Uncommon to use 90% of handicaps for Four-ball match play?

[lchang]

I hadn't seen this before.  Specifically:

 

 

 

Four-ball match play has got to be one of the most (if not *the* most) popular casual-golfer formats out there, right?  Certainly is in my circles.  And I assume almost everyone out there uses full handicaps.  

 

1. I wonder what the intuitive reasoning is behind the 90% adjustment?  Certainly tournament "field size" makes no difference for match play...  (I assume, separate from any intuitiveness or lack thereof, there's some empirical data supporting it.)
2. Is it also your impression that 99% of people out there playing 4-ball match play are *not* using the 90% adjustment?

 

I'm usually the higher capper in my regular groups, so....I should just keep this a secret?!  😜😇

 

 

[MPAndreassi]

It’s pretty normal to play partial handicaps for events like this. It saves the low handicaps when the high handicaps get hot. More room for a higher handicap to shoot way under than a lower handicap. We’ve got this one coming up at 95%. 
 

 

[lchang]

24 minutes ago, MPAndreassi said:

It’s pretty normal to play partial handicaps for events like this. It saves the low handicaps when the high handicaps get hot. More room for a higher handicap to shoot way under than a lower handicap. We’ve got this one coming up at 95%. 
 

 

 

Yeah, I guess I'm coming around to the intuition that a multi-round match-play tournament could justify an adjustment, whereas a single match would not...  Not as easy for me to understand as a net stroke-play tourney, though.

 

[Sawgrass]

1 hour ago, lchang said:

I hadn't seen this before.  Specifically:

 

 

 

 

 

I'm usually the higher capper in my regular groups, so....I should just keep this a secret?!  😜😇

 

 

So far, you’re doing a terrible job at keeping the secret.

 

BTW, since revised percentage allocation recommendations came out last year, our club consistently uses them.  Also, the Golf Genius app we use applies them. 

[Colin L]

90% for four ball is mandatory in Scotland.

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

90% for four ball is mandatory in Scotland.

And England

[J_Tizzle]

I wish my club used this.  They have a huge matchplay bracket that they play all year and the winners get huge trophies and club credit etc.  However, they allow 100% of handicaps and if someone has a + handicap, they play off a 0, so then everyone gets what they're + if that makes sense.

 

My brother was +3 last year and I was +1 and we had to play a 10 and a 12 (and we were 2 tees back from the 10 and one back from the 12) and their real handicaps were probably closer to a 6 and a 8.  So I was essentially a 2, and they were a 13 and 15, on a course without a lot of hazards, its IMPOSSIBLE to stay in front.  We won 3 matches last year and they all took over 18 holes.  I would honestly love for this tourney to have a championship bracket where everyone plays flat footed but too many sandbaggers.  We did NOT sign up for it this year.

[Yuck]

Using non adjusted handicaps in a casual match is ok if the handicaps for both teams are within a couple of each other, or high is close to high and low is low. to low.  But in that situation, playing at  90%  would not change anything anyway.

[lchang]

4 hours ago, Newby said:

And England

So it’s appropriate in general for one-off matches, not just for tourneys, right?

 

(Again, I can’t quite seem to grok when it makes sense to do this.  The usga advice was applicable to tourneys.)

[Colin L]

8 hours ago, Newby said:

And England

Thanks. I thought it was a general CONGU one but didn't have the rule book to hand to check.

 

4 hours ago, lchang said:

So it’s appropriate in general for one-off matches, not just for tourneys, right?

 

(Again, I can’t quite seem to grok when it makes sense to do this.  The usga advice was applicable to tourneys.)

Try as I might, I have never in my life managed to grok.  😵

I expect it's common across our lovely country and certainly in my own experience when four of us get together for a social game we always make it a four ball match, using the 90% handicap allowance.  I have to  take it on trust that this allowance gives the best outcome as I don't know the statistics behind it, but assuming that it does, it does so equally for a social match as it does for a tournament.  Why would you not use it ?

 

 

Edited April 27, 2021 by Colin L

[Newby]

5 hours ago, lchang said:

So it’s appropriate in general for one-off matches, not just for tourneys, right?

 

(Again, I can’t quite seem to grok when it makes sense to do this.  The usga advice was applicable to tourneys.)

