matchplay head-scratcher

i played in a friendly match recently against a higher handicapper friend. he never really got into the match and i won 4&3, and after 18 holes i was 3up.
i've just been musing about the match this morning with regard to handicap allowance. i know i had played fairly well to finish on 39pts - his stableford score was 30. with improvements at certain holes he could have beaten me with 34pts to my 39. meh??!!
i'm a little sceptical over allowing full allowance for singles match under the new stableford handicapping system. it wasn't so long ago that 3/4 the difference was the rule. supposedly this gives a more accurate indication of ability, but particularly when their are large gaps in handicaps, surely this doesn't quite add up? under the old system i would have been 6up after 18, i.e. far closer to the stableford difference of 9pts, upon which the calculation is supposedly based.

Can understand your point, and I guess it is now likely that if you were both to score the same points your opponent would win in match play. But as the low handicap player your average stapleford score will be higher that your high handicap opponent. Equalling out the chances of you winning. CONGU have spent many hours examining scores from compitetions and have concluded that low handicaps even under the current system win more matches than they lose.

http://www.congu.com/Myth%207.pdf

interesting stats bluefox, doesn't particularly surprise me in a sense, i guess in any one-on-one handicap situation you'd typically expect the better player to have the edge over the other.

i just wonder if there is an argument out there for a more appropriate shot distribution - use of bisques for example ?

You'll have to explain that one

Ban-bam - You won, didn't you? Does it matter whether you won by 3 or 6? I am in full agreement of the full handicap allowance as it makes matches fairer for the higher handicappers. After all, if you are only allowed three-quarters of your handicap, or seven-eighths as it used to be for some competitions when I first started, then what's the point of having a handicap?

I was also told when I first started playing matches that it was bad manners to count your score during a match (a hole won, lost or halved is all that is required) and I never do. Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned

bisques?, higher handicap gets a certain number of shots that they can choose to use whenever they want, rather than resorting to rigid stroke indexing. this means strokes aren't wasted on holes where say a gross 4 beats a 7nett6. the higher handicap can pick and choose when to use them - normally on any hole where they equal the lower hcappers gross score (i.e. a win) or are one worse (i.e. a half).
i used to quite often play this format with better players, where instead of getting say, 6 shots - i'd get 2 or 3 bisques. worked well and seemed more appropriate to the 'tactical' spirit of matchplay.

A bisque is in essence matchplay against the course and so while it is OK for an individual competition (I don't personally like them) it is no good for pure matchplay against another person.

lp,

bad manners to count your own score during a match, boy, you really do learn how to offend a golfer a new way every day!!!

yes i won - my point was that i could have lost to a score of 34 points, 5 less than my own. it seems to me that as handicaps are now calculated on a stableford basis, there is something slightly off about that potential result. the system we have is fine, but i'm sure it's not perfect. i'm not saying i have an answer, just hoping to stir a little debate on potential improvements.

LadyPutt wrote:A bisque is in essence matchplay against the course and so while it is OK for an individual competition (I don't personally like them) it is no good for pure matchplay against another person.

is that not a 'bogey comp' ?

So the player chooses when to use their bisque after play of the hole. Please explain how this is more appropriate to the tactical spirit of match play. A Bisque would just be used on earliest holes where they would make a difference to the result on the hole. Seems just a ruse to reduce the number of shots for the higher handicap player. Perhaps though I have misunderstood

Ban_Bam

I agree with you that it does seem a bit odd that feasibly, you can play signifcantly better than your opponent and still lose. My understanding was that reason for the 3/4 handicap was to allow for real washout holes for higher handicaps.

Maybe I am wrong but I know several low handicaps that have stopped entering matchplay events since this change in rule and more considering it.

i find bogey comps quite refreshing
wheras medal play and stableford play can encourage a more defensive mentality, protecting your score or trying to save 'a point', bogey comps allow you to go for par putts, knowing a bogey is a loss. speeds up the field as well as you don't have anyone taking 30 seconds over a 2 footer to try to save a point!

Unless your opponent was a mind reader how would they know you were keeping a score? Even if they did find out why would they care, I certainly wouldn’t.

The final of our handicap matchplay will be contested by two category one players next weekend. Not scientific I know but does show that low handicapers should not be put off by the full allowance.

