Do I Record A Game for Handicap

[Martin B]

In a skins game, I was in a lightly wooded area - a clear shot back to the fairway, and a narrow opening straight at the green. If I were going for my best score (stroke) I'd play it safe, but in a skins (or match play) I went for the green.

Skins or match play are fun in part because you can take risks - but that often produces a higher total score.

Is it fair or appropriate to record these games for purposes of calculating my handicap - given that I know I'm not playing to get the lowest score that I can?

[Kilroy]

You should record it unless you played in a manner "other than by the rules of golf".

[jvincent]

If I were going for my best score (stroke) I'd play it safe, but in a skins (or match play) I went for the green.

To be accurate, playing it safe is minimizing your maximum score on the hole.

The risky shot, assuming you pull it off, is in fact trying for the best score but it also brings in play a higher maximum score.

All things being equal, that's what ESC is there to handle.

[Kilroy]

To be accurate, playing it safe is minimizing your maximum score on the hole.

Well said jv

[Itchy]

You should record it unless you played in a manner "other than by the rules of golf".

I don't record my score for handicap in match play and that is by the rules of golf... I am confused by this statement.

[Kilroy]

I don't record my score for handicap in match play and that is by the rules of golf... I am confused by this statement.

Really? Why not? You are supposed to.

[BC MIST]

I don't record my score for handicap in match play and that is by the rules of golf... I am confused by this statement.

For holes on which there was a concession you are to use your "most likely score." If you walk in after the match is completed, then your score is par plus any handicap strokes to which you would have been entitled. Not doing this possibly makes your factor inaccurate.

[Itchy]

Hmmm interesting, I do not normally record scores from match play simply because rarely do you end up finishing the hole completely. We usually play all in all the time and with putts given and matches ending early, it made no sense to actually keep the score for handicap purposes.

I am curious to know how other people deal with this. I am not sure I like the "most likely score" theroy, but if that is the way it is to be done, so be it.

[jvincent]

Even in a match where putts are conceded, generally you'd have to assume that you would make them so the scores on those holes would be accurate.

In situations where you concede a hole, presumably because you've got a big score, you'd probably end up with ESC on that hole if you were playing a stroke play round so there's no difference there.

On holes where your competitor concedes the hole that would be the biggest potential for not recording the right score, but again the handicap manual covers this.

I've always played out the remaining holes for any matches that end early.

[BC MIST]

Hmmm interesting, I do not normally record scores from match play simply because rarely do you end up finishing the hole completely. We usually play all in all the time and with putts given and matches ending early, it made no sense to actually keep the score for handicap purposes.

I am curious to know how other people deal with this. I am not sure I like the "most likely score" theroy, but if that is the way it is to be done, so be it.

There is NO theory/opinion involved.

None of the procedures mentioned above are optional as they are mandated as part of the RCGA Handicapping System and you must comply, to have an accurate factor.

Each golfer has a length of putt where the probability of making it is GREATER than 50/50. For most, if your opponent concedes a 10 footer or that is the length you have left to finish the hole, but don't actually putt it, count 2 STROKES. But a decent player will make MOST of his 5' and under putts, so count 1. It obviously depends somewhat on the integrity of the player.

There are many other "rules" regarding handicapping and checking these out online or even purchasing the handicap booklet, is worthwhile. Knowledge will only help.

[Big Johnny69]

There is NO theory/opinion involved.

None of the procedures mentioned above are optional as they are mandated as part of the RCGA Handicapping System and you must comply, to have an accurate factor.

Each golfer has a length of putt where the probability of making it is GREATER than 50/50. For most, if your opponent concedes a 10 footer or that is the length you have left to finish the hole, but don't actually putt it, count 2 STROKES. But a decent player will make MOST of his 5' and under putts, so count 1. It obviously depends somewhat on the integrity of the player.

There are many other "rules" regarding handicapping and checking these out online or even purchasing the handicap booklet, is worthwhile. Knowledge will only help.

So why on Tour if it's match play, and one guy is struggling and concedes a hole on the green they just add one stroke to the other player's score?

For instance, when watching on tv, player A is on the green in two, player B finally gets to the green in 5. Seeing as how player B still has a 25 footer he concedes the hole where player A was still sitting about 15 ft away. When they leave the green it is announced as player A 3, player B 6, player A wins the hole.......