What's the difference between a one-off match and a tourney (whatever that is) match? A match is a match.

[Newby]

53 minutes ago, Colin L said:

Thanks. I thought it was a general CONGU one but didn't have the rule book to hand to check.

I don't think it was ever in the CONGU Manual as such but certainly pre WHS England Golf issued an edict to the effect that sanctions could be applied.

[Mudguard]

On 4/27/2021 at 9:49 AM, J_Tizzle said:

I wish my club used this.  They have a huge matchplay bracket that they play all year and the winners get huge trophies and club credit etc.  However, they allow 100% of handicaps and if someone has a + handicap, they play off a 0, so then everyone gets what they're + if that makes sense.

 

My brother was +3 last year and I was +1 and we had to play a 10 and a 12 (and we were 2 tees back from the 10 and one back from the 12) and their real handicaps were probably closer to a 6 and a 8.  So I was essentially a 2, and they were a 13 and 15, on a course without a lot of hazards, its IMPOSSIBLE to stay in front.  We won 3 matches last year and they all took over 18 holes.  I would honestly love for this tourney to have a championship bracket where everyone plays flat footed but too many sandbaggers.  We did NOT sign up for it this year.

How come the match was off different tees? I don't think I've ever heard of that. Sure under WHS you can play stroke events off different tees, but matchplay is different. Even mixed I'm not keen on. 

[Mudguard]

On 4/27/2021 at 5:57 AM, lchang said:

I hadn't seen this before.  Specifically:

 

 

 

Four-ball match play has got to be one of the most (if not *the* most) popular casual-golfer formats out there, right?  Certainly is in my circles.  And I assume almost everyone out there uses full handicaps.  

 

1. I wonder what the intuitive reasoning is behind the 90% adjustment?  Certainly tournament "field size" makes no difference for match play...  (I assume, separate from any intuitiveness or lack thereof, there's some empirical data supporting it.)
2. Is it also your impression that 99% of people out there playing 4-ball match play are *not* using the 90% adjustment?

 

I'm usually the higher capper in my regular groups, so....I should just keep this a secret?!  😜😇

 

 

It's not something that is common in New Zealand. I don't see the point of playing off a percentage of a handicap, why have one at all then if it's going to be reduced?

[Newby]

4 hours ago, Mudguard said:

It's not something that is common in New Zealand. 

No doubt it will be now that WHS is pretty well established.

[Colin L]

8 hours ago, Mudguard said:

It's not something that is common in New Zealand. I don't see the point of playing off a percentage of a handicap, why have one at all then if it's going to be reduced?

A percentage adjustment to handicaps means that the reduction is greater the higher the handicap.  The number of strokes difference between the higher handicapper and the lower is reduced.  For example, the full difference of 10 strokes  between course handicaps of 20 and and 10 becomes a difference of 9 strokes when you apply 90%.   The 20 stroke full difference between 20 and scratch becomes 18.

 

The reason for such allowance is that the system is based on equalising the handicap player and the scratch player in singles match play.  In other formats such as stroke play,  the full 100% handicap would give the higher handicapper an advantage over the scratch player and is therefore modified. 

[Mudguard]

2 hours ago, Colin L said:

The reason for such allowance is that the system is based on equalising the handicap player and the scratch player in singles match play.  In other formats such as stroke play,  the full 100% handicap would give the higher handicapper an advantage over the scratch player and is therefore modified. 

 

But surely that's the point? It shouldn't need equalising. I understand the concept, but it seems to suggest that there is something wrong with the handicap system if a player's handicap gets modified for certain comps. 

I'm aware of the variation in high handicappers' ability too. I've just come through four rounds of net matchplay where I gave zero strokes through to twenty four strokes. There was no percentage modification for those. Though to be fair I don't play a lot of competition four ball matches. 

[Colin L]

Sorry I wasn't clearer.  The difference between golfers of diverse  abilities is not the same in stroke terms in  every format of the game.   There would be something wrong in the handicapping system if it didn't compensate for those differences by adjusting the strokes given and received. 

 

[Mudguard]

3 minutes ago, Colin L said:

Sorry I wasn't clearer.  The difference between golfers of diverse  abilities is not the same in stroke terms in  every format of the game.   There would be something wrong in the handicapping system if it didn't compensate for those differences by adjusting the strokes given and received. 

