[Jonathan Cummings]

I was asked and couldn't answer.  What's the reason for separating hole handicaps to even for one set of nine holes and odd for the other?

[Wade Whitehead]

Separating makes it easier to halve handicaps for a nine-hole match and distributes strokes evenly across both nines for a full round.

WW

[Wade Whitehead]

There are certainly places, though, where the second or third hardest hole on one nine plays harder than the toughest hole on the other nine (even though handicap strokes might be distributed "equally").

WW

[Jason Topp]

The USGA recommends that it be done that way.  Its primary purpose is to spread the shots out over the course of the round.  There are a number of additional suggestions in the manual.

https://www.usga.org/handicapping/roh/2020-rules-of-handicapping.html


Appendix E.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

There are certainly places, though, where the second or third hardest hole on one nine plays harder than the toughest hole on the other nine (even though handicap strokes might be distributed "equally").

It wasn't about the "difficulty" of the hole - in an ideal situation, it was about where the higher handicap player is more likely to need a stroke against the lower handicap player. I think with the WHS they now recommend you use the course rating data to support your stroke index allocation. Maybe combined "scores" relative to par or something…

Relative to par, par fives are the "easier" holes for good players, but they're often the lower numbered handicap holes because poor players have more chances to screw up.

The USGA recommends the "triads" method, while in the past they used to actually go through like 400 scorecards to figure out where to assign the stroke indexes.

[Pete Lavallee]

I pretty sure the method has changed. Last year you were supposed to allocate strokes on the holes where the bogey golfer needed the stroke the most based on empirical data. Now strokes are allowed on the holes which are ranked most difficult to par, based on the individual holes course rating for scratch and bogey golfers. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong on this!

[Erik J. Barzeski]

I pretty sure the method has changed. Last year you were supposed to allocate strokes on the holes where the bogey golfer needed the stroke the most based on empirical data. Now strokes are allowed on the holes which are ranked most difficult to par, based on the individual holes course rating for scratch and bogey golfers. I’m sure someone will correct me if I’m wrong on this!

Yes, it changed with the WHS. Allocation based on empirical stuff was pre-WHS (in the U.S. anyway).


https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system--education-resources-for-club-administrators/stroke-index-allocation.html

From both USGA and worldwide research, in match play, the stroke index order is not really important in producing equitable results as long as the strokes are spread out, consecutive low strokes are avoided, and low strokes at the beginning or end of each nine are avoided. So, applying the triad concept of using three-hole clusters (with the lowest stroke hole on each nine in the middle of the nine), spreading out low stroke holes, and avoiding consecutive low stroke holes produces a simple but effective method for allocation.

They also end with this:

As with the previous USGA Handicap System, stroke index allocation is a recommendation and courses are free to use whichever method they choose. There is no recommendation for a course to run a new allocation solely due to the move to the WHS. However, for courses that are looking to run a new allocation, the new WHS method produces consistent and acceptable values without the need to find specific players and collect hundreds of scores from a common tee. 

[Jeff Schley]

So if this has changed, does anyone know of any course that has done it?  I don't ever recall seeing anything different than odd/even.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

So if this has changed, does anyone know of any course that has done it?  I don't ever recall seeing anything different than odd/even.

I think that courses might just wait until they need new scorecards… or a new committee takes over whose president doesn't feel like he has to give Bob strokes on the right holes? 

[Jeff Schley]

So if this has changed, does anyone know of any course that has done it?  I don't ever recall seeing anything different than odd/even.

I think that courses might just wait until they need new scorecards… or a new committee takes over whose president doesn't feel like he has to give Bob strokes on the right holes? 

Yeah this is true one of my clubs makes HUGE scorecard orders and last for a couple years. Also this could be a GREAT time for Collin Sheehan to knock on some doors for his wonderfully designed simple and high end scorecards we discussed last year sometime. LOVE some of his designs.  Collin break out the rolodex and blast emails to the contacts, now is the time to begin redesigning clubs scorecards as orders will be needed as Erik notes.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

Yeah this is true one of my clubs makes HUGE scorecard orders and last for a couple years. Also this could be a GREAT time for Collin Sheehan to knock on some doors for his wonderfully designed simple and high end scorecards we discussed last year sometime. LOVE some of his designs.  Collin break out the rolodex and blast emails to the contacts, now is the time to begin redesigning clubs scorecards as orders will be needed as Erik notes.

Love it. I've been tempted to order a few hundred scorecards for ME for my home course. Ha ha. He does great stuff.

[Jonathan Cummings]

Thanks All

[Paul Jones]

The front nine is usually odd, that way guaranteed to get your stroke(s) before the match is closed out.  If the 17th hole would be the 1 handicap, the match would have a good chance of being over before you would get your stroke.

[A.G._Crockett]

The front nine is usually odd, that way guaranteed to get your stroke(s) before the match is closed out.  If the 17th hole would be the 1 handicap, the match would have a good chance of being over before you would get your stroke.

