When the hardest stroke holes, aren't

[Peter Pallotta]

I'm an average golfer (mid-to-high 80s on a good day, well into the 90s on a bad one), but on my home course I have found, much to my pleasant surprise, that I consistently handle the 3 hardest stroke holes just as well as all the rest. I'm trying to understand more about this, and whether anyone else has the same experience and can explain what I might be missing in terms of how these stroke holes are ranked/rated. I understand that this ranking is essentially in terms of the relative difference in difficulty for a scratch as opposed to the bogey golfer -- but since as a bogey golfer I tend to par these 3 holes as often as the easy ones, that analysis doesn't seem to apply here. Just some background:     

The #1 stroke hole is a 425 yard Par 4, dogleg left, often into the wind, with bunkers on the inside of the turn and water on the outside, with a large back to front and left to right tilted green with an open front. 

The #2 stroke hole is a 390 yard Par 4, dogleg right, with bunkers on the inside and a smallish, perched and well-bunkered green.

The #3 stroke hole is a 545 yard par 5 with water on the right side of the landing zone, a creek crossing the fairway at about 300 yards, and a smallish upside-down bowl of a green that is semi-blind because of a rise/ridge and bunkers that front it.       

On the 1st hardest hole: yes, a badly sliced shot will find the water and at least one dropped shot, and the bunkers on the left are deep and benched into a hill, making it very hard to go for the green. But the fairway is wide and usually plays firm/provides a lot of roll, and the large, open fronted green seems to be the key -- i.e. even after a less than good drive, I don't need more than a long iron into the green, and from whatever angle I'm coming from there seems to be a lot of room/margin for error both left & right as well as long & short.     

On the 2nd hardest hole: the green is small and well protected, and while if you play short of the bunkers inside the dogleg you'll have a blind shot, that shot is usually no more than a 7 or 8 iron (and if you go right, the trees are sparse enough to allow for basically the same, and even shorter, shot).  But the fairway is wide, and anywhere left of those inside bunkers leaves you a clear view and not a long approach. (This hole surprises me most in terms of its ranking).

On the 3rd hardest hole, again, water on the right will swallow up a slice, but the fairway is wide and there is a lot of room left; and, while anything less than excellent drive (even for golfers much better/long than I) will force a lay-up second, the fairway here also tends to be firm and provide a lot of roll, and I can't remember the last time I had anything more than about a 100 yards left for my 3rd.  The only times I tend to not to at least par this hole is a) if I really slice it off the tee or b) I'm really sloppy on the green and 3 putt.   

In short, all I can see here with these three holes (actually only two of them) is that the presence of water -- and thus a watery grave and an irretrievably lost shot for slicers -- is the main if not only reason for their difficulty/ranking.

Am I missing something? Does fairway width mitigate other factors? Did the folks who ranked these holes get it wrong? Is the average bogey golfer simply expected to slice more than I tend to (currently, touch wood)? Is the scratch golfer simply expected to hit it further than his bogey counterpart, and thus always get to the "turn" in the dogleg (which in all three cases here is at about 250 yards)?

Thanks
P
     

[Jon Wiggett]

Peter,


as far as I am aware, the stroke index on holes is not to do with the difficulty but rather to do with the distribution of shots given in matchplay and strokeplay fourball between competitors. The idea is to ensure that strokes given are evenly spread as far as possible whilst looking not to give too many strokes on par threes or on the last few holes.

[Carl Johnson]

Peter,

First, as you recognize in your text, on a difficulty basis, lower HC numbers don't relate to hardness, but to relative difficulty (scratch vs. boggy) for match play situations (based on real average numbers from competitions, such as a flighted club championship).  (That's a little conundrum, using medal play scores for a match play system, but not unreasonable.)  Second, as Jon points out, where they fall in a match play round comes into play.  (E.g., no. 5 would be the first HC hole, 14 would be the second, and so on forward and backward).  And third, if I recall correctly (having not just now gone back and looked at the guidelines), the local club committee is directed to insert their own judgment into the decision as to where to award the strokes.  Those are the three factors.  And difficulty, relative difficulty, that is, is only one the three.  So, you just cannot say that the number one HC hole is the hardest.  It's not just that simple, and it doesn't just relate to how an individual plays, but to how the great mix of players play. This is off the top of my head.  For more (gory) detail, see the handicap manual (Sec. 17).  https://www.usga.org/Handicapping/handicap-manual.html#!rule-14403. Also, assume that your local club committee follows the manual's guidelines -- probably iffy on that one.

