Changes to Handicapping System for Next Year

[Sakuraba]

The highest possible score a 10 handicap could post under the "old" system was 108 (on a par 72) now its 126, and that could be on a par 70. I think its a mistake.

[BC MIST]

The highest possible score a 10 handicap could post under the "old" system was 108 (on a par 72) now its 126, and that could be on a par 70. I think its a mistake.

Whether the player's scores were 108 or 126, neither would count in the calculation of the actual handicap factor, so using his extremely poor scores is not an indicator of his true potential, nor should they be used to criticize the change in the system.

More accurate would be to take actual scores that count in the factor calculation, apply the two ESC formulas and note the difference. Using actual hole by hole scores of a 13.2, 2011 RCGA factor, his new 2012 factor would be 14.4, a difference in course handicap of only 1.

While I can understand some golfers not appreciating seeing their factors go up by 1 or perhaps two strokes, fixing one flaw in the Handicap System is progress.

[jvincent]

While I can understand some golfers not appreciating seeing their factors go up by 1 or perhaps two strokes, fixing one flaw in the Handicap System is progress.

I'm trying to understand what flaw is being fixed by the change.

[BC MIST]

I'm trying to understand what flaw is being fixed by the change.

-Currently, in a head to head match, the lower handicap player has a slightly better than 50% chance of winning. The new ESC will bring that closer to 50/50.

[jvincent]

-Currently, in a head to head match, the lower handicap player has a slightly better than 50% chance of winning. The new ESC will bring that closer to 50/50.

Based on a study done using scores from ONE golf course. Yeah, good statistical sample there.

[BC MIST]

Based on a study done using scores from ONE golf course. Yeah, good statistical sample there.

For a long time I have been of the opinion that higher handicappers have a greater "margin of improvement" than single digit ones, and therefore have an advantage in match play. However, Matt's point above is based, at least, on some statistical evidence, regardless of the small sampling, and should carry a little more weight than our biased opinions. I would guess that the USGA has conducted studies on the issue and have adjusted the ESC that we are about to adopt, to the results.

[BC MIST]

Based on a study done using scores from ONE golf course. Yeah, good statistical sample there.

FWIW: Based on a discussion that we had yesterday with an RCGA director, the scores that were used by the prof at Simon Fraser University numbered in the "hundreds of thousands," and clearly showed that the low cap player has an advantage over the high one, hence the 2012 move to the current USGA, ESC system.

[Sakuraba]

Whether the player's scores were 108 or 126, neither would count in the calculation of the actual handicap factor, so using his extremely poor scores is not an indicator of his true potential, nor should they be used to criticize the change in the system.

More accurate would be to take actual scores that count in the factor calculation, apply the two ESC formulas and note the difference. Using actual hole by hole scores of a 13.2, 2011 RCGA factor, his new 2012 factor would be 14.4, a difference in course handicap of only 1.

While I can understand some golfers not appreciating seeing their factors go up by 1 or perhaps two strokes, fixing one flaw in the Handicap System is progress.

I see your point, hopefully a 10 handicap would not have a score higher than 108 counting, however it is conceivable. I guess he wouldn't be a 10 for very long.