Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
Well, shouldn't they? Shouldn't Colorado expect to go into a hockey game against Montreal and have expectations to win in a fairly established playing field? If you make Colorado play short-handed most of the game, just so the Canadiens can be competitive, is that really a fair test? Colorado worked really hard to build a great team and be dominant in the league, so why should they be penalized because Montreal sucks?
That is how a poorly implemented handicap adjustment can be to players. It is why many clubs go out of their way to either monitor scoring to assign handicap adjustments for members or grant only a percentage of an outside player's posted handicap. The handicap system is supposed to make it possible for players of all levels to compete with each other, but for it to work it has to be closely monitored and regulated because scoring variance can play a huge part in these events. It's also why better players prefer a multi-round or multi-day event so the wild card round where the high-variance-low-score does not impact the probable outcome.
There is nothing worse than seeing a 4 handicap shoot a 74 (net 70) and get beat by a 25 handicap who shot a 92 (net 67). The better player did not win that day, but that happens. I stopped letting it bother me a long time ago and just focus on we're out there for the comradery and to have some laughs. It's all about the birdie juice and how many you can make your playing partners drink out there!
|
Based on the bolded, I'd assume you would endorse a system that strives to make everyone equal.
I see no problem with a high handicapper beating a low handicapper because they played great, compared to their norm. That is the whole point. Sounds like in your example you think the better player should never lose so long as they beat their own handicap.