I would always continue to enter as I love matchplay golf but to encounter the type of situation ban_bam raised would be enough to make most people think again.

exactly tm2k, the washout holes are where the use of bisques actually gives the higher handicap an advantage in a sense - they don't waste a shot and can concentrate the shots they use on the holes that they need them to beat their opponent, rather than simply spreading them equally over the course of the round.

bluefox - obviously i can't back up this with the same kind of information you posted earlier - and this kind of study would be required to define an appropriate % of the difference that bisques would be allowed if such a system was ever considered by congu.

Surely a wins a win and end of the day if you were playing matchplay, does yours or his stableford score really matter. Win by 6 holes or 3holes even 1 hole it shows the same thing a win...

Ban_Bam even if you were playing off the same handicap you can lose at matchplay and still beat your opponent in stableford. There will always be quirks when comparing scoring systems.

I doubt the bisque thing would ever be an official scoring method as it brings in all sorts of potential disasters.
A player declares a bisque on a hole and later decides it would have been better on another hole. He says the other guy misheard and it was never on the earlier hole, and so on.
At least with the SI it is what it is

mav, yes, yes a win is a win. i'm just expressing surprise that, as the stroke allocation is based on handicaps devised by the stableford system, there is a seeminly inconsistent corrolation between the the two when it comes to matchplay. that suggests to me that stableford handicapping isn't entirely appropriate for application to a matchplay format. to me, my suggestion of bisques, in theory seems more appropriate due to the fluctuant nature of matchplay scoring than simply spreading strokes received evenly throughout the round. i'm not saying this is the best approach, or necessarily better than what we have right now - just interested to hear any other progressive ideas on the subject.

Banbam - As shown earlier full allowance gives a 55% win rate for Category one. Are you saying that a change to bisques could bring this closer to 50%?

I agree with Merc that bisque would be to open to debate and dare I say cheating your word against theirs etc...

As for current system, whether its based on a stableford system or not its irrelevant because when playing matchplay your stableford score is totally pointless. All they've done is standardise it so higher handicappers receive shot allocation on holes they would normally get shots on in stableford/strokeplay to level the playing field.

You could easily have scored less points than your opponent and still won by the same margin, like wise you could have exactly the same points scorw and lose because stableford is based on limiting blow outs whereas matchplaying is simply winning the most holes regardles of the score or points

no idea blue, not here to provide scientific evidence and statistics, just interested in a debate at a more conceptual level

Maverick wrote:when playing matchplay your stableford score is totally pointless

exactly, so why is the stroke allocation in matchplay based so exactly on stableford handicapping?!

To ensure players get strokes on the holes they would usually be entitled to them. The only way you could change that is having a different set of stroke indexes purely for matchplay. But again they'd have to take aggregate strokeplay scores to work those out! As strokeplay is the common measure of where people require shots there is no way it can measured in anyother way

ban_bam wrote:

Maverick wrote:when playing matchplay your stableford score is totally pointless

exactly, so why is the stroke allocation in matchplay based so exactly on stableford handicapping?!

Sorry the answer is boring but simpley because the stats show this provides for a more level playing field than any other system tried before.

ban_bam wrote:

Maverick wrote:when playing matchplay your stableford score is totally pointless

exactly, so why is the stroke allocation in matchplay based so exactly on stableford handicapping?!

'Stableford handicapping'?

People are getting confused here. Your handicap is calculated as though the worst score you could have during a medal round would be a nett double bogey. This is in essence why the handicap allowance in matchplay has been changed from ¾ to full allowance - because higher handicappers have handicaps which don't reflect that the fact they are likely to have a few sevens and eights.

If the difference between 3/4 and Full handicap makes that much of a difference then it means that the other player is getting a barrel load of shots regardless, and I'm afraid I just lose interest in such games, even though handicaps are there to make up the difference I don't enjoy the mismatch.
From a social perspective golf is always fun, but I don't really enjoy the golf element if the handicap difference is vast, just as I don't enjoy playing other sports where there is a vast difference in ability.

SR - regardless of shots received the difference in ability will be the same, or have I missed your point.

George1507 wrote:Your handicap is calculated as though the worst score you could have during a medal round would be a nett double bogey.

I hear this a lot but have had the odd triple bogey and it never ever gets reduced to a double. I'm not sure if 'howdidido' have it wrong but every single time i play my handicap adjustment is based on gross less handicap, end of
Has anyone actually ever seen a triple or quadruple reduced to a double for handicap adjustment purposes?

MPB, if you get a triple on a hole you receive a shot it doesn't get adjusted to a double bogey as essentially you are supposed to shoot one over par on that hole so a triple actually represents a double, but if you get a triple or worse on a hole you don't get a shot at you should get a stableford adjustment. This should be factored into your handicap adjustment.

