Has the ESR experiment worked?

Ciaranra · 14-08-2014 06:28PM

Dont think anybody should have that score.
The 3 handicap is competing for gross hes happy

GreeBo · 14-08-2014 06:47PM

Ciaranra wrote: »

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

Compete how often?pros don't compete every week, the majority aren't going to compete every week, lo at the distribution of scores compared to par.

Someone is always going to have a great score, you can't expect to compete against that.

If you think your handicap should have you competing for prizes on an average day you are way off.

GreeBo · 14-08-2014 06:50PM

onlyfinewine wrote: »

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?

I don't see that, usually very early forties or late thirties.

It's harder for a list handicap to compete in a stableford comp, it's much harder for a high handicap golfer to compete in strokes, this isn't news to anyone.

I don't see the relevance, if your club has too many of one type get it changed.
It's are mostly strokes, but cat 4 can always choose stableford on the day.

Boskowski · 14-08-2014 07:54PM

onlyfinewine wrote: »

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?

You're quoting me here without quote tags and way out of context. In fact worse than that. You're actually misquoting me. This was me saying what would happen if you didnt have an asymmetrical handicap adjustment system. Bold boy!

PARlance · 14-08-2014 07:57PM

onlyfinewine wrote: »

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?

In relation to ESR?
If same golfer has a similar round shortly after then they're going to be playing off 11. Perfect.

In General;
High scores and variances is another area but our place has some high scores returned from high handicappers.
I always look down the bottom of the results page when this happens. You'll find 20,30,40 guys playing off high handicaps shooting low 20's.
The bottom of the standings is completely dominated by high handicappers.
All explained by variance and the ratio of high to low golfers in the club.

Clubs should always have Class/Category prizes imo. Even though that is actually skewing the potential of a prize in favour of a lower guy. (Far less golfers in the lower categories = much better chance of getting a prize)

GreeBo · 14-08-2014 08:27PM

PARlance wrote: »

Clubs should always have Class/Category prizes imo. Even though that is actually skewing the potential of a prize in favour of a lower guy. (Far less golfers in the lower categories = much better chance of getting a prize)

Most clubs classes for prizes don't correspond to handicap categories for exactly this reason...

PARlance · 14-08-2014 08:34PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Most clubs classes for prizes don't correspond to handicap categories for exactly this reason...

Yes, ours has classes and it's still skewed but I'm completely ok with that. Most comps are stableford so it's good to see something in favour of the low guys.

Ciaranra · 14-08-2014 09:05PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Compete how often?pros don't compete every week, the majority aren't going to compete every week, lo at the distribution of scores compared to par.

Someone is always going to have a great score, you can't expect to compete against that.

If you think your handicap should have you competing for prizes on an average day you are way off.

I don't care about prizes to be honest,
I like to compete for my club and to do this you need to play to your handicap or very close

GreeBo · 14-08-2014 09:36PM

Ciaranra wrote: »

I don't care about prizes to be honest,
I like to compete for my club and to do this you need to play to your handicap or very close

Right...but all clubs are using the same system...that's the point of it!
Do you think it would be somehow more fair if everyone's handicap was higher to make it easier to play to it? That wouldn't help at all.

Ciaranra · 14-08-2014 09:53PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Right...but all clubs are using the same system...that's the point of it!
Do you think it would be somehow more fair if everyone's handicap was higher to make it easier to play to it? That wouldn't help at all.

No don't think people should play higher handicap but players view the system different,
Some will cheat there handicap and always will,
Some will enjoy trying to achieve the lowest handicap they can,

And then some might only pick certain comps to protect their handicap :rolleyes:
Does that make the 3rd a bandit he still tries in the one he picks

SaveOurLyric · 14-08-2014 10:31PM

Ciaranra wrote: »

And then some might only pick certain comps to protect their handicap :rolleyes:
Does that make the 3rd a bandit he still tries in the one he picks

Yes. He is a cheat. Oftentimes not even realising that he is. But he is.

SaveOurLyric · 14-08-2014 10:36PM

PARlance wrote: »

Yes, ours has classes and it's still skewed but I'm completely ok with that. Most comps are stableford so it's good to see something in favour of the low guys.

