|
Post by slowroll on Jun 13, 2011 9:34:31 GMT -5
In other words, I don't think the handicap took much off of the better teams. They played most well and the tough shot format didn't faze them much -- especially from the red tees. I disagree with this statement because we had 5 drives within 15' for the duece that second round that we ended up taking a 3 on all 5 of those holes because of the format. Ambrose and I may have been looking at a round in the 30's had we not been hamstrung round 2. It was really exciting to try out something new, but I have to be honest with you. It wasn't very fun to play the second round like that. Knowing what I know now, I would definately go back and sandbag(not make some of those putts round 1) to not get punished times 2 for round 2. I now understand why Mt. Man, Rodney, and those guys hate handicapped events so much. It really stinks to get punished for your good play all in the name of "balancing out the field". Worst shot sounds nice, too. I have never played alternating shot, but would like too. Ron I would also be in favor for trying out some more of these fun formats, and I'd do it for free. I think that alternating shot the whole way through for everybody would be fair and fun with some hilarous "What kind of mess did you leave me here partner?" moments ;D.
|
|
|
Post by RD on Jun 14, 2011 9:03:48 GMT -5
In other words, I don't think the handicap took much off of the better teams. They played most well and the tough shot format didn't faze them much -- especially from the red tees. I disagree with this statement because we had 5 drives within 15' for the duece that second round that we ended up taking a 3 on all 5 of those holes because of the format. Ambrose and I may have been looking at a round in the 30's had we not been hamstrung round 2. It was really exciting to try out something new, but I have to be honest with you. It wasn't very fun to play the second round like that. Knowing what I know now, I would definately go back and sandbag(not make some of those putts round 1) to not get punished times 2 for round 2. I now understand why Mt. Man, Rodney, and those guys hate handicapped events so much. It really stinks to get punished for your good play all in the name of "balancing out the field". Worst shot sounds nice, too. I have never played alternating shot, but would like too. Ron I would also be in favor for trying out some more of these fun formats, and I'd do it for free. I think that alternating shot the whole way through for everybody would be fair and fun with some hilarous "What kind of mess did you leave me here partner?" moments ;D. Im not wanting to start a war here Craig, but complaining when you win (the score) (although a playoff loss) is kinda out of character. Try not to forget we always have new players in this sport, and sometimes it don't hurt to "level" things out a little for them. Look at the scores, the top 5 were the ones that had to play tough shot, and we still finished in the top. If your pro buds out there dont wanna play in these events, then so be it. But try not to dog out an event that was more fun than getting torched by seasoned players. our club has always invited new folks, family folks to join and be able to compete without feeling like they'll never win. I know you well enough to know that your not dogging us or the event, your very vocal in your opinion, and you know I can respect that, I always love the forum discussion. I think you had a good time, and I think you'll be back.....you can't resist it ;D thats why we play this game....and next time, bring home the "jug"!! (alright, I'm gonna take cover now, and wait for your response )
|
|
bryan
Fairway Flyer
Posts: 247
|
Post by bryan on Jun 14, 2011 9:37:33 GMT -5
Also, based on the conversations I had (and watching Keith and RDs round), there wouldn't be any benefit to "tanking" in the first round. Most players seemed to think that the format cost them about 1/2 a stroke per hole.
This is born out in what Craig said, too. Suppose his team tanks and scores the median 54 so that they don't have to play any shots in the tough format. Then, in round two, they make those 5 birdies for a score of 40. That's a total of 94 -- exactly what they scored in the tournament by not tanking!
|
|
|
Post by Ron Pittman on Jun 14, 2011 9:51:01 GMT -5
This is born out in what Craig said, too. Suppose his team tanks and scores the median 54 so that they don't have to play any shots in the tough format. Then, in round two, they make those 5 birdies for a score of 40. That's a total of 94 -- exactly what they scored in the tournament by not tanking! I hate that. Math wins every time. See, I thought that our 59 and 50 was a 99, but according to you -- it was a 109. Dang it. Math wins. Ron
|
|
|
Post by slowroll on Jun 14, 2011 10:36:29 GMT -5
RD, I thought I was just sharing an epiphany moment I had.