If a putt is conceded, shouldn't only one stroke be added regardless? How can you be sure the player won't make the putt in one stroke? There is where I find fault with handicapping and probably why some people don't/forget to enter their scores from match play.

[jvincent]

So why on Tour if it's match play, and one guy is struggling and concedes a hole on the green they just add one stroke to the other player's score?

On the tour broadcasts they are often wrong on rules and the like.

Since none of those guys carry handicaps anyway it's kind of a moot point to track their "projected" score but they do it to give an indication of how well the guys played.

[Big Johnny69]

On the tour broadcasts they are often wrong on rules and the like.

Since none of those guys carry handicaps anyway it's kind of a moot point to track their "projected" score but they do it to give an indication of how well the guys played.

Technically, if someone is in that range of "likely" to two putt, although the hole is already conceded where the Tour only alotts one stroke, some holes could be halved.

Personally, regardless of probability, I usually play by the format the Tour uses in match play. If the hole is conceded to me, I add one to my score for the hole and add one to my opponent's as well.

[nhwott5]

as far as the tour sore would go, it is conceded and one putt is charged, but this is not related to handicap. for handicap you have take what you " most likely" would have scored, so if you are far away and not likely to have made the putt, well you count 2 putts.

main point being, you have to ccount all your games towareds youer handicap factor, only ones that do not count are practice rounds, ( declared prior to play) and ones which do not conform to the rules, ( eg is a scramble)

by not counting your match play rounds, well your handicap factor is not correct and you are in breach

[BC MIST]

So why on Tour if it's match play, and one guy is struggling and concedes a hole on the green they just add one stroke to the other player's score?

If a putt is conceded, shouldn't only one stroke be added regardless? How can you be sure the player won't make the putt in one stroke? There is where I find fault with handicapping and probably why some people don't/forget to enter their scores from match play.

Why are we talking TOUR in the first place? Since no-one there keeps a handicap it matters only to the announcers as to what "score" the players may have had and that is for entertainment/hype purposes only.

The fault in your thinking is that a conceded stroke count as only 1, regardless of its length. The whole idea of determining a MOST LIKELY SCORE is to maintain the accuracy of your factor. Counting a 30 footer as 1 is tantamount to reverse sandbagging as the odds of any one of us making a putt of that length are almost nil. The reason why match play scores are not used by most players is that they are unaware that they are supposed to be included. Unless golfers read the handicap manual or have the handicap committee of their golf club educate them as to the proper scores and the like to be included, (or read the OG Forum) many incorrectly assume that match scores are meaningless.

The Handicapping System is actually very, very good and if followed to the letter, will result in accurate factors. It is up to the golfers to play by the "rules."

[Big Johnny69]

Why are we talking TOUR in the first place? Since no-one there keeps a handicap it matters only to the announcers as to what "score" the players may have had and that is for entertainment/hype purposes only.

The fault in your thinking is that a conceded stroke count as only 1, regardless of its length. The whole idea of determining a MOST LIKELY SCORE is to maintain the accuracy of your factor. Counting a 30 footer as 1 is tantamount to reverse sandbagging as the odds of any one of us making a putt of that length are almost nil. The reason why match play scores are not used by most players is that they are unaware that they are supposed to be included. Unless golfers read the handicap manual or have the handicap committee of their golf club educate them as to the proper scores and the like to be included, (or read the OG Forum) many incorrectly assume that match scores are meaningless.

The Handicapping System is actually very, very good and if followed to the letter, will result in accurate factors. It is up to the golfers to play by the "rules."

I don't know about you, but I've made my share of long putts. And to be honest, I'd be quite peeved having to add another stroke to my score without making an attempt at the putt. Personally, at my course where the biggest green is not all that big, I always give myself more than a 50/50 shot of making a putt. I don't consider the "likelyhood" of me missing the putt. And to have to add a stroke because someone else might think I'm not likely to make it is absurd. Perhaps the USGA, RCGA and other governing bodies should rethink this and perhaps not include match play rounds because of this. Not sure about the rest of you, but match play rounds account for maybe a handful of my rounds throughout the year, so I don't think they'd have much effect on the handicap.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this is wrong, I just don't agree with it all. Match play is a different style of play from medal play, hence the different rules, so perhaps there should be a different method for using these rounds towards a handicap if they must be used.

