[Carl Johnson]

Stroke allocation?  Which is the number 1 handicap hole?  The number 2, and so on.


My understanding is that the recommendation for how to determine hole difficulty, which is the principal guide in allocating strokes, has changed (at least looking at it from the USGA's standpoint).  The recommendation in Appendix E is to rank difficulty according to par (which many, if not most, USA golfers have always assumed is the case anyway).  (There are other considerations in making allocations, of course, but I want to focus only on this one.)


By way of contrast, the former recommendation (as I understood it under the USGA "rules" -- no idea about the rest of the world) was to determine difficulty based on the relative difficulty of a hole for the bogey player compared to the scratch player.


Comments?  Is this a "good" change (assuming it is a change)?  How likely is it that committees (or whoever) will come up with new stoke allocations as a result?  Does anyone really care?


(Please let me know if this issue has been covered in a separate thread and I will delete.)

[Tyler Kearns]

Carl,


Great timing ! Just last year, we changed the handicapping of the holes at our course after compiling individual hole score data and ranked them according to relative difficulty between a scratch and bogey golfer.  I guess we can still use the same data to determine the hardest holes relative to par.


Tyler

[Jim Hoak]

I understand the rationale for this recommended change with the maximum score on a hole for handicap purposes now being net double bogey.  But a practical problem will be that a change in stroke allocations will require the reprinting of all scorecards, so I'll bet it's slow to come.

[SL_Solow]

I attended the seminar and am now "qualified".  My understanding is that Appendix E is only a recommendation intended to provide strokes where they will be used in most matches.  Courses remain free to handicap holes in accordance with the prior guidelines.  I suspect that our club will not adopt the new recommendations when I compare them to the holes at our course.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I attended the seminar and am now "qualified".  My understanding is that Appendix E is only a recommendation intended to provide strokes where they will be used in most matches.  Courses remain free to handicap holes in accordance with the prior guidelines.  I suspect that our club will not adopt the new recommendations when I compare them to the holes at our course.

This exactly. Clubs can do whatever they want. And it has almost no effect on the outcomes in matches in the long haul. Unless you number them 1-18 or 18-1 or something almost as dumb.

[Duncan Cheslett]

In GB&I at least, a big consideration in allocating Stroke Index has always been to distribute the shots as evenly as possible around the course. The first and last holes are never a very low Stroke Index, even if they are the most difficult holes on the course.


This is because historically much of our golf has been matchplay, and it has always been deemed unsatisfactory if shots are given or taken at critical points in the round, or if shot holes are bunched together in contests between players of largely similar handicaps.


In the Stableford format however, the prime consideration is the relative difficulty of each hole. Some clubs are now showing two sets of Stroke Indexes (Indices?) on the card - one for matchplay and one for Stableford, which has now become by far the most played format of the game at most clubs.


This is a little too complex and confusing IMO. Far simpler to set the SI for relative difficulty and then score a matchplay game using Stableford points rather than the number of shots given by the low man.


That way, in a match between a 6 handicapper and a 10 handicapper, the four shots would be given and taken at SI holes 7 - 10, rather than 1 - 4.


I'm pretty sure that this would slightly favour the higher handicapper, which can never be a bad thing! 

[Sean_A]

To some degree it makes more sense to reverse the process. Rank the holes easiest to hardest with strokes coming on the easiest holes.

Ciao

[Kyle Harris]

I never bought into any of these guidelines.


Handicapping of holes is to make for a compelling match and that is it.

Your number 1 stroke allocation should be on the hole where the 19-handicap needs TWO shots against the scratch.

Often times that is a Par 3! 

[jeffwarne]

I attended the seminar and am now "qualified".  My understanding is that Appendix E is only a recommendation intended to provide strokes where they will be used in most matches.  Courses remain free to handicap holes in accordance with the prior guidelines.  I suspect that our club will not adopt the new recommendations when I compare them to the holes at our course.

This exactly. Clubs can do whatever they want. And it has almost no effect on the outcomes in matches in the long haul. Unless you number them 1-18 or 18-1 or something almost as dumb.

+1
the idea that the bogey guy needs a shot on the "toughest hole in relation to par" is silly
The scratch guy struggles with that hole too.
Strokes IMHO should be allocated regulalry  i.e. a 9 should stroke every other hole, a 6 one in every three holes.
The worst courses for matches, especially matches where there may/WILL be presses, have holes 8-9, and/or 17,18 as the lowest handicap holes.
No fun as the match may be over before 17 or 18 or the scratch playing the 4(or worse yet the 14 hdcp playing an 18) may be giving a shot on 8 and 9 and 17 and 18.
I've seen it-especially when a "handicap chairman" is involved who doesn't play regular matches.(or has a regular golf buddy that is 4 shots lower in hdcp)

[Carl Johnson]

Apparently this is not an interesting topic.  I'll close my participation with my thoughts.