See... I've never been on the other side of the handicapping coin before, and I now fully understand why our top players dislike it so much. They (and now to a certain extent, so do I) view it as a slap in the face. We all intend for it to be a way to balance the players out, but what it is really doing is punishing the players that have put in the practice time to try and work on their games to improve. See... "Practice" IS the great equalizer. If you are tired of losing at something then work at getting better at it. Instead we give people at 7 oaks 15 strokes that only play twice a month, and that guy ends up cashing when he has a good day...by shooting 9 over. That seems wrong since the entire game is based upon scoring. Low score good, high score bad…
I understand what you are doing, and what the handicapping is all about, but most of us never think about what a true insult it is to the guys that got good the old fashion way... by working at it. I'm not trying to complain, I thought I was discussing because that is what we are supposed to do here. I had a good time. It’s never about the prizes or money for me, I’d do it all for free and oftentimes do.
And for the record Ron was my hero of the day. He played, had fun, and spent time with his son. That’s what I admire.
|
|
|
Post by slowroll on Jun 14, 2011 10:53:40 GMT -5
Also, based on the conversations I had (and watching Keith and RDs round), there wouldn't be any benefit to "tanking" in the first round. Most players seemed to think that the format cost them about 1/2 a stroke per hole. This is born out in what Craig said, too. Suppose his team tanks and scores the median 54 so that they don't have to play any shots in the tough format. Then, in round two, they make those 5 birdies for a score of 40. That's a total of 94 -- exactly what they scored in the tournament by not tanking! Bryan, you fail to take into account the one thing that even makes tanking round 1 a consideration. Every stroke equated to TWO holes of tough shot. For a potential 2:1 ROI. That imbalance was the issue I had with it, and I said so during the player's meeting. I believe now that RD agrees with me that it should have been a 1:1 ratio. I'm only discussing this, because I think we could improve it for next time. If you guys view my discussion as complaining; I will gladly just leave you all to your own thought processes that came up with this system to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by ambroze on Jun 14, 2011 10:57:18 GMT -5
I'm all in for x 1 instead of x 2 for the tough holes. Playing 10 tough holes did take a lot of the fun out of the game, I could have easily dealt with 5 instead of 10. Everyone would have been under the same rules except for the amount of touch holes to play so I would not see that being a big deal to change.
Also, how about determining the tie breaker on this a bit differently to give more of an incentive to the teams to play their best on round 1? How about which ever team had the best score for round #1 holds the tie breaker? This would up the play for round #1 in the future if we ever play this format again and prevent sand bagging. Let's just hope that multiple teams don't tie for both rounds. If so, then playoff like we did.
|
|
|
Post by RD on Jun 14, 2011 11:11:00 GMT -5
Good points by all, and all will be considered.
Slow, I didnt assume you were complaining, sorry if you took it that way. I just want to make sure you know that. Reading and talking are big differences.
Please always contribute to the boards, thats how we learn. And you know we love having you at our events
The biggest thing I agree with you about is the fact that I think if you want to get better you practice, if your tired of losing, practice.
This was a totally different event than a Music city Open, and we all read my thoughts on divisions and such
But, I am also if favor of accepting that new players have to start somewhere. By handicapping you, we are not taking anything away from the fact that your a great advanced level player, that shows on the results page of every tourney.
But having a friendly event that we all feel equal at every once in a while is a good thing
The club gained some folks, I meet a lot of people, I had a great time, and I will certainly do another one of these...there will be a few tweaks. Some folks will like, some they won't thats sports.
Again, this is not a peeing match, its discussion, without it, we dont discuss. Keep your opinions coming in, I always like to hear what ya got to say
It was the first time this format was tried, it worked great, with a few tweaks it will be better next time.