Just a thought.

[Itchy]

Its seems this has started quite a debate.

FYI I emailed the RCGA's Director of Rules of golf for his opinion.

[jvincent]

I think a fair number of us play matches. I know I did for the better part of the summer.

The other thing that I'm pretty sure gets missed is the checking of the "tournament" box. As those who have read the handicap manual are aware, tournament scores hang around a lot longer than regular scores and if you happen to be one of those people who does well in tournaments, then this will bite you.

Given that many tournaments are match play, I'm thinking intersectionals here, I would be doubly unfair to not count those for handicapping purposes.

[Kilroy]

FYI I emailed the RCGA's Director of Rules of golf for his opinion.

Not sure how relevant his "opinion" would be but he should point you to the the handicapping manual section 4-1. Unfinished Holes and Conceded Strokes

Click here to download the RCGA Handicap Manual (PDF file, 3 MB)

[Big Johnny69]

I think a fair number of us play matches. I know I did for the better part of the summer.

The other thing that I'm pretty sure gets missed is the checking of the "tournament" box. As those who have read the handicap manual are aware, tournament scores hang around a lot longer than regular scores and if you happen to be one of those people who does well in tournaments, then this will bite you.

Given that many tournaments are match play, I'm thinking intersectionals here, I would be doubly unfair to not count those for handicapping purposes.

Granted, according to the handicapping manual you are correct, but here's a scenario for you.

Anyone who's played Intersectionals knows there is narray a putt conceded, but what if in a mutli-match play Player A concedes Player C's putt but Player B doesn't, how would you score it?

If Player C is in that unlikely range he has to add two strokes to his score for his match against A, but he putts it out and makes it, so he only adds one stroke to his match against B? Doesn't really make sense to me. You are playing one round of golf, so you should only have one score. This is where I believe match play rounds should be classified differently.

And for the record, my caddy kept track of the status of the matches, and if I recall correctly I didn't see any score numbers on the card, just "1 UP", "1 DW" etc.


Just trying to understand and clarify here.

[BullDog]

I think a fair number of us play matches. I know I did for the better part of the summer.

The other thing that I'm pretty sure gets missed is the checking of the "tournament" box.

About 44 of my 58 games played this year have been match play events on the Slammer Tour. The only tournament box I checked was when I played the Cornwall Open. Should I be checking the tournament box after a Slammer Tour event in order to make a distinction between a day on the 'Tour and a day playing with relatives at their home course?

Mike

[jvincent]

Anyone who's played Intersectionals knows there is narray a putt conceded, but what if in a mutli-match play Player A concedes Player C's putt but Player B doesn't, how would you score it?

In this scenario I think you'd record the score based on the most real strokes.

As a contrived example, if A conceded the hole to you after your tee shot, because he put three tee shots OB and yours was in the fairway, but B conceed a 2 inch tap in, record the score with the tap-in conceded.

We can refer to the above as the "Hoolio-scenario".

[Big Johnny69]

In this scenario I think you'd record the score based on the most real strokes.

As a contrived example, if A conceded the hole to you after your tee shot, because he put three tee shots OB and yours was in the fairway, but B conceed a 2 inch tap in, record the score with the tap-in conceded.

We can refer to the above as the "Hoolio-scenario".

Is it covered in the manual or are you guessing????


But there is still fault in your reasoning if it's simply a one on one match.

If the hole is conceded after my tee shot, and it's a par 5, how many strokes am I supposed to add then? I don't think it's fair to have to take my 7 because my opponent couldn't get off the tee. This is where I find fault with the handicapping system, especially in match play.

Who wants to start a petition to get match play rounds banned from your handicap????


I'm seriously considering giving up on competitive golf and just playing for fun. I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of the match play rulings, and seeing them now, I'd rather just steer clear of match play or competitive golf altogether.

[jvincent]

I'm not sure that is covered in the manual. While we are on the manual, here's the tournament definition for BullDog.

