 yard par 3.
> >
> > On hole #6, (par 4) the scratch players average 4.05, and the bogey
> > golfers average 5.25
> > On hole #7, (par 3) the scratch players average 3.50, and the bogey
> > golfers average 4.50.
> >
> > Now, you might think #7 is harder, because you average more over par
> > (1.5) than the par 4 (1.25). But the scratch golfer average 0.5 over
> > par on the par 3, and only 0.05 on the par 4. Hole #6 should be a
> > lower handicapped hole (i.e. "harder") than #7 because the difference
> > between the scratch and bogey golfer is greater, even though the bogey
> > golfer will average more over par on the par 3.
> >
>
>
|
| | | | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 11:37:42
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
Scratch and bogey are used to rate courses which is why they are defined in
the Handicap System, but the terms are not used in Section 17 to describe
golfers when assigning handicap strokes to holes.
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:_n24h.3564$0r.2809@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "sfb" <sfb@spam.net> wrote in message
> news:MZydnT8LR-h9Ns3YnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Comparing scratch and bogey golfers is the wrong way to assign handicaps.
>> The #1 handicap hole should be comparing scratch to scratch or bogey to
>> bogey not scratch to bogey.
>
> I agree and have wondered why the USGA methodology doesn't recommend
> this approach.
>
>>
>> One would hope anybody explaining how things work would have read Section
> 17
>> on the USGA Handicap System Manual
>> http://www.usga.org/playing/handicaps/manual/ which does not uses the
> terms
>> scratch and bogey to describe golfer's skill levels.
>>
>
> Scratch Golfer and Bogey Golfer are both defined on page 2 of my 2006-2007
> USGA Handicap System book.
>
> dave
>
>> "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1162911194.664158.86300@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>> >
>> > montmach@aol.com wrote:
>> >> "sfb" wrote:
>> >> > Handicap assignment isn't about true hole difficulty. It is about
>> >> > equalizing
>> >> > match play.<
>> >>
>> >> I can't think of a better way to equalize a match between golfers of
>> >> different abilities than giving the lesser golfer strokes on holes
>> >> that
>> >> are demonstrably more difficult than others, can you?
>> >
>> > Yes. A hole that is "difficult" in comparison to par is difficult for
>> > both the scratch and bogey player. Let's give an example. Let's say
>> > you have stats from 100 scratch golfers, and 100 bogey golfers for two
>> > holes:
>> >
>> > Hole #6, 380 yard par 4, water on the right, bunkers in front.
>> > Hole #7, 230 yard par 3.
>> >
>> > On hole #6, (par 4) the scratch players average 4.05, and the bogey
>> > golfers average 5.25
>> > On hole #7, (par 3) the scratch players average 3.50, and the bogey
>> > golfers average 4.50.
>> >
>> > Now, you might think #7 is harder, because you average more over par
>> > (1.5) than the par 4 (1.25). But the scratch golfer average 0.5 over
>> > par on the par 3, and only 0.05 on the par 4. Hole #6 should be a
>> > lower handicapped hole (i.e. "harder") than #7 because the difference
>> > between the scratch and bogey golfer is greater, even though the bogey
>> > golfer will average more over par on the par 3.
>> >
>>
>>
>
>
|
| |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 04:43:58
From:
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
"sfb" wrote:
> Handicap assignment isn't about true hole difficulty. It is about equalizing
> match play.<
I can't think of a better way to equalize a match between golfers of
different abilities than giving the lesser golfer strokes on holes that
are demonstrably more difficult than others, can you?
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 15:49:48
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
<montmach@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1162903438.259856.198550@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "sfb" wrote:
> > Handicap assignment isn't about true hole difficulty. It is about
equalizing
> > match play.<
>
> I can't think of a better way to equalize a match between golfers of
> different abilities than giving the lesser golfer strokes on holes that
> are demonstrably more difficult than others, can you?
>
This is a real world example from a hole handicapping exercize. The handicap
committee had 200-some cards on this course from a group of golfers whose
course handicap averaged 8.1. They had a second group of 200-some cards from
this course from a group of golfers whose course handicap averaged 23.6.
