When the hardest stroke holes, aren't

[Duncan Cheslett]

  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.

On the contrary, I would have thought that low handicappers would love to have the shots loaded onto the closing holes - that way they will have won most matches against high handicappers before all their shots were given.

[A.G._Crockett]

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.

With all due respect, I think you are seeing a conspiracy where none exists, at least most of the time.  If the process is data based and done correctly, what you describe won't happen, and it hasn't been the case at the clubs I've belonged to over the years.

It's true that the USGA recommends that a club should "Avoid allocating the low numbered holes to the beginning or end of the nine holes", but there are obvious good reasons for that that I won't bother to explain.

Here's a link that might be helpful:
https://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=25

[A.G._Crockett]

  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.

On the contrary, I would have thought that low handicappers would love to have the shots loaded onto the closing holes - that way they will have won most matches against high handicappers before all their shots were given.

Correct; what low index players hate is have lots of holes where they give strokes come EARLY in the match.  They would love it if they weren't giving any shots until the last few holes.

[Carl Nichols]

  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.

On the contrary, I would have thought that low handicappers would love to have the shots loaded onto the closing holes - that way they will have won most matches against high handicappers before all their shots were given.

Correct; what low index players hate is have lots of holes where they give strokes come EARLY in the match.  They would love it if they weren't giving any shots until the last few holes.

That's if you're playing an 18-hole match only.  If you play a nassau with presses (including 2-down auto presses) and other enhancements, the last few holes (of both sides, really) are much more important than the first few.   

[A.G._Crockett]

  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.

On the contrary, I would have thought that low handicappers would love to have the shots loaded onto the closing holes - that way they will have won most matches against high handicappers before all their shots were given.

Correct; what low index players hate is have lots of holes where they give strokes come EARLY in the match.  They would love it if they weren't giving any shots until the last few holes.

That's if you're playing an 18-hole match only.  If you play a nassau with presses (including 2-down auto presses) and other enhancements, the last few holes (of both sides, really) are much more important than the first few.

A fair point.

[Jon Wiggett]

Par 3s do not generally have a low stroke index (1-5) as it only takes one good shot from a tee peg to overcome the challenge of the hole. Conversely, long par 4s and par 5s do have lower stroke indexes as it is less likely that a high handicapper is going to string together the 3 to 4 good shots in a row that is required to overcome them. The last holes are not usually allocated a low stroke index as it is not thought desirable for a match to be decided finish) between two players of very similar ability through a shot that has been given.


Jon

[Tom Kelly]

This is a subject which grates me and at least in my eyes is yet another case of golf and the governing bodies completely over complicating things.


Very simple solution;


 - Rank all the holes in order of difficulty based on real statistics from competitions.


 - Give shots based on a where a difference in shots would be received in stableford.
e.g. a 4 handicap vs a 10 handicap, the 10 handicap would received shots on stroke indexes 5-10 where they would be expected to take a shot more than their competitior.


 - Makes the system simple and fair for both matchplay and stableford competitions.

[A.G._Crockett]

This is a subject which grates me and at least in my eyes is yet another case of golf and the governing bodies completely over complicating things.


Very simple solution;


 - Rank all the holes in order of difficulty based on real statistics from competitions.


 - Give shots based on a where a difference in shots would be received in stableford.
e.g. a 4 handicap vs a 10 handicap, the 10 handicap would received shots on stroke indexes 5-10 where they would be expected to take a shot more than their competitior.


 - Makes the system simple and fair for both matchplay and stableford competitions.

Tom,
At the risk of repeating myself, the "governing bodies" of golf do NOT handicap the individual holes on golf courses; that is up to the management of the course itself.  Additionally, the USGA recommends essentially doing exactly what you say to assign hole handicaps.

With a proper data base, it isn't really that hard to do.  That does NOT mean that every golfer will agree with the numbers, especially given the disconnect about what the hole handicaps actually represent.

Again, here's a link to how the USGA recommends that a course proceed.

https://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=25

[Douglas Kelley]

On the contrary, I would have thought that low handicappers would love to have the shots loaded onto the closing holes - that way they will have won most matches against high handicappers before all their shots were given.