The "hardest stroke holes" (lower numbers) aren't necessarily the "hardest" holes.  At my home course the second hardest hole is no. 3, a par three -- hardest in terms of average score (for scratch or plus players).  Yet, it's 15 on the card.  Tough par for the scratch (or plus) player, but a "relatively" easy boggy for the boggy golfer (because it's really a short par four).

Another factor, or issue, in my opinion, and this is not based on technical guideline expertise, but on experience at my club, the "relatively" numbers are set based on both players playing from the same tee, in our case, the next to back tee, as I understand it.  Our number one HC hole from that tee (no. 4) is number one on account of a tough carry off the tee (both distance and fairway traps (whoops, bunkers)) -- not for the scratch, but tough for the boggy.  Then what happens when you have two boggy players, giving just one or two strokes either way, who play from more forward tees where the carry is not much of an issue even for them?  It should not be number one for them in their match, in my experience, but it is.  Now I suppose you could handicap different tees differently, but I've never seen that done (except that men and women are frequently handicapped differently, even from the same tees sometimes).

Finally, keep in mind that the purpose of the HC system is simply to give the higher HC player a better chance against a lower HC player, yet being fair to the lower HC player, in match play competition.  The guidelines for the assignment of stroke holes are intended to be consistent with that greater purpose.

[Peter Pallotta]

Carl, Jon - thank you, I learned a lot I didn't know, including about Par 3s vis-à-vis stroke holes. Two of the actual hardest holes on the course are a couple of the Pars 3s, both over water, both with severely sloped greens from back to front, one long and into the prevailing wind and the other tightly tucked in between a forest on the left and out of bounds behind and cart paths on the right....but they are only the 8th and 15th hardest/stroke holes. When I've been paired with much better players, I have usually held my own on the 3 "hardest" holes on the course, but then lost ground on these Par 3s...which had got me to wondering.

Thanks again
Peter

[A.G._Crockett]

Pete,
The handicapping of individual holes is left up to the club, I believe.  The local golf association will make recommendations if asked, but unlike course rating and slope, the club makes the final decision.

Unless your club has carefully studied a body of scores from scratch and bogey golfers to find out what is actually going on, it isn't out of the question that the club hasn't done a good job of this.   That said, the margins between holes are often very small, and the fact that the club is actually rating each side 1-9, despite the 1-18 labeling on the card, makes the job that much more inexact.

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks, AG -- see, that's another thing I didn't know: I thought the golf association was in charge of determining both rating and slope as well as the handicapping/rating of individual holes.

I wouldn't have asked unless the seeming disparity between what the card said and what my experience is was so stark; I mean, as an average golfer I might par a bunch of holes and birdie one or two occasionally, but I bogey a LOT of them...and yet it seems that I rarely do much worse than par on the card's hardest/stroke holes and then bogey a bunch of the 'easy' ones.

As you say, the club may have flat out gotten it wrong; but as I write that it occurs to me that maybe they determined the stroke holes a long time ago (the course was built in 1970), and I suppose the #1 ranked hole was much more difficult (relatively speaking, for the scratch vs the bogey golfer) back then.....though that said, when September rolls around I tend to start playing persimmon exclusively; I got a par on that hole the other day with a Titlelist "oil hardened" driver...but probably only because it has been so dry the last few weeks that my 230 yard carry became a 250 yard drive and got me around the corner.

Thanks again
P

[Jim_Kennedy]

Con:  You're a sandbagger. 


Pro:  Subjectively, players pay more attention on the higher ranked holes. 

[Sean_A]

Pietro


Golf associations offer guidelines on hole handicapping, but it is clubs/owners which actually do this.  Two interesting aspects of handicapping in the UK are not having too many low index holes bunched together and not having the first or last few holes as low indexes.   


I have long thought that the higher index holes are where shots should be given.  Most of the time, one would expect 6-7 and above cappers to bogey the hardest holes and as well as most 15-20 handicappers.  It is the relatively easy holes that we still expect the 15-20 capper to bogey, but not the 6-7 and below cappers. 


