## UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

When I lived in England when I played in club matchplay tournaments we
used a fraction of the difference between handicaps to determine
strokes. I can't remember what it was - I think it was 3/4 or 7/8 and
I can't remeber how we rounded to a whole number.

Yesterday I managed to prevail in the Pleasantville State University
Mens Association Matchplay Championship. I played a scratch, 4 and 5
handicappers and got 11, 6, and 5 strokes respectively ( I
went from 11 to 10). This seems like a lot of strokes in matchplay.

B. J. Wilkinson

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

Quote:
> When I lived in England when I played in club matchplay tournaments we
> used a fraction of the difference between handicaps to determine
> strokes. I can't remember what it was - I think it was 3/4 or 7/8 and
> I can't remeber how we rounded to a whole number.

Same here, except I lived in Scotland.  3/4 and 7/8 were used, but I cannot
remember why one was used than the other.   Strokes were rounded up if the
fraction was >=.1/2 (.5) and rounded downwards if < 1/2(.5).

Quote:
> Yesterday I managed to prevail in the Pleasantville State University
> Mens Association Matchplay Championship. I played a scratch, 4 and 5
> handicappers and got 11, 6, and 5 strokes respectively ( I
> went from 11 to 10). This seems like a lot of strokes in matchplay.

> B. J. Wilkinson

You were given full allowance then.    I think 3/4 or 7/8 is much fairer, if
I play a 24hcp, then on full allowance, I would have to give him 19
strokes - and that is just silly.  I don't know if there is a maximum amount
of strokes that can be given in Match Play - but I would think the limit has
to be 18.

Congrats on the win, though!!!

--
David
RSG Roll Call
http://rec-sport-golf.com/members?rollcall=sneddond
email: dsneddon AT cogeco DOT ca

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

Please explain why 3/4 or 7/8 is much fairer? If the handicaps are correct,
then why not use the full handicap? Anything else is nothing but an attempt
by the lower handicap player to take an unearned advantage. Sort of a
socially correct pickpocket that only does older rich white guys.

Using less than full handicaps always seemed like some tribute the higher
handicaps had to pay  to be allowed to play with the lower handicaps. If you
won't play full handicap, then kiss you own ass as I'm not doing it.

You might have the guiltees for taking too many strokes, but whoever is

Quote:

> You were given full allowance then.    I think 3/4 or 7/8 is much fairer,
if
> I play a 24hcp, then on full allowance, I would have to give him 19
> strokes - and that is just silly.  I don't know if there is a maximum
amount
> of strokes that can be given in Match Play - but I would think the limit
has
> to be 18.

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

Quote:
> Please explain why 3/4 or 7/8 is much fairer? If the handicaps are
correct,
> then why not use the full handicap? Anything else is nothing but an
attempt
> by the lower handicap player to take an unearned advantage.

It is match-play we are talking about, not stroke play.  Handicaps are based
on stroke play. How in heaven's name could you justify getting two strokes
on one hole??  The object of giving of strokes by the lower handicap player
is to enable the higher handicap player to halve the hole not win it by a

Quote:
>Sort of a socially correct pickpocket that only does older rich white guys.

I guess i could use that analogy for high handicappers vs low.

Quote:
> Using less than full handicaps always seemed like some tribute the higher
> handicaps had to pay  to be allowed to play with the lower handicaps. If
you
> won't play full handicap, then kiss you own ass as I'm not doing it.

I don't remember inviting you for a match.  And if it is in a formal
competition then you will abide by the Conditions of Competition, just as I
would, or withdraw.

Quote:
> You might have the guiltees for taking too many strokes, but whoever is
> takes your money probably doesn't.

I don't take strokes, no matter who I am playing against, and there are not
too many who take my money either.  Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned, but when
I play against a scratch, 2, 3 or 4 handicap man, I want to play him
straight up, that way I am challenged to play my best, and not rely on a
crutch of given strokes to beat him.

--
David
RSG Roll Call
http://rec-sport-golf.com/members?rollcall=sneddond
email: dsneddon AT cogeco DOT ca

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

David, you earlier statement was that 3/4 or 7/8 was "fairer." Your word.
Traditional or a condition of the competition is not a statement of
fairness. Once again, what is fair about using partial handicaps?

