@LouStagner As Sully Sullenberger would say, you’re forgetting the human element. The statistics of your billion shot database may not generally reflect the performance of high handicappers in a match against low handicappers. Analysis of only match play data would be interesting.
@LouStagner The analysis is not complete if you don’t also determine % time the low and high handicappers shoot net 5 or 10 over. They are high caps for a reason and will often hand a hole or a match to the steadier player.
@MidwestGolfJake Low caps always whine. Do you expect to win if you don’t bring your best game in a decent size field? If you bring your best as a 2 you will likely be several under par net with a good chance.
@LouStagner It’s happened in my league. Had an 18 for 9 shoot 41 net 23. Not a hint of sandbagging - I do all the handicapping for the league. No outside scores involved.
@LouStagner I believe that rare sensation of a perfectly struck iron is ultimately what addicts us to this game, which cannot be explained to the non-golfer.
@hutch_golf@professorreps If -7 net was so incredibly rare and statistically impossible, why does USGA have the exceptional score handicap adjustment? Are you equally scandalized when a 10 handicap shoots 99? Higher caps inherently have more variability in their scores. Perhaps just tip your cap?
@LouStagner The huge flaw in the course handicap is the largely arbitrary assignment of course slope and rating. When is GHIN going to start assigning slope and rating based on the ample data they have on every course.