×

Top Links:

Get A Golf Handicap

UK Golf Guide

Golfshake Top 100s

Find Golf Travel Deals

Golf Competitions

Search

Community Forum

Course:

Tee Times | Search | Reviews

News:

Gear | Tour | Industry Insider

Tuition:

Video Library | Tuition Sections

Community:

Join | Log In | Help | Useful Links

×
New Forum System - click here to visit our new & improved forum system >>>

HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?

Posted by: user8399 | Wed 13th Jun 2012 09:49 | Last Reply

"Full difference" in handicaps is used in singles matches, so if you win a hole by several strokes you only go 1 up. But handicaps are based on counting all the strokes up to a nett double bogey, so does this penalise the steadier player in a match when both are playing to their handicaps? Does this put the better player at a disadvantage?

I've done a detailed analysis of a recent medal competition at my club, and played "virtual" matches between all the pairs of players with a significant handicap difference (7 plus) who had exactly the same nett score. I also divided them into four categories in case the results were different, namely: better than the SSS (68-71); in the buffer zone (72-75); moderate (76-79); poor (80-83).

If the "full handicap" difference is fair, each of these categories should have an even spread of wins for the lower and higher handicap player. Correct?

Can you, intuitively or logically, estimate the percentage of wins in each category? It ought to be 50% high:50% low in each category but you might think it is, for example, moderate 60:40; poor 40:60, etcetera.

I'll put up my actual results when you've had a chance to have a go!

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user52922
Reply : Wed 13th Jun 2012 10:32

My experience tells me that it does put the better player at a disadvantage because I seem to come across many high handicap players who are more than capable of making half a dozen pars in a round, yes even 28 handicappers. I played with one last week in the Medal.

Perhaps a return to the 3/4 rule for matchplay should be reinstated.

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user451055
Reply : Wed 13th Jun 2012 13:10

I am a high handicapper (25.5) and I fancy my chances against anyone when playing matchplay to full handicap.

I have played every hole on my course to par at least once and have birdied about 5 of them. I have only been playing golf a couple of years so I am very inconsistent hence the high handicap. I'm more than capable of taking 8/9 shots on a few holes each round.

I play in a ladies evening league where we play other clubs over 9 holes in the evenings. It is aimed at ladies who work and can't play in the regular teams as they are played on weekdays. This comp still uses 3/4 handicap and I find it a tougher challenge and it is usually very even.

I would guess that with matchplay to full handicap the higher handicaps win at least 65% Terry!

Personally I agree with 3/4 handicaps (even though it is a disadvantage for me at the moment). The handicap system is to allow everyone to have a chance of victory but I think it should very slightly favour the lower handicap. It is hard work getting your handicap down and you should be rewarded. I practice like mad to get mine down. I have heard of people keeping their handicaps artificially high to give them a better chance in the major comps as when they get to matchplay they have a huge advantage. 3/4 handicaps actually encourages you to get your handicap down!

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user355541
Reply : Wed 13th Jun 2012 14:06

Judy

Your guess that 65% of singles matchplays are won by the higher handicapper is not supported by the available facts. The only "facts" currently available are from a survey carried out by the Scottish Golf Union. With 3/4 handicap, 61% of such matches were won by the lower handicapper. Following the introduction of full handicap difference, that figure changed to 55%, still in favour of the lower handicapper. I, too, would be interested in learning how many club singles knockout competitions have been won by high handicappers since the change. Certainly, at my club, there are ties won by a high handicapper playing a low handicapper, but the eventual winner is very rarely a high handicapper.

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user410273
Reply : Wed 13th Jun 2012 18:08

The info I received, as Chairman of Comps, when the change to full allowance was piloted was that the lower handicappers still won more matches, albeit it was a lot closer to a 50-50 split. And certainly during the period I did the job it was very much backed up by the results.

Also, if a high handicapper is in the vein of form through the summer he is in all probability get several larger cuts in handicap, certainly more than a low handicapper in a similar vein of form.

