I disagree that beating 100 players is harder to do. Not if you are a great player, or the local pro, whatever. It is just more likely that there will be better players and more competition for you. ...
show more ›
I disagree that beating 100 players is harder to do. Not if you are a great player, or the local pro, whatever. It is just more likely that there will be better players and more competition for you. Take Ken Climo for example. He'd smoke leagues of 10, 100, or 500 players. Good players win, simple enough concept.
It is also unfair to say that winning in a league of 10 is just beating a bunch of bums.
The comparison to hockey scoring fits better with the percent based scoring system. IE, a point for a win (100%), and something lesser for a tie (although in this case all non winners at a league get a smaller percent of the total 100.
While equating a win in a league of 100 players versus a win in a league of 10 players, and saying its not fair that both players get the same 100% points has some validity, the percent point system comes more into play with the rest of the field. Notably second place in the 100 player league gets 99% while second place in the 10 player league gets just 90%.
The reason I brought it up in the first place wasn't necessarily to whine and complain. I don't care about the points or where I stand. I just wanted to discuss some options. I'm a career engineer who is heavily involved in analyzing data, statistics, and trending. I think there are better ways to mathematically calculate results and make things more fair, but it requires a lot of input and data. More than the average league wants to build into the system. I strongly believe though that a handicap system is the best way to improve league play and our sport for the recreational, semi-competitive users (almost ALL leagues). By playing against yourself, everyone has fun, and the sport grows. There will always be the whiners who want to continually be rewarded for natural skill and always taking cash at local leagues (and these same whiners don't typically do any more than they have to, nor do they travel and play unfamiliar courses, nor do they play competitive tournaments). I believe the majority of players see no real problem with rewarding the player who throws 10 strokes better than their average with a win. A hit round is always fun to see, even if it is just relative to averages at different skill levels. The same goes for watching an up and coming player continue to grow each and every week, getting better and better. Personally I'd also prefer to see my local league run this way. While we are non-competition based (except for points, because we only compete for optional opt-in ace pools, CTP, and longest putt during rounds, I'd like to instill some competition at least on a personal level by playing for and rewarding overall finish based on handicaps. Despite myself typically finishing high in leagues, I want no reward for a sub-par round if some other player has an amazing (relative to themselves) round.
Administrators, now that I am in MI, I want to contribute to this scene. Let me know if I can help with any data management or calculations on spreadsheets of results in an effort to build a robust handicap system. Maybe we don't have to do it ourselves here, DGU does handicap league play and we may only need to enter some previous round data, or have players do it themselves.