|
|
bryan
Fairway Flyer
Posts: 247
|
Post by bryan on Jun 14, 2011 11:17:53 GMT -5
First of all, let me address your second point: I'm not viewing your contributions as complaints; I appreciate hearing your point of view. That's sincere. There are two issues, though: 1) The general "fun-ness" of handicap format tournaments. 2) Whether or not this format worked as intended. With regard to point one, that's clearly just a matter of opinion. I enjoyed it, and that's understandable. I need a handicap or boost to be able to compete at all with you, Becker, Ron, RD, and the other really good players. I like our Crockett White/Red doubles format, because it allows me to contribute shots and not just walk around the course appreciating how good you guys are. That being said, I understand completely what you've expressed and if the shoe were on the other foot, I'd probably be less enthusiastic about the format. Point two, though, is a different matter. If the intent of the handicap system was to push the outcomes closer together, it can hardly be criticized - it created a three-way tie for first, for goodness sake. If tightening up the scores was the goal, then mission accomplished. You said: Bryan, you fail to take into account the one thing that even makes tanking round 1 a consideration. Every stroke equated to TWO holes of tough shot. For a potential 2:1 ROI. That imbalance was the issue I had with it, and I said so during the player's meeting. I believe now that RD agrees with me that it should have been a 1:1 ratio. With all due respect, I did not fail to take anything into consideration. I recognize that every stroke of lead was two holes of tough shot, but it was not the case that every hole of tough shot caused teams to increase their score by a stroke. It seemed to be, as I said earlier, about 1/2 a stroke per hole of tough shot, and so the 2-for-1 aspect of this format really helped create the tight finish that we saw. Whether or not that's fair or desirable is back to point one -- purely subjective. Your assertion that the format encourages teams to tank doesn't seem to match what people said about how they played. Give away a stroke in round one on purpose, and you'll have to play two fewer holes of tough shot in round two -- which will probably give you that 1 stroke back. Now, if your complaint is that it made the first round much less important than round two, that's a fair point. It seemed to me that the two-for-one format had the desired effect. Whether or not that effect was actually desirable is a matter of opinion. You should trust me on the numbers, though: I've put in the practice and the hard work to be a really, really good mathematician.
|
|
|
Post by Ron Pittman on Jun 14, 2011 11:57:22 GMT -5
Depending on the day --- I can go either way with the handicap vs raw score concerns.
Obviously we use raw score on our bag tag events. Everyone does. That doesn't mean that I haven't been asked if there was a way to handicap them. My answer was simply, no -- not without penalizing the folks that shot better. Not exactly fair.
There are singles handicapped league events all over the country. If they are run well, they tend to grow and grow. All a player has to do is show up and establish a handicap (average). Sorta' like a bowling league. Most won't let you win on your first or second event in the season --- they wait until you establish your handicap. It is a lot of record keeping, but the winner is always the one that shot well (for them) that event. Not a bad concept.
Of course there are a lot of weekly events around the country that assign a rather arbitrary handicap based on a guess. Some give mulligans, some give strokes, etc. That is a little loosy-goosy for me. Maybe more fun than fair.
I give RD props for designing a handicap event that managed to honor the best players AND create a welcome environment for the lesser skilled players. IMO, the best players (read: those who play more, practice more, etc) had this event sewed up from the get-go. It was just a battle (to the very end) to see which of the 3 top teams would be Jug Worthy.
In addition, the handicap method was not arbitrary. It was based on first round score. Math-wise, a rather decent approach. Was it fair? Hmm....
The teams that fell below the median and were given tough shot holes on the second round --- completed the top 6 of 7 places. Only one team fell out of the winning half during the second round.
And of the teams that were not given a handicap, only one team climbed up, but only to 5th place.
If the handicap accomplished anything -- it tended to level out the top teams. IMO, some of the teams embraced the challenge quite well; both with their spirit and their strategy. I may have mistaken that for having fun, but at some level -- I think they had some anyway.
If the handicap system had been truly punitive (Craig's word, not mine) then we would have seen ALL the teams in a more leveled out result. IMO, the best players won. How can that be a bad thing? (BTW, it is hard for me to separate the 3 top teams as round winners, they all won.) The tough shot was just how they got to the top. I think that is why I said that the handicap didn't take much off the winner's game -- they still won.
Ron
|
|
|
Post by becker on Jun 14, 2011 13:13:25 GMT -5
All of these intelligent views from intelligent people. And then me.
