Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Has the ESR experiment worked?

1356

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    I find the whole mindset on display here somewhat strange. As in regarding a low handicap a punishment rather than an achievement. People striving for .1s and fretting over cuts. I mean what's wrong with ye? That's totally mad.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Boskowski wrote: »
    I find the whole mindset on display here somewhat strange. As in regarding a low handicap a punishment rather than an achievement. People striving for .1s and fretting over cuts. I mean what's wrong with ye? That's totally mad.

    Agree. I think some of it comes from the dominantly held view among handicap golfers that you should be shooting around CSS : f you shoot CSS, then your handicap is 'correct', and you are competitive even if it wasnt 'your day' - next week you will get the bounce or the few putts and make that a 41.
    A frequent enough scenario is the newish (but by no means always) golfer who is scoring in the 33-38 pts range regularly. Then has a good score or two, beating CSS by 4 or more shots. Gets cut 3,4,5,6 shots between a couple of rounds plus an ESR. In his next handful of outings now scores in the 27-34 range : "WTF !!! Now I can hardly break 30! I cant handle this new handicap at all! FFS! I was much happier where I was.". Petitions handicap sec to restore the ESR. At least. Moans. Moans. Moans. Despite the fact that the system has worked perfectly well, restored his handicap back in line with everyone else, and that something over the next year he might have another score in the 39 pts range.
    And this guy isnt even a bandit, but feels hard done by by the system.
    Some then do turn to the dark side, and feel justified in a little handicap massaging.


    Which does prompt me to observe, that while I do consider the CONGU hc system better to the USGA one (though I like the Slope principal also), it is based on everyone understanding it. Which they dont. And is probably its biggest flaw.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    I'd agree that few people understand the system, and the scenario painted above is very common, but understanding it doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it. Personally I just can't see the point in a system that is designed so you basically can't play to your handicap (or within the buffer) most of the time. It seems to me to go against the idea that your handicap is the number of shots worse than a scratch golfer that you should be, and that the ss is what a scratch golfer would be expected to score.

    From an intuitive point of view IMO there's a certain logic in the idea that a 10 handicap can be assumed to be usually around 10 over par most of the time.

    Anyone know why the esr was mandatory in Ireland but optional for the other CONGU regions ? And how it has been received or implemented across the water ?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Russman wrote: »
    I'd agree that few people understand the system, and the scenario painted above is very common, but understanding it doesn't necessarily mean you agree with it. Personally I just can't see the point in a system that is designed so you basically can't play to your handicap (or within the buffer) most of the time. It seems to me to go against the idea that your handicap is the number of shots worse than a scratch golfer that you should be, and that the ss is what a scratch golfer would be expected to score.

    From an intuitive point of view IMO there's a certain logic in the idea that a 10 handicap can be assumed to be usually around 10 over par most of the time.

    Anyone know why the esr was mandatory in Ireland but optional for the other CONGU regions ? And how it has been received or implemented across the water ?

    The reason is that it's not equally likely that you will be over par as under par, it's far more skewed towards being over par.

    If par was your average then you would have crazy scores under par sometimes and winning scores would be crazy. Matches would be crazy too. Handicap would fluctuate wildly up and down.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,107 ✭✭✭HarshOstrich


    What do you mean by 'quiet for a couple of weeks' ? If you beat CSS by 4 shots twice in a short period those rounds were about 9 shots better than your average. So your other rounds, even with the hc cup should have had you typically just about breaking 30 points.
    Shooting 36 points again lately suggests (unless you really play a LOT of competitions) that your handicap might still be high.
    That someone can get from 16 to 7 with ESR and still have 36 points surely is proof that the ESR system is working. Or again, that it should probably be even more agressive. Though tapering according to hc category as suggested above.

    i mean i played poorly for a couple of weeks after i lost 3 shots off my handicap.
    i am happy with the system as i want to get as low as possible, i do play at least 3 times a week and have played 3 singles rounds since i went down to 7 and had scores of 27,32,36 points. i did think i would struggle off 7 initially but to be
    honest i now feel i could play to a 4 or 5 handicap


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 20,664 ✭✭✭✭Rikand


    I think the real measure of the ESR is in this quote:

    "
    Your handicap is meant to be a measure of what you can achieve, not what you can beat. "

    If your hitting 33-36 regularly off your new handicap then the ESR has done its job.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    Rikand wrote: »
    I think the real measure of the ESR is in this quote:

    "
    Your handicap is meant to be a measure of what you can achieve, not what you can beat. "

    If your hitting 33-36 regularly off your new handicap then the ESR has done its job.