The first hole is a very difficult par 3 playing long (219 yards) and the
fairway and green slope R-L with a swampy hazard below/left of the green.
Here is the data (against par).
Low group score average +0.9
High group score average +1.4
Amount of 'help' the high group needs - 0.5 strokes
This is the second hardest hole on the course (against par)
Now let's take the easiest (against par) hole on the course
Low group score average -0.1
High group score average +0.9
Amount of 'help' the high group needs - 1.0 strokes
Which hole should have the lower handicap rating - the easy one where the
weaker golfer plays a full stroke behind the better golfer or the really
tough one where the weaker golfer plays a half stroke behind the better
golfer?
dave
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 08:42:37
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
Handicap assignments are based on golfers of somewhat similar abilities.
The #1 handicap hole is where a 1 handicap gives a stroke to a 2, a 7 to an
8, 14 to a 15, etc. The #2, a 1 to a 3, 7 to a 9, 14 to a 16. etc.
<montmach@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1162903438.259856.198550@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> "sfb" wrote:
>> Handicap assignment isn't about true hole difficulty. It is about
>> equalizing
>> match play.<
>
> I can't think of a better way to equalize a match between golfers of
> different abilities than giving the lesser golfer strokes on holes that
> are demonstrably more difficult than others, can you?
>
|
| | |
Date: 07 Nov 2006 12:50:13
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
On 7 Nov 2006 04:43:58 -0800, montmach@aol.com wrote:
>> Handicap assignment isn't about true hole difficulty. It is about equalizing
>> match play.<
>
>I can't think of a better way to equalize a match between golfers of
>different abilities than giving the lesser golfer strokes on holes that
>are demonstrably more difficult than others, can you?
The current system is better than the one you describe - where they
give lesser golfers strokes on holes that have a demonstratively
bigger differential between the performance of good players and of bad
players.
The #1 handicap hole might be the easiest hole for a scratch golfer -
but the hardest for a bogie golfer.
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 16:46:44
From: RoR
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
On 2 Nov 2006 04:57:58 -0800, montmach@aol.com wrote:
>At my home course it's been generally assumed that the first hole is
>kedly easier
>than the second hole...yet the scorecard lists the first as the #5
>handicap hole and
>the second as #11. The same situation exists on the back nine with the
>sixteenth
>hole considered easier than the last, but the sixteenth is the #2
>handicap hole and
>eighteen is #8. As the men's club secretary I did a study using our
>men's club
>tournament scorecards over the last two years and the results have
>fully supported
>these suspicions: The second hole was proven to be the second most
>difficult on the
>front while the first was shown to be the sixth most difficult.
>Likewise, the sixteenth
>was discovered to be the fourth most difficult on the back with the
>last hole the most
>difficult by far.
>
>I'm told that in figuring course handicap holes that consideration is
>given to the order;
>in our case the first hole gets "extra" consideration because some
>people aren't
>"ready to play." In the case of the back nine the last hole gets
>lesser consideration
>because if a competitor in match play only gets one stroke per side he
>may get shut
>out before he could redeem his handicap stroke. Both of these
>explanations sound
>ridiculous to me...does anybody have any experience in this sort of
>matter?
The Oregon golf association has a good explanation of this on their web site. It's at the
bottom right of the page in a boxed area.
"HOW A HOLE'S HANDICAP IS ASSIGNED"
http://www.oga.org/club/scripts/section/section.asp?grp=0&NS=HA
Rick R
|
| |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 13:12:44
From: Dave Lee
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
<montmach@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1162472278.766547.168810@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
> At my home course it's been generally assumed that the first hole is
> kedly easier
> than the second hole...yet the scorecard lists the first as the #5
> handicap hole and
> the second as #11. The same situation exists on the back nine with the
> sixteenth
> hole considered easier than the last, but the sixteenth is the #2
> handicap hole and
> eighteen is #8. As the men's club secretary I did a study using our
> men's club
> tournament scorecards over the last two years and the results have
> fully supported
> these suspicions: The second hole was proven to be the second most
> difficult on the
> front while the first was shown to be the sixth most difficult.
