HANDICAPS for Leagues

[Jon Brakel]

The more rounds the more accurate the ratings will be. If you look at 3 round tournaments, the field will be much more sorted out accroding to ratings than a 2 round tournament. With even more rounds, it gets even more accurate.



The PDGA takes your 85% best rounds or 17 best rounds per 20 rounds. So, after we get 7 rounds in, we'll drop the worst round.

[pat]

The handicap point system was posted before league started, the same rules that have been used in the past.

It looks to me like the handicap system that is being used is working like it should. All of the top ten players in Winter League have played at least 4 out of 5 weeks. Well 9 are at 4/5 Mirth, dedicated soul that he is, is 5/5. The difference between 1 and 12 in the Winter League standings is only 12 points.  

With a little luck anyone can still win this league. I say keep it like it is.

[pat]

After going back to look over the weekly score tables from the 1st five weeks of winter league and the ten weeks of fall league I have to rethink my position on handicaps.

From what I can see handicaps played very little, if any, part in the overall standings for either league so far. For example I can't see where the handicap system has made any difference at all in the first five weeks of winter league. The rankings by the straight score for each team is how the ranking ended up with the handicaps. And I think the same is pretty much true of the fall league. Maybe someone else could look over those stats and point out something I may have missed.

Other wise, going by that information I see no need for handicapping.

[pat]

I don't think anyone has proposed changing the way partners are drawn for league. I think random draw teaming of pro/adv with am/rec players should continue. In my opinion, this is probably what evens out the field.



We could also keep the handicap system although it doesn't seem to really make any difference. It may be more of a mental thing when you get spotted a point or two.





What keeps me coming back is how much fun  the league has been for me and it's the best way for me to improve my game. There doesn't seem to be a overbearing sence of competativeness. A more relaxed atmosphere I guess. I also like the fact that the upper players are very helpful giving suggestions on how to improve my game. Even players on the other team I have been carded with who should be trying to beat me.

I get to  see what other players are doing. How they approach a shot. Some angles or shots I would never think of to get to the basket. For me to improve my game I need to play with/against better players.



Last but not least, it's cheaper than paying Shawn the $25 and hour he said he charged for lessons. For only $8 a round he can teach me a lesson every Sunday.  Just kidding, he really wanted $50 and hour.

[drdye]

I agree mostly with the book Jon wrote.



In that its hard to say when someone should or shouldnt get a handicap, when there are so many variables.  But, what about someone who has only played a couple of rounds....EVER.  And lets just say, I get paired up with them.  Dont you think I should get a handicap.  I remember a time that Bill brought his wife Angela to play.  Which I think is cool, people out who havent played much can get a better idea of the game by watching and playing with people who love the game.  But it would be unfair for whoever that "newbie" gets partnered with for them not to get a handicap.  In fact is the 2 points that we have in place really enough for that particular situation.



No matter what, everone will not agree completely.  But if change is coming, then it should wait until next season.  Damon is right we cant change the rules in the middle of the game.

 

I also agree with Brett, modifications may be needed, but I dont know about dirsregaurding handicaps entirely.

[drdye]

Back to the topic...on best shot doubles....





Weither we keep the handicaps or not, we are still being "hanidaped".  In that, we all chose what division we play in.  For example, I play in ADV, but I think I am at the very low end of ADV.  And there is a big difference between say Brett and myself.  I would give him at least a 2 stroke advantage on me, if say we were to play any given 18 holes.  Maybe more.  My point is, no matter what we still are being handicaped.  And when we chose to play in AM, ADV, or PRO the information we have to go on, is just as vague as our handicap rule as it stands.  The only way to make everyone happy would be to make a thousand different classifications, for people to chose from, in order to find out what your handicap is.  



But we cant make everyone happy, so I think we should all just vote on weither we should have them or not.  I am not certin, but I lean towards keeping the handicaps as is.

[damonshort]

I'd say you have to leave the rules the way they are until the session finishes; but I'm not entirely clear on how the handicap exactly works - I assume if there's one pro on the card, no handicap; one adv (no pro), 1 stroke; 2 ams - 2 strokes(?).