    Genuine question, when did handicap definition change to this (or essentially this, not arguing with you over the exact wording) ?

    I assume its from the UHS which is for 2012-2015 ? but I cant find a statement of what your handicap is now meant to be. Its a big change, and one that I'd say the vast bulk of club golfers are/were unaware of.


    Back in 2010 the CONGU definition was:

    "Throughout the world a golf handicap is recognised as representing the number of strokes that need to be deducted from the players actual (Gross) score so that, when he plays to his average ability, his Nett score equals a "Standard Score". The amount deducted (the players "handicap") is calculated so as to be related to the player's ability at the time he plays in the competition."


    Can't find the link now, this is from a post in an old thread. Don't know how to link to a post in a different thread either !:)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Russman wrote: »
    Genuine question, when did handicap definition change to this (or essentially this, not arguing with you over the exact wording) ?

    I assume its from the UHS which is for 2012-2015 ? but I cant find a statement of what your handicap is now meant to be. Its a big change, and one that I'd say the vast bulk of club golfers are/were unaware of.


    Back in 2010 the CONGU definition was:

    "Throughout the world a golf handicap is recognised as representing the number of strokes that need to be deducted from the players actual (Gross) score so that, when he plays to his average ability, his Nett score equals a "Standard Score". The amount deducted (the players "handicap") is calculated so as to be related to the player's ability at the time he plays in the competition."


    Can't find the link now, this is from a post in an old thread. Don't know how to link to a post in a different thread either !:)


    Average ability is NOT the same as average score though...not at all.
    Far too many variables in the game.
    I think it was reworded to explain it better, not to change the definition.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Average ability is NOT the same as average score though...not at all.
    Far too many variables in the game.
    I think it was reworded to explain it better, not to change the definition.

    Average score isn't mentioned though........?
    I agree there are a lot of variables in the game. But the only thing I can read from that, outdated, definition, is that basically when you play to your average ability, you'll equal the ss. I would assume the buffer was intended to take care of some of the variables. None of this is black and white ultimately, with regard to scoring.

    It just appears to be a big jump from your average ability to now, apparently your maximum ability or close to it.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Russman wrote: »
    Average score isn't mentioned though........?
    I agree there are a lot of variables in the game. But the only thing I can read from that, outdated, definition, is that basically when you play to your average ability, you'll equal the ss. I would assume the buffer was intended to take care of some of the variables. None of this is black and white ultimately, with regard to scoring.

    It just appears to be a big jump from your average ability to now, apparently your maximum ability or close to it.

    Exactly, it says average ability.
    People have assumed that this means your handicap should be such that you play to nett level par on average.

    CONGU never said this though.
    Its a weighted median if anything :)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Average ability is NOT the same as average score though...not at all.
    Far too many variables in the game.
    I think it was reworded to explain it better, not to change the definition.

    This 'NOT' is nub of the confusion Russman. And yes it is poorly worded - I would agree that people are in fact, correct, to misunderstand it, rather than understand it as Congu states it, without further explanation.

    The difference Greebo points out is the one that people tend to think of as being equal. They are not - there is a strong non-linear relationship between SCORES and your ABILITY on a given day.

    In a nutshell, it is much easier to fritter away shots and have a high bad score while being slightly below your 'average ability', than it is to gain shots when being slightly better than your average ability. All golfers can run up a 2,3,4 over par on a hole. But the number of 2,3,4 under par scores on a hole by contrast are miniscule.

    Most golfer will have the experience of playing slightly poorly - yet only have 32 points and wonder why their score seems so off the CSS. Similarly of playing well. Yet only having 37 points (heck, 37 points and I feel I have played well). 'Shooting the lights out' and scoring 42 is 6 ahead of a typical CSS. But having a similar once a year 'nightmare' is more likely to have you 10 or 15 shots away from CSS.

    This effect can also be seen in the distribution scores of good versus lesser skilled players. The better skilled players not only have lower handicaps, but, their better skills mean they are less erratic round to round. And so typically average 2-3 worse than CSS. Less skilled golfers, even with their higher handicaps are more erratic, shooting more relatively worse scores, and so average 5-6 shots below CSS.