Tournament Score
A “tournament score” is a score made in a competition organized and conducted
by the committee in charge of the competition. The competition must identify a
winner(s) based on a stipulated round(s), and must be played under the principles
of The Rules of Golf.
Using the above definition as a guideline, the committee (preferably the Handicap
Committee in consultation with the committee in charge of the competition) must
determine in advance if these conditions are met and announce in advance whether
the score must be identified by the letter “T” when posted.
Routine events, such as regular play days, normally are not to be designated as
T-scores because they are not significant in the traditions, schedules, formats, and
membership of the club. (See eligible tournament score.)
Examples of inter-club competition scores that may be posted as tournament
scores when they meet the above conditions are: competitions restricted by age,
member-guest competitions, team matches, qualifying rounds for city, province
and national competitions, and competitions conducted by golf associations.
Examples of intra-club competition scores that may be posted as tournament
scores when they meet the above conditions are low gross-low net competitions,
four-ball match or stroke-play competitions, Stableford competitions, and club
championships which are stroke or match play, scratch, or with handicap.

I think the Slammer Tour is more of a season long thing, so I don't think it would apply. The differentiator is that there is no fixed set of "stipulated rounds" in the Slammer Tour. If you had a match play tournament, like the OG one, those would count because you know that you have to play X number of rounds.

[Indio]

I'm seriously considering giving up on competitive golf and just playing for fun. I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of the match play rulings, and seeing them now, I'd rather just steer clear of match play or competitive golf altogether.

Geoff, why would you do that? Just accept your opponents gracious offer of the gimmie and then play out the hole for your handicap

[Itchy]

Dan Kilbank is correct. As per Section 4-1 of the RCGA Handicap Manual, if a hole is not completed the player must post their Most Likely Score for handicap purposes. Most Likely Score consists of the number of strokes already taken, plus (in the player’s best judgment) the number of strokes it would take to complete the hole from that position more than half the time.

For example, if I am conceded a 3 foot par putt in a match, I would post a par for handicap purposes. If the putt were 15 feet I would post a bogey for handicap purposes.

I can understand how people may view this procedure as somewhat of a “gray” area and perhaps not an entirely accurate judgment of a player’s ability; but one has to remember that your Handicap Factor is a measurement of ‘potential ability’ and your Factor is most accurate when based on a high number of games posted. If the handicapping rules did not accept Match Play scores (conceded strokes) the accuracy of a player’s Factor would suffer because players would only be submitting a fraction of their scores (not to mention that people would be less likely to play Match Play, which would be a shame).

When you consider that a Handicap Factor is based upon the best 10 Differentials of your last 20 games, any perceived inaccuracies resulting from posting a Most Likely Score on a hole are heavily outweighed by the fact that the player is posting many scores and maintaining a current, updated scoring record that best measures his or her potential ability; the alternative being that a score is not posted because a 6 foot putt was conceded to them…not an attractive alternative.



Matthew MacKay
Royal Canadian Golf Association
Senior Coordinator, Golf Programs & Services

[jvincent]

But there is still fault in your reasoning if it's simply a one on one match.

If the hole is conceded after my tee shot, and it's a par 5, how many strokes am I supposed to add then? I don't think it's fair to have to take my 7 because my opponent couldn't get off the tee. This is where I find fault with the handicapping system, especially in match play.

In the one on one match, the scenario is covered by BC's explanation. If you're in the middle of the fairway of a par 5, what are you likely to score on that hole? Just put that in.

[1972Apex]

I'm seriously considering giving up on competitive golf and just playing for fun. I'll be honest, I wasn't aware of the match play rulings, and seeing them now, I'd rather just steer clear of match play or competitive golf altogether.

Smartest move you will ever make. I did it two years ago and have not had a single regret. All the handicap system is good for is sandbagging and starting arguments

[Kilroy]

Dan Kilbank is correct.

I realize it was Matt who worte it, but just to be clear, it was BC Mist who brought the point up about "most likely score".

[Big Johnny69]

I realize it was Matt who worte it, but just to be clear, it was BC Mist who brought the point up about "most likely score".

I know. Was actually reading the manual, some things make sense, others don't.

It's just too much to ask to come to an agreement with someone on what your "likely" score is.

I do like competitive golf and may just steer clear of match play altogether.