I preferred the prior recommendation to use relatively difficulty as a "difficulty" number and I would not be surprised if my club stayed with the current allocation.


However, while I think it's useful to have a standard stroke allocation for the course, any single allocation is going to be far from perfect.  Although I was not privy to the decision making process at my club, I understand that the relative difficulty measure was (for men) based on tournament scores comparing the scratch (or nearly so) player with the bogy player, from our middle (blue) tees, which are what a plurality of our members likely play from.


It's obvious to me that while this makes some sense for those who play from the blue tees, it doesn't work quite as well for those who play from other tees.  The prime example is that our number one handicap hole is dramatically easier (absolutely and relatively, I believe) from the next forward set of tees.  (For our women, who play from the same forward tees this hole is the 11th stroke hole.)


There are other quirks in the allocation from the standpoint of play from different tees.  Still, for day-to-day recreational play with close friends, which is just about all I do (from the more forward tees), we accept and enjoy (at least I do) the scorecard's recommendations for the variety of different kinds of games we play.  Obviously, we have other options for our recreational matches if we would choose to use them.  Very unlikely.


(The greatest difficulty I see is with the max score posting rule (formerly ESC) in the WHS.  Few of my day-to-day players will get it, or care to.  So be it.)

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Apparently this is not an interesting topic.  I'll close my participation with my thoughts.

I preferred the prior recommendation to use relatively difficulty as a "difficulty" number and I would not be surprised if my club stayed with the current allocation.

I disagree and agree.


I disagree that it's not an interesting topic. I think it's a fascinating topic, but that's tempered by:

• The knowledge that unless you do something really stupid, the allocation doesn't really matter and doesn't really affect matches much at all.
• This is pretty geeky stuff, so the amount of interest (particularly on a GCA forum) will necessarily be somewhat limited.

I agree that I still prefer the relative difficulty as a means of assigning stroke indexes.

[Kyle Harris]

Relative to... what? Exactly...


The world is filled with marginalized single-digit handicappers that feel that having one trick they can repeat is "skill." I grow weary of the guy that can hit it 240 yards down the middle with one ball flight feeling entitled to anything.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Relative to... what? Exactly...

I took it to mean the higher handicapper relative to the lower handicapper.

[Kyle Harris]

Relative to... what? Exactly...

I took it to mean the higher handicapper relative to the lower handicapper.

Sure but what makes a low handicap a low handicap in terms of golfing toolbox often times determines how difficult a hole is to that player. Plenty of guys out there capable of a 280 carry that can't lag a 30 foot putt to 2 feet.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Sure but what makes a low handicap a low handicap in terms of golfing toolbox often times determines how difficult a hole is to that player. Plenty of guys out there capable of a 280 carry that can't lag a 30 foot putt to 2 feet.

Everyone's skills are going to be different. Just like some 72.2/133 courses are better suited to some kinds of players over others.

No set stroke index can be perfect for everyone; it's about making the best overall setup.

[Mark Smolens]

I understand the rationale for this recommended change with the maximum score on a hole for handicap purposes now being net double bogey.  But a practical problem will be that a change in stroke allocations will require the reprinting of all scorecards, so I'll bet it's slow to come.

I recall a conversation with Frank Jemsek at Cog Hill back in the day, when the PGA Tour started playing the 5th hole at Dubsdread as a long par-4, as opposed to an easily reachable (for the big Kids) par-5. I asked Frank when he was going to make the change on the scorecards for us chops. His response was "as soon as I use up all of the cards we have already printed."

[Carl Johnson]

I understand the rationale for this recommended change with the maximum score on a hole for handicap purposes now being net double bogey.  But a practical problem will be that a change in stroke allocations will require the reprinting of all scorecards, so I'll bet it's slow to come.

I recall a conversation with Frank Jemsek at Cog Hill back in the day, when the PGA Tour started playing the 5th hole at Dubsdread as a long par-4, as opposed to an easily reachable (for the big Kids) par-5. I asked Frank when he was going to make the change on the scorecards for us chops. His response was "as soon as I use up all of the cards we have already printed."

Or today, per both Appendix E from the handicap manual and Section 5I(4) from the new Official Guide to the Rules of Golf, the latter from which I quote: "The Committee is responsible for publishing on the scorecard or somewhere else that is visible (for example, near the first tee) the order of holes where strokes are to be given or received."  (Emphasis added.)  So just post the new allocations near the first tee, at the starter's site, in the pro shop, or in the locker rooms, or on the club website, or at all of these, "or somewhere else that is visible."  The "sign" should say that for now disregard the old scorecards you have and use these new allocations . . . .  Easy.  No need to dump the old scorecards.