The fact match play uses handicap strokes on individual holes clashes with
your assertion that handicaps are established in stroke play and this is
match. If handicaps were only good for metal, then one only need to subtract
the handicap from the gross to get the net. All the efforts assigning
handicap strokes to individual holes must be a total waste of time.

You are free to play anybody you want at scratch. Please don't describe

Quote:

> > Please explain why 3/4 or 7/8 is much fairer? If the handicaps are
> correct,
> > then why not use the full handicap? Anything else is nothing but an
> attempt
> > by the lower handicap player to take an unearned advantage.

> It is match-play we are talking about, not stroke play.  Handicaps are
based
> on stroke play. How in heaven's name could you justify getting two strokes
> on one hole??  The object of giving of strokes by the lower handicap
player
> is to enable the higher handicap player to halve the hole not win it by a

> >Sort of a socially correct pickpocket that only does older rich white
guys.

> I guess i could use that analogy for high handicappers vs low.

> > Using less than full handicaps always seemed like some tribute the
higher
> > handicaps had to pay  to be allowed to play with the lower handicaps. If
> you
> > won't play full handicap, then kiss you own ass as I'm not doing it.

> I don't remember inviting you for a match.  And if it is in a formal
> competition then you will abide by the Conditions of Competition, just as
I
> would, or withdraw.

> > You might have the guiltees for taking too many strokes, but whoever is
> > takes your money probably doesn't.

> I don't take strokes, no matter who I am playing against, and there are
not
> too many who take my money either.  Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned, but
when
> I play against a scratch, 2, 3 or 4 handicap man, I want to play him
> straight up, that way I am challenged to play my best, and not rely on a
> crutch of given strokes to beat him.

> --
> David
> RSG Roll Call
> http://rec-sport-golf.com/members?rollcall=sneddond
> email: dsneddon AT cogeco DOT ca

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

Quote:

> Please explain why 3/4 or 7/8 is much fairer? If the handicaps are correct,
> then why not use the full handicap? Anything else is nothing but an attempt
> by the lower handicap player to take an unearned advantage. Sort of a
> socially correct pickpocket that only does older rich white guys.

It depends on how the handicap is calculated. There is a statistical
bias with certain event types.

Stableford and Par events can tend to skew the differential between high
and low handicappers. Stroke is a low handicapper's game, because higher
handicappers have to count their 8s and 10s rather than pick up like
they can in Stableford. Studies here in Australia have shown higher
handicappers score comparatively better on their handicaps when playing
Par and Stableford as opposed to Stroke events, sometimes up to the
equivalent 3 or 4 shots per round.

Matchplay more closely approximates Par, since once you've lost the hole
(or are "out" in Par) it doesn't matter whether it's by one or ten
strokes. So higher handicappers have a statistical advantage over lower
handicappers in that they can play to their handicap more easily in a
Par, Stableford or Matchplay scenario.

There are also some golfers whose high handicaps are biased by a few
"blow up" holes every Stroke event, which can favour their game style
somewhat in matchplay ... in matchplay it's only one hole lost.

Maybe that's the reasoning behind a 3/4 or 7/8 difference. FWIW though,
men's matchplay in Australia is always played using *full* handicap
difference.

--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=wilsonc
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
------------------------------------------------------------------

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

Quote:
> David, you earlier statement was that 3/4 or 7/8 was "fairer." Your word.
> Traditional or a condition of the competition is not a statement of
> fairness. Once again, what is fair about using partial handicaps?

Lets look at it hole by hole, Player A is giving Player B 18 strokes ( one
per hole).  Player A is off 2 and player B is off 20 - full difference 18
shots, Par 72 36&36.

Player A:  Player B
4                5    AS
3                7    1D
4                4    AS
3                6    1D
5                5    AS
3                4   1UP
4                5    1UP
5                6    1UP
3                4    1UP
34             46
(2under)

In this scenario Player A has played 3 shots under his handicap and Player B
has shot exactly to his handicap.  But Player A is 1 down.

I know that there is no useful arguement I can put forward, than pointing
out the above and adding that it *was* traditional, and to my mind it was
"fair" :-).

I did check on a couple of sites and the USGA, CONGU, and the Scottish Golf
Union all "suggest" that Singles Match Play be off full difference.
Interestingly enough there is a big tournament in California, and I can't
find the link right now, that for singles there is 80% difference.