The handicap system is in favour of the low guys. Most of them dont know it and bitch that it is in favour of the high guys. But they only have that impression because most golfers, are high guys. So of course they win a lot more. But each individual high guy has a lower chance of winning than an individual low guy. And when high guys win, due to their greater range of scoring, tend to win high, prompting the low guy to bitch again, with 'what chance have I against that score?'. He didnt. That day. But the low guy does more often than not.
Thats a lot of guys.

SaveOurLyric · 14-08-2014 10:38PM

Ciaranra wrote: »

Dont think anybody should have that score.
The 3 handicap is competing for gross hes happy

The 3 handicap is as entitled to compete (and does) for the net prize as much as anyone else.

SaveOurLyric · 14-08-2014 10:41PM

onlyfinewine wrote: »

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?

That is incorrect. 47 is a very rare score.
And no, you wont find a 3 handicapper with that score. But the 3 handicapper has on average more chance of winning than the 20 handicapper. And his wins will come with lower scoring.

SaveOurLyric · 14-08-2014 10:48PM

Ciaranra wrote: »

I don't care about prizes to be honest,
I like to compete for my club and to do this you need to play to your handicap or very close

Interclub handicapped competitions do have a concentration of bandits. They succeed in that environment. And most club teams captains overlook this fact when picking such players. "He's a rogue, but you couldnt leave him out of the team" etc.
Teams pick players 'on the way down'. Nothing illegal or immoral in that bit. But it does put the stable golfer at a disadvantage.
Again, if you are playing in anyway regularly to your handicap it is a wrong handicap.
Interclub handicapped team competitions are the cesspit of amateur golf IMHO and given a reverence way beyond their true merit by those who play in them, know know better, or are contentendly part of the charade that it is fair golf.

SaveOurLyric · 14-08-2014 10:53PM

GreeBo wrote: »

Most clubs classes for prizes don't correspond to handicap categories for exactly this reason...

Is the best way. Category prizes should be split wherever the handicaps split them into groups of roughly equal size.

FixdePitchmark · 14-08-2014 11:02PM

SaveOurLyric wrote: »

Interclub handicapped competitions do have a concentration of bandits. They succeed in that environment. And most club teams captains overlook this fact when picking such players. "He's a rogue, but you couldnt leave him out of the team" etc.
Teams pick players 'on the way down'. Nothing illegal or immoral in that bit. But it does put the stable golfer at a disadvantage.
Again, if you are playing in anyway regularly to your handicap it is a wrong handicap.
Interclub handicapped team competitions are the cesspit of amateur golf IMHO and given a reverence way beyond their true merit by those who play in them, know know better, or are contentendly part of the charade that it is fair golf.

SOL.

Great explanations etc.

But to go back to reality - is there any point in understanding , asymmetric , asymptotic , mean, average , differential , algorithm. (:))

If the golfing community have a different understanding of what a handicap is.

It is ignorance, hard to account for that - but this ignorance creates an expectation amongst golfers that they should be able to get 36 every time.

This creates - not even a cheating attitude, but an idea in the back of many golfers mind that their handicap is too low. When this is in your mind , subliminally it is easier to let the 0.1s come. When you see wins always near 40 and you are banging away in the 30 to 34 range , it is only natural and human nature that you go - something not right here.

Anyway - I think the cuts should be more heavily graduated , when they go above 40 pts.

Above 40 should be rare - not in the prizes when above 40 is crazy stuff.

I guess no system is perfect - and once you start looking at trying to win , you are only going to drive yourself mad.

I guess just worry about your own handicap.

It is a bit sad - that people are saying this is just the way it is with interclub comps.

newport2 · 15-08-2014 08:04AM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

SOL.

Great explanations etc.

But to go back to reality - is there any point in understanding , asymmetric , asymptotic , mean, average , differential , algorithm. (:))

If the golfing community have a different understanding of what a handicap is.

It is ignorance, hard to account for that - but this ignorance creates an expectation amongst golfers that they should be able to get 36 every time.

This creates - not even a cheating attitude, but an idea in the back of many golfers mind that their handicap is too low. When this is in your mind , subliminally it is easier to let the 0.1s come. When you see wins always near 40 and you are banging away in the 30 to 34 range , it is only natural and human nature that you go - something not right here.

Anyway - I think the cuts should be more heavily graduated , when they go above 40 pts.

Above 40 should be rare - not in the prizes when above 40 is crazy stuff.