MustPuttBetter wrote:

George1507 wrote:Your handicap is calculated as though the worst score you could have during a medal round would be a nett double bogey.

I hear this a lot but have had the odd triple bogey and it never ever gets reduced to a double. I'm not sure if 'howdidido' have it wrong but every single time i play my handicap adjustment is based on gross less handicap, end of
Has anyone actually ever seen a triple or quadruple reduced to a double for handicap adjustment purposes?

All the time and my club uses the same Club 2000 software that 'howdidido' use. If you are not getting this adjustment then you need to talk to your handicap secretary, though remember it is net double bogey

bluefoxgolf wrote:SR - regardless of shots received the difference in ability will be the same, or have I missed your point.

Yes, the difference is ability is the same,but lets say for example the difference between 3/4 and full is only 0.5, then I'll enjoy playing that person more than if the difference was 7 as the latter would mean I'm playing against someone of much higher handicap, and regardless of the handicap system supposedly evening up the differences in ability it just isn't much fun. Akin to giving someone a 10 goal lead in a game of football.

MPB - it happens every time (or at least it should do if correct procedure is followed). I've just checked back on some comp results from my club and "stableford adjustment" is applied every time.

Note that it is NET double bogey, so if you scored a triple on a shot hole you wouldn't get a stableford adjustment. Could this be your confusion? Otherwise I'd suggest your club is using incorrect h.c software (we use handicap master after we moved from howdidido last year)

Sorry but matchplay golf is totally different from a stroke play comp( just look at Poulter must be the matchplay king)

You cannot say how you would have scored in matchplay as a lot of putts are conceded and very seldom do both players have to putt out.

In stroke play events, shooting 39 points would then get your handicap reduced, this would suggest that you handicap is higher than it should be

It quite often happens that the winner in a matchplay tie has a worse nett score than his opponent. But as OPW says, you have to take nett scores with a big pinch of salt when used in a matchplay context.

I played a matchplay game last weekend where I holed a couple of long putts and chipped in a couple of times, all for wins. My opponent 'gave' himself' those putts, then announced later that our scores were about the same, even though I'd won easily. When I counted it all up later, he was right, assuming that he'd holed those putts - but realistically was he likely to hole from 30 feet each time?

I recall in the Ryder Cup that someone holed in one - I think at the Belfry - needing just a half to win the game, and then conceded his opponents shot for a half. On the official score it looked like the hole was really halved in holes in one, when in reality it wouldn't have been.

I do realize it's a net double.
Our second is a tricky hole. I get a shot but twice I've hit two OOB off the tee and wracked up 8s there in medals and neither were adjusted. Just kinda figured it was an urban myth!
Cheers guys, I shall investigate

George1507 wrote:

'Stableford handicapping'?

People are getting confused here. Your handicap is calculated as though the worst score you could have during a medal round would be a nett double bogey. This is in essence why the handicap allowance in matchplay has been changed from ¾ to full allowance - because higher handicappers have handicaps which don't reflect that the fact they are likely to have a few sevens and eights.

george, you are correct however the new system can be referred to as a 'stableford handicapping system' as stableford deals with nett double bogey's in the same way - you get zero points. all handicap cuts with be a result of a stableford score of 37 pts or more (when css = par) regardless of the medal round score. likewise, for category 2 players, 34, 35 or 36pts scored will result in a buffer zone finish (when css = par), again regardless of the medal round score. in this case 33 or less would result in a 0.1 increase.

Quite right. If you want me to play off 3/4 handicap, then calculate my handicap correctly according to the cards I hand in, not according to some adjusted scores. Include the 8s and 9s and I'll take a 3/4 reduction.

Alternatively, do a stableford reduction on my cards and let me play off full handicap - I don't mind either way, but don't try to reduce me twice

Very interesting.

I'm playing the Club Champion in matchplay tomorrow (he's giving me 10 shots). If I win and he bleats I'll send him the Congu web link above.

I think you should tell him about the web site and the stats before you tee off. Explain to him that if he gave you another 3 or 4 shots it would make a fair match out of it….

Good luck with the match and let us know how you got on…

hogie wrote:I think you should tell him about the web site and the stats before you tee off. Explain to him that if he gave you another 3 or 4 shots it would make a fair match out of it….

Good luck with the match and let us know how you got on…

It finished all-square.

I was 1 down after 8 then had 4 consecutive shot holes but ended up 2 down after 12.

With 4 non-shot holes coming up, I thought that would be it, but I came off the 16th only 1 down.

I won 17 and halved 18.