Par 5 as #18 Handicap hole?

[Stu Grant]

Earlier this week I played the Dick Wilson designed Lucayan Course at Our Lucaya Resort at Freeport, Bahamas.  Because I was playing a match I was surprised to notice that the par-5 12th hole was the #18 handicap hole...the first time that I can ever recall seeing a par 5 as the #18 handicap hole on any golf course.



Although it is a relatively easy, reachable par 5 (469 from tips, 449 from whites), generally speaking shouldn't par 5 holes be stroke holes ahead of par 3's?  It seems to me that all else being equal....the longer the hole, the greater the opportunity for the lower handicap golfer to differentiate himself from the higher handicap golfer, therefore the "stroke holes" should come on par 5s ahead of par 3s.  

The entire course map is at http://www.ourlucaya.com/lucayan_course.asp
 
Has anyone else ever seen a par 5 as the #18 handicap hole before?

[A_Clay_Man]

I don't know if I've ever seen one, but certainly I reject the premise that Par 3 holes should be the higher handicapped holes.
This speaks directly to a formulaic method of appraching the rating (not wankhuring) of holes and courses.

IMO, the par three, or shorter holes like this one, are the way to combat tech, and a great way to Tiger proof. Especially since LONGER has failed at that miserably.

[A.G._Crockett]

It's very hard to imagine a course in which a par 5 would be THE hole LEAST likely for a higher handicap player to need a stroke.  The rest of the course would just have to be impossibly difficult for that to be a valid handicapping, wouldn't it?  Good place for some of our experts to weigh in.

[Stu Grant]

A.G.

I agree with your sentiments.  BTW, the Lucayan course is rated 72.1/128 from the tips and 70.8/125 from the Blue tees, so its not like the other 17 holes there are monsters.  

[ForkaB]

The par 5 9th at Dornoch is consistently the easiest hole on the course vs. par, for both high and low handicaps (the other par 9 (the 12th) is not far behind).  The 14th is one of the  hardest holes, for all handicap levels, vs. par.

Interesting factoid alert!

I just checked a few competitions, comparing the scores on these two holes and you know what?  The difference between the two holes for both the low (+2 to 10) and high (11-24) groups was EXACTLY THE SAME!

And, who cares about strokes, anyway....

[A.G._Crockett]

It was explained to me in another thread sometime ago that the handicapping of holes is NOT a rating of difficulty.  It is a rating of the likelihood that the lesser player will need a stroke to equalize competition with the better player in a match.  That's a fine line, but there is a line there.

[ForkaB]

AG

As my post above explains, there is (for just that one example) NO difference in relative difficulty between golf holes.  If anybody wants to do the numbers with a bigger sample, the data are available.  My guess is that the results will not vary significantly, and that an even distribution over the round is as good as any a criterion for determining "handicap holes."

[A.G._Crockett]

The par 5 9th at Dornoch is consistently the easiest hole on the course vs. par, for both high and low handicaps (the other par 9 (the 12th) is not far behind).  The 14th is one of the  hardest holes, for all handicap levels, vs. par.

Interesting factoid alert!

I just checked a few competitions, comparing the scores on these two holes and you know what?  The difference between the two holes for both the low (+2 to 10) and high (11-24) groups was EXACTLY THE SAME!

And, who cares about strokes, anyway....

Rich,
We crossed in cyberspace, but what are the handicap ratings of the 9th and 14th?

[ForkaB]

AG

#14 is 2nd HCP, #9 is 13th

[Jason Topp]

In Australia all of the courses had one set of handicap numbers vs par or for a stableford match and another for match play.  

This was apparently a cause of much consternation at Newcastle where there was a 6 month statistical analysis was done to determine the handicap numbers up to 36.  It was interesting to see that the numbers of 19-36 did not match up with 1-18.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG

#14 is 2nd HCP, #9 is 13th

O.K., so what do you think this means?  Is this a case of haphazard handicapping of holes?  I can't resolve it for myself, and it seems to me that the actual handicapping of holes is somewhat subjective anyway, since it isn't a degree of difficulty.