I can see how it's dicey since on any given day there might not be much difference between pro/adv and adv/am, so ultimately I might go with eliminating handicaps for this - the better players are the better players, after all, and deserve to win if they're playing better - but ya can't change the rules in the middle of the game.



I'd like to toss another monkey wrench into the works, though. What about splitting the points for ties - playoff for the cash, fine, but for example in a four-way tie each team would get 7 pts (10-8-6-4). This divides out evenly up to a 6-way tie for 1st. Beyond that, the 'odd points' would go to a playoff winner. (If you're following this, it *could* happen on a 6-way tie for 2nd, or a 5-way tie for 3rd, but figure the odds on any of these being somewhere close to that of me hanging onto my bagtag beyond next weekend....)



Just a thought, and honestly it has nothing to do with Jon & me finishing 4th in the 4-way playoff today, I'd been thinking of this earlier.

[damonshort]

Shawn (02-03-2003 09:27 a.m.):

If everyone shared the points, the four teams would have gotten 4 points each, not 10.

10+8+6+4 (1st-4th place) = 28; 28/4=7

[damonshort]

Jim (02-05-2003 09:59 a.m.):







Oh, BTW, temp for Channahon Safari is supposed to be high of 26, with mod winds expected.

23 mph is moderate? :o



Hole #1 there is *always* windy anyhow; not so much a factor on other holes, there are plenty of trees that seem to cut it back, but I've never played it in Feb

[damonshort]

I lean towards keeping some sort of handicap but I'm not passionate about it - in fact, this is the first place I'd encountered it.



I *would* be more passionate about keeping the upper/lower pools, although I don't think that eliminating that is really being suggested.



As I mentioned before, though, I think there should be some sort of penalty/reward for two-uppers or two-lowers on a team. Beyond that I don't see a real need for handicaps.

[ochreogre]

Jim (02-05-2003 09:59 a.m.):

We also need volunteers to help teach a weekly class for which we will be paid. It is through the Waukegan Park District and will be at Bevier on Tuesdays from 6-7pm. Anyone interested in teaching between 5-30 people for 4 weeks (total 4 hours)? Let me know. We would be doing two 4-week sessions: (1) June 10th - July 1st  and  (2) July 15th - August 5th.

This will be discussed at the meeting this Sunday.

I will not be able to make it to either this Safari round Saturday or to the meeting Sunday, I've got a family event to attend (grrrr...).  Will more information on this class be available on a post somewhere after the meeting?  I can probably volunteer for it, heck, after my performance on Saturday, I may end up taking it!  :D

[ochreogre]

Jim (02-06-2003 09:37 p.m.):

OK, another thing to vote on at Sunday's meeting. If you can't make it, voice your vote here.

As a definite AM player (since nothing lower is offered ;) ) here is my opinion on handicaps:



For random doubles, no matter what the format (shadow, best shot, etc.) lose them.  One week I could get paired up with Brett, Shawn, Jim, Al, one of the Brakel Bros, etc, etc, (the list of people better than I is quite extensive, so I will stop there), the next, I could get paired with 10yr old Sally playing her first round ever.  The random draw part of it evens the field enough that I don't think handicapping is necessary.  In case of tie, do a random or safari CTP (decided before the round), and see what happens.  The one thing I would add would be that teams need to change week to week to keep the randomness of it intact.  



For singles:

Fact #1: Playing against someone better than you will improve your own game over time.

Fact#2:  In the short run, it's going to cost you.

 

Think of it as a paid for lesson (in humility, if nothing else), cuz you are going to get whupped on, so pay attention to what is happening and let it help you improve your own game.  In singles, though, I think handicapping is necessary only if you are an AM/Lower matched against a Adv/Pro/Upper.  Especially if you want to keep people coming back, got to give everyone a chance!  Paying $7 to get your butt handed to you week after week is not likely to maintain the masses.  I like Jon's idea about a player rating, but what would it be based on?   Someone who regularly plays Bevier under par would obviously have a better ranking than someone who can only par it on a good day, but how do you figure out the inbetween?  Anyway, handicaps have got to be used to keep the interest and the people, but at the same time, the person who had the best round (not always the best player, mind you) is definitely entitled to their win.