Ciao

[William_G]

Peter,


as far as I am aware, the stroke index on holes is not to do with the difficulty but rather to do with the distribution of shots given in matchplay and strokeplay fourball between competitors. The idea is to ensure that strokes given are evenly spread as far as possible whilst looking not to give too many strokes on par threes or on the last few holes.

+1

a popular misconception is to think the #1 handicap hole is the hardest hole

[Jon Wiggett]

Pietro


Golf associations offer guidelines on hole handicapping, but it is clubs/owners which actually do this.  Two interesting aspects of handicapping in the UK are not having too many low index holes bunched together and not having the first or last few holes as low indexes.   


I have long thought that the higher index holes are where shots should be given.  Most of the time, one would expect 6-7 and above cappers to bogey the hardest holes and as well as most 15-20 handicappers.  It is the relatively easy holes that we still expect the 15-20 capper to bogey, but not the 6-7 and below cappers. 


Ciao

Sean,


stroke index is not really to do with how hard the hole is or where you might consider one player will take a shot more than the other but rather it is to do with the distribution of shots given.


Jon

[Sean_A]

Hole difficulty is most definitely one of the criteria used to determine indexes.  That in no way means the hardest hole is always one of the lowest indexes because of other factors I pointed out earlier. 


I find it an interesting scenario when seemingly short par 4s are high indexes... it is very rare.  Little Aston has its 4th, all of 317 yards as it #1 index.  The club also very unusually has one even numbered index among the odd indexes on the front nine; the 7th is index 4.  It too is relatively short, but both holes have very solid sand protection and greens which run away from play.  That said, I think the club gets it right.



Ciao

[Thomas Dai]

Low stroke indexes are normally the preserve of long par-4's so if you notice when studying the card or signage that the stroke index of a par-3, a very short par-4 or a very short par-5 is low there's a coded message being delivered.
Atb

[Dave McCollum]

Peter, it's true when we print out the score cards, we just arbitrarily make this up.  We give it some thought and often are faced with a "coin toss" situation between holes about their relative difficulty.  If we have a bias, it is not to make the 18th rated as too difficult that it decides matches, but that works both ways, depending on HC, and pretty much evens out.  We have never consulted the USGA guidelines about how to do this.  We just make the call based on our experience of how the holes play for the most diverse group of golfers.  This rating is imprecise at best when we move tees, so as matter of  practice, when we have a forward tee moved up for that day, we play it back to reflect the rating and strokes allowed.  It's pretty simple:  choose the tee for the rating, no matter where they put the markers.  I do agree with the perception that golfers tend to concentrate more on harder holes in matches.  Back in the days when I was the low HC in a group of shitty golfers, I knew I had to par the hardest stroke holes and did more often than not.  Now, I just try to avoid a jumbo.     

[Peter Pallotta]

Thanks Dave, gents

I really appreciate the information/insight, and will keep it n mind the next time I play a (rare for me) handicapped match

I suppose there are so many kinds of average golfers that it is hard to determine which type of hard golf hole is actually hardest for most of them

Peter

PS - I played the course again today: once again, I managed a par on both the hardest and 3rd hardest holes and bogeyed the 2nd hardest....while double bogeying both the Par 3s!!

Maybe I have just started to hate this game and am taking it out on the scorecard....

[Dave McCollum]

I should add that our handicapping of holes is often contradicted by actual performance.  Some years ago in the State Amateur tournament we went to the trouble of actually entering what each player shot on every hole they played for three rounds.  The second most difficult hole on the back nine, 440 yards, plays uphill on the tee shot over a ridge.  Most golfers are left with a blind second shot of +/- 200 yards to a difficult green falling off on three sides.  For the young flat-bellies in the field, this was the easiest hole because they could all drive over the ridge, catch the down slope on the other side, and have just a flop wedge to the green.  The hardest hole for them was a 350 yard par four with a two tiered green.  It’s a drivable hole for the long hitters but requires finesse more than raw power.  We did have it rated as the third most difficult hole on the back nine, but the results surprised us all.