[ForkaB]

I think it means that on most courses it is a combination of balance (odds on the front, evens on the back) and a (misguided) sense of relative difficulty.

But, as I said above, who really cares?

[TEPaul]

"O.K., so what do you think this means?  Is this a case of haphazard handicapping of holes?  I can't resolve it for myself, and it seems to me that the actual handicapping of holes is somewhat subjective anyway, since it isn't a degree of difficulty."

AG:

Not really. The proper way to designate holes for handicap stroke allocation is to simply take a sampling (over 200) of low handicappers vs high handicappers (the handicap manual defines what they are) over a period of a year.

Then simply total those two categories, average the scores of each hole per each group and compare the data by subtracting the average of the high handicap group for each hole from the average for the lower handicap group for each hole. Then rank the holes 1-18 with the highest differentials being assigned the highest handicap holes.  

This is all just simple math and it doesn't lie.

Most people seem to think that the most difficult hole for the lowest handicap group should be assigned the highest stroke allocation (#1 stroke hole, for instance) but in reality it's often the other way around. The reason for that is the holes that are hardest for the low handicap group to make a par on, for instance, may not be particularly hard for the higher handicap group to make a bogie on and since handicapping is supposed to only be an "equalizer" then logically the higher handicapper doesn't need a stroke to "equalize" on that hole that's so hard for the low handicapper.

By the way, that 18th hole at my club, GMGC, is a par 5 and it's also the 18th stroke hole.

Another complete misconception is the par of a hole as it relates to handicap stroke allocation. If, for instance, you changed the par on a par 5 to a par 4 and did nothing to the hole at all it would not technically change the hole's handicap stroke allocation.  

[Mark_Rowlinson]

A lot depends on whether the course is used predominantly for matchplay or not.  For instance, the 18th hole might be the most difficult hole for all classes of golfer, but nobody is going to give it Stroke Index 1, because few people will ever get to use that stroke.  At Alwoodley the 365-yard par-4 12th is Stroke 2, but it is not a particularly difficult hole, and certainly not as difficult as any of those which follow it, which are rated 11, 9, 15, 4, 13, 7.  

Because of our liking for matchplay, most British courses are given stroke indices with the odd strokes being taken on the front nine and even strokes on the back.  

I took a browse through a few British score cards and, on the whole, most reserved Stroke 18 for their shortest par 3, others for a short par 4, while one or two allocated it to a short par 5.  I didn't notice any on which Stroke 1 was a par 3, but I suppose there's one somewhere.

[A.G._Crockett]

"O.K., so what do you think this means?  Is this a case of haphazard handicapping of holes?  I can't resolve it for myself, and it seems to me that the actual handicapping of holes is somewhat subjective anyway, since it isn't a degree of difficulty."

AG:

Not really. The proper way to designate holes for handicap stroke allocation is to simply take a sampling (over 200) of low handicappers vs high handicappers (the handicap manual defines what they are) over a period of a year.

Then simply total those two categories, average the scores of each hole per each group and compare the data by subtracting the average of the high handicap group for each hole from the average for the lower handicap group for each hole. Then rank the holes 1-18 with the highest differentials being assigned the highest handicap holes.  

This is all just simple math and it doesn't lie.

Most people seem to think that the most difficult hole for the lowest handicap group should be assigned the highest stroke allocation (#1 stroke hole, for instance) but in reality it's often the other way around. The reason for that is the holes that are hardest for the low handicap group to make a par on, for instance, may not be particularly hard for the higher handicap group to make a bogie on and since handicapping is supposed to only be an "equalizer" then logically the higher handicapper doesn't need a stroke to "equalize" on that hole that's so hard for the low handicapper.

By the way, that 18th hole at my club, GMGC, is a par 5 and it's also the 18th stroke hole.

Another complete misconception is the par of a hole as it relates to handicap stroke allocation. If, for instance, you changed the par on a par 5 to a par 4 and did nothing to the hole at all it would not technically change the hole's handicap stroke allocation.  