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user38216
Reply : Wed 13th Jun 2012 20:21

Lets be honest, handicaps are ideal if both players are either on their knock or having a bad day. If you combine anything else the result will be inevitable. My gross ecclectic score at my last few clubs is in the 50's but ive broke 80 only a couple of times. For me a low hcp is a sign of consistency, which I do not have!!

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user202037 [FORUM MODERATOR]
Reply : Wed 13th Jun 2012 23:26

Terry,

It would also be interesting to know the results of "Scratch Matches". I played in a League where the Rule was that the four players of a team went off in hcp order (lowest 1st) so the match should be fair. One Club could put a team out with their No4 still being 'scratch' but they didn't win every match 8-0, they in fact averaged 5pts per game.

In my last season, of the seven games I played, I won 3 but lost 4 but never played anyone with a higher hcp than me. Actually played at No4 in 6 of these games and No3 in the other.

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user8399
Reply : Thu 14th Jun 2012 10:02

Many thanks for the intersting posts. I'll try to respond to each in turn over the next couple of days, and any others who reply, and will then let you know the results of phase 1 of my analysis.

First and foremost, John said:

"My experience tells me that it does put the better player at a disadvantage because I seem to come across many high handicap players who are more than capable of making half a dozen pars in a round.... Perhaps a return to the 3/4 rule for matchplay should be reinstated."

I lost to a 16-handicapper last year who commented that the difference between lower and higher handicap players was usually the number of holes where they made significant mistakes and not their basic playing ability. My contention has always been (and I submitted theoretical analyses to the EGU to confirm this) that when two players of different handicaps play to the same level of their ability, i.e. would have returned the same nett scores, the higher handicapper would usually win because he would lose one or more holes by 2 or 3 strokes but win several by just one stroke to balance that and return the same nett score.

My belief is that two players, both playing close to their (strokeplay) handicap in matchplay, should have an equal chance of winning and that the matchplay handicap allowance should be optimised for that situation. Handicaps are supposed to represent good play, after all, not average or mediocre play.

Phase 2 of my analysis will look at fairer ways to determine the allowance for matchplay - 3/4 will obviously tilt the balance towards the low handicap player, the question is, by how much?

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user8399
Reply : Thu 14th Jun 2012 10:14

Judy, I really like your post - it demonstrates just the right attitude! When I started plaing in my twenties my first handicap was 16 and I was absolutely sure 3/4 was right and proper even if I "lost" a couple of shots playing against an 8-handicapper.

You said: "This comp still uses 3/4 handicap and I find it a tougher challenge and it is usually very even."

My Club was apparently threatened with expulsion from the EGU if we continued to use 3/4 in our main knockout competition - I'm glad there is at least one competition that ignores this ruling, and I am not surprised it is ladies!

"I would guess that with matchplay to full handicap the higher handicaps win at least 65% Terry!"

Watch this space for the results of my investigation!

"Personally I agree with 3/4 handicaps (even though it is a disadvantage for me at the moment). The handicap system is to allow everyone to have a chance of victory but I think it should very slightly favour the lower handicap. It is hard work getting your handicap down and you should be rewarded."

Great attitude, I hope one day we'll have a match, but with you as my partner!

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user8399
Reply : Thu 14th Jun 2012 10:38

James makes the following comments:

"The only "facts" currently available are from a survey carried out by the Scottish Golf Union. With 3/4 handicap, 61% of such matches were won by the lower handicapper. Following the introduction of full handicap difference, that figure changed to 55%, still in favour of the lower handicapper."

I remember this survey being publicised when the idea of full difference was first mooted, though I recall the first set of figures as 62% and 52%, perhaps the EGU mis-quoted this in their response to my comment. My response to them was to point out that lower category golfers have a much smaller spread of scores than higher-handicappers and that, by taking the results of this study at face value, they were including all the matches played by players playing at their average and poor levels of ability, when the better player will usually win as his average and poor play will be closer to his good play than his opponent's will.

But why should a handicap system based on good play be compromised by optimising it to include average or poor play in that way?