    You can also see it looking at the elite. We marvel at even the McIlroy or Woods - as skilled as it gets - shooting a 65 or 63. 'Only' 7-9 shots better than par. We never see even their dream rounds hitting reaching 55 (Yet we see pro scores, from the best in the world in the 80s every week). The skill/score relationship has just become impossibly steep even for those guys to make any headway against it at the better score end.

    So, I dont blame the fundamental algorithm of the system. I think it is a good one, and the ESR has improved it. But it is flawed when you have to be a bit of a golf and/or maths geek not to misunderstand it. I do blame Congu and the unions for not informing people better and so have a wider understanding of what a reasonable expectation for what is their 'correct' handicap.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Great post, however I don't think people necessarily need to understand it for it to work :)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Great post, however I don't think people necessarily need to understand it for it to work :)

    But for them to buy into it, it would certainly help if they did.
    By buy into it, I mean not feeling that they should amass 0.1s to get to what they feel should be their handicap.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    I think all you ever need to know about the handicap system in order to buy into it is in post#2 in the thread Greebo linked earlier.

    Its obvious (its asymetricalness) when you think about it. For every shot under SS you get deducted .${catnumber}, while every round over SS gets you just .1


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    Boskowski wrote: »
    I think all you ever need to know about the handicap system in order to buy into it is in post#2 in the thread Greebo linked earlier.

    Its obvious (its asymetricalness) when you think about it. For every shot under SS you get deducted .${catnumber}, while every round over SS gets you just .1

    The line in that post saying that golf scores are not reliable data to drive handicaps is where it falls down for me. If not on scores, then what the heck do we base players handicaps on ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,361 ✭✭✭Boskowski


    Russman wrote: »
    The line in that post saying that golf scores are not reliable data to drive handicaps is where it falls down for me. If not on scores, then what the heck do we base players handicaps on ?

    But the thing is, it IS based on scores.

    The asymmetrical system however flattens the effect of your score a bit to allow for wild scoring fluctuations - which are more or less directly related to your ability, hence the categories (.3 per shot, .2 per shot etc).

    Otherwise your handicap would be up and down like a whore's nickers (as they say) all the time. If it was symmetrical every single stable ford comp was won by a high handicapper with a score probably around 50 points. I will concede that if we were always playing stroke competitions the picture would be a little (but not very much) different, but we don't.

    Think about it.
    High handicappers fluctuate a lot more than low guys, this is what every high handicapper notices first about themselves. Its not they can't hit as good a shot as a low guy, its the lack of consistency. But sometimes they come in with the same ball they teed off on the first, have no scratches and were hot. But there is not just you but 120 like you (or me, I'm high - 16) in a comp. So in a field of say 150 golfers in a stableford comp you would always find someone of 20 with a score of 47 or more points on any given day. But you would never find a 3 handicapper with that score.

    Edit: Course difficulty comes into it as well really. I used to be a member of a really easy and short course. And the fluctuations were even wilder. Stabelford comps were won by scores of 45, 46 or sometimes 47 or 48. That is what the USGA system does with the course ratings and the extra shots. Ideally you want a combination of both but thats probably just too complicated then. Hence in CONGU a 10 handicap on an easy course is not the same as a 10 handicap on a tough course.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    I get the numbers and understand the concepts. I certainly wouldn't argue, as in that thread linked earlier, with getting eg 0.3 back for every shot over CSS, that's just crazy talk on that forum.
    The two issues I just don't agree with, not that CONGU or the GUI or anybody will give a hoot if I agree or not :D, are:

    1) that idea that someone has to play well to play to their handicap, I think you should have to play "ok" to play to your handicap. Then again, what's "ok" or what's "well" ? Obviously at some point, with cuts being greater than 0.1s there'll be a levelling off somewhat and I think ESR distorts that to too great an extent. If it takes someone 2 months to reach their plateau, I've no problem with that.

    2) the rationale behind the system is fairly convoluted for your average joe blogs club golfer to get, especially if he's been conditioned over the years to think of a 5 handicapper as a good player who mostly shoots in or around 5 over most of the time, or an 18 handicapper as someone who is usually about 18 over par etc. Totally agree that its not or never will be black or white and the lines can get blurred, but if a system is that complicated, I think there's a fundamental flaw in it somewhere.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 91 ✭✭Mr abbey


    Starting season with 27 hc, have had 41pts then 39pts about 4 weeks apart there getting cut 1.6 then 1.2. Also, had 4 scratches on the first round and 3 on the second. Being 4 under then 3 under on second round just missed the ESR and am raging as I really want to start getting HC down as quickly as possilbe.

