Handicap Formula

Timid Toad

Moderator
Staff member
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
Could have been lost during the recent AIUK updates. Dave is working on various things.
 


Rik

Supporter
Supporter
I thought the information was copyright. Not owned by AGB.
Information on it's own does not attract copyright. It's the expression of information which is protected. So, for example, a recipe or algorithm cannot be protected. Only the particular way in which you have written down the recipe or algorithm is subject to copyright, and only then if it is "literary" or "artistic". Copyright is about protecting "works" for an author or artist.

The "it's copyrighted" has always been a spurious justification for not electronically publishing handicap tables, I think (but that's not a legal opinion IANAL).
 


geoffretired

Supporter
Supporter
Hi Rik Thanks for that.
I thought copyright was about protecting "works" as you say. I thought the work/ research that the handicap authors/worker outers had put into the tables so they were meaningful, would qualify.
 


fbirder

Supporter
Supporter
The "it's copyrighted" has always been a spurious justification for not electronically publishing handicap tables, I think (but that's not a legal opinion IANAL).
Agreed.

The whole of the RoS and SAPs are copyrighted to the same extent as the tables. But there's no problem making them available electronically. I've always suspected that the motives were financial.
 


fbirder

Supporter
Supporter
Thanks. I've now understood them well enough to test a theory of mine -

The 252 Awards are based on imperial distances and 5-Zone scoring. I think that you'd also be able to use metric distances and 10-zone scoring, with the one compensating for t'other. So I want to calculate the exact (non-rounded) handicaps for each one and compare.
 


Rik

Supporter
Supporter
Hi Rik Thanks for that.
I thought copyright was about protecting "works" as you say. I thought the work/ research that the handicap authors/worker outers had put into the tables so they were meaningful, would qualify.
If that were true, then you wouldn't be able to do *anything* without infringing someone's copyright :).
The other big misconception is that you have to assert copyright... that little (c) you see on things? Meaningless, except as a warning. Copyright applies from the moment an original work is produced/published, whether or not you assert it. And simply asserting copyright does not mean it applies!
 


Dave

Administrator
Staff member
Fonz Awardee
Ironman
American Shoot
NOCO
Hi, apologies, the download section was disabled while I was working on bugs - enabled again now :beer:
 


Rik

Supporter
Supporter
Agreed.

The whole of the RoS and SAPs are copyrighted to the same extent as the tables. But there's no problem making them available electronically. I've always suspected that the motives were financial.
Yes, and vague comments about copyright serve to apply sufficient FUD to stop people (in the main) just copying the figures from a handy book and using them.
 


JackC

New member
Thanks. I've now understood them well enough to test a theory of mine -

The 252 Awards are based on imperial distances and 5-Zone scoring. I think that you'd also be able to use metric distances and 10-zone scoring, with the one compensating for t'other. So I want to calculate the exact (non-rounded) handicaps for each one and compare.
I've had a look at what the handicaps would be for each distance a while ago. 252 is not too dissimilar for each round up to 60m. However there is a larger discrepancy at 70 and 90m. At the shorter distances the metres target is further away and this balances the effects of being able to score even numbers. So in answer to your question, 252 on Metric distances with 10 zone scoring is pretty fair up to 60m. 70m and 90m 252 would be slightly easier than the equivalent imperial 252.

Distance252 Imperial H/C252 Metric H/CMetric Score with Imperial Handicap
207475254
306263256
405455255
504849254
604243258
80y/70m3439275
100y/90m2832270
 


Top