Many of the country club money games, at least here in Texas, are Wolf-Hammer, where basically all the money trades hands on holes 16-18 when the stakes are increased.  The low handicapper is happy to give a shot early so that he doesn't have to give it later when the stakes on the hole can be 5-10x what they were at the start.


Club championships and other match play events tend to be flighted so that you are generally playing against guys with similar handicaps and no one gets many shots.  Large member-guest tournaments are generally shotgun formats, so people start all over the course and it is random where the shots fall in a match.

[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.

With all due respect, I think you are seeing a conspiracy where none exists, at least most of the time.  If the process is data based and done correctly, what you describe won't happen, and it hasn't been the case at the clubs I've belonged to over the years.

It's true that the USGA recommends that a club should "Avoid allocating the low numbered holes to the beginning or end of the nine holes", but there are obvious good reasons for that that I won't bother to explain.

Here's a link that might be helpful:
https://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=25

Agree to disagree.  I'm sure that the stoke allocations are often done correctly, but the data is often very close and the committee has discretion.  My point is that discretion is often employed to the committee members' own advantage. 

[Sam Kestin]

I really think that courses should have multiple scorecards with multiple variations on how the holes are handicapped. Groups could choose for themselves which of the cards to play from on any given day.

A "one size fits all" approach to handicapping the holes makes very little sense to me. Deciding once (and revising occasionally) one scorecard that will govern the play of all matches strikes me as inherently limiting in effectiveness.

Both the players and the course change so widely from group-to-group and from day-to-day that there's no way (in my mind) that one setup will produce the highest number of "fair" outcomes across many rounds over many years. I also do not think that it's a giant burden on a course/club to print up some different variations on the card.

Potential variations on handicapping could include:

--High and Low Handicapper Cards (one rating the course through the lens of the bogey golfer, the other the scratch player)
--Long Players vs. Short Hitters (rating the course through the lens of someone who drives it 280 vs 220)
--Wind Direction (we all agree courses play dramatically differently based on wind direction)
--Course Conditions (soft vs. hard--holes rise/fall in difficulty significantly based on the ground conditions)


What is the virtue of blending these key variables into one set of numbers that governs every match ever played on a given golf course?

[Jon Wiggett]

This is a subject which grates me and at least in my eyes is yet another case of golf and the governing bodies completely over complicating things.


Very simple solution;


 - Rank all the holes in order of difficulty based on real statistics from competitions.


 - Give shots based on a where a difference in shots would be received in stableford.
e.g. a 4 handicap vs a 10 handicap, the 10 handicap would received shots on stroke indexes 5-10 where they would be expected to take a shot more than their competitior.


 - Makes the system simple and fair for both matchplay and stableford competitions.

Tom,


difficult for who? Par 5s are usually the easiest to play for low handicapper but hardest for high handicappers. Stroke index is about stroke distribution not difficulty compared to par.


Jon

[Sean_A]

I really think that courses should have multiple scorecards with multiple variations on how the holes are handicapped. Groups could choose for themselves which of the cards to play from on any given day.

A "one size fits all" approach to handicapping the holes makes very little sense to me. Deciding once (and revising occasionally) one scorecard that will govern the play of all matches strikes me as inherently limiting in effectiveness.

Both the players and the course change so widely from group-to-group and from day-to-day that there's no way (in my mind) that one setup will produce the highest number of "fair" outcomes across many rounds over many years. I also do not think that it's a giant burden on a course/club to print up some different variations on the card.

Potential variations on handicapping could include:

--High and Low Handicapper Cards (one rating the course through the lens of the bogey golfer, the other the scratch player)
--Long Players vs. Short Hitters (rating the course through the lens of someone who drives it 280 vs 220)
--Wind Direction (we all agree courses play dramatically differently based on wind direction)
--Course Conditions (soft vs. hard--holes rise/fall in difficulty significantly based on the ground conditions)


What is the virtue of blending these key variables into one set of numbers that governs every match ever played on a given golf course?