 

 

Oh I understand that. The inference is that in a four-ball it's advantageous for higher handicaps over lower, so it's played off 90%. I presume this is because in a best ball, the wild swings in scores of a higher handicap is negated somewhat by having a partner.

I still think it's a bit peculiar. How did they come to 90%?

[Newby]

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

 

Oh I understand that. The inference is that in a four-ball it's advantageous for higher handicaps over lower, so it's played off 90%. I presume this is because in a best ball, the wild swings in scores of a higher handicap is negated somewhat by having a partner.

I still think it's a bit peculiar. How did they come to 90%?

A lot of number crunching

[rogolf]

18 minutes ago, Newby said:

A lot of number crunching

If there was a lot of number-crunching involved, there was very likely an analysis of that number-crunching by statistical experts and a report written and presented.  Is this report available to be read?  If not, why not?

Edited May 13, 2021 by rogolf

[Augster]

We just got our fourball bracket today. We’re doing 80% instead of 90%. Sweet. 

[puttnforthe8]

Every 4 ball event I have ever played in is 90%

[sui generis]

2 hours ago, Augster said:

We just got our fourball bracket today. We’re doing 80% instead of 90%. Sweet. 

 

Hmm, I suspect "common sense" overcame data. That's the American way, unfortunately. 🙄 Don't confuse me with the facts.

Edited May 19, 2021 by sui generis

[antip]

On 4/27/2021 at 7:16 AM, Newby said:

And England

In quirky ol' Oz, all golf is based on 93 per cent, singles and four ball (the latter <10 per cent of club competition golf). We got to that outcome from statistical analysis of what produces a more even/representative balance of winners among A, B and C grades when the competition fields are split into even numbers of players in three divisions. In most clubs, that means A grade up to 11 or 12 handicaps, B grade from the A limit to around 18- 20 and C grade above that.

Smaller field competitions (60-80 players in the cities, smaller in the country) often group into two divisions only, smaller fields again would run all in one division.

[Newby]

33 minutes ago, antip said:

In quirky ol' Oz, all golf is based on 93 per cent, singles and four ball (the latter <10 per cent of club competition golf). We got to that outcome from statistical analysis of what produces a more even/representative balance of winners among A, B and C grades when the competition fields are split into even numbers of players in three divisions. In most clubs, that means A grade up to 11 or 12 handicaps, B grade from the A limit to around 18- 20 and C grade above that.

Smaller field competitions (60-80 players in the cities, smaller in the country) often group into two divisions only, smaller fields again would run all in one division.

I wonder why Oz bothered to sign up to WHS. 😉 They seem to have changed very little.

Although I do like the 93% (95% elsewhere for the playing handicap) being built in but would have liked the CONGU match play allowance retained. Similar analyses by the USGA, Scottish Golf & England Golf et al showed the opposite effect in match play. I'm not sure that GA ever took part in that exercise though.

Edited May 19, 2021 by Newby

[antip]

8 minutes ago, Newby said:

I wonder why Oz bothered to sign up to WHS. 😉 They seem to have changed very little.

Although I do like the 93% (95% elsewhere for the playing handicap) being built in but would have liked the CONGU match play allowance retained. Similar analyses by the USGA, Scottish Golf & England Golf et al showed the opposite effect in match play. I'm not sure that GA ever took part in that exercise though.

Oz undertook the most valuable/fair change of adding the adjustment for the difference between par and the scratch rating. That eliminated the previous significant distortion that occurred when men and women competed in the same competition - most mens scratch ratings are the same or slightly below par (this is on average, there are of course many exceptions) but most womens scratch ratings are above par. So the women were significantly dudded prior to this year's change when competing against men, giving the men a 1-3 shot start on average.

Oz also brought in the soft caps.

[Newby]

19 minutes ago, antip said:

Oz undertook the most valuable/fair change of adding the adjustment for the difference between par and the scratch rating. That eliminated the previous significant distortion that occurred when men and women competed in the same competition - most mens scratch ratings are the same or slightly below par (this is on average, there are of course many exceptions) but most womens scratch ratings are above par. So the women were significantly dudded prior to this year's change when competing against men, giving the men a 1-3 shot start on average.

 

I must admit that this is an area where CONGU has deviated from the RoW but only in one specific.