How to Fix the Broken Handicap System: Dynamic Handicapping
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2015
- Messages
- 15,570
- Reaction score
- 10,575
- Location
- Arlington Heights, IL
- Handicap
- 17
I'm just getting into this thread:
I still don’t see how making an error from the fairway is more deserving of a stroke than making an error with a putter. They all count as one stroke, and they are all important. Every golfer has a different game, different strengths and weaknesses and need strokes for different reasons.
Moose4263
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 5, 2020
- Messages
- 175
- Reaction score
- 145
I don't believe the clubhouse was actually OB. Nonetheless, great shot.
This is what you said in your original post. I disagree. The handicap system takes all shots into consideration collectively to provide one with an individual handicap, and the course rating/slope and handicap number assigned to the hole work in conjunction with that. It just doesn't take shots into account on a one-by-one, current round basis as they occur.
- Thread starter
- #533
It certainly takes all shots into consideration, but it does not weight the shots differently, even though there is a different statistical likelihood of success. Applying an overall course slope adjustment helps resolve that, but I do not think it goes far enough to do so, and on some cases may even exacerbate the alleged issue I am trying to account for and resolve.
The obvious solution is that all golfers are required to purchase a Shot Scope device, which will track their performance on all areas of the course. Each golfer will be given a driving, approach, around the green, and putting handicap. Each course will also be rated and handicap allotment given for each area, and based on your performance in each area relative to your handicap, as well as the difficulty of each hole in those areas, your handicap will be assigned in real-time as you play the hole.
I'm all for any efforts to creatively improve the HC system BUT in a nutshell, bolded describes what I see as a huge flaw with this proposal. Each of our HCs are an amalgamation of our relative strengths and weaknesses in the various facets of our unique games. I get that GIR and length are strong predictors of expected HC but there are certainly still a lot of golfers who, relative to their caps, hit greens much better than expected but do other things much worse. For some, putting is the primary reason their caps are as high as they are. For others putting is why their caps are so much lower than expected. Basing whether a golfer strokes on whether or not they hit a green is just too one dimensional IMO and assumes we all putt as well as each other.
I was going to add something like that to my post above, since, according to Shot Scope, I am basically a 10 off the tee, a 5 when it comes to approaches and close to scratch in regard to short game and putting. My thought was one would get strokes or give strokes in each of those four areas based on who has the higher or lower relative "handicap" in each category. Each hole would also have to be rated in each of the four areas as well, I think.
My point was trying to point out the difficulty in even attempting some dynamic handicap where it tries to account for areas of strength and weakness. It would be impractical, overly tedious, and would probably just drive people away from handicapped golf.
Who's keeping track of all this crap during the round? I have enough remembering to write down scores every hole
Obviously, @BigDill, in partnership with Shot Scope.
Copying this over from the Live Round thread.
Last hole, par 3, mine is 87 yards longer and she gets 2 pops. This is after tee shots. She's red. What's the expected outcome of the perfectly fair and non-dynamic system in place on this?
Last hole, par 3, mine is 87 yards longer and she gets 2 pops. This is after tee shots. She's red. What's the expected outcome of the perfectly fair and non-dynamic system in place on this?
looks like you’re off the green, which I’ve been told is the ideal scenario
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2018
- Messages
- 32,914
- Reaction score
- 46,867
- Location
- Oxford, Mississippi
- Handicap
- 10.4
She buys you a Coke float.
You hope that she sinks the putt and won't let you hear the end of it.
- Joined
- Nov 27, 2016
- Messages
- 3,612
- Reaction score
- 2,195
- Location
- The Land of Steady Habits
- Handicap
- 13.4 GHIN
So, I guess the real question is… just how much of a difference will all of these dynamic handicap metrics make in my overall handicap?
If I’m working my nards off to gather and record all this data, AND play golf… to realize a one stroke difference in my hcp., in either direction, then no thanks. It will suck the fun out of the game for me.
If I’m working my nards off to gather and record all this data, AND play golf… to realize a one stroke difference in my hcp., in either direction, then no thanks. It will suck the fun out of the game for me.
She 2 or 3 putts and you 1 or 2 putt and the hole is halved or you win. As someone who has to give pops on par 3's it is frustrating, but I still like my chances against the high capper. The system we have is not perfect, but in my experience it doesn't favor the high cap over the low cap.
I got up and down for par and she 3 putted for net birdie.
What happened on the par 5's?
I will agree the Par 3's suck. Par 3's aside with the current handicap system do you fill at a disadvantage playing hi cappers? The weekend game at my home course pays the low net round and low gross round. We had to put a rule in that someone couldn't win low gross and low net. Because the scratch or better were winning both gross and net. I just haven't seen where the hi capper has an advantage over scratch or better players in the long run.
I played the first 3 at -3 and took them. The 4th wouldn't have mattered because she would have closed me out on about hole 13. And I shot a 69 par'ing out after that point.