Handicap - how does it work?

Apophysis

New member
Have yet to post a scoring round yet, but really don't understand how handicaps are calculated, and how they are applied.
Hoping that someone can explain.

cheers.
 

Furface

Moderator
Supporter
Following the tables provided by GNAS (not available online for copyright reasons), each scored round is assigned a handicap level. For an archer to achieve his first handicap, he must first submit three scored rounds, after which he is given a starting handicap of the average of the three handicap levels for those rounds. So, say he scores handicap levels of 80, 70, and 60, his base handicap will be 70. From then on, his handicap will be improved every time he shoots a round with a handicap level better than his current handicap, to the average of his handicap and the handicap level of the "better" round. So our new archer:-
Shoots a round with a handicap level of 72 - no change
Then shoots a round with a handicap level of 68 - his handicap improves to 69 ((70+68)/2)
And so on. Your handicap never gets worse through the season, only better
At the end of the season, all handicaps are reassessed to the average of the handicap level of the best three scores submitted (There are a couple of added twiddles to use when insufficient scores have been submitted)

In a "Handicap Shoot", there are tables to assign an "allowance" for the archer's handicap level according to teh round being shot. So, say an archer with a handicap of 46 shoots a Warwick and scores 223. To assess his place in the handicap competition, the scorer adds the appropriate allowance (in this case 1114) and so his adjusted score is 1337. An archer shooting in the same competition could have shot a score of 53 in a New Western with a handicap of 70, and, with his allowance, would have an adjusted score of 1456, thus beating the original archer. They can be compared despite shooting different rounds and, in this real case from yesterday, different bowstyles.
Outside of competitions like this, handicaps are best used as a benchmark of an archer's progress. If you score a handicap level of 56 in a York, you are (theoretically) moving in the right direction from shooting a level of 66 in a Short junior Warwick. A very rough comparison, but one that can be made which, without handicaps, would be impossible.

Hope this helps. I am on standby for a flurry of further questions.
 

Apophysis

New member
Thanks furface, makes it clearer and can see how useful it is as a tool to monitor progress. I am still in the dark on how GNAS calculate the handicap in the first place, but will just have to go and shoot some scoring rounds and see how i get on, although I am using club equipment and with a 30lb deaw weight probably won't be getting further than 60 - 70 yards. Scoring well at 50 yards so will see how it goes.
 

grimsby archer

New member
I am still in the dark on how GNAS calculate the handicap in the first place,
A large sample of scores were analysed and the handicap values were decided from those values by a human being, who now owns the copyright.
Many have looked for an algorithm, or numeric progression through the values, but there is none. Just a set of arbitrary figures arrived at by informed guestimate, but seem to work as well as can be wished for. Some say the tables favour the less skilled archer, but I dont suppose the Olympic squad rely on the tables too much.

The biggest problem with Handicaps is that it is, at best, treated frivolously by the archery community. This lack of serious respect leads to anecdotal evidence of corruption and abuse of the system to the advantage of those abusing the system, ultimately resulting in a loss of dignity and respect for a potentially valuable system. In other words, if only archery treated its handicap system in the same way golfers do.
 

LunkShooter

Supporter
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
grimsby archer said:
A large sample of scores were analysed and the handicap values were decided from those values by a human being, who now owns the copyright.
Many have looked for an algorithm, or numeric progression through the values, but there is none.
There most certainly is. I reverse engineered the handicap tables 2 years ago and can reproduce the mathematical method by which equivalent scores are worked out. The formula is not subject to copyright because no formula is - Einsteins's estate would be minted from all the E=MC^2 t-shirts otherwise. You can't copyright physical absolutes like what time the sun comes up tomorrow. It might be illegal to copy someone's almanac but not to grab a compass, sextant and atomic clock and work it out for yourself and then publish it.

What is subject to copyright is which set of equivalent scores corresponds to which Handicap ordinate.

So it's not against copyright to say 1206 on a York equals 1311 on a FITA. What would be reproducing copy is saying what *arbitrary* ordinate in the copyrighted set of ordinates, I.e. Which handicap, that is. You could make up your own handicap system using the same formula and it'd be fine. The allowance method would also count as "copy" because the baseline total is also arbitrary.

The formula calculates the average arrow values when hitting the targets of various size at various distances at a constant average angle of spread. Pretty simple stuff actually. The round scores are then just built up using the various distance/face size data. Consider also that the raw data is rounded and so adding 300 and 250 from the distance tables might equal 549 or 551 for a round score with two distances, with a possible greater variance for 3 or 4.

Edit - actually only 4 distance totals added together could give a greater variance than 1, not 3.
 

Furface

Moderator
Supporter
... The allowance method would also count as "copy" because the baseline total is also arbitrary.
Is that entirely correct? The "baseline total" is the maximum possible score of the highest scoring round - 1440. While I can see that choosing that as the baseline might be classed as arbitrary, and hence "copy", the baslien itself surely isn't.

The formula calculates the average arrow values when hitting the targets of various size at various distances at a constant average angle of spread. Pretty simple stuff actually. The round scores are then just built up using the various distance/face size data. Consider also that the raw data is rounded and so adding 300 and 250 from the distance tables might equal 549 or 551 for a round score with two distances, with a possible greater variance for 3 or 4.

Edit - actually only 4 distance totals added together could give a greater variance than 1, not 3.
And then he lost me :(. IIRC, there was an article by David Lane on this in an early edition of AUK, which I might try to find and upload. Of course, that could also be copyrighted...
 

LunkShooter

Supporter
Supporter
Fonz Awardee
Furface said:
Is that entirely correct? The "baseline total" is the maximum possible score of the highest scoring round - 1440. While I can see that choosing that as the baseline might be classed as arbitrary, and hence "copy", the baslien itself surely isn't.

And then he lost me :(. IIRC, there was an article by David Lane on this in an early edition of AUK, which I might try to find and upload. Of course, that could also be copyrighted...
The baseline may look elegant as it matches the max FITA total of 1440, but the allowance system is purely additive so there's no mathematical reason for it to be so. The baseline total could just be 1500 with an extra 60 added to all the allowances - same result. So it's "chosen", which makes it copyrightable.

It sounds complicated but it's difficult to explain without a diagram. In a nutshell - e.g. for the same handicap arrows hitting dead on the 9 ring at 50 yards (9 ring diameter = 244mm) are assumed to hit dead on the 7 ring (diameter = 488mm) at 100 yards.
 
Top