Or stated conversely, so that a handicap stroke is less likely to decide a close match on the 18th.

[Jerry Kluger]

At my home club on one of the courses the number 1 handicap hole is the first so if a match is tied after 18 and the players go to number 1 the golf committee did not like giving a stroke in this circumstance so they said no stroke on number 1. My problem is the number 3 handicap hole is the seventh and the player may only be getting one or two strokes.

[A.G._Crockett]

At my home club on one of the courses the number 1 handicap hole is the first so if a match is tied after 18 and the players go to number 1 the golf committee did not like giving a stroke in this circumstance so they said no stroke on number 1. My problem is the number 3 handicap hole is the seventh and the player may only be getting one or two strokes.

Jerry,


With all due respect to the committee, I believe that they are not only going against USGA guidelines, but probably bowing to low handicappers who bitch endlessly when they lose a net competition.


I was a member of a club (and for two years the MGA president) with a similar situation; low indexers would do some complicated hypothetical math about what the handicaps would be if the match ended after the first extra hole due to a stroke given; they claimed that a player getting a stroke on the first hole was effectively being handicapped as if he were a bogey golfer for the playoff.


The converse, of course, is that effectively the higher index player is being treated as a scratch golfer if he doesn’t get a stroke on the #1 handicap hole.


Ultimately, the answer to low indexers was the same as it always SHOULD be: “Perhaps you should consider not playing in net events.”

[jeffwarne]

From Erik's post
"From both USGA and worldwide research, in match play, the stroke index order is not really important in producing equitable results as long as the strokes are spread out, consecutive low strokes are avoided, and low strokes at the beginning or end of each nine are avoided. So, applying the triad concept of using three-hole clusters (with the lowest stroke hole on each nine in the middle of the nine), spreading out low stroke holes, and avoiding consecutive low stroke holes produces a simple but effective method for allocation."
The above is the part many handicap chairmen and stroke allocators don't read.So many times I see courses with woefully unbalanced stroke allocation.
Amongst those who actually understand and use handicap strokes in match play, there often/usually is a second or third bet/press going or contemplated.
Having a nine end with three of the four lowest stroke allocations tends to suck the fun out of a money game.
And can result in a player being closed out before he ever gets to use his strokes in a non pressing match.
Or makes for a easy win for the low capper in the close out, and an easy win for the stroked player in the subsequent press.

Fortunately, there's this as well.
"As with the previous USGA Handicap System, stroke index allocation is a recommendation and courses are free to use whichever method they choose."
I'm a big fan of 1/2 shots, and we often set games up that way.
For instance a guy getting five shots might get 2 a side plus a 1/2 on the 8th or 9th and 17th or 18th.
In reality, I have never seen in practice that one could decide IN ADVANCE where a shot would be needed, in my experience it tends to be random, and therefore spacing the shots is more important than what specific holes they fall on(though obviously a long par 5 is easier for a higher cap to screw up royally)

[jeffwarne]

At my home club on one of the courses the number 1 handicap hole is the first so if a match is tied after 18 and the players go to number 1 the golf committee did not like giving a stroke in this circumstance so they said no stroke on number 1. My problem is the number 3 handicap hole is the seventh and the player may only be getting one or two strokes.

Jerry,


With all due respect to the committee, I believe that they are not only going against USGA guidelines, but probably bowing to low handicappers who bitch endlessly when they lose a net competition.


I was a member of a club (and for two years the MGA president) with a similar situation; low indexers would do some complicated hypothetical math about what the handicaps would be if the match ended after the first extra hole due to a stroke given; they claimed that a player getting a stroke on the first hole was effectively being handicapped as if he were a bogey golfer for the playoff.


The converse, of course, is that effectively the higher index player is being treated as a scratch golfer if he doesn’t get a stroke on the #1 handicap hole.


Ultimately, the answer to low indexers was the same as it always SHOULD be: “Perhaps you should consider not playing in net events.”

AG,
While I agree in principle with following the stroke allocation of the given holes in an event. wouldn't there be some merit in considering not having the first hole being stroked at #1?
Which is odd on any number of fronts.


A 10 handicap would have to give an 11 a shot on the playoff hole?
Suggesting low handicappers not play in net events is a poor take when a better solution no doubt is out there, and there's no quicker way to destroy credibility of an event than to completely discourage low handicappers with such a take.
I mean why practice if your handicap simply goes down?(there's enough of this mind set already)
How much diference could it possibly make in everyday and event matches if #1 were substituted for the 3 or even the 5 stroked hole, but as the "1" it most definitely will impact most playoffs involving closely matched players.
In closely handicapped matches, making it the "3" or "5" might impact the outcome, making it the "1" most decidedly will.


Not suggesting this is a solution for all net events but it's  much cleaner than fighting over shots.
In our Member-Guest, we have 4 Flight(determined by handicap) winners play off, eliminating two teams in a shootout on the first hole.
The first playoff hole is alternate shot handicapped by yardage(no shots), varying from 390 to to 270.(the 390 shot is quite difficult and semi blind)
In twenty years we have had a very even distribution of flight winners by handicap, (with a very slight edge going to the lowest handicap Flight)
The final hole is a no shot/no tee adjustment 100 yard par 3 from the clubhouse/bar to 18 green, which perhaps explains the slight advantage to the lower handicapped flight.

[Jay Mickle]

Whatever system is used someone at some point will be unhappy with it. Can’t we just call it “rub of the card” get on with  it.

[A.G._Crockett]

At my home club on one of the courses the number 1 handicap hole is the first so if a match is tied after 18 and the players go to number 1 the golf committee did not like giving a stroke in this circumstance so they said no stroke on number 1. My problem is the number 3 handicap hole is the seventh and the player may only be getting one or two strokes.

Jerry,


With all due respect to the committee, I believe that they are not only going against USGA guidelines, but probably bowing to low handicappers who bitch endlessly when they lose a net competition.


I was a member of a club (and for two years the MGA president) with a similar situation; low indexers would do some complicated hypothetical math about what the handicaps would be if the match ended after the first extra hole due to a stroke given; they claimed that a player getting a stroke on the first hole was effectively being handicapped as if he were a bogey golfer for the playoff.


The converse, of course, is that effectively the higher index player is being treated as a scratch golfer if he doesn’t get a stroke on the #1 handicap hole.


Ultimately, the answer to low indexers was the same as it always SHOULD be: “Perhaps you should consider not playing in net events.”

AG,
While I agree in principle with following the stroke allocation of the given holes in an event. wouldn't there be some merit in considering not having the first hole being stroked at #1?
Which is odd on any number of fronts.


A 10 handicap would have to give an 11 a shot on the playoff hole?
Suggesting low handicappers not play in net events is a poor take when a better solution no doubt is out there, and there's no quicker way to destroy credibility of an event than to completely discourage low handicappers with such a take.
I mean why practice if your handicap simply goes down?(there's enough of this mind set already)
How much diference could it possibly make in everyday and event matches if #1 were substituted for the 3 or even the 5 stroked hole, but as the "1" it most definitely will impact most playoffs involving closely matched players.
In closely handicapped matches, making it the "3" or "5" might impact the outcome, making it the "1" most decidedly will.


Not suggesting this is a solution for all net events but it's  much cleaner than fighting over shots.
In our Member-Guest, we have 4 Flight(determined by handicap) winners play off, eliminating two teams in a shootout on the first hole.
The first playoff hole is alternate shot handicapped by yardage(no shots), varying from 390 to to 270.(the 390 shot is quite difficult and semi blind)
In twenty years we have had a very even distribution of flight winners by handicap, (with a very slight edge going to the lowest handicap Flight)
The final hole is a no shot/no tee adjustment 100 yard par 3 from the clubhouse/bar to 18 green, which perhaps explains the slight advantage to the lower handicapped flight.

There IS a better, which to have the first hole not carry a low number, whether that’s b/c it’s just easier, or if it’s to prevent this exact problem.


But if that ship has already sailed and the first hole DOES have a very low number, I believe the USGA guidelines say that a playoff is to be treated as the beginning of a new match in terms of allocating stokes.


If you do NOT give that stroke, then the 11 isn’t an 11 anymore; he’s now something else, and it’s artificial, based on neither his index, nor the golf course, nor his performance that day. And all of that is being done to placate the lower index player.


Thus the answer about considering not playing in net events if you find the outcome of losing to a lesser player unacceptable.

[jeffwarne]

pretty sure we agree the obvious solution is to not have the first hole (or chosen playoff hole) not be the#1 hdcp hole.

[Kyle Harris]

Eye test.


It’s generally very easy to determine the first few holes where the 18-22 handicap needs two strokes against a scratch golfer.


P.S. rather often that’s a Par 3.

[Ken Moum]

Eye test.


It’s generally very easy to determine the first few holes where the 18-22 handicap needs two strokes against a scratch golfer.


P.S. rather often that’s a Par 3.

Seriously?   Every bit of evidence I can see would favor the hole where the 20 has more chances to screw up, a par five.


Giving two on a par three would force the scratch player to make two to tie most of the time.

[Erik J. Barzeski]

It’s generally very easy to determine the first few holes where the 18-22 handicap needs two strokes against a scratch golfer.

P.S. rather often that’s a Par 3.

Empirical evidence does not support your postscript.

[Kyle Harris]

Maybe I more frequently play more interesting Par 3s.


Water often leads to doubles in situations that are far more damning to the 20 than to the scratch from the perfect lie of the tee.


And since when is forcing the better player to perform in a match for one hole a bad thing?

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()