Tom,
I understand this, but what Rich is saying (if I understand him) is that these two hole had the SAME differential (at least for some period of time), but with widely varying handicaps.  

As to the 18th being the 18th handicap hole, is it possible that this is a reflection of the desire NOT to give strokes on the 18th hole, more than an accurate reflection of the differential?  I just can't imagine how a par 5, which would almost always demand at least 3 shots to the green for the high handicapper, could be THE hole least likely to require a stroke adjustment.  That's not to say a par 3 should always be 18th, or a par 5 first, but how can a par 5 be 18th?

[A.G._Crockett]

A lot depends on whether the course is used predominantly for matchplay or not.  For instance, the 18th hole might be the most difficult hole for all classes of golfer, but nobody is going to give it Stroke Index 1, because few people will ever get to use that stroke.  At Alwoodley the 365-yard par-4 12th is Stroke 2, but it is not a particularly difficult hole, and certainly not as difficult as any of those which follow it, which are rated 11, 9, 15, 4, 13, 7.  

Because of our liking for matchplay, most British courses are given stroke indices with the odd strokes being taken on the front nine and even strokes on the back.  

I took a browse through a few British score cards and, on the whole, most reserved Stroke 18 for their shortest par 3, others for a short par 4, while one or two allocated it to a short par 5.  I didn't notice any on which Stroke 1 was a par 3, but I suppose there's one somewhere.

Mark,
It isn't the difficulty of the hole that determines the number.  Read Tom Paul's post above.  Also, I think the odd numbers on the front, evens on the back is a general convention here as well.  It gets more of the strokes given earlier in the match.  

[Sean_A]

CONGU suggests that indexes 8-11 should be dispersed between holes 1, 9, 10 & 18.  They also sugest that the last three holes should not have an index lower than 5.  This system is meant to stops shots late in the game and thwart shots on the first extra hole.  

I am not at all surprised that a short par 5 would be a lowish index.  Most high cappers (16-24) can't reach in two and most single figure guys can reach in two.  Without a shot, I am guessing that the high capper would lose this hole probably 75% of the time.  Tom P. is right.  The logic of hard holes as low indexes doesn't make sense because a handicap is meant to make the game equal.  Of course there has to be a balance depending on limitless circumstances.  Nothing is perfect where handicapping is necessary.  

I prefer courses with the last holes relatively easy so even a high capper can get a birdie and hang in a match.  There is nothing worse than a player with a shots being allowed to coast home playing difficult par 4s like par 5s and looking for the low capper to screw up trying to make pars.  It is better to put the lowest indexes in the middle twelve holes of the round so the low capper has a chance to start and recover.

By the way, I notice that CONGU also suggests that single matches should be played at full handicap difference.  Man, I have tried this twice since finding this info out and I have been hammered by highish cappers.  I am not sure if I need a mental adjustment or if full difference is over the top.  

Ciao

Sean

[Forrest Richardson]

Rarely does the assignment of handicap involve the golf architect. Typically it is a lame endeavor of a golf pro looking at yardage —perhaps carry.

I am continually appalled at the handicap assignments of holes.

The true test of a finishing hole at a mainly-stoke-play course is whether it invites risk and allows an attempt to beat par — to gain a stroke against par.

Wilson's 18th in this case looks to be a decent example. Who cdares about the yardage!!??

[tonyt]

It was explained to me in another thread sometime ago that the handicapping of holes is NOT a rating of difficulty.  It is a rating of the likelihood that the lesser player will need a stroke to equalize competition with the better player in a match.  That's a fine line, but there is a line there.

All the more reason to avoid long holes being rated #18.

Regardless of which definition one takes, the fact remains that the lesser golfer has a far greater chance of finding more mischief either against his card or against a better opponent when asked to play over 400 yards of land before reaching a green complex, irrespective of what par the hole is.

If I had a sudden death hole against a much weaker opponent, I'd want it played on one of the longest holes on the course. If it was played on an uncomplicated short par 4 or on a par 3, he has less to achieve over less time to be matched with me when we are on the green.

[Tags:]

Tags: