Myth 3
Myth ... 'Low winning scores suggest that handicaps in general are too high….'
Research
· A large number of stroke play returns were obtained for players in Category 1 and the nett scores plotted against frequency of occurrence. The resulting bar chart is shown below .
· The plot shows a normal distribution once again depicted by a 'bell shaped curve'. It can be seen that Cat.1 players typically score in the range 2 below to 6 above their handicap with a mean score of around 2 above the CSS.
In contrast the chart below shows the nett scores plotted against frequency of occurrence returned by Category 4 players from a large number of stroke play competitions and can be compared to the distribution for Category 1 players (as shown on the left hand bar chart.)
It should be noted that the number of returns from each category has been adjusted to the same total rounds to allow a strict comparison to be made.
· The above charts are the key to the understanding of golf handicapping.
· It can be seen that the scoring of the Cat.4 players has a wider spread and a mean nett differential of 5/6 strokes above the CSS, compared to 2 strokes above CSS for Cat.1 as previously identified.
· This demonstrates that handicapping is not strictly a 'level playing field' and that the CONGU handicapping system, as in all major handicapping systems, incorporates a 'bonus for excellence' in favour of the lower handicap players. The reason for this is that Category 1 players are set a more challenging examination each time they play i.e. the Buffer Zone for a Cat.1 player is one stroke compared to four for the Cat.4 player. In addition, handicap reductions for Cat.1 are 0.1 of a stroke for each shot below the CSS in contrast to 0.4 per shot for Cat. 4 players.
· It is worth re-iterating that each time a scratch player takes part in a stroke play competition his expected score is not to his handicap (i.e. nett differential of zero) but to two strokes above his handicap. In contrast if a Cat.4 player plays to five/six strokes above the CSS that is no more, or no less, than his expected performance.
· It is for this reason that it is necessary in match play to allow the full difference in handicaps to promote fair and equitable competition.
· It should not be concluded, however, that the handicap system is overly biased in favour of the better player. It should be noted from the above right bar chart that due to the greater spread of the Cat.4 returns, the two distributions come close together at the extreme left hand side i.e. low nett differential end from which the 'winning' scores are derived. This of course is equally true of Cat.2 and Cat.3 returns.