James' second point is also valid and needs a response:

"I, too, would be interested in learning how many club singles knockout competitions have been won by high handicappers since the change. Certainly, at my club, there are ties won by a high handicapper playing a low handicapper, but the eventual winner is very rarely a high handicapper."

Over a knockout tournament of six or seven rounds there will be many matches that are played by players playing average or poor golf. For the reasons above, a majority of these will be won by the lower handicap player. If you take your 55-45% spread overall and work that through six rounds the probability of a high handicap player making it to the final is very small, and will remain so whatever allowance is given - the poorer player will have a bad round and will get beaten.

But should the allowance be set on this premise? That weaker players have to be compensated for their greater variability? Handicaps must be set, as they are for strokeplay events, on the basis that if two players play to their handicaps, i.e. their proven best ability, they will enjoy a very close result which is not influenced in favour of either of them by the matchplay stroke allowance given.

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user8399
Reply : Fri 15th Jun 2012 11:30

Brian's post confirms the statistics that show the lower handicap player winning more often, but as I commented in response to James, that is probably because average and poor rounds are included and might hide an opposite imbalance when both players are playing well to their handicaps.

A higher handicap player will clearly be cut faster if he plays well - up to 0.4 per stroke compared with 0.1 or 0.2 - but he will have had a matchplay advantage while doing so, and probably still has one when his handicap has settled to its new, proper, level. I've lost count of the number of players who have recently been cut and say "it will take me ages to get my handicap back"! Excuse me, the new number IS your handicap, as you must have played well below it to get down.

As a minor point, which I'm sure Brian would accept, a cut of 2 strokes for Brian or for me is 40% of our allowance and in no way comparable to a cut of 2 for a 20 handicapper.

Next post - the new facts - so James will no longer have to say that the only "facts" are those from that original survey by the Scottish Golf Union.


Last edit : Fri 15th Jun 2012 11:51
re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user8399
Reply : Fri 15th Jun 2012 11:49

I agree with David H's comment that both players need to be playing to a similar standard (relative to handicap) to have a close game, of course that must be true. However, I wanted to find out if those close games ended up 50:50 between players with significantly different handicaps or were they skewed one way or the other - and, of course, they are.

I'm not sure how to analyse my data in the way David L suggests for scratch matches. I do know that, like him, I've played in a competition, in this case my club's scratch knockout, for many years and have never lost to anyone other than lower handicap players, but have beaten many of them - sadly not on Wednesday when an improving 18-year old 5-handicapper threw five birdies at me in ten holes!

So, finally, the actual statistics from my study of all the cards and all the potential pairings in the medal competition I have analysed:

Of 54 "matches" between golfers scoring exactly the same nett score of 80, 81, 82 or 83, the lower handicap golfers wins 67%, the higher handicap golfer 33%;

Of 136 "matches" between golfers scoring exactly the same nett score of 76, 77, 78 or 79, the lower handicap golfers wins 39%, the higher handicap golfer 37%;

Of 84 "matches" between golfers scoring exactly the same nett score of 72, 73, 74 or 75, the lower handicap golfers wins 35%, the higher handicap golfer 65%;

Of 35 "matches" between golfers scoring exactly the same nett score of 68, 69, 70 or 71, the lower handicap golfers wins 31%, the higher handicap golfer 69%.

Thus it is proved that the full difference matchplay allowance is optimised for matches when both players are playing to a "moderate" level, that it favours the lower handicap player when both play to a "poor" level, and that it favours the higher handicapper by a factor of 2:1 or greater when both are playing within the buffer zone, i.e. to their handicaps, or better than their handicaps.

As any handicap system should be optimised for games where both players are playing well, the full difference method is not fit for purpose and should be abandoned.

Your comments would be very welcome!

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user52922
Reply : Mon 18th Jun 2012 20:16

Ian, you are probably correct, but that is no consolation to the very good player who has been dumped out by the freak round of a higher handicap player.

I have lost too many times in my good playing years, sometimes even when I have shot under par gross.

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user451055
Reply : Tue 19th Jun 2012 08:11

That must be annoying John but if they have played a blinding round (for their handicap) then surely they should be allowed their victory. It is these blinding rounds that keep us coming back to the practice range to improve even further and get our handicaps lower.

