How to Fix the Broken Handicap System: Dynamic Handicapping

[BigDill]

After 19 pages of this, I am coming around on the fact that many people have different flaws in their game, and maybe using green in regulation as the determining factor may be too narrow. At the risk of kicking off 20 more pages of debate, maybe a better approach to dynamic handicapping would be to have the player pick which one (1) of three (3) different areas they want to apply the Dynamic Handicap Correction (DHC) to:

1. tee shot;
2. approach (green in regulation);
3. putting.

For a tee shot, if you hit the fairway more than 200 yards from the tee box, you lose the pop. GIR has been discussed thoroughly. Putting, if you have two puts or less, you lose the pop.

 

[JW Smoove]

Honestly, I think the pops need to be moved around more than say removed. I would say no pops on par 3s under say 175, but if a player could get more on the tougher holes or maybe just f**k it,. It's not gonna work, need a better way to play head to head ever this might apply more easily, or, I'll see myself out.

 

[RealPretendPsychic]

After 19 pages of this, I am coming around on the fact that many people have different flaws in their game, and maybe using green in regulation as the determining factor may be too narrow. At the risk of kicking off 20 more pages of debate, maybe a better approach to dynamic handicapping would be to have the player pick which one (1) of three (3) different areas they want to apply the Dynamic Handicap Correction (DHC) to:

1. tee shot;
2. approach (green in regulation);
3. putting.

For a tee shot, if you hit the fairway more than 200 yards from the tee box, you lose the pop. GIR has been discussed thoroughly. Putting, if you have two puts or less, you lose the pop.

I feel like I’m on the ground floor of a revolution. I don’t know what’s going on exactly, but I’m here to see history made.

 

[Golfers Anonymous]

After 19 pages of this, I am coming around on the fact that many people have different flaws in their game, and maybe using green in regulation as the determining factor may be too narrow. At the risk of kicking off 20 more pages of debate, maybe a better approach to dynamic handicapping would be to have the player pick which one (1) of three (3) different areas they want to apply the Dynamic Handicap Correction (DHC) to:

1. tee shot;
2. approach (green in regulation);
3. putting.

For a tee shot, if you hit the fairway more than 200 yards from the tee box, you lose the pop. GIR has been discussed thoroughly. Putting, if you have two puts or less, you lose the pop.

Forget the bronze statues, you’re destined for a Cup and your own wing in the HoF.

 

[JW Smoove]

 

[xThor]

After 19 pages of this, I am coming around on the fact that many people have different flaws in their game, and maybe using green in regulation as the determining factor may be too narrow. At the risk of kicking off 20 more pages of debate, maybe a better approach to dynamic handicapping would be to have the player pick which one (1) of three (3) different areas they want to apply the Dynamic Handicap Correction (DHC) to:

1. tee shot;
2. approach (green in regulation);
3. putting.

For a tee shot, if you hit the fairway more than 200 yards from the tee box, you lose the pop. GIR has been discussed thoroughly. Putting, if you have too puts or less, you lose the pop.

I think it’s still GIR.
By all statistical/analytical points, GIR is the biggest impact/indicator on score. A 15 handicap should average between 4 to 5 GIRs a round.
So for those 4 to 5 holes, it’s going to be a nearly 2 stroke swing in favor of the player getting a pop, considering 1) they are getting a stroke, and, 2) scoring on the green is roughly 1 stroke better than being off of the green.

In match play, that is a clear advantage that only a player getting a pop will see. In a wider range between the handicaps, a two stroke turnabout clearly favors the higher handicap player, an advantage that a lower handicap player will never see.

I admit when we talked about this in Myrtle Beach I was skeptical, but in my eyes the data firmly suggests that this can create equitable holes between players and/or the course, without placing undue burden on either player. It simply creates a safety net for a higher handicap player in the event they need it on a hole.

 

[Greg Kulbick]

After 19 pages of this, I am coming around on the fact that many people have different flaws in their game, and maybe using green in regulation as the determining factor may be too narrow. At the risk of kicking off 20 more pages of debate, maybe a better approach to dynamic handicapping would be to have the player pick which one (1) of three (3) different areas they want to apply the Dynamic Handicap Correction (DHC) to:

1. tee shot;
2. approach (green in regulation);
3. putting.

For a tee shot, if you hit the fairway more than 200 yards from the tee box, you lose the pop. GIR has been discussed thoroughly. Putting, if you have two puts or less, you lose the pop.

New metric. When we play a match, I get to pick how many strokes you get and where to apply them, after the round is over.

 

[blugold]

I heard dynamic handicapping is being named after bluegold.

Whose that?

 

[Moose4263]

Really all it boils down to is whoever you are playing agreeing to terms. If everyone agrees to this, then fine. Personally, I wouldnt agree to it.

 

[blugold]

That is not about the league I am in. If the only way to make money in any league then you will get sandbaggers to win that money. It doesn't matter if it is for a nickel or thousands. To win skins or CTP you actually have to do something good on the course.

