Best Ball Handicap Allowance

[rzitup]

USGA has recommendations for formats here: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Appendix C Handicap Allowances.htm

 

For Best Ball, Match play that is 90%.

 

Two questions that arent answered;

Is it 90% of Index, or course handicap?  

Once you use the 90%, do you round up, down or up/down?

 

 

 

[Colin L]

Each player calculates 90% of his or her course handicap to get their playing handicap.  Then the lowest gets no strokes and the others the difference between their playing handicap and the lowest playing handicap.  0.5 always rounds up.  

[davep043]

Check the very end of Rule 6.1 and Rule 6.2 in the Handicapping Rules.  To get to your Playing Handicap, you first calculate your Course Handicap (do NOT round off yet), then reduce it by the appropriate percentage, and finally, round off to the nearest whole number.  THEN you do as @Colin L suggests, and as guided by the text in Appendix C, you play off the low ball.  If you use the GHIN app, you can simply find the players and have the system calculate the strokes to be used in a fourball (the formal term for better ball of partners) match.  

 

As a side note, I've read that in some parts of the world, the Course Handicap IS rounded to the nearest whole number, the Handicap Allowance is applied, and the Playing Handicap is rounded again.  The additional rounding step could make a difference of a stroke.  I'm not going to say one way is right or wrong, they've just made different decisions.  I've double-checked, and GHIN does the calculation in the way I described.

[Newby]

2 hours ago, rzitup said:

USGA has recommendations for formats here: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Appendix C Handicap Allowances.htm

 

For Best Ball, Match play that is 90%.

 

Two questions that arent answered;

Is it 90% of Index, or course handicap?  

Once you use the 90%, do you round up, down or up/down?

 

 

 

Follow your link above and then click the second link in that to 6.2 Playing Handicap Calculation).

[rzitup]

On 8/23/2022 at 8:06 AM, davep043 said:

Check the very end of Rule 6.1 and Rule 6.2 in the Handicapping Rules.  To get to your Playing Handicap, you first calculate your Course Handicap (do NOT round off yet), then reduce it by the appropriate percentage, and finally, round off to the nearest whole number.  THEN you do as @Colin L suggests, and as guided by the text in Appendix C, you play off the low ball.  If you use the GHIN app, you can simply find the players and have the system calculate the strokes to be used in a fourball (the formal term for better ball of partners) match.  

 

As a side note, I've read that in some parts of the world, the Course Handicap IS rounded to the nearest whole number, the Handicap Allowance is applied, and the Playing Handicap is rounded again.  The additional rounding step could make a difference of a stroke.  I'm not going to say one way is right or wrong, they've just made different decisions.  I've double-checked, and GHIN does the calculation in the way I described.

Amazing, I use the GHIN app all of the time and never notices the % dropdown.  Thanks.

[davep043]

6 minutes ago, rzitup said:

Amazing, I use the GHIN app all of the time and never notices the % dropdown.  Thanks.

Yeah, they've made it pretty easy on us.  

[Newby]

On 8/23/2022 at 4:06 PM, davep043 said:

 To get to your Playing Handicap, you first calculate your Course Handicap (do NOT round off yet),

In some countries the CH is rounded first.

[Colin L]

4 hours ago, Newby said:

In some countries the CH is rounded first.

And in some other countries it isn't . 😉

[davep043]

5 hours ago, Newby said:

In some countries the CH is rounded first.

I'm pretty sure I wrote an entire paragraph saying just that.  Do you have any information as to why that choice was made?  As I said, I won't claim that one way is right or wrong, just that they're different, and could result in a stroke difference.  

[Newby]

37 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I'm pretty sure I wrote an entire paragraph saying just that.  Do you have any information as to why that choice was made?  As I said, I won't claim that one way is right or wrong, just that they're different, and could result in a stroke difference.  

One reason is the charts that are published at virtually every course over here shows the (rounded) Course Handicap for the corresponding range of Handicap Indices for a set of tees. They would have to be 10 times bigger if the unrounded Is shown.

In addition, the PH %age varies with game format, so whereas a player may remember his calculated PH for individual stroke play, they will have to calculate their PF anew for a 4ball or Pinehurst.

[davep043]

1 minute ago, Newby said:

One reason is the charts that are published at virtually every course over here shows the (rounded) Course Handicap for the corresponding range of Handicap Indices for a set of tees. They would have to be 10 times bigger if the unrounded Is shown.

In addition, the PH %age varies with game format, so whereas a player may remember his calculated PH for individual stroke play, they will have to calculate their PF anew for a 4ball or Pinehurst.

That's kind of what I thought.  Its definitely easier to take some percentage of a whole number from the chart.  I remember those charts, but I can't say I've seen one for a few years.  For the folks I play with regularly, we've become dependent on our "devices", in part because the system has become more easily available, and easier to use.  I know that the second rounding step might make a stroke difference at times, as compared to rounding only once at the end, but I'd guess that over the long term things would even out.

[Newby]

21 minutes ago, davep043 said:

That's kind of what I thought.  Its definitely easier to take some percentage of a whole number from the chart.  I remember those charts, but I can't say I've seen one for a few years.  For the folks I play with regularly, we've become dependent on our "devices", in part because the system has become more easily available, and easier to use.  I know that the second rounding step might make a stroke difference at times, as compared to rounding only once at the end, but I'd guess that over the long term things would even out.

Yes, the majority seem to be using 'devices' now.

And it's only for the comp result, it doesn't affect handicap outcomes.

 

Edited August 30, 2022 by Newby

[Imp]

10 hours ago, Newby said:

Yes, the majority seem to be using 'devices' now.

And it's only for the comp result, it doesn't affect handicap outcomes.

 

Why does White and Red +1.3 to 0 get 1 stroke, not +1? I would think that a typo, and needs fixing.

[Newby]

6 hours ago, Imp said:

Why does White and Red +1.3 to 0 get 1 stroke, not +1? I would think that a typo, and needs fixing.

Par?

The UK does not use the (CR-Par) adjustment.

[Imp]

3 hours ago, Newby said:

Par?

The UK does not use the (CR-Par) adjustment.

Take a closer look. 

Values for course handicaps on the "Plus" side of (under) par should be +1, +2, +3, etc... Values over par should not have the "+", correct? 

 

On your sheet, White and Red +1.3 to +0.5 should be listed as "+1", and not "1". Without the "+" it implies that a +1.3 to +0.5 would GET a stroke, and not GIVE one back. Sure, everyone should know, but hey 'if the chart says it'. 

 

[Newby]

On 8/31/2022 at 11:25 AM, Imp said:

Take a closer look. 

Values for course handicaps on the "Plus" side of (under) par should be +1, +2, +3, etc... Values over par should not have the "+", correct? 

 

On your sheet, White and Red +1.3 to +0.5 should be listed as "+1", and not "1". Without the "+" it implies that a +1.3 to +0.5 would GET a stroke, and not GIVE one back. Sure, everyone should know, but hey 'if the chart says it'. 

 

 

I see what you mean. That chart is not from my club, it was just taken from the website of a company that manufactures them. I didn't bother to look at the figures.