Quote:
> The fact match play uses handicap strokes on individual holes clashes with
> your assertion that handicaps are established in stroke play and this is
> match. If handicaps were only good for metal, then one only need to
subtract
> the handicap from the gross to get the net. All the efforts assigning
> handicap strokes to individual holes must be a total waste of time.

> You are free to play anybody you want at scratch. Please don't describe

But giving full allowance, to my mind, does nothing but add  a crutch for
the high handicapper.  He does not have to excel since there is no
incentive, just take all the shots given and either halve or win the hole.
The low handicapper must play out of his mind just to try and salvage a
halved match.  The high handicapper will blow a high score on one or two
holes - that is why he is a high handicapper.  In Match Play he loses the
hole whether he shoots 6 or 16, whereas the low handicapper must make par or
better just to attain a half on most holes.

I suppose my indignation comes from playing a lot with a couple of high
handicappers who wanted to beat me before the first ball was struck, by
getting as many strokes as possible.  I had one 36 hole match against a guy
who insisted on adjusting his stroke allowance upwards between the rounds
plus I had to play from the Black tees and he the White ( at Inverrary).
Some guys just want to win so badly, but so not want to trust their skill,
but rather have strokes as a crutch.

Tell you what, Tom, if I ever get down your way, I'll give you full
allowance, play from the back tees, and we will see what happens....;-)

--
David
RSG Roll Call
http://rec-sport-golf.com/members?rollcall=sneddond
email: dsneddon AT cogeco DOT ca

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

Quote:
> Stableford and Par events can tend to skew the differential between high
> and low handicappers. Stroke is a low handicapper's game, because higher
> handicappers have to count their 8s and 10s rather than pick up like
> they can in Stableford. Studies here in Australia have shown higher
> handicappers score comparatively better on their handicaps when playing
> Par and Stableford as opposed to Stroke events, sometimes up to the
> equivalent 3 or 4 shots per round.

Your handicap system doesn't have an equivalent of ESC?  (where real holes have
a maximum value that depends on your handicap - for entering your score into the
handicap computer)

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

Quote:

> Your handicap system doesn't have an equivalent of ESC?

Only for the initial five cards to obtain your handicap, where any score
over double bogey is reduced to double bogey.

For general handicap calculation, the maximum an Australian handicap can
go out is 0.1 strokes per round, regardless of how tragic the round is.

--
Cheers
Colin Wilson
------------------------------------------------------------------
RSG Roll Call: http://rec-sport-golf.com/members/?rollcall=wilsonc
Trentham Golf Club: http://www.trenthamgolf.com
------------------------------------------------------------------

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

Quote:

> > Your handicap system doesn't have an equivalent of ESC?

> Only for the initial five cards to obtain your handicap, where any score
> over double bogey is reduced to double bogey.

> For general handicap calculation, the maximum an Australian handicap can
> go out is 0.1 strokes per round, regardless of how tragic the round is.

The UK handicapping system does have a sort of ESC built into it, its called
the stableford adjustment, but it is only part of the handicapping scheme.

One big difference between the UK system and the USGA system is that here
in the UK only score cards from qualifying competitions can be used to
adjust a players handicap.  As such the rules of the competition are
paramount so if one is playing a medal (strokeplay) competition then the
player has to hole out on every hole.  Failure to complete a hole
effectively means DQ from the competition.  Likewise if a player applied
their own stableford adjustment to an individual hole score then they would
be DQ for returning an incorrect scorecard.  However, once the player
returns their scorecard in all its glory and the players competition result
is known then the handicap system takes over and rounds down individual hole
scores to a worst result of net double bogey (i.e. the score a player needs
in order to score 0 stableford points.)  These revised hole scores are then
used to determine whether a player merits a handicap reduction or not.   As
an example my first ever handicap reduction came about because of this
stableford adjustment.  I had finished my medal round playing exactly to my
handicap and thus recorded a net 69 so on first inspection no handicap
adjustment but I had taken a 10 at the first hole.  Application of the
stableford adjustment reduced this hole score to an 8 and for handicapping
purposes only I had effectively beaten my handicap by 2 shots and so earned
a slightly reduced handicap.