Right, because people are dishonest. In general, I agree, and dishonest ruin things for others. But that's not the fault of the handicap system and this dynamic system will not fix that. Heck, on the first page of this thread people figured out a way to exploit this idea.

 

[BigDill]

I think it’s still GIR.
By all statistical/analytical points, GIR is the biggest impact/indicator on score. A 15 handicap should average between 4 to 5 GIRs a round.
So for those 4 to 5 holes, it’s going to be a nearly 2 stroke swing in favor of the player getting a pop, considering 1) they are getting a stroke, and, 2) scoring on the green is roughly 1 stroke better than being off of the green.

In match play, that is a clear advantage that only a player getting a pop will see. In a wider range between the handicaps, a two stroke turnabout clearly favors the higher handicap player, an advantage that a lower handicap player will never see.

I admit when we talked about this in Myrtle Beach I was skeptical, but in my eyes the data firmly suggests that this can create equitable holes between players and/or the course, without placing undue burden on either player. It simply creates a safety net for a higher handicap player in the event they need it on a hole.

I really appreciate you taking a deep dive into the stats and considering it fairly. I honestly think it’s an idea worth discussion and consideration, all jokes aside.

 

[blugold]

I think it’s still GIR.
By all statistical/analytical points, GIR is the biggest impact/indicator on score. A 15 handicap should average between 4 to 5 GIRs a round.
So for those 4 to 5 holes, it’s going to be a nearly 2 stroke swing in favor of the player getting a pop, considering 1) they are getting a stroke, and, 2) scoring on the green is roughly 1 stroke better than being off of the green.

In match play, that is a clear advantage that only a player getting a pop will see. In a wider range between the handicaps, a two stroke turnabout clearly favors the higher handicap player, an advantage that a lower handicap player will never see.

I admit when we talked about this in Myrtle Beach I was skeptical, but in my eyes the data firmly suggests that this can create equitable holes between players and/or the course, without placing undue burden on either player. It simply creates a safety net for a higher handicap player in the event they need it on a hole.

But GIR is not an officially recognized condition of the game within the governing bodies. "Green in Regulation" is not mentioned in the USGA or R&A rules.

You're asking the governing bodies to differentiate or weight strokes from specific places on a golf course. I can't believe I'm going to type this, but this is not in the spirit of the game. Every stroke counts the same and has the same importance. A 300 yard drive is as impactful on a scorecard as a 6" putt. To weight any stroke differently based on where it's played seems like a regression.

 

[Parrot]

I heard dynamic handicapping is being named after bluegold.

Bluegoal.

 

[OldandStiff]

But GIR is not an officially recognized condition of the game within the governing bodies. "Green in Regulation" is not mentioned in the USGA or R&A rules.

You're asking the governing bodies to differentiate or weight strokes from specific places on a golf course. I can't believe I'm going to type this, but this is not in the spirit of the game. Every stroke counts the same and has the same importance. A 300 yard drive is as impactful on a scorecard as a 6" putt. To weight any stroke differently based on where it's played seems like a regression.

Net Ace isn't in the spirit of the game, but we see that all the time. This is about a system, not the spirit. That checked out as soon as the system was brought in. We're just taking about correcting its flaws.

 

[xThor]

But GIR is not an officially recognized condition of the game within the governing bodies. "Green in Regulation" is not mentioned in the USGA or R&A rules.

You're asking the governing bodies to differentiate or weight strokes from specific places on a golf course. I can't believe I'm going to type this, but this is not in the spirit of the game. Every stroke counts the same and has the same importance. A 300 yard drive is as impactful on a scorecard as a 6" putt. To weight any stroke differently based on where it's played seems like a regression.

Handicap wasn’t an officially recognized condition of the game for the first, what, 175 years of the sport? Things can, and do, change.

Every stroke does not count the same, as a stroke for a net triple bogey is no longer a factor in your score. But there are metrics that clearly show what aspects are most impactful for score. GIR is the biggest one.

In net play, not every stroke has the same importance either. A birdie by two players does not have the same importance if one of the players is getting a stroke.

If the USGA can weight/differentiate strokes on different holes on the course, why can’t they differentiate based on a stat from a place on a hole?

 

[blugold]

Handicap wasn’t an officially recognized condition of the game for the first, what, 175 years of the sport? Things can, and do, change.

Every stroke does not count the same, as a stroke for a net triple bogey is no longer a factor in your score. But there are metrics that clearly show what aspects are most impactful for score. GIR is the biggest one.

In net play, not every stroke has the same importance either. A birdie by two players does not have the same importance if one of the players is getting a stroke.

If the USGA can weight/differentiate strokes on different holes on the course, why can’t they differentiate based on a stat from a place on a hole?

fair point, GIR is one of the most important stats and predictors of score, I agree. The handicap system does weight certain holes differently and those awful blow up holes, the net triples, still count on the day, just not in the long run. I'm still not sold on handicap distribution changing during a match. If the system was changed to just "no strokes allocated on a par 3, I could listen to that argument.

