Changes to Handicapping System for Next Year

[jvincent]

A course is a course is a course, John. Those hundreds of thousands of scores were taken from play over a number of years, in varying conditions, by countless numbers of players. Your argument only holds water if that multitude of rounds were played by the same person.

Disagree.

Use Loch March, Kanata Lakes, and Greensmere Premier all from the gold tees as an example. The slopes and ratings are virtually identical. dHowever, there are two par 3s at Loch March which are MUCH more difficult for an 15-18 handicapper than any of the par 3s at Greensmere. Those holes alone can skew the scoring average significantly under the new system since it now changes from a max of 5 to a max of 7.

Yes, I know that only the best 10 scores count but even over time players are going to score higher on those two holes than normal. I have first hand knowledge of this.

My point is that from a statistical validity point of view, a study based on a single course only validates the "fairness" of the new system on that course. I have no idea what the layout of the course they used is like but we all know that some courses and holes simply play harder than their ratings would indicate and the results of the study can be biased by that.

To draw conclusions from a study at a single course is simply bad math. I know that math isn't supposed to be the RCGA's area of expertise but there are people out there who know better.

[BC MIST]

Disagree.

If 1000 scores from 1000 courses were used in the study, it is still likely that the same conclusion, that the lower handicap has a slight advantage over the high one, would result.

In post 44, Libbing outlines in his point 1, how a high handicap player ends up with a slightly lower handicap, because of the 4% reduction. If your differential total is 20, your factor is 20/10*.96 = 1.9 or 2. If my differentials are 10 times higher, or 200, I would have a factor of 200/10*.96 = 19.2 or 19. My factor is not 10 times higher than yours.

I would be interested in hearing your comments on his points outlined in his point 2, where he shows that of the 9 possible outcomes, 6 favour the low handicapped player, partly because of the 4% reduction and partly because of the greater range of scores for the high handicapped.

[jvincent]

If 1000 scores from 1000 courses were used in the study, it is still likely that the same conclusion, that the lower handicap has a slight advantage over the high one, would result.

If the study had used even 10 courses, I would have no issues with the results. Extrapolating from one data point is not valid. Me saying it is not likely is just as valid as others saying it is.

In post 44, Libbing outlines in his point 1, how a high handicap player ends up with a slightly lower handicap, because of the 4% reduction. If your differential total is 20, your factor is 20/10*.96 = 1.9 or 2. If my differentials are 10 times higher, or 200, I would have a factor of 200/10*.96 = 19.2 or 19. My factor is not 10 times higher than yours.

I would be interested in hearing your comments on his points outlined in his point 2, where he shows that of the 9 possible outcomes, 6 favour the low handicapped player, partly because of the 4% reduction and partly because of the greater range of scores for the high handicapped.

I need to noodle on his post a little more. I think there may be a difference if we are talking about match play vs. net stroke play.