Crispin Roche

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

Quote:

>>David, you earlier statement was that 3/4 or 7/8 was "fairer." Your word.
>>Traditional or a condition of the competition is not a statement of
>>fairness. Once again, what is fair about using partial handicaps?

> Lets look at it hole by hole,

This is not a good example. Matchplay is like this even when no
handicaps are used. I'll show you. Let's say both players have the same
handicap and for simplicity sake the course is all par 4's.

Player A:      Player B
5                4
5                4
5                4
5                4
5                4
4                6
4                7
4                9
4                8

41 (5 over)      50 (14 over)

Player B is 1 up but played far more strokes.

Just like in tennis (where the player who wins the most points doesn't
necessarily win the game), in matchplay the person who scores the lowest
number of strokes doesn't necessarily win.

Player A is giving Player B 18 strokes ( one

Quote:
> per hole).  Player A is off 2 and player B is off 20 - full difference 18
> shots, Par 72 36&36.

> Player A:  Player B
> 4                5    AS
> 3                7    1D
> 4                4    AS
> 3                6    1D
> 5                5    AS
> 3                4   1UP
> 4                5    1UP
> 5                6    1UP
> 3                4    1UP
> 34             46
> (2under)

> In this scenario Player A has played 3 shots under his handicap and Player B
> has shot exactly to his handicap.  But Player A is 1 down.

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

When I have played tournament Stableford, our handicaps were applied ahead of
time.  This had the advantage in that we could speed up play by knowing when to
pick up a ball and not continue that hole.

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

Quote:
> When I have played tournament Stableford, our handicaps were applied ahead
of
> time.  This had the advantage in that we could speed up play by knowing
when to
> pick up a ball and not continue that hole.

I am assuming that this was in reply to my post but since you cut out all
the preceeding posts I'm not sure.

The important thing to bear in mind is that the UK handicapping scheme is
based on competitive play and the rules of the competition take precedence
over the handicapping scheme.  As such when Stableford competitions are
being played yes it is possible for a player to pick their ball up when they
are not going to score any points.  But when a medal competition is played
then every shot counts and the ball has to be holed out for each hole of the
competitive round.

Crispin Roche

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

Quote:
> The important thing to bear in mind is that the UK handicapping scheme is
> based on competitive play and the rules of the competition take precedence
> over the handicapping scheme.  As such when Stableford competitions are
> being played yes it is possible for a player to pick their ball up when they
> are not going to score any points.  But when a medal competition is played
> then every shot counts and the ball has to be holed out for each hole of the
> competitive round.

While we post casual rounds in the US, I have ALWAYS treated my rounds the same
as I do with tournaments.  For medal play that means I hole out.  A requirement
of the USGA is that we play to get low scores (at least as much as we do during
tournaments).  The only time I have picked up my ball is during Stableford
tournaments (I haven't played straight match play).

For me, there is no difference between a tournament round and a non-tournament
medal rounds.  My competition is myself.  That's good, as this is the USGA
requirement as well.    Tournaments make a difference with Stableford, Modified
Stableford, & Match play - handicap scores effect the play of the game in these
instances.  (when I am playing in non-tournament games, I don't care about
handicaps).

Obviously, I am not counting scramble and other non-golf tournaments in this
discussion.

### UK Golfers: Fraction of Handicap Difference Used

On Mon, 28 Oct 2002 16:36:01 -0000, "Crispin Roche"

Quote:

>> When I have played tournament Stableford, our handicaps were applied ahead
>of
>> time.  This had the advantage in that we could speed up play by knowing
>when to
>> pick up a ball and not continue that hole.

>I am assuming that this was in reply to my post but since you cut out all
>the preceeding posts I'm not sure.

>The important thing to bear in mind is that the UK handicapping scheme is
>based on competitive play and the rules of the competition take precedence
>over the handicapping scheme.  As such when Stableford competitions are
>being played yes it is possible for a player to pick their ball up when they
>are not going to score any points.  But when a medal competition is played
>then every shot counts and the ball has to be holed out for each hole of the
>competitive round.

>Crispin Roche

My feeling is that US handicaps are "inflated" - by that I mean I
would take a UK 4 handicapper over a US 4 in a match. UK handicaps, as
you say, are based upon competition, and I think a low handicap is a
little harder to earn in the UK.

B. J. Wilkinson