But to make my personal position clear, I'd stay with the former allocations and not bother with any changes.

[Matt MacIver]

My playing partners and I never thought ESC and the old method was broke to begin with — we’ve traded small change back and forth for many years.  If we’re all to believe the new numbers that dropped Jan 6, our course index #s did not change but from the Whites we all dropped exactly 1 stroke - everyone from an 8 index to a 20.  Not sure all the change is/was worth it. 

[Tom_Doak]

+1
the idea that the bogey guy needs a shot on the "toughest hole in relation to par" is silly
The scratch guy struggles with that hole too.
Strokes IMHO should be allocated regulalry  i.e. a 9 should stroke every other hole, a 6 one in every three holes.
The worst courses for matches, especially matches where there may/WILL be presses, have holes 8-9, and/or 17,18 as the lowest handicap holes.
No fun as the match may be over before 17 or 18 or the scratch playing the 4(or worse yet the 14 hdcp playing an 18) may be giving a shot on 8 and 9 and 17 and 18.
I've seen it-especially when a "handicap chairman" is involved who doesn't play regular matches.(or has a regular golf buddy that is 4 shots lower in hdcp)

Everyone in this discussion talks their book . . . even you, Jeff, because you don't like losing the hard holes to a guy with a stroke.


The reason other countries worry about stroke allocation is that they play a LOT of their competitions at Stableford, where the value of a "net par" takes on much added significance. 


Yes, just as in match play, allocating the strokes differently just means they might make a "net birdie" the hole before and a "net bogey" on this one and it all balances out, but so many people are concerned with their own ideas of fairness that there is no way to make everyone happy.


P.S.  Personally, I've never liked the USGA's way of allocating strokes because it often had weird results.  The #1 stroke hole at Stonewall is a short par-4 where the bogey player often makes X . . . the stroke is not much help to him there.  And too many courses have the #1 or 2 handicap hole as the 18th because "that's the way the book said to do it".  You should get all your strokes before the 18th or you might never get them.

[David_Elvins]

The reason other countries worry about stroke allocation is that they play a LOT of their competitions at Stableford, where the value of a "net par" takes on much added significance. 


Yes, just as in match play, allocating the strokes differently just means they might make a "net birdie" the hole before and a "net bogey" on this one and it all balances out, but so many people are concerned with their own ideas of fairness that there is no way to make everyone happy.

Not sure what they do in the UK but in Australia for a long time the scorecard has had separate stroke allocation for match play and stableford.

[David Harshbarger]

With the new system could the hole handicap assignments be randomized from day-day, week-week, etc? 


1.) Would it make player's heads explode?
2.) Would it make regular competitions a little more interesting?


The process today requires someone to think through tradeoffs to come up with some "optimal" assignment which is actually either arbitrary or plays to some bias.


If instead the assignments were generated each day, the 4 strokes I give you would be on different holes throughout the season, which I would think would create some interest within the round.

[Jason Topp]

I did not know that those standards had changed in any meaningful way but I suppose it makes sense given that par is now meaningful to course rating and score posting.


If I were in charge I would simply allocate strokes by length of hole and be done with it.  I believe there is a pretty straight line correlation between hole length and relative difficulty. 


The big advantage of such an approach is that everyone would understand it. 

[Pete_Pittock]

    Is the cart being put before the horse, or the course before the golfer.  The aim of the WHS is determine the fairest (lowest) handicap for a golfer. Part of the computation is the concept of net double bogey (NDB), thus bringing par into the equation.
   In establishing, or maintaining, the handicap the golfer is playing the course. By having the NDB ceiling in place it stands to my reasoning the stroke allocation should be placed strictly on hole difficuly (in relation to par), no matter where they fall in the routing.  The triad system, or equalizing front and back nines compromises the process.
   I would agree, once the handicap is established, then Appendix E is appropriate.


   I struggled with this for a while, but have come to the conclusion that a public or resort course would best be served by a stableford form of scorecard, while a private club should tend towards the Appendix E model, but when playing a stableford or par competition could revert to a computer generated scorecard that has a different SI flow.


  I would be haopy for others to weigh in, as my club's committee is addressing the issue this month.
   

[David Harshbarger]

I could see a use for custom cards printed with Resort player's name and the max score (NDB) grayed in for each hole as an interesting little amenity.

[Pete_Pittock]

I could see a use for custom cards printed with Resort player's name and the max score (NDB) grayed in for each hole as an interesting little amenity.

When I was in NZ a couple of years ago part  of checking in  at the club was entering your NZGA(?) number into the handicap computer and it would print out your card for the round. I assume you were required to hand in the card at completion. Adding shading for NBD shouldn't be an issue.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()