Jon-
I looked over all the handicaps and your were right, I didn't update Jeremy's. It is now updated above.
If you play Saturday.
Jon 3 (same as Grant)
Cody 9 (same as Bart)
Big Mike 13 (same as Monster and Manga)
Nick 11 (same as Cliff and Larry)
If anyone objects to these handicaps let me know!
Smitty
Due to inactivity the KDGA forums have been locked. All past threads are still available. Please join us on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/groups/kansasdiscgolf!
Winfield Handicap League
-
cottenokie
- Posts: 494
- Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 1:37 pm
- Location: A. C.
-
Schoen-hopper
- Posts: 6301
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:58 pm
handicap system
Ey Smitty,
I'll be in Winfield tomorrow for some handi-league. I may bring some (other) donators with me. It is at 1:00, right?
I remember reading about how Rich shot the lights out and got robbed by an improving newby. Using an 80% system helps eliminate a lot of this, but it still doesn't seem quite fair. Using a max for the strokes given is a typical solution. I had a different idea about this that seems, to me, both unique and useful.
First off, when we are making a handicap system, it must be based off of a reference score. Par or 54 is standard. But what if your home course was in Beloit and -9 was a typical pro score? With even using a 100% handicap for the ams who average above 54, they will still shoot around 54 with their handicap and lose to under par shooters. One way to handle this is to give added strokes to players with low averages.
Another way that you could do this that would be course-universal would be to use World Class Par. For each player, you could track their rounds. With each round you would include the course played and it's respective WCP and the score for the round. To set the handicap, the WCP for the rounds played would be averaged, as well as the scores. The difference between the two is multiplied by 80% (or whatever you want). That figure is then used in relation to the CURRENT round's course's WCP, not necesarily 54.
This wasn't really where I was going, of course. We don't have WCP set and I don't think you hand out added strokes at the grove. While it may be more technically fair to do so, I'm going with the line of thinking that if a player shoots down consistently at the grove or other fairly tough courses, they deserve to keep their score.
Say you have par as 54 at the grove. Say also that you use traditional rounding when figuring average scores (56.5 =57). My idea was to use a sloped handicap percentage. It could go something like this...
+1, +2 100% Handicap
+3, +4, +5 90%
+6, +7, +8, +9 80%
+10, +11, +12, +13, +14 70%
+15, +16, +17, +18, +19, +20 60%
+21 and up 50%
Using this system would reward good play rather than encourage players to "work on their handicap" when they are having a bad round. There would be no need to throw out any rounds. What do you think, would it work?
I'll be in Winfield tomorrow for some handi-league. I may bring some (other) donators with me. It is at 1:00, right?
I remember reading about how Rich shot the lights out and got robbed by an improving newby. Using an 80% system helps eliminate a lot of this, but it still doesn't seem quite fair. Using a max for the strokes given is a typical solution. I had a different idea about this that seems, to me, both unique and useful.
First off, when we are making a handicap system, it must be based off of a reference score. Par or 54 is standard. But what if your home course was in Beloit and -9 was a typical pro score? With even using a 100% handicap for the ams who average above 54, they will still shoot around 54 with their handicap and lose to under par shooters. One way to handle this is to give added strokes to players with low averages.
Another way that you could do this that would be course-universal would be to use World Class Par. For each player, you could track their rounds. With each round you would include the course played and it's respective WCP and the score for the round. To set the handicap, the WCP for the rounds played would be averaged, as well as the scores. The difference between the two is multiplied by 80% (or whatever you want). That figure is then used in relation to the CURRENT round's course's WCP, not necesarily 54.
This wasn't really where I was going, of course. We don't have WCP set and I don't think you hand out added strokes at the grove. While it may be more technically fair to do so, I'm going with the line of thinking that if a player shoots down consistently at the grove or other fairly tough courses, they deserve to keep their score.
Say you have par as 54 at the grove. Say also that you use traditional rounding when figuring average scores (56.5 =57). My idea was to use a sloped handicap percentage. It could go something like this...
+1, +2 100% Handicap
+3, +4, +5 90%
+6, +7, +8, +9 80%
+10, +11, +12, +13, +14 70%
+15, +16, +17, +18, +19, +20 60%
+21 and up 50%
Using this system would reward good play rather than encourage players to "work on their handicap" when they are having a bad round. There would be no need to throw out any rounds. What do you think, would it work?
