Fair but Speedy Tournament Play

[iacas]

1 hour ago, Bonvivant said:

Well if there are 8 scores counted, one of those is 12.5%, so the fact that its a single digit number doesn't really say as much as it sounds. Maybe a third of golfers have one of these downward adjusted rounds in their 8? And I would imagine that in that 1/3 that almost all are above 20 handicap, which is the group the OP has.

Not sure what your point is here. It's just math, and the USGA shared stats with some of us: rounds with a "reduced to net double bogey" score rarely count among the eight best differentials.

Even in your made up example, if a golfer made a net triple that was "downgraded" to a NDB, his handicap index might be off 0.1 strokes.

Which means his playing handicap is quite likely to be the same almost everywhere.

[Bonvivant]

7 minutes ago, iacas said:

Not sure what your point is here. It's just math, and the USGA shared stats with some of us: rounds with a "reduced to net double bogey" score rarely count among the eight best differentials.

Even in your made up example, if a golfer made a net triple that was "downgraded" to a NDB, his handicap index might be off 0.1 strokes.

Which means his playing handicap is quite likely to be the same almost everywhere.

I was only backing up the OP that it isn't that uncommon when it comes to high handicappers having scores with ESC in their top 8. You seemed to write it off as an anomaly, but I believe that once you get over 20 handicap or so, it becomes more common. Since the average handicap of women is 27.5, I would guess that many of those golfers from that point and up have a round with ESC in them. I know it's not ESC anymore, but using it for brevity.

[iacas]

7 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

I was only backing up the OP that it isn't that uncommon when it comes to high handicappers having scores with ESC in their top 8. You seemed to write it off as an anomaly, but I believe that once you get over 20 handicap or so, it becomes more common. Since the average handicap of women is 27.5, I would guess that many of those golfers from that point and up have a round with ESC in them. I know it's not ESC anymore, but using it for brevity.

No, I didn’t “write it off.” I shared a fact.

NDB is the same number of characters as ESC. 😉

[Southern by Choice]

8 hours ago, iacas said:

Not sure what your point is here. It's just math, and the USGA shared stats with some of us: rounds with a "reduced to net double bogey" score rarely count among the eight best differentials.

Even in your made up example, if a golfer made a net triple that was "downgraded" to a NDB, his handicap index might be off 0.1 strokes.

Which means his playing handicap is quite likely to be the same almost everywhere.

The USGA stat you reference says rounds with a score "reduced to a net double bogey" rarely count in the best 8 for handicap purposes.  However, most people I know post only total scores for the round, HAVING ALREADY ADJUSTED THE MAX PER HOLE TO NDB.  So the number of NDB scores used for handicap purposes wouldn’t be immediately evident to the USGA.
 

For clarification, I started this thread with questions about weekly LEAGUE play.  When playing in actual tournaments, it’s usual for us to hole out—no max before picking up.

Edited August 27, 2021 by Southern by Choice
Clarity

[iacas]

45 minutes ago, Southern by Choice said:

However, most people I know post only total scores for the round, HAVING ALREADY ADJUSTED THE MAX PER HOLE TO NDB.  So the number of NDB scores used for handicap purposes wouldn’t be immediately evident to the USGA.

The stat is from the introduction of the WHS, so nobody had adjusted to Net Double Bogey.

The point was that very few rounds with a blowup hole counted in the 8 of 20.

I think some of you are over-stating the relevance of this. 18 handicappers aren't making quads (that would be adjusted downward) super often, and when they do, their rounds aren't often counting in the best 8.

[StuM]

26 minutes ago, iacas said:

The stat is from the introduction of the WHS, so nobody had adjusted to Net Double Bogey.

The point was that very few rounds with a blowup hole counted in the 8 of 20.

I think some of you are over-stating the relevance of this. 18 handicappers aren't making quads (that would be adjusted downward) super often, and when they do, their rounds aren't often counting in the best 8.

I've not really counted however I am a high HC and I think I have only seen the NDB adjustments on 2 or 3 of the last 10 rounds I posted.  Typically, if GHIN does an adjustment, it is only on 1 hole in the round and I just do not see adjustments on that many rounds.  I think this casual observance supports the stat @iacasis referencing.

[Bonvivant]

On 8/27/2021 at 9:01 AM, StuM said:

I've not really counted however I am a high HC and I think I have only seen the NDB adjustments on 2 or 3 of the last 10 rounds I posted.  Typically, if GHIN does an adjustment, it is only on 1 hole in the round and I just do not see adjustments on that many rounds.  I think this casual observance supports the stat @iacasis referencing.

I honestly find it hard to believe that a 25ish handicap doesn't have many +4 holes regularly. You say that "if GHIN does an adjustment, its only on 1 hole into the round and I just do not see adjustments on that many rounds", but all of the 20+ handicaps that I know are plenty capable of scoring double digits, on all holes, regardless of par or the hdcp of the hole.