Simplicity. At the end of the day...there are so many shots given and its somewhat random how or of they are used well.  I for one don't want more than one card...sometimes one is one too many.  Its almost always better to keep things simple.


Ciao

[A.G._Crockett]

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.

With all due respect, I think you are seeing a conspiracy where none exists, at least most of the time.  If the process is data based and done correctly, what you describe won't happen, and it hasn't been the case at the clubs I've belonged to over the years.

It's true that the USGA recommends that a club should "Avoid allocating the low numbered holes to the beginning or end of the nine holes", but there are obvious good reasons for that that I won't bother to explain.

Here's a link that might be helpful:
https://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=25

Agree to disagree.  I'm sure that the stoke allocations are often done correctly, but the data is often very close and the committee has discretion.  My point is that discretion is often employed to the committee members' own advantage.

"Often"?

And you know this how?

I know this is the internet, but that's quite an allegation.  I've been a member of various private clubs for nearly 40 years now, and on "the committee" more than once.  You are the first person I've ever heard make such a claim.  That would be quite a conspiracy, and quite a club!

[Jon Wiggett]

Simplicity. At the end of the day...there are so many shots given and its somewhat random how or of they are used well.  I for one don't want more than one card...sometimes one is one too many.  Its almost always better to keep things simple.


Ciao

+1

[Tom Kelly]

This is a subject which grates me and at least in my eyes is yet another case of golf and the governing bodies completely over complicating things.


Very simple solution;


 - Rank all the holes in order of difficulty based on real statistics from competitions.


 - Give shots based on a where a difference in shots would be received in stableford.
e.g. a 4 handicap vs a 10 handicap, the 10 handicap would received shots on stroke indexes 5-10 where they would be expected to take a shot more than their competitior.


 - Makes the system simple and fair for both matchplay and stableford competitions.

Tom,


difficult for who? Par 5s are usually the easiest to play for low handicapper but hardest for high handicappers. Stroke index is about stroke distribution not difficulty compared to par.


Jon

Jon,

I guess you are playing devil's advocate because I'm trying to keep it simple......difficulty can be a personal thing not even handicap related, do you want a different stroke index for every handicap/person?! Par 3's are often comparatively harder for low handicappers than high....Statistics should even themselves out, that's what they are there to do.

[/size]The idea of stroke distribution is a red herring in my view, I believe it is far more dependent on the course and difficulty of holes. it is also part of the nature of the game, being strong int he closing stretch. The stroke distribution idea often messes the stableford strokes up too so unless we have two cards and complicate thing even more.....stick with one please. I believe it is the idea of giving shots on strokes 1-? rather than on the holes where there is actually an expected difference in scoring that is the central problem.
[/size]
[/size]I'm not saying my system is perfect but I'm yet to hear a decent argument against it or a simpler alternative. It is perfect for stableford and almost perfect for matchplay.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom,


the problem with believing that shots should be given due to difficulty is that players do not always have the same difficulty on the same hole each time they play it so you can only generalize. In the end, due to this unpredictability any distribution of shots on a difficulty basis will be wrong in the actual context of the game most of the time. So you end up with an even distribution being the fairest over all with the caveats that have been added.


Jon

[Tom Kelly]

Tom,


the problem with believing that shots should be given due to difficulty is that players do not always have the same difficulty on the same hole each time they play it so you can only generalize. In the end, due to this unpredictability any distribution of shots on a difficulty basis will be wrong in the actual context of the game most of the time. So you end up with an even distribution being the fairest over all with the caveats that have been added.


Jon

Jon,


You could also quite easily say that golfers do not always play the same way at the same point during each round so shot distribution isn't fair. Opening up that line of debate with the amount of variability in golf could start to get ridiculous......Working from statistics is generalizing.


Ignoring matchplay for a second, despite what the R&A and others say or maybe because of the choices of a previous commitee the vast majority of older courses I've have played have stroke indexes that are essentially a ranking of toughness. Probably why so many seasoned golfers are under the impression that that is what they are! These have probably been this way for decades without complaints and clearly work perfectly well and fairly for stableford. Can anyone disagree with ranking by diffiuclty from a stableford point of view? My only grief then with this system in matchplay is why are shots given on holes when in stableford both players are expected to make the same score (S.I. 1 etc..), whilst holes where the lower cap is expected to par and their oppponent expected to bogey in stableford are no shots given? Play full handicap and give strokes out as would be found in a stableford competition.


K.I.S.S. is something I believe in.

[Jon Wiggett]

Tom,


I do not say degree of difficulty is not a factor but it is not the overriding factor. This is why stroke index one will almost never be hole number one or 18 though many courses hardest hole happens to be this. However as you say yourself, the governing bodies say that SI is to do with shot distribution and for all the points you have some of which are valid it does appear that you are putting the point of view of what you would like it to be and not what is the reality.


From the point of view of stableford. If I were a high handicapper I would much prefer my shots on the easier holes where I know I can score on average as apposed to on a harder hole where I could quite easily score so high as to make the shots given irrelevant.


Jon

[Duncan Cheslett]

From the point of view of stableford. If I were a high handicapper I would much prefer my shots on the easier holes where I know I can score on average as apposed to on a harder hole where I could quite easily score so high as to make the shots given irrelevant.

Ditto in matchplay.


As a 12 handicapper, if I'm playing against a 4 I know that he is likely to par the stroke 1 hole while I am lucky to bogey it. I would happily relinquish my shot at that hole and exchange it for a shot at a par 3 or short par 4 where I have a better chance of making it count.


After all, I only have to win 10 holes (at most) to win the match. Give me shots at the easy holes rather than the hard ones!

[A.G._Crockett]

Tom,


the problem with believing that shots should be given due to difficulty is that players do not always have the same difficulty on the same hole each time they play it so you can only generalize. In the end, due to this unpredictability any distribution of shots on a difficulty basis will be wrong in the actual context of the game most of the time. So you end up with an even distribution being the fairest over all with the caveats that have been added.


Jon

The subjectivity of "difficulty" is a key point, and I'd add that if the hole is extremely difficult for the scratch golfer as well, it may not be the place that a bogey golfer should be getting a stroke.

All of this points to the reasoning that the USGA provides (and I would assume the R&A does, too) in the link I've attached a couple of times already.  It's critical that the handicap numbers be assigned based off of a large database of scores, so that subjectivity largely goes out the window and strokes are allocated where they should be.

And one more time: Strokes are NOT awarded based purely on the difficulty of the hole as determined by the overall stroke average.  They are allocated based on the difference between what scratch golfers average vs. bogey golfers.  While there is a high degree of correlation between that and the stroke average, they are NOT the same, and I've never seen a course where this wasn't reflected in the handicap numbers.

[Tom Kelly]

From the point of view of stableford. If I were a high handicapper I would much prefer my shots on the easier holes where I know I can score on average as apposed to on a harder hole where I could quite easily score so high as to make the shots given irrelevant.

Ditto in matchplay.


As a 12 handicapper, if I'm playing against a 4 I know that he is likely to par the stroke 1 hole while I am lucky to bogey it. I would happily relinquish my shot at that hole and exchange it for a shot at a par 3 or short par 4 where I have a better chance of making it count.


After all, I only have to win 10 holes (at most) to win the match. Give me shots at the easy holes rather than the hard ones!

Duncan,


In my suggested system you wouldn't be getting a shot at stroke index 1 (if stroke index 1 is the hardest hole?!?!) you'd be getting shots at strokes 5-12 where in theory it makes it a more even playing ground. You don't get your supposed advantage of shots on easy holes and the low handicapper doesn't get the supposed advantage of shots on the hardest hole...fair?!

[Thomas Dai]

In my suggested system you wouldn't be getting a shot at stroke index 1 (if stroke index 1 is the hardest hole?!?!) you'd be getting shots at strokes 5-12 where in theory it makes it a more even playing ground. You don't get your supposed advantage of shots on easy holes and the low handicapper doesn't get the supposed advantage of shots on the hardest hole...fair?!

