Where to apply Handicap for Match Play

[hackzaw]

When playing a Handicapped match play format, how are the handicap strokes applied?

For instance, Player A is a 7 hcp. Player B is a 10.

Do you:

1) Take the differential of B - A = 10 -7 = 3
Then, Player B get's strokes on handicap holes 1, 2, and 3

or:

2) Each player takes strokes on their respective stroke holes (Player A get's strokes on stroke holes 1 - 7, and Player B 1 - 10), so Player B receives a stroke on stroke holes 8, 9, and 10 where Player A plays straight up those holes.

I played in a match play format this weekend, and they took the differential, and applied that to the stroke holes. Depending on how you do it, different results could happen.

[Kilroy]

In smaller competitions use scenario 1. Players get strokes on the hardest holes.

In larger fields full handicaps are often used.

[PapaPat]

In smaller competitions use scenario 1. Players get strokes on the hardest holes.

In larger fields full handicaps are often used.

I do not think it is a matter of large fields. In Match Play full handicaps or applying handicap strokes "as they fall" is never correct. For fun, download the RCGA Handicap Manual and do a "find" on the word "unfair". There is only one occurrence and it applies to this practice.

Where the confusion arises is that Four-Ball (BetterBall) can be played both as Match Play and Stroke Play. In Four-Ball Stroke Play you and your partner are playing against the whole field so the only way to allocate strokes is to allow all strokes. This is likely the source of Kilroy's comment.

If you are playing in a Match Play event and everyone is allowed to use their full strokes, you are being jobbed by the low handicappers who in my experience are most likely to be the ones running the event. Match Play requires that the lowest handicap player play from scratch and others have their handicap netted against his/her handicap. Your example 1.

[hackzaw]

Thanks for the replies. Just out of curiousity, if everyone used their full handicap, how does this benefit the lower handicappers?

Obviously, in my example, handicap holes 1,2 and 3 are ranked as the toughest for a bogie golfer, and as such benefit the most in that order. So giving the lower handicaper's strokes here could likely result in "won" holes for the low cappers. And then by the time handicap holes 8,9 and 10 come around, these are easier by nature so the low capper is likely to make pars or better?

I don't know. I'm not finding logic in how it specifically matters what holes the higher capper benefits from. I do know it can make a difference in the outcome. My match yesterday, system 1) was used (differential) and I won 1 up with zero to play. If you looked strictly at the score and applied the handicap as in system 2) above, the match would have finished all square (although, it may have played out differently too).

[PapaPat]

Thanks for the replies. Just out of curiousity, if everyone used their full handicap, how does this benefit the lower handicappers?

Obviously, in my example, handicap holes 1,2 and 3 are ranked as the toughest for a bogie golfer, and as such benefit the most in that order. So giving the lower handicaper's strokes here could likely result in "won" holes for the low cappers. And then by the time handicap holes 8,9 and 10 come around, these are easier by nature so the low capper is likely to make pars or better?

I don't know. I'm not finding logic in how it specifically matters what holes the higher capper benefits from. I do know it can make a difference in the outcome. My match yesterday, system 1) was used (differential) and I won 1 up with zero to play. If you looked strictly at the score and applied the handicap as in system 2) above, the match would have finished all square (although, it may have played out differently too).

You appear to be missing the concept of properly allocating handicap stroke holes. It is not "the toughest for a bogie golfer", but rather the hole(s) where a bogie golfer most needs help to play a given hole even against a scratch player. Shifting the position of where the help is to be given to higher handicap holes benefits the lower handicap player. The difficulty of a hole(s) is not the determining factor. This is one of the most common misconceptions in golf.

[BC MIST]

You appear to be missing the concept of properly allocating handicap stroke holes. It is not "the toughest for a bogie golfer", but rather the hole(s) where a bogie golfer most needs help to play a given hole even against a scratch player. Shifting the position of where the help is to be given to higher handicap holes benefits the lower handicap player. The difficulty of a hole(s) is not the determining factor. This is one of the most common misconceptions in golf.

Apart from slow play, you have touched on my favourite pet peeve that holes are handicapped on based on difficulty. To quote the handicap manual, "Difficulty in making par on a hole is not an effective indicator of a need for a stroke."

After last season I looked at well over 200 scores from our weekly Men's Night tournament and discovered this. Our #6 hole on Premiere, a sub 500 yard par 5, had a scoring average of 4.86 for the best 12 golfers, average handicap 3, and a scoring average of 6.92 for the 12 highest handicapped golfers, creating a difference of 2.06 strokes. This difference was the HIGHEST difference of any hole on the course, making it the #1 handicap hole, the hole where the "bogey" golfer NEEDS a stroke. However, the hole is ranked #15.

With few exceptions, the #1 or low handicap holes are the LONGEST holes on the course, simple because the weaker golfers have more opportunity to get into trouble.
Contrast that with a 200 yard par 3. The bogey golfer will likely be on the green in two strokes and take two putt, whereas the "scratch" golfer will likely average roughly 3.25 strokes, creating a very small difference. But, most would agree that a 200 yard par 3 is a lot more DIFFICULT that a 500 yard par 5, but only for the better golfer.

[hackzaw]

Thanks for the clarification on how I worded "the toughest holes for the bogie golfer" isn't 100% correct. I didn't reference that the handicap holes are "the toughest holes for a bogie golfer RELATIVE to a scratch player". I never did refer to handicap holes as simply "the toughest holes".