[JMEvensky]

I should add that our handicapping of holes is often contradicted by actual performance.  Some years ago in the State Amateur tournament we went to the trouble of actually entering what each player shot on every hole they played for three rounds.  The second most difficult hole on the back nine, 440 yards, plays uphill on the tee shot over a ridge.  Most golfers are left with a blind second shot of +/- 200 yards to a difficult green falling off on three sides.  For the young flat-bellies in the field, this was the easiest hole because they could all drive over the ridge, catch the down slope on the other side, and have just a flop wedge to the green.  The hardest hole for them was a 350 yard par four with a two tiered green.  It’s a drivable hole for the long hitters but requires finesse more than raw power.  We did have it rated as the third most difficult hole on the back nine, but the results surprised us all.

Our experience was the opposite.


About 15 years ago we hosted a State Am and then 3 years later,a Mid Am. The state GA recorded all scores. The only differences were the 4 hardest rated 4-pars--2 on each side. Before the tournaments,we had 5 rated harder than 8 and 12 rated harder than 16. So we flip-flopped their handicaps on the card.

[Carl Nichols]

I should add that our handicapping of holes is often contradicted by actual performance.  Some years ago in the State Amateur tournament we went to the trouble of actually entering what each player shot on every hole they played for three rounds.  The second most difficult hole on the back nine, 440 yards, plays uphill on the tee shot over a ridge.  Most golfers are left with a blind second shot of +/- 200 yards to a difficult green falling off on three sides.  For the young flat-bellies in the field, this was the easiest hole because they could all drive over the ridge, catch the down slope on the other side, and have just a flop wedge to the green.  The hardest hole for them was a 350 yard par four with a two tiered green.  It’s a drivable hole for the long hitters but requires finesse more than raw power.  We did have it rated as the third most difficult hole on the back nine, but the results surprised us all.

Our experience was the opposite.


About 15 years ago we hosted a State Am and then 3 years later,a Mid Am. The state GA recorded all scores. The only differences were the 4 hardest rated 4-pars--2 on each side. Before the tournaments,we had 5 rated harder than 8 and 12 rated harder than 16. So we flip-flopped their handicaps on the card.

But what does difficulty for top players tell you about relative difficulty (i.e., difficulty for the scratch player vs. difficulty for the bogey player), which I thought was what hole-based handicapping was supposed to reflect?  Put another way, just because hole 8 is harder than hole 5 for scratch players doesn't mean hole 8 is relatively harder for scratch players than bogey players.   

[JMEvensky]

But what does difficulty for top players tell you about relative difficulty (i.e., difficulty for the scratch player vs. difficulty for the bogey player), which I thought was what hole-based handicapping was supposed to reflect?  Put another way, just because hole 8 is harder than hole 5 for scratch players doesn't mean hole 8 is relatively harder for scratch players than bogey players.   

Probably little to nothing. But all handicapping is to some degree speculative--trying to rank each hole for each level of non-top players would require an awfully big scorecard.


Kind of--all good players are alike,all bad players are different in their own way (apologies to LT).


We had "proof" of which holes ranked a certain way for one group--so we used it. And as I said,the change was de minimus.

[Dave McCollum]

Just like the course rating process, distance has a big influence, perhaps too much, but as I adjust to geezerdom it seems the ability to hit a 200 yard shot really separates older, high HC golfers.  Those that still have it usually have give strokes on the longer holes.

[Peter Pallotta]

Dave, Jeff -

here's a good rule of thumb, I think, re relative difficulty:  a small perched up green fronted by bunkers and surrounded by rough at the end of a tree/fescue-lined uphill 400+ yard dog-leg left Par 4 is going to always be the relatively hardest hole on the course.

Some high cappers struggle with getting enough distance off the tee, some with keeping their drives in the ball-park, some with drawing the ball, some with hitting their longer irons high up in the air, some with distance control, some with bunker play, some with short shots and pitches from 50 yards in, and some with delicate chips from the green-side rough.....and thus a golf hole like the one above will ensure that ALL TYPES of higher-handicappers will be faced with an exponentially harder golfer hole relative to the better golfer they're playing against.

Peter     

[David_Elvins]

stroke index is not really to do with how hard the hole is or where you might consider one player will take a shot more than the other but rather it is to do with the distribution of shots given.


Jon

Jon,


That is not a universal principle.  In Australia courses have a Match index for matchplay and a Stroke Index for Stableford and similar competitions, as well as handicapping.

[A.G._Crockett]

Dave, Jeff -

here's a good rule of thumb, I think, re relative difficulty:  a small perched up green fronted by bunkers and surrounded by rough at the end of a tree/fescue-lined uphill 400+ yard dog-leg left Par 4 is going to always be the relatively hardest hole on the course.