Net Ace isn't in the spirit of the game, but we see that all the time. This is about a system, not the spirit. That checked out as soon as the system was brought in. We're just taking about correcting its flaws.

I'm not sure a net ace is a flaw. Granted, I'm not a low single or plus and when I have seen a net ace it was from somebody who desperately needed very stroke they were afforded and those "2 net 1"s were/are quite rare. Both I lost to this year were by women playing on a -20 for a side. I do understand that the better a player is, the less volatility there is in their score. A guy playing on an -18 for 9 holes is tough, I agree, I've seen them shoot anywhere from a 46 to a 63.

 

[GolfFest]

I played a par 3 where my ball was one inch off the back of the green onto the fringe but only 10 feet from the hole. It made me think of this thread and the idea of getting an extra stroke because it was one inch further seemed flawed.

It was technically not a gir but the strokes gained metric would give the approach more value than other spots that were on the green.

 

[BigDill]

I played a par 3 where my ball was one inch off the back of the green onto the fringe but only 10 feet from the hole. It made me think of this thread and the idea of getting an extra stroke because it was one inch further seemed flawed.

It was technically not a gir but the strokes gained metric would give the approach more value than other spots that were on the green.

I am having trouble understanding why the entire idea is flawed because of this one situation where a ball is on the fringe but nonetheless close to the hole. Just out of curiosity, did you hole out from the fringe?

I see this situation akin to blasting a ball off the tee towards the woods, only to hit a tree and have it bounce back into the fairway. These things just happen in golf, and it’s part of the game.

 

[blugold]

I am having trouble understanding why the entire idea is flawed because of this one situation where a ball is on the fringe but nonetheless close to the hole. Just out of curiosity, did you hole out from the fringe?

I see this situation akin to blasting a ball off the tee towards the woods, only to hit a tree and have it bounce back into the fairway. These things just happen in golf, and it’s part of the game.

Kind of like a 36 capper getting a birdie on a par 3.

 

[blugold]

@BigDill I know it's not dynamic, but I would entertain a discussion that in a match play setting a player receiving a handicap stroke on every hole is only entitled to 83.3% (rounded to the next number) of the handicap strokes.

In a stroke play setting, no net scores better than a net birdie.

 

[Phil75070]

With the present handicap system, it is cut and dried before the round where you are getting or giving strokes. I would not enter a match where "dynamic" handicaps are involved. I believe the Rules state that if any part of the ball is touching the green it is considered on the green, but in those instances where the ball is half on and half off it could lead to unneeded disagreements. No thanks!

 

[BigDill]

Kind of like a 36 capper getting a birdie on a par 3.

Gross?

 

[BigDill]

@BigDill I know it's not dynamic, but I would entertain a discussion that in a match play setting a player receiving a handicap stroke on every hole is only entitled to 83.3% (rounded to the next number) of the handicap strokes.

In a stroke play setting, no net scores better than a net birdie.

Is that a firm counteroffer? I’m just kidding. But I am not sure it’s really much different from a practical matter.

 

[goalie]

I've thought about this a decent amount, and discussed it with friends who are also "bogey" golfers in my league.

Everyone is in the "hell no" camp. Hitting a GIR might happen 3-4 times a round, and changing the hole's stroke allocation due to a good shot is, in everyone's opinion, B as in B, S as in S.

To a man, everyone plays in our league that does a "league only" cap, and, having seen the cheaters leave, we all are of the opinion that the issue isn't the handicap system, but the cheaters, and changing the system will just change how the cheaters cheat. By going league only, we got the cheaters to leave. Every. Last. One. They said it wasn't "fair" that their 102 rounds didn't "count" while they shot under 45 for league 9's every week.

For general use, I don't know what the "solution" is, but for a league, being an 80 percenter until you have enough league rounds for a league cap is working really, really well for us.

 

[BigDill]

I've thought about this a decent amount, and discussed it with friends who are also "bogey" golfers in my league.

Everyone is in the "hell no" camp. Hitting a GIR might happen 3-4 times a round, and changing the hole's stroke allocation due to a good shot is, in everyone's opinion, B as in B, S as in S.

To a man, everyone plays in our league that does a "league only" cap, and, having seen the cheaters leave, we all are of the opinion that the issue isn't the handicap system, but the cheaters, and changing the system will just change how the cheaters cheat. By going league only, we got the cheaters to leave. Every. Last. One. They said it wasn't "fair" that their 102 rounds didn't "count" while they shot under 45 for league 9's every week.

For general use, I don't know what the "solution" is, but for a league, being an 80 percenter until you have enough league rounds for a league cap is working really, really well for us.

I understand your post and point, but a handicap is used outside of local leagues as well. When I play with my regular group it’s not an issue. But if you play Spark or Grint or travel and play, it becomes more of an issue, and something that I think could help even the fairness of play.