I loved the event. I think the scoring system was just about perfect in terms of a handicap. Jeff and I didn't score the best of the second round, but Pete and Stephen (with their second round 42) didn't go low enough the first round to make the playoff. If you wanted to strategize and tank the first round in order to avoid the 2-for-1, you'd have to shoot a 14 down to make the finals. Not impossible, but difficult. Add to that the fact that no one knew what the median score would be, and how do you play it?
Jeff and I played the best we could in round 1. I would have happily had three putts stay in baskets to take the 6 under in round 1, not knowing where the other scores were. If we were all actively networked and knew what scores were carrying the lead, the median, etc., then more strategy comes into play. As was, we merely played the best we could and handled the results accordingly. While it may have been a strategy to sandbag, that would have required information I didn't have.
The only time we sandbagged all day was our "putts" on 3 in the playoffs, when Jeff and I were lucky enough to both drive out of the woods. We could have gone for the putt to finish with a birdie. We both laid up - excessively. Otherwise, we went for as many shots as we could.
For our tough shots, we birdied 4, 7, and 12. We parred 8 and 11, and we sacrificed five-foot putts to take the tougher shots. On 17, we lost a great drive and worked diligently to earn our par. I'll concede that Jeff carried our weight and nailed all of our great putts, similar to the one Craig nailed on red 12.
Most importantly, a great group of folks enjoyed the day. Jughead and Shu enjoyed the Legos they bought with their shares of the winnings. (I bought a new wallet, since my old one never turned up.)
-- Becker
|
|
|
Post by slowroll on Jun 14, 2011 14:15:39 GMT -5
Slow, I didnt assume you were complaining… No you didn't RD, you just flat out accused me of complaining. Im not wanting to start a war here Craig, but complaining when you win (the score) (although a playoff loss) is kinda out of character. I don't really know you Bryan, but I will try to use my simple college educated mind to defend my previous statement. With all due respect, I did not fail to take anything into consideration… You should trust me on the numbers, though: I've put in the practice and the hard work to be a really, really good mathematician. Yes, you did too Bryan. You assumed that I would not birdie all the holes round 2 from the Reds. And you sir should trust me ;D when I tell you that I would have buried 4 putts for birdies for a total score of 8 strokes through those four holes instead of the 12 strokes we posted. If I wouldn’t have made 2 of those birdies round 1 and finished with a -3 instead of -5 our team would have scored better overall. So instead of finishing with a -5 and -9, we would have had a -3 and -13 for the 2 stroke difference I mentioned. To all in this conversation: I never said that it would be beneficial to play scratch golf round 1; that was an assumption by one of you. I said that we should have sandbagged a few strokes in that first round to have an opportunity to get paid off for it in the second round. I still stand by that because it was a 2:1 opportunity.
|
|
|
Post by RD on Jun 14, 2011 14:35:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tricky on Jun 14, 2011 14:51:40 GMT -5
I will add my comment. I have never played in any tournaments and I've only been playing for 1 year and I had a blast. Pete and myself played our hearts out, shooting low round from the reds, but still didn't place well enough to be in the playoff. We made pars on our 2 tough shot holes, huge accomplishment on 17!!!
I don't want to get in the mix of the arguments going on, so I just want to say I thought it was fun and if we would of shot a -13 under 2nd round and still been 6 or so shots back, it would of taken from our joy possibly.
|
|
bryan
Fairway Flyer
Posts: 247
|
Post by bryan on Jun 14, 2011 15:17:31 GMT -5
Remember, though, 4 birdie opportunities are only four full strokes if those are the precise holes that you would get to play differently by bagging two strokes.
Is it the case that you shot 3s on all of 6, 16, 2, and 9, but, if you hadn't had to shoot those with tough shot you would have birdied all four of these? I'd be surprised if those were in fact 4 of the 5 holes that your first post referenced (assuming those 5 opportunities were randomly spread through the round, there's only a 11.7% chance that those four specific holes would be birdie opportunities), but you can enlighten me if that is the case. (If you shot a -3 in round 1, I think that those would be the holes that you would have played as best shot instead of tough shot.)
Most players reported that the tough shot cost them about 1/2 a stroke per hole. :shrug: I can agree to disagree on this, but nothing I've seen in this discussion suggests than anyone would have actually been better off by tanking in round 1.
|
|