I guess no system is perfect - and once you start looking at trying to win , you are only going to drive yourself mad.

I guess just worry about your own handicap.

It is a bit sad - that people are saying this is just the way it is with interclub comps.

Is the USGA system better than CONGU?

"The CONGU system assumes all golfers are honest.
The USGA system keeps them honest"

PARlance · 15-08-2014 09:04AM

newport2 wrote: »

Is the USGA system better than CONGU?

"The CONGU system assumes all golfers are honest.
The USGA system keeps them honest"

I don't know where that quote is from but the US system doesn't keep golfers honest.

You could have a guy playing off 4 and twenty rounds later he could be playing off 24 if he wanted.
Congu system is rigid, US system is very casual.

newport2 · 15-08-2014 09:29AM

PARlance wrote: »

I don't know where that quote is from but the US system doesn't keep golfers honest.

You could have a guy playing off 4 and twenty rounds later he could be playing off 24 if he wanted.
Congu system is rigid, US system is very casual.

Comparison from an Irish perspective here

http://gui-golf-handicaps.blogspot.ie/2011/10/congu-v-usga-handicapping-system.html

Russman · 15-08-2014 09:37AM

FixdePitchmark wrote: »

SOL.

Great explanations etc.

But to go back to reality - is there any point in understanding , asymmetric , asymptotic , mean, average , differential , algorithm. (:))

If the golfing community have a different understanding of what a handicap is.

It is ignorance, hard to account for that - but this ignorance creates an expectation amongst golfers that they should be able to get 36 every time.

This creates - not even a cheating attitude, but an idea in the back of many golfers mind that their handicap is too low. When this is in your mind , subliminally it is easier to let the 0.1s come. When you see wins always near 40 and you are banging away in the 30 to 34 range , it is only natural and human nature that you go - something not right here.

Anyway - I think the cuts should be more heavily graduated , when they go above 40 pts.

Above 40 should be rare - not in the prizes when above 40 is crazy stuff.

I guess no system is perfect - and once you start looking at trying to win , you are only going to drive yourself mad.

I guess just worry about your own handicap.

It is a bit sad - that people are saying this is just the way it is with interclub comps.

This is it exactly. Its fair to say that the general golf community (broadly speaking) have an understanding or expectation regarding handicaps that is totally at odds with what the algorithms show. Now, are the golfers wrong or is the system wrong ? Probably a bit of both to be fair.

Yes golf is hard and golfers are inconsistent, but I really think the idea that if someone is playing fairly regularly to their handicap its a wrong handicap is the wrong way to look at it. I had a look at my stats for the last 2 years and I was either within the buffer or better than CSS just slightly over 50% of the time - I certainly don't think I'm handicapped too highly. Arguably it might have been a slightly higher percentage if I'd bothered trying on the back nine of some of the bad rounds where all the shots went on the front and you lose interest.

Inter-club is notorious for dodgy handicaps / performances. But, are the good teams bandits or are the poor teams handicapped too tightly ? Its a bit of a chicken and egg situation though. We've often been beaten out the gate in matches and depending on who you listen to its either "they're a shower of rogues" or, more often, "sure everyone up here is too low and can't play to their handicaps..."

Ahh f--k it I don't know ! Rightly or wrongly, probably wrongly according to the algorithms, I tend to come down on the side that a golfer should be fairly comfortable off his handicap (within reason).

PARlance · 15-08-2014 10:27AM

newport2 wrote: »

Comparison from an Irish perspective here

http://gui-golf-handicaps.blogspot.ie/2011/10/congu-v-usga-handicapping-system.html

In fairness, that's a comparison from an Irish perspective there that has a major problem with Congu. Far from balanced and tbh I think it's a daft blog.

One major bone that author has, was the limit of 0.1s allowed each year. This has since come into the system.

He seems to be pinning a lot of hope on the "Peer Review" system in the US. I've never once heard of a US golfer getting a peer review. We've had a court case here from someone who got a general cut.... I can see why the peer review system doesn't work in the states. There would be law suits left, right and centre.

There are many good aspects of the US system (slope rating being the best imo) but it's a complete farce in some other areas.
Neither system can stop cheats but at least Congu upholds the intergrity of the game a bit more: Vanity handicaps are a common occurance in the US.