What annoys me is when higher handicaps consistently win the big tournaments yet their handicaps never seem to come down. Surely if they are capable of putting a decent matchplay run together they are capable of good scores in the medals/stablefords. Somehow they never seem to quite manage it though....

Perhaps if someone in the bronze category wins one of the big matchplay events then they should get a handicap reduction of a couple of shots.

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user8399
Reply : Tue 19th Jun 2012 12:50

Ian, your point about knockout competitions being won by a (more consistent) low-handicapper was covered in a couple of the posts. James said: "Certainly, at my club, there are ties won by a high handicapper playing a low handicapper, but the eventual winner is very rarely a high handicapper." My reply said "Over a knockout tournament of six or seven rounds there will be many matches that are played by players playing average or poor golf. For the reasons above, a majority of these will be won by the lower handicap player. But should the allowance be set on this premise? That weaker players have to be compensated for their greater variability?"

Handicaps are set so that two players playing to the best of their previously known ability can have an equal chance of winning a match (and not a series of matches). They should not be set so that they have an equal chance when playing moderate or poor golf. It isn't realistic to extend this to a knockout series of matches and set the handicaps to allow the less consistent player to have a better chance of getting to the final!

I played a very pleasant guy recently who rarely wins anything off his high handicap, and gave him 22 strokes. We were all square on the 18th tee and he got a very sound par, nett birdie, to win the match. I was genuinely pleased for him. However, when we considered the scores taken at each hole I would have scored 36 points, he had 31 - in other words, relative to our handicaps I had comprehensively out-performed him but the full difference rule had reduced the significance of his disasters to a loss of just one hole rather than 2, 3 or 4 points. There weren't any holes where he beat me by more than one. So my conclusion has to be that a handicap designed to give a fair competition in strokeplay is not fit for purpose when applied to a hole-by-hole matchplay game.

I agree with Judy that a high-handicapper who has a great round should win, and the system should not be stacked against him - my stats show that, in fact, the full difference favours that player in that situation and only tells against him if he plays moderate or poor golf (or her, of course!). But surely no-one who plays at that standard expects to win a match against a better player?

Her point about those, relatively few, golfers who maintain their strokeplay handicap at a high level by playing few qualifying events, but manage to win a lot of matches, is perfectly valid. It supports the idea that golfers should have a different handicap for matchplay - in fact, rather than just a percentage, currently 100%, of their strokeplay handicap it could be adjusted based on the number of matches they win and lose. So, for example, a player who wins 6 rounds of a knockout might have been cut one stroke for the 2nd, 4th and 6th wins. Their matchplay handicap would then be 3 less than their strokeplay handicap when they entered the next matchplay event. Players who lost in the first round twice would get a shot back, and so on.

My other query is - why give shots on the hardest holes? If I give 6 strokes to a 12-handicapper I have to give them on my toughest six holes, where I normally receive shots as I'm expected to bogey them, rather than indexes 7-12, where I am expected to par and he is expected to bogey. Where's the logic in that?

Thanks for all the thought-provoking comments!

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user52922
Reply : Tue 19th Jun 2012 15:36

If handicaps were based on nett bogey instead of nett double bogey that would go some way to making it fairer, all round.

re: HANDICAP ALLOWANCE IN SINGLES MATCHES: FAIR OR FLAWED?
user16106
Reply : Tue 19th Jun 2012 19:15

Its a tricky one. Last weekend my mate won his matchplay event getting 10 shots (10-20) from his opponant. He played out of his skin but still only got 3 pars and a birdie. I am drawn against a bloke I now have to give 11 shots (15-26). He can reach par 5s in 2 but is prone to the odd 8 or 9 on his card. Its swings and roundabouts. Dave CAC handed Geordie.


The Forums have now moved to a new version

We have now moved the forum to a new and improved system which provides more functionality plus provides easier access from desktop, tablets and smart phone devices.

Click here to view the new forum & register for free.

Scroll to top