So back to my original question of WHERE the strokes are given. I looked in the handicap manual where PapaPat suggested and it suggests that the differential must be taken, because that is where the worse golfer needs strokes to HALVE a hole (note: not WIN the hole but HALVE it). The manual goes on to say that if full strokes were given to each player, there would be more WON and LOST holes rather than HALVED holes, which they suggest favour the lower handicap player.

I still don't see how it makes that much difference. So the better player got shots and therefore increased their chances of winning the early hcp holes, later on for the easier hcp hole (like hole 8, 9 and 10 in my example), the advantage goes to weaker player to win the hole, doesn't it? So player A wins a few more holes, but so does player B, the net result being square.

The way I see it is if one player plays closer or better to their handicap relative to the other player, that's the winner.

Then again, I don't have a statistics degree (although I've take University level statistics) and 200 years of data to mull over. Obviously, they (whomever THEY are) have done the anlysis and the results of that analysis prove the better player would have an unfair advantage if they each received shots rather than a differential.

[PapaPat]

I suppose that "they" could have decided to even out the wins and losses rather than attempting to have each hole play as even as possible. Since it is not the way it is done, what is the point of discussing this approach. And, Hdcp. Desc. 9-4a/1 does not suggest that the better player will have an unfair advantage, it flat out states that this is the case.

The factors that come into play when doing the type of statistical analysis of various levels of ability that BC describes are things like dog-legs and carries. I have not known anyone who after doing such an analysis on behalf of his or her club or league, has not found a surprise or two in the results. In my case it was a dogleg that the better players could knock over the corner while others would need to play around it. It is also a fact that all eighteen holes are not necessarily played in every match. There is enough of a challenge now in allocating holes without the need to make sure that you have allowed both levels of players a chance to get back to even on some other holes throughout the match.

[hackzaw]

I suppose that "they" could have decided to even out the wins and losses rather than attempting to have each hole play as even as possible. Since it is not the way it is done, what is the point of discussing this approach. And, Hdcp. Desc. 9-4a/1 does not suggest that the better player will have an unfair advantage, it flat out states that this is the case.

The factors that come into play when doing the type of statistical analysis of various levels of ability that BC describes are things like dog-legs and carries. I have not known anyone who after doing such an analysis on behalf of his or her club or league, has not found a surprise or two in the results. In my case it was a dogleg that the better players could knock over the corner while others would need to play around it. It is also a fact that all eighteen holes are not necessarily played in every match. There is enough of a challenge now in allocating holes without the need to make sure that you have allowed both levels of players a chance to get back to even on some other holes throughout the match.

I'm the personality type that prefers to "understand" why things are the way they are rather than just be told why things are the way they are. That's why I posted this in the first place.

So I'm trying to "understand" why the differential is used because the alternative gives the better player an advantage. Nobody has offered a compelling argument WHY it's an ADVANTAGE to the better player.

The other reason I want to know is because at my course this weekend we had a two day "Ryder Cup" style match and each course used a different system (albeit the games were different).

Day one was a net fourball format. Obviously two against two, net low on the hole. All four players received handicap strokes on their respective stroke holes. Should this have been differential as well, playing the low man as a scratch and everybody relative to him?

Day two was net singles match. Differential was used.

[PapaPat]

I'm the personality type that prefers to "understand" why things are the way they are rather than just be told why things are the way they are. That's why I posted this in the first place.

So I'm trying to "understand" why the differential is used because the alternative gives the better player an advantage. Nobody has offered a compelling argument WHY it's an ADVANTAGE to the better player.

The other reason I want to know is because at my course this weekend we had a two day "Ryder Cup" style match and each course used a different system (albeit the games were different).

Day one was a net fourball format. Obviously two against two, net low on the hole. All four players received handicap strokes on their respective stroke holes. Should this have been differential as well, playing the low man as a scratch and everybody relative to him?

Day two was net singles match. Differential was used.

Well I like your use of the word prefer since while we share this attitude, I am prepared to allow others do the in-depth research and let me know what they find out in a matter like this. And the truth is that I may be way more anal than you in most areas of life. It is probably why I am a Rules Official.

You have looked at the Handicap Manual so you already know that if the format on the first day was Four-Ball Match Play 9-4a(iii) says that the the lowest handicap player should have played from scratch and the others should have been netted against him/her. Asking me or the forum is not going to change that. You need to ask whoever was running the event why this was not done. Perhaps there is some misunderstanding as to what the actual format was. But, based on my understanding of your description, the handicapping approach was incorrect. While many will just dismiss this as the Committee's right to run their event however they like, I think that a forum like this and your question are about how things should be done if they are to be done properly.

[hackzaw]

Thanks for the reply. Really what prompted the question in the first place was because in the two days, each course (each day was at competing course) applied the handicaps differently. My bet is that neither "pro-shop" from either course actually knew there is a proper/improper way to do this, and just did what they always do. One was right, one was wrong.

I enjoy learning the rules, because despite the fact that I'm just an avid player, forums like this allow me to raise questions and learn how the proper application of the rules. I've found out rapidly that not only does a large proportion of the golfers not know the rules, many in positions that should, also don't know them.

Thanks for taking the time.

[PapaPat]

Thanks for the reply. Really what prompted the question in the first place was because in the two days, each course (each day was at competing course) applied the handicaps differently. My bet is that neither "pro-shop" from either course actually knew there is a proper/improper way to do this, and just did what they always do. One was right, one was wrong.

I enjoy learning the rules, because despite the fact that I'm just an avid player, forums like this allow me to raise questions and learn how the proper application of the rules. I've found out rapidly that not only does a large proportion of the golfers not know the rules, many in positions that should, also don't know them.

Thanks for taking the time.

This would be my bet too based on my experience. Enjoyed the exchanges.