Care to share your recent cards to confirm your argument? I'd bet that more than half have an adjustment.

On 8/27/2021 at 8:29 AM, iacas said:

The stat is from the introduction of the WHS, so nobody had adjusted to Net Double Bogey.

The point was that very few rounds with a blowup hole counted in the 8 of 20.

I think some of you are over-stating the relevance of this. 18 handicappers aren't making quads (that would be adjusted downward) super often, and when they do, their rounds aren't often counting in the best 8.

Do you have the proof for 18+ handicappers? You have been giving data from all handicap keeping golfers, which skew male and low. Neither of these groups apply to the OPs situation. Can you speak to the 25-30 cap player that the OP is dealing with?

On 8/27/2021 at 6:56 AM, iacas said:

No, I didn’t “write it off.” I shared a fact.

for all golfers. This post isn't about all golfers. You shouldn't use stats for all golfers when the OP has a very specific type of golfer they are talking about. Female, and high handicap. I bet you don't have the NBD/round stats for them, do you?

[iacas]

5 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

Do you have the proof for 18+ handicappers? You have been giving data from all handicap keeping golfers, which skew male and low. Neither of these groups apply to the OPs situation. Can you speak to the 25-30 cap player that the OP is dealing with?

for all golfers. This post isn't about all golfers. You shouldn't use stats for all golfers when the OP has a very specific type of golfer they are talking about. Female, and high handicap. I bet you don't have the NBD/round stats for them, do you?

I do have them, yes, and you’re wrong. In fact in counting rounds NDB adjustments are slightly more common among lower handicappers than they are among higher handicappers.

Even more true for women.

Anyway… just apply the recommended percentages or add a hard cap which is now allowed and go with it. Stand by your choice.

[pganapathy]

The reality is even a low handicapper can have a blowup hole.  If that one bad hole can drop a player from 1st to 5th for example, then NDB might only drop them to 2nd or 3rd for example.  There is no fair way to have NDB on a stroke play.  It can only be done with stableford points.

[StuM]

8 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

Care to share your recent cards to confirm your argument? I'd bet that more than half have an adjustment.

Score Cards.docx

I'm not sure I attached this so you can see, hopefully it worked.  I looked at the last 4 rounds in GHIN that I loaded hole-by-hole.  I will have to confess, I just lost the bet to @Bonvivant.  I play a lot of 9 hole rounds so my impression may have been a little off based on that.  Of the last 8 "9-hole" rounds there were 2 with adjustments but once GHIN combined into four 18 hole rounds for HC that did result in 2 of the four 18 holes combos having an adjustment which is the 50% he approximated.   Just in case you can't view the attachment, here is a high level summary.  Most recent round = 46+49=95 (Par 70 course) with no adjustments, Overall 4 Pars, 6 Bogey, 6 double, 1 Trible & 1 Quad.  Next round = 49+47=96 (Par 72) adjusted to 95.  The adjustment was on a par-3 where I shot 7 (Gasp). Overall 7 pars, 4 Bogey, 3 Doubles, 2 Triple, , 2 Quads.  Next = 47+54 = 101 (par 71) adjusted to 100. The adjustment was a Par-4 where I shot 9.  Overall 4 Pars, 5 Bogey, 5 Double, 2 Triple, 1 Quad & 1 Quintuple-Bogey.  Next round was 49+56=105 (par 71) with no adjustments.  Overall 1 par, 8 Bogey,  3 Double, 4 Triple, 2 Quad.

Odd thing I noticed is the worst round, 105, had no adjustments to it, thus you can stink it up and not get adjusted.

I realize this is a small sample but appears to support @Bonvivant.  

 

[iacas]

32 minutes ago, StuM said:

I realize this is a small sample but appears to support @Bonvivant.  

How many of those rounds counted toward your index?

And yes, it's an incredibly small sample size. It's like saying "there are plenty of fish in the sea" and then scooping out a gallon of water, not finding any fish, and saying "nope, that supports @Bonvivant." 😛

[StuM]

12 minutes ago, iacas said:

How many of those rounds counted toward your index?

And yes, it's an incredibly small sample size. It's like saying "there are plenty of fish in the sea" and then scooping out a gallon of water, not finding any fish, and saying "nope, that supports @Bonvivant." 😛

All of those are in my current HC Revision.  Some rounds in the current revision were not loaded hole-by-hole so can't easily tell on those but I just glanced at the next 6 rounds with stats and 4 had an adjustment to the score on at least 1 hole.  Granted I have been playing very bad this year with several combined scores over 100.  The thing to remember is I am 1 golfer and even if looking at 100% of my rounds I am still a small sample in the grand scheme of things.  As for the "Bet" with @Bonvivanthe was asking specifically on my scores and what my actual cards would support, and on that he was, unfortunately, accurate.  