    Question is, did ESR ruling replace observational adjustments and if not is there any possilbity of me getting one with two "good" scores. Recent rounds for summer have been 29/30/26/34/29/41/28/23/39/19/23/33/27.


    Thanks a lot.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    Observational cuts are largely a thing of the past. The rule is still in place but afaik its rarely invoked nowadays. Rightly so IMO, you can't have random guys passing judgement on another player's ability vs handicap. Its too open to outside factors, friendships, bar-talk etc.

    If you want to get your handicap down, just do the scores, I can't see any reason looking at the scores you posted why anyone would consider you for a Rule 19 cut (no offence). You've played to your handicap twice and mostly not come close to it, what reason would an observation cut be on, other than you want to get lower ?

    Win a few fourballs or classics, that'll put you on the h/cap sec's radar, or do plenty of good scores over the winter when there's placing, winter tees etc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Russman wrote: »
    1) that idea that someone has to play well to play to their handicap, I think you should have to play "ok" to play to your handicap. Then again, what's "ok" or what's "well" ? Obviously at some point, with cuts being greater than 0.1s there'll be a levelling off somewhat and I think ESR distorts that to too great an extent. If it takes someone 2 months to reach their plateau, I've no problem with that.
    If you only have to play ok to play to your handicap then the whole system of adding and reducing shots would have to change, you would end up with a negative buffer that you have to beat to get cut and you would get a lot more than 0.1 back for missing your buffer.
    The current system understands that its hard to play well and very easy to play badly. Equating a handicap with your average score would totally miss this fact and would lead to a much more complicated method of trying to allow for it.

    The problem with the 2 month approach and relying solely on CSS is that it would never happen. "No one" plays well and gets cut for 2 months (or any meaningful length of time)
    Why? because its hard to play to your handicap and even harder to beat it, IF you are handicapped correctly.
    Hence we have a buffer. As above there is no negative buffer.
    Russman wrote: »

    2) the rationale behind the system is fairly convoluted for your average joe blogs club golfer to get, especially if he's been conditioned over the years to think of a 5 handicapper as a good player who mostly shoots in or around 5 over most of the time, or an 18 handicapper as someone who is usually about 18 over par etc. Totally agree that its not or never will be black or white and the lines can get blurred, but if a system is that complicated, I think there's a fundamental flaw in it somewhere.
    Its complicated because its trying to model millions of unrelated events and come up with some sort of comparison mechanism.
    The flaw is with us, the silly humans hitting the ball out in the field. How can a single system model and account for my 300 yards drive (well obviously not mine, I'd hit a 5iron and then a couple of 9 irons, for safety) and also account for my shank and 3 putt from 6 feet?

    Russman wrote: »
    Observational cuts are largely a thing of the past. The rule is still in place but afaik its rarely invoked nowadays. Rightly so IMO, you can't have random guys passing judgement on another player's ability vs handicap. Its too open to outside factors, friendships, bar-talk etc.

    Observation wasnt just random punters, it was than handicap sec observing your scores and cards.
    An improving golfer is likely to shoot something like
    31, 39, 28, 41,38, 30, 34, 40
    points over a period.
    ESR means a handicap sec doesnt need to check (though the computer helps massively with this these days)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,000 ✭✭✭Russman


    GreeBo wrote: »
    Observation wasnt just random punters, it was than handicap sec observing your scores and cards.

    It was intended to be that, but it was often a lot less than that. Lets be honest, what h/cap sec thoroughly reviews scores ?
    We had one h/cap sec who, genuinely, had a little black book with names who he was going to cut to make sure they never represented the club. One guy went as far as the R&A. Maybe we had a bad apple though.