Nicely described Tom. I like the sound of this method. It would be interesting to trial it for some matches......or maybe just say sod it and adopt it straight away!
Atb

[Tom Kelly]

Tom,


I do not say degree of difficulty is not a factor but it is not the overriding factor. This is why stroke index one will almost never be hole number one or 18 though many courses hardest hole happens to be this. However as you say yourself, the governing bodies say that SI is to do with shot distribution and for all the points you have some of which are valid it does appear that you are putting the point of view of what you would like it to be and not what is the reality.


From the point of view of stableford. If I were a high handicapper I would much prefer my shots on the easier holes where I know I can score on average as apposed to on a harder hole where I could quite easily score so high as to make the shots given irrelevant.


Jon

Jon,


Yes I am purely suggesting an alternative to the current stroke index/matchplay system as I don't believe it works well enough to account for it's complexity and the confusion the stroke index system clearly creates. I believe the shot distribution idea is a confusing and unnecessary concept. Golf needs to simplify it's rules. This is one such opportunity to me.


The system is in place to try to make an even playing field so you can't alter the system to suit one group of the other if has to be a compromise. A main concept of stableford is to offer each golfer a helping hand on those hard holes to make them playable, if there is no shots given to a high handicapper on the hardest hole they may well end up picking up after 2 shots at times as they can't make a points score. Make a par and you are rewarded with 3 or even 4 points on the hardest hole, how would you feel having played a great hole and made par to only walk off with 2 points. I know it is only a mindset but see how much the concept of par effects a golfers mindset.




Some of the suggestions point to the desire to essentially pick which holes each player receives their shots on. This would do away with stroke indexes altogether. A good thing? Surely it would cause havoc with checking scoring in stablefords and who would chose in the matchplay? The player giving or receiving the shots?!

[Tom Kelly]

Tom,


the problem with believing that shots should be given due to difficulty is that players do not always have the same difficulty on the same hole each time they play it so you can only generalize. In the end, due to this unpredictability any distribution of shots on a difficulty basis will be wrong in the actual context of the game most of the time. So you end up with an even distribution being the fairest over all with the caveats that have been added.


Jon

The subjectivity of "difficulty" is a key point, and I'd add that if the hole is extremely difficult for the scratch golfer as well, it may not be the place that a bogey golfer should be getting a stroke.

All of this points to the reasoning that the USGA provides (and I would assume the R&A does, too) in the link I've attached a couple of times already.  It's critical that the handicap numbers be assigned based off of a large database of scores, so that subjectivity largely goes out the window and strokes are allocated where they should be.

And one more time: Strokes are NOT awarded based purely on the difficulty of the hole as determined by the overall stroke average.  They are allocated based on the difference between what scratch golfers average vs. bogey golfers.  While there is a high degree of correlation between that and the stroke average, they are NOT the same, and I've never seen a course where this wasn't reflected in the handicap numbers.

A.G.


I agree that the subject of difficulty is the hardest point but by limiting the variability to difficulty alone cuts out some of the other subjectivity such as the not offering shots at "the beginning or end of a nine" and how the strokes are then altered to ensure this. I can only assume this is to allow an advantage to the low handicap at the start so they are not giving the high a quick start and an advantage to the high handicapper towards the end to make sure the high handicap has taken all their shots before the match ends? A greater advantage than the low handicap gains at the start of the round? Why offer an advantage to either group when the concept is to even it out anyway?


The suggested use of statistics on the link you provided seems to only suit matchplay, which it may do very well if used purely. If this is used then are a different set of indexes needed for stableford? One for 'group A' and one for 'group B'? Again complexity ensues.


If the statistics are used correctly we can make the ranking of difficulty as objective as possible across the handicap spectrum. It will not be perfect but it is possible to make it close. as you said yourself "there is a high degree of correlation between that and the stroke average" in reference to the difference between the scratch and bogey golfer. I have not thought through the details in depth but I am sure statistics could be used to even this out even more.