Some high cappers struggle with getting enough distance off the tee, some with keeping their drives in the ball-park, some with drawing the ball, some with hitting their longer irons high up in the air, some with distance control, some with bunker play, some with short shots and pitches from 50 yards in, and some with delicate chips from the green-side rough.....and thus a golf hole like the one above will ensure that ALL TYPES of higher-handicappers will be faced with an exponentially harder golfer hole relative to the better golfer they're playing against.

Peter   

Peter,
I think the second paragraph speaks to the difficulty of handicapping holes; while ALL scratch golfers are proficient at ALL phases of the game, there are a LOT of possible reasons that bogey golfers are bogey golfers.  Accordingly, all of us that are non-scratch golfers will look at the hole handicaps from time to time and wonder what they were thinking when they set those numbers...

To whatever extent that hole handicaps are important, I think this is why it is critical that a club works off of a LARGE database of scratch scores and bogey scores to figure out where strokes should be allotted.  What strikes me as a hole where I need a stroke and what strikes you as a hole where you need a stroke may be completely different, and justifiably so.

I'd add that the thread continues to talk about "difficulty" as if that is the way holes are handicapped, and while there is, of course, an extremely high correlation, it isn't a perfect match.  On my home course (Finley/UNC) the third hole is a 493 yd. par 5 that is handicapped as #2, even though most bogey golfers would consider it to be a relatively easy par 5 on which to make par.  The reason?  Scratch golfers can hit a high fade off the tee, cut the corner, and be inside 200 yds. for their second shot; a scratch golfer is going to hit that green in two and be putting for eagle at least 30% of the time, and the rest of the time be hitting short chips or pitches. 

Meanwhile, the 11th hole, a brutal dogleg left par 4 that plays slightly uphill to a very narrow, very difficult, very heavily bunkered two-tier green is handicap #15!  Why?  Because even the scratch golfers don't hit this green the majority of the time, and when they do, they are unlikely to have an especially easy 2 putt.  The bogey golfer doesn't get a stroke here because the hole comes down to a short game contest most of the time.

If I had to make a 4 to keep my house, I'd pick the par 5, #4/2 handicap for sure; I make a lot of birdies there.  But if I had to play a scratch golfer for my house without getting a stroke, I'd pick the par 4 #11/15 handicap because the scratch golfer is MUCH more likely to screw up that hole and make a 5 just like me.  That's the difference between difficulty and where strokes are allocated.

[Peter Pallotta]

AG - thanks. Your examples (and the background to them) are excellent, and helped both answer my original question and clarify for me my own (developing) views on this:

I understand, given you explanation, why the short Par 5 is ranked/rated # 2 while the brutal dogleg left is ranked/rated 11th.  But in my opinion, this is where those who set those numbers might be misguided, or at least (perhaps unconsciously) being guided by the better golfer's perspective and experience.

I think the average golfer's perspective and experience is that, while an 'easy' hole is relatively more difficult (to score well on) for the average golfer than for the good golfer, a difficult hole is exponentially more difficult for the average golfer than for the scratch.

To use your examples, but recognizing that you're a better and more consistent golfer than I am: I don't have a big problem with distance -- I feel I get enough both off the tee and with my irons; so on the short 5, while I know that the scratch might get there in two on occasion and thus have an eagle putt, I feel fairly confident that a) most of the time that better golfer will be putting for birdie, and b) at worst (barring this average golfer's occasional flat-out horrible shot) I will have a short wedge shot in for my third, and so will also be putting for birdie.  In other words, though this Par 5 is fairly easy for the good golfer, it is only relatively more difficult for me; I might actually birdie it too.

But take the brutal par 4: yes, that sure sounds like a hard hole for the better golfer, but for the average golfer it sounds like a nightmare: e.g. he might slice instead of drawing the ball, he might hit his second/third shot still short of the green and into one of the many bunkers (since he has little chance of rolling a long iron up and on), he'll very likely not get up and down out of that bunker in two etc etc...which means that while the scratch might bogey the hole, the average golfer is just as likely to double or triple bogey it. It is an exponentially harder hole.