-
Schoen-hopper
- Posts: 6301
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 12:58 pm
Whoa! Good call Sandy. I was going off on a bit of a tangent.
This sloped handicap % business might scare the ammies or those who aren't numerically inclined. You could just reduce the handicap to 50% or so for everyone. That would work, right? Or wait, better yet, you could just leave it alone and call it a GOOD DAY!
This sloped handicap % business might scare the ammies or those who aren't numerically inclined. You could just reduce the handicap to 50% or so for everyone. That would work, right? Or wait, better yet, you could just leave it alone and call it a GOOD DAY!
3-5 is in the books. It was a day of records.
Results:
Name Adjusted Score (True Score)
1) Cliff 46 (57) $20.00
2) Grant 47 (50) $11.00
3) Bart 48 ( 57) $5.00
4) Rich 53 (59)
4) Jon 53 ( 56)
6) Manga 54 (67)
6) Monster D 54 (67)
8) Smitty 55 (55)
9) Shan 56 ( 60)
10) Jeremy 56 (69) **could have taken 22 strokes and shot a 47 and tied
for 2nd place.
11) Harv 57 (60)
12) Shoenhopper 57 (60)
We also had 3 people play just to set a handicap.
Cal-75
Kyle Shoenhopper -62
Plumen - 98
Ace fund $84.00
Gen. fund $154.00
Next weeks scores:
Smitty 0
Grant -2
Jon -2
Harv -3
Shan -4
Rich -5
Shoenhopper -5
Bowlby -7
Kyle Shoenhopper -7
Kevin L -8
Bart -8
Cliff -11
Larry -11
Monster D -12
Mike M -12
Jeremy -13
Dal -17
Cal -18
Brian -23
Brent H -27
League Records:
Most people - 15 3/5/05
Lowest scratch score - 50 Smitty, 50 Grant, 51 Smitty
Lowest adjusted score - 46 Cliff, 47 Jeremy, 47Grant
Birds on 15- Shan
Birds on 4- ???????
Aces- ???????
After next week we will have a bunch of scores from the tourney. These will count as scores for the handicap league.
Grant was the only par on 15 today. Harv, Shan and Smitty were the only pars on hole 4.
Results:
Name Adjusted Score (True Score)
1) Cliff 46 (57) $20.00
2) Grant 47 (50) $11.00
3) Bart 48 ( 57) $5.00
4) Rich 53 (59)
4) Jon 53 ( 56)
6) Manga 54 (67)
6) Monster D 54 (67)
8) Smitty 55 (55)
9) Shan 56 ( 60)
10) Jeremy 56 (69) **could have taken 22 strokes and shot a 47 and tied
for 2nd place.
11) Harv 57 (60)
12) Shoenhopper 57 (60)
We also had 3 people play just to set a handicap.
Cal-75
Kyle Shoenhopper -62
Plumen - 98
Ace fund $84.00
Gen. fund $154.00
Next weeks scores:
Smitty 0
Grant -2
Jon -2
Harv -3
Shan -4
Rich -5
Shoenhopper -5
Bowlby -7
Kyle Shoenhopper -7
Kevin L -8
Bart -8
Cliff -11
Larry -11
Monster D -12
Mike M -12
Jeremy -13
Dal -17
Cal -18
Brian -23
Brent H -27
League Records:
Most people - 15 3/5/05
Lowest scratch score - 50 Smitty, 50 Grant, 51 Smitty
Lowest adjusted score - 46 Cliff, 47 Jeremy, 47Grant
Birds on 15- Shan
Birds on 4- ???????
Aces- ???????
After next week we will have a bunch of scores from the tourney. These will count as scores for the handicap league.
Grant was the only par on 15 today. Harv, Shan and Smitty were the only pars on hole 4.
some folks want to bitch, it seems they've got that itch, to try and make smitty twitch.
they say that it's no fun, and that they'll take their pole-holes and run, they act like total turds, and wine about the the top third.
but it's because they're not winning, that 's the reason they're not grinning, and hell it sure ain't the begining.
going to O'Kelly's Peace.
they say that it's no fun, and that they'll take their pole-holes and run, they act like total turds, and wine about the the top third.
but it's because they're not winning, that 's the reason they're not grinning, and hell it sure ain't the begining.
going to O'Kelly's Peace.
It just goes to show ya, you cant' trust the Chinese.
-
Monster D