The US system allows someone to play 20 casual rounds with their mates, non competitive rounds where gimmes, mulligans, etc can and are agreed over a mid round bottle of bud.... I've seen single digit golfers over there that wouldn't break 100 in a comp.

At least with our system you can have almost no doubt that a low handicapper is indeed a good golfer.

GreeBo · 15-08-2014 10:35AM

Russman wrote: »

Arguably it might have been a slightly higher percentage if I'd bothered trying on the back nine of some of the bad rounds where all the shots went on the front and you lose interest.

A system that assumes you are always trying your best will never be able to take into account you not trying/giving up.

Russman wrote: »

a golfer should be fairly comfortable off his handicap (within reason).

The buffer is the definition of within reason. Its size is directly tied to your handicap.

newport2 · 15-08-2014 10:35AM

PARlance wrote: »

In fairness, that's a comparison from an Irish perspective there that has a major problem with Congu. Far from balanced and tbh I think it's a daft blog.

One major bone that author has, was the limit of 0.1s allowed each year. This has since come into the system.

He seems to be pinning a lot of hope on the "Peer Review" system in the US. I've never once heard of a US golfer getting a peer review. We've had a court case here from someone who got a general cut.... I can see why the peer review system doesn't work in the states. There would be law suits left, right and centre.

There are many good aspects of the US system (slope rating being the best imo) but it's a complete farce in some other areas.
Neither system can stop cheats but at least Congu upholds the intergrity of the game a bit more: Vanity handicaps are a common occurance in the US.

The US system allows someone to play 20 casual rounds with their mates, non competitive rounds where gimmes, mulligans, etc can and are agreed over a mid round bottle of bud.... I've seen single digit golfers over there that wouldn't break 100 in a comp.

At least with our system you can have almost no doubt that a low handicapper is indeed a good golfer.

Ye, I agree (I think), I was just raising the question was the alternative any better. Any US golfers I've played with over here had a handicap they couldn't play to. Don't know if it was their egos or due to their system.

I don't have major issue with CONGU, but then getting cut to me is more important than winning against the field. My handicap is my benchmark, that's what I play against.

GreeBo · 15-08-2014 10:38AM

newport2 wrote: »

Comparison from an Irish perspective here

http://gui-golf-handicaps.blogspot.ie/2011/10/congu-v-usga-handicapping-system.html

That post is a joke to be honest.
Easily picked apart and blatently anti-CONGU from the outset.

Russman · 15-08-2014 10:46AM

GreeBo wrote: »

A system that assumes you are always trying your best will never be able to take into account you not trying/giving up.

The buffer is the definition of within reason. Its size is directly tied to your handicap.

Absolutely true on both counts.

Who can honestly say they've never given up on the back nine ?

GreeBo · 15-08-2014 10:47AM

Russman wrote: »

Absolutely true on both counts.

Who can honestly say they've never given up on the back nine ?

Me

Boskowski · 15-08-2014 11:21AM

From a completely subjective view our system feels right to me.
Because when I know I play crap it is reflected in my (handicapped) score. A score of 27 points feels like I didn't play well at all, any worse and I'm in nightmare territory. 32 points feel like not great but not terrible. 36 feels pretty good but something was lacking for a very good round. 40 points and a chance if winning feels like I played really really well today and 42 points feels like wow today's was awesome.

Isn't that how it sbould be? 36 points shouldn't feel 'not great but not terrible'.

Or is it subjectively working for me cos I'm an honest golfer to myself and a lot aren't?

Maybe I'm having this arseways. Maybe it's just how I'm conditioned over time to the system.

But why I feel like the above is because it feels in line with what not handicapped golfers (pros) do. A pro shooting a 68 on a not easy course is deemed having a great day. A 66 is deemed pretty fantastic and stringing a couple of those together will almost certainly see you on the top of the leaderboard.

Ciaranra · 15-08-2014 11:55AM

Views on this thread would suggest if you score 36 and felt you were lacking something for a very good score your handicap is to high.
But i agree Boskowski with you

Boskowski · 15-08-2014 12:14PM

Ciaranra wrote: »

Views on this thread would suggest if you score 36 and felt you were lacking something for a very good score your handicap is to high.
But i agree Boskowski with you

36 feels like played well but puts wouldn't go in. Or played well but got unlucky twice or played well but took wrong decision on a couple holes hence the scratch on 13 or something like that.