    I'd broadly agree with the rest of your post though, I say broadly because I still believe someone should be able to play to their handicap or within the buffer, reasonably comfortably, most of the time. All the algorithms in the world won't change that :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,505 ✭✭✭✭GreeBo


    Russman wrote: »

    I'd broadly agree with the rest of your post though, I say broadly because I still believe someone should be able to play to their handicap or within the buffer, reasonably comfortably, most of the time. All the algorithms in the world won't change that :D

    And thats why people have a problem with getting cut, they think 33 points is a bad score.
    The buffer is designed to allow you the flexibility of having a slightly off day with no impact.
    More than 3 shots over is a pretty bad day and you deserve your 0.1

    The system expects you to play roughly, on average, as follows
    over, over, over, buffer, buffer, buffer, under par
    This will leave you pretty much where you started.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Russman wrote: »
    I'd broadly agree with the rest of your post though, I say broadly because I still believe someone should be able to play to their handicap or within the buffer, reasonably comfortably, most of the time. All the algorithms in the world won't change that :D

    Thats what the current system does. But it depends on how you define 'play to your handicap'. Given the variability you cannot expect to play even within a couple of shots of your handicap everytime. The rate is about 7 out of 10 rounds in the range 31-34. One round below that. And one in the 35-37 range. And one above that. Thats average. With the natural variation, having 9 rounds on the trot no better than 34 points, still means your handicap is correct. Have that 10 round and you will get a shot back. But likely get cut a little back by a shot in your next few rounds. So you were still 'playing to your handicap' during the period you had all those low thirties or twentysomething rounds.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,133 ✭✭✭✭FixdePitchmark


    Thats what the current system does. But it depends on how you define 'play to your handicap'. Given the variability you cannot expect to play even within a couple of shots of your handicap everytime. The rate is about 7 out of 10 rounds in the range 31-34. One round below that. And one in the 35-37 range. And one above that. Thats average. With the natural variation, having 9 rounds on the trot no better than 34 points, still means your handicap is correct. Have that 10 round and you will get a shot back. But likely get cut a little back by a shot in your next few rounds. So you were still 'playing to your handicap' during the period you had all those low thirties or twentysomething rounds.

    But even most of the posters on here are disappointed with a 36. :eek:

    There was a lad on here - got 41 and no prize recently :):)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭Ciaranra


    Some might say your handicap is what you can compete off
    if you cant compete your off the wrong handicap.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,313 ✭✭✭Dr_Colossus


    Ciaranra wrote: »
    Some might say your handicap is what you can compete off
    if you cant compete your off the wrong handicap.

    If only, in that case mine is at about 5 shots too low. My best ever round in competition was relatively recently and it didn't give me a podium finish, I was 3 shots off the higher handicapped competition.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 284 ✭✭Ciaranra


    From playing in interclub comps this year. if i scored an average of 3-4 worse than my handicap i would have been beaten alot more than i would like


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Russman wrote: »
    I still believe someone should be able to play to their handicap or within the buffer, reasonably comfortably, most of the time.

    Think about this bit though.
    Within the buffer ? Reasonably comfortably ?Most of the time ?

    The buffer is only a few shots wide. Most golfers (leaving aside for the moment those actively improving or disimproving their game in general which only widens it further), even the steadiest and skilled of the best of the pros, have games that spans about 15 shots from best to worst. Higher handicappers even more.
    Then (guessing 'most of the time' to be say 3 out of 4 occasions), anyone who can stay withing or better than the buffer zone most of the time is actively cheating : ie 'pulling' scores back into the buffer zone when they dont wish to be cut, and is playing off too high a handicap by 2-5 shots in order to be in a position to do that. Its simply impossibly to be that steady at golf.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭SaveOurLyric


    Ciaranra wrote: »
    Some might say your handicap is what you can compete off
    if you cant compete your off the wrong handicap.

    The point is that you do not have to be in the 36,37 zone to be competitive. You are equally competitive when you went out and shot 29pts.
    Due to the wide spread in golf scores from all of us, you can never look at a single round in this context. You must take at least 10 rounds. Better 20.
    Think also that in the typical club competition there will be 100-150 golfer. A handful will be in the prizes. 5-10 will beat the CSS. i.e. about 5% of them. So you yourself should only expect to be in that shakout about one in 20 rounds. If you expect to be there every week or anything like it, then you are in for disappointment.
    If you really are there, as I said above, then you are a handicap manipulator, cheating yourself, and your competitors.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 433 ✭✭onlyfinewine


    in a field of say 150 golfers in a stableford comp you would always find someone of 20 with a score of 47 or more points on any given day. But you would never find a 3 handicapper with that score. Comments?


Advertisement