[iacas]

1 hour ago, StuM said:

All of those are in my current HC Revision.

That’s not what I asked. How many of those were in the best eight of the 20?

Also, again, one player’s six scores is a drop in the ocean. It’s not only a small sample size, it’s something we shouldn’t even be talking about as it’s so ridiculously small it doesn’t matter at all.

I once had two 18-par rounds 2 1/2 weeks apart. That doesn’t mean it’s all that common. You can deduce absolutely nothing from that information.

Since the OP is asking about people who might win the tournament or league, a round thst isn’t in your best eight of the last 20 is basically irrelevant. That round isn’t going to win the tournament or league.

[Pretzel]

6 hours ago, iacas said:

I do have them, yes, and you’re wrong. In fact in counting rounds NDB adjustments are slightly more common among lower handicappers than they are among higher handicappers.

Even more true for women.

Anyway… just apply the recommended percentages or add a hard cap which is now allowed and go with it. Stand by your choice.

This makes sense to me, at least intuitively.

If a low handicap player has a stroke and distance penalty on a hole, such as hitting OB or not finding a ball in the cabbage, then it doesn't matter if they make par, bogey, or even worse than that on their second ball. They can play aggressively for a birdie on the second ball which would mitigate the damage to only 1 stroke lost, but if they make another mistake while trying to make birdie it doesn't cost them anything because a par on the second ball is the worst that would ever be recorded on the scorecard (a net double bogey).

If a high handicap player has a similar stroke and distance penalty on a hole, they're less likely to hit the net double bogey cap because they can still make a double bogey on their second ball before reaching the cap. Even a 36 handicap golfer will make pars or bogeys with greater frequency than most low handicap golfers will make a birdie. 

Mistakes are outside of the norm for a low handicap golfer, so there is less margin between their best possible score (played a hole perfectly) and the worst allowable score (double bogey, which could happen just from a single mistake). Mistakes are expected for higher handicap golfers, giving them more room to recover without compounding their errors and hitting the net double bogey threshold.

[StuM]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

That’s not what I asked. How many of those were in the best eight of the 20?

Also, again, one player’s six scores is a drop in the ocean. It’s not only a small sample size, it’s something we shouldn’t even be talking about as it’s so ridiculously small it doesn’t matter at all.

I once had two 18-par rounds 2 1/2 weeks apart. That doesn’t mean it’s all that common. You can deduce absolutely nothing from that information.

Since the OP is asking about people who might win the tournament or league, a round thst isn’t in your best eight of the last 20 is basically irrelevant. That round isn’t going to win the tournament or league.

I agree, small sample and my personal stats have little meaning on the overall numbers and never intended to imply that.  I was asked about my numbers and I responded, that is all.  To answer your question 5 of my lowest 8 had an adjustment.

But in regards to "Winning" I doubt my 5 rounds that did get adjusted (96, 100, 101, 102 & 105) would put me in contention even though they are in my best 8 for HC.

 

[Bonvivant]

On 9/2/2021 at 2:15 PM, StuM said:

I agree, small sample and my personal stats have little meaning on the overall numbers and never intended to imply that.  I was asked about my numbers and I responded, that is all.  To answer your question 5 of my lowest 8 had an adjustment.

I agree with this. It just happens to be that people that are over 25 handicap also are a small sample size compared with people that typically keep handicap. The OPs situation shows this beautifully. Talking about the occasional +7-8 on a single hole (12s and 13s she mentioned earlier, we will assume they are par 5s), that would get adjusted to a +4-6 if using net double bogey. A 30 handicap could easily have 2 or 3 scores adjusted down during this tournament round, play the rest better than they normally would, and win.

 

On 9/2/2021 at 2:15 PM, StuM said:

But in regards to "Winning" I doubt my 5 rounds that did get adjusted (96, 100, 101, 102 & 105) would put me in contention even though they are in my best 8 for HC.

96 minus the 23-33 strokes you would get on the average course puts you in striking distance of net scratch. I think this could win a flight, but if you were to add back in any "strokes saved" by NDB, you'd probably be out of it.

That is the entire point I was trying to make. You can't really have a max score per hole and have a fair stroke play tournament.

[iacas]

23 hours ago, Bonvivant said:

I agree with this. It just happens to be that people that are over 25 handicap also are a small sample size compared with people that typically keep handicap. The OPs situation shows this beautifully. Talking about the occasional +7-8 on a single hole (12s and 13s she mentioned earlier, we will assume they are par 5s), that would get adjusted to a +4-6 if using net double bogey. A 30 handicap could easily have 2 or 3 scores adjusted down during this tournament round, play the rest better than they normally would, and win.

Highly unlikely.

But you keep relying on your made up stuff and experiences, man.

And, if that's the format, that's the format. Kids don't bitch when in USKG events a kid makes a capped 10 but finishes third while they made a bunch of 9s and finish a shot behind them.

That's the format.