> Likewise, the sixteenth
> was discovered to be the fourth most difficult on the back with the
> last hole the most
> difficult by far.
>
> I'm told that in figuring course handicap holes that consideration is
> given to the order;
> in our case the first hole gets "extra" consideration because some
> people aren't
> "ready to play." In the case of the back nine the last hole gets
> lesser consideration
> because if a competitor in match play only gets one stroke per side he
> may get shut
> out before he could redeem his handicap stroke. Both of these
> explanations sound
> ridiculous to me...does anybody have any experience in this sort of
> matter?
>
A couple of things here.
1) Hole Handicaps are NOT intended to identify the hardest vs. easiest holes
(vs. par). The lowest numbered handicapped holes are intended to identify
the holes where a high handicap golfer is most likely to need a stroke vs. a
lower handicap golfer. These may or may not be the hardest holes (vs par).
2) The USGA handicap manual suggests avoiding assigning very low handicap
numbers to any holes that might be involved in sudden-death type playoffs,
for the reasons you listed.
3) If the USGA handicap manual says anything about 'extra consideration' for
the first hole, I am not aware of it.
dave
|
| | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 15:00:06
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
"Dave Lee" <DaveLeeNC@ix.netcom.RemovE.com > wrote in message
news:g9m2h.1486$l25.50@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>>In the case of the back nine the last hole gets
>> lesser consideration
>> because if a competitor in match play only gets one stroke per side he
>> may get shut
>> out before he could redeem his handicap stroke. Both of these
>> explanations sound
>> ridiculous to me...
Why does that sound ridiculous? Let's take it to the extreme. Let's say
the #1, 2, 3 and 4 handicap holes were holes 15, 16, 17, and 18. You are 4
strokes better than me. We play 14 holes and you're up by 3 (which is to be
expected). I've played 14 holes, I'm almost mathematically eliminated from
the match, and I haven't even gotten a single stroke yet. Does that make
sense? On any given day of course you could be up by 5 since I haven't
gotten a stroke yet, and then I literally would not have gotten a single
stroke that match. Kudos to you for getting up by 5, but it wouldn't have
happened had I gotten to use some of my strokes.
|
| | | |
Date: 02 Nov 2006 08:21:43
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 15:00:06 GMT, "jeffc" <jeffc226@yahoo.com > wrote:
>Why does that sound ridiculous? Let's take it to the extreme. Let's say
>the #1, 2, 3 and 4 handicap holes were holes 15, 16, 17, and 18. You are 4
>strokes better than me. We play 14 holes and you're up by 3 (which is to be
>expected). I've played 14 holes, I'm almost mathematically eliminated from
>the match, and I haven't even gotten a single stroke yet. Does that make
>sense? On any given day of course you could be up by 5 since I haven't
>gotten a stroke yet, and then I literally would not have gotten a single
>stroke that match. Kudos to you for getting up by 5, but it wouldn't have
>happened had I gotten to use some of my strokes.
Expand that same match to sudden death. Strokes need to be spread
out fairly evenly when you don't know how many holes you play.
|
| | | | |
Date: 03 Nov 2006 05:43:09
From: jeffc
Subject: Re: Assigning Handicaps?
|
"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:853kk2p2pdnv8mqjmob2sa9odqln29evh0@4ax.com...
>
> Expand that same match to sudden death. Strokes need to be spread
> out fairly evenly when you don't know how many holes you play.
Well the problem I see with sudden death is that it's usually very short, so
there's no way to assign strokes fairly if the players are close in skill.
If there's an 18 stroke difference that's very easy. If there's a 6 stroke
difference, (or a 24 stroke difference) it's hard. If you give a stroke on
the first playoff hole, it's very unfair to the better golfer, and if you
don't it's unfair to the weaker golfer. Handicaps don't work too good on
just one or 2 holes, depending on the difference in skill.
|
|