But all that said, you analysis and what others have posted shows me that there is still the question/debate left about where the average golfer would most benefit from a stroke -- and I can now better see the validity of the argument that goes something like: "Listen, it's likely that one stroke on the brutal dogleg left isn't going to help you much -- it'll just turn your 7 into a 6 or at best your 6 into a 5; take the stroke on the easy Par 5 instead -- if you play even half decently, it'll mean a net 4 on your card, and that is always going to be a good score".

Thanks again
Peter       

[Douglas Kelley]

In my experience the closing holes will be relatively "underhandicapped," meaning the handicap is less than the inherent difficultly spread on hole between lower and higher handicap players.  Reason is that a club committee, maybe a golf activities committee, makes the final determination of the hole handicaps.  Golf activities committees tend to be stocked with lower handicap golfers.  Lower handicap golfers who play for money tend to not want to give shots on the closing holes, especially in money games where presses and and higher dollar bets make the closing holes worth a lot more than the opening holes.

[A.G._Crockett]

AG - thanks. Your examples (and the background to them) are excellent, and helped both answer my original question and clarify for me my own (developing) views on this:

I understand, given you explanation, why the short Par 5 is ranked/rated # 2 while the brutal dogleg left is ranked/rated 11th.  But in my opinion, this is where those who set those numbers might be misguided, or at least (perhaps unconsciously) being guided by the better golfer's perspective and experience.

I think the average golfer's perspective and experience is that, while an 'easy' hole is relatively more difficult (to score well on) for the average golfer than for the good golfer, a difficult hole is exponentially more difficult for the average golfer than for the scratch.

To use your examples, but recognizing that you're a better and more consistent golfer than I am: I don't have a big problem with distance -- I feel I get enough both off the tee and with my irons; so on the short 5, while I know that the scratch might get there in two on occasion and thus have an eagle putt, I feel fairly confident that a) most of the time that better golfer will be putting for birdie, and b) at worst (barring this average golfer's occasional flat-out horrible shot) I will have a short wedge shot in for my third, and so will also be putting for birdie.  In other words, though this Par 5 is fairly easy for the good golfer, it is only relatively more difficult for me; I might actually birdie it too.

But take the brutal par 4: yes, that sure sounds like a hard hole for the better golfer, but for the average golfer it sounds like a nightmare: e.g. he might slice instead of drawing the ball, he might hit his second/third shot still short of the green and into one of the many bunkers (since he has little chance of rolling a long iron up and on), he'll very likely not get up and down out of that bunker in two etc etc...which means that while the scratch might bogey the hole, the average golfer is just as likely to double or triple bogey it. It is an exponentially harder hole.

But all that said, you analysis and what others have posted shows me that there is still the question/debate left about where the average golfer would most benefit from a stroke -- and I can now better see the validity of the argument that goes something like: "Listen, it's likely that one stroke on the brutal dogleg left isn't going to help you much -- it'll just turn your 7 into a 6 or at best your 6 into a 5; take the stroke on the easy Par 5 instead -- if you play even half decently, it'll mean a net 4 on your card, and that is always going to be a good score".

Thanks again
Peter       

Peter,
It's important to note in my example that the par 5 is NOT short UNLESS a player can hit a high fade off the tee and carry it over some tall pines and severely cut the corner; THEN it becomes an easy two-shot hole.  Scratch golfers can hit that shot on New Year's Day with a hangover, 4 layers of clothes on, and a bag over their head, but at 522 yds., it's a full three shot hole for everybody else, and that difference is why the bogey golfer gets a stroke on a hole where he might reasonably expect have one of his best chances at a par or even a birdie.

You are 100% correct that you are much more likely to make a double or a triple on the brutally hard par 4 than you are to make a double or a triple on the relatively easy par 5.  But the issue in this case isn't what the bogey golfer is going to do; the issue is what the scratch golfer is going to do. 

IF the scratch golfer misses the green, and the bogey golfer misses the green, then it's a short game contest with the bogey golfer getting a stroke.  FWIW, my current index is 6.6, so I'm a LONG way from scratch, but I hit the 11th green only 20% of the time, BY FAR my lowest GIR percentage on that course.  A scratch golfer will hit it more often than I, of course, but it's the most missed green on the course by ALL golfers.  Of course, the short game contest favors the scratch golfer, but the bogey golfer has a MUCH better chance of getting lucky from 30 yds than he does from 400 yds.  Thus the higher handicap number, in this case 15.