Handicapping and competition

[rjsimper]

I've seen discussions about this issue before, but not directly addressing it (only in the context of other discussions) and I know it's been discussed time and again in foursomes everywhere...

But the par 4s thread got me thinking about it again, because it STILL bugs me...

Regarding handicapping holes and competition, say you have a 0 handicap, a 4 handicap and a 14 handicap playing each other.

Now, isnt the theory of handicapping with reference to a scratch player?  So, the idea is that holes with handicaps 1-4 are the holes where the 4 handicap should be most likely to make bogey, right?

Likewise, the handicaps 1-14 are the holes where the 14 should be most likely to make bogey.

So then, on handicap holes 1-4, both the 4 and 14 handicap get strokes, meaning on handicap holes 5-14, the 0 AND the 4 are giving the 14 strokes.

So why, then, would a head to head match with the 4 and 14 have the handicap difference of 10 shots given on handicap holes 1-10, not 5-14?

Doesn't stroking the 1-10 holes undermine the handicapping system?  Granted, it's an imperfect science, but still...



Design-wise, I rarely pay attention too much to the handicaps of the holes, but does anyone know of a course where the 1 handicap hole is the first hole on the course?  Is this a weakness in design, and if your course was handicapped this way, would you seek to change that somehow, either by coercion of the handicapper or by modification of the hole?

[JohnV]

Ryan,

The idea is not the holes "where the XX should be most likely to make a bogey."  Rather it is the holes where the XX is most likely to need a stroke to tie the better player (be he a 0, 4 or 24).  The theory is that the lower handicap holes are the ones requiring that regardless of what handicaps are playing.

There certainly may be cases where that isn't true, but to do it another way would possibly mean that every match between differing handicaps would need a different stroke allocation to be "fair."  Maybe the best way in match play is to let the higher handicap player choose which holes he gets his strokes on before the match.

In reading through the USGA Handicap System manual just now, I learned that a club could have different stroke allocations for four-ball stroke play vs match play.  In match play you want the holes rated where the higher handicap needs a stroke to tie (this could be a short par 5 wherll stroke play, it is better to have the strokes fall on the hole the better player might make birdie more often.)  In four-baes that average the most over par (ie the hardest holes.)  I've never seen a scorecard that has two allocations like that.

[rjsimper]

Hmm, I thought my understanding of handicapping might be a bit flawed or simplistic, but wouldnt it also be understood as the holes where a player is most likely to bogey (albeit after one step of deductive reasononing) if the scratch player gets zero strokes and should shoot 72 and the 4 handicap gets 4 strokes, should shoot 76, and would most need the strokes on handicap holes 1, 2, 3, and 4 in order to tie the guy who makes 18 pars?

I definitely did not know, nor have I ever seen, differing handicaps for four-ball versus match play, but that seems simultaneously complicated but necessary in the interest of fairness.  Really interesting info, though.  If a course wasn't officially dually-handicapped, could tournament organizers of a four-ball event arbitrarily re-handicap the way they think is best?  I know that at my home course I'd change some things around if I could arbitrarily assign them.

I still think that logically speaking, a 4 handicap should give the shots to the 14 on holes 5-14, not on holes 1-10, but oh well.

 

[A.G._Crockett]

Ryan,
The problem with giving the shots on higher handicapped holes is that you would be creating a situation where on easier holes, including par threes, the lesser player would be lying zero just off the green or a short distance from the green in the fairway.  That's too tough for the more skilled player to overcome.

I have a match on this Sat. a.m. in a club tournament in which I am giving 11 shots (my 7 to an 18).  I DON'T give a shot on the par threes (we have 5) and the two easiest par 4's.  I have a much better chance of winning that way than the other way around.  I hope that makes sense.

[Scott Coan]

Ryan,

Just got back from a trip to Aussie and over there they maintain 2 indexes on their cards, one for match play (equivalent to the US indexing) and another for par/stableford.

They are completely different with the theory (I guess) being that the par index ranks the holes in degree of difficulty and the match index ranks them in variance between what a low marker typically scores vs. the high marker.

As an example, the first 4 holes at Kinston Heath are on the card as follows:

hole  meters  match  par&stab   par
1      418      18           4              4
2      351      8            8               4
3      269      12          16             4
4      357      3            15            4

[Brent Hutto]

I still think that logically speaking, a 4 handicap should give the shots to the 14 on holes 5-14, not on holes 1-10, but oh well.

So what sort of threeball match are you talking about, Ryan? Is it basically a skins game? If one ties, all tie? Or is it in something like the nine-point game (my own preference for threeball matches)?

In a skins game, the 14 isn't ever playing a twoball-like match with the 4 so it's not a big deal that his allocation of strokes differs from what would be preferred in straight-up match play. However, the nine-point game is more akin to simultaneous matches between each pair of players (that's what the scoring scheme reduces to if you write it out and simplify). That's where Ryan's problem comes into play.

[EDIT] Upon further consideration, what I said isn't actually true. The nine-point game doesn't quite add up to the same allocation of points as three explicit matches. It's actually like simultanous matches with weighted scoring depending on the other match outcome for that hole.

[rjsimper]

A.G. - It's definitely an imperfect science - But the other side of the coin is this -  say you have a 16 and 18 handicap.  I see the problem with giving the 2 shots on the 17 and 18 handicap holes, presumably short par 3s (as is often the case) and the 16 capper not being able to overcome the disadvantage...

Conversely, if the strokes are given on the 1 or 2 handicap holes, both of which may be 470 yard par 4s, is the 16 any more able to overcome this disadvantage here?

I really truly don't know - just trying to explore all the angles.

Scott - that's great info - thanks for sharing (as like I said much like John, I've not seen dual handicapped cards except in cases of alternate greens or tees)

Brent -
I was just using three people for the sake of simplicity, but my question applies still for four players playing four-ball.  If you have a 4, 8, 12, and 16, it all comes down to whether the strokes start from the 1 handicap hole or the 5 handicap hole.

Ultimately - I can even use myself as an example, even with a 2 man straight up match.  I am a 5 - if I play a match against someone who is a 15, then by my logical reasoning, I think I should not give strokes on holes 1-5 and give them on 6-15.  My reasoning is that if each of us were playing a round, I should be expected to make bogey on those holes and pars on 6-18 whereas the 15 should make bogeys on 1-15 and pars on 16-18 leading to 18 halved holes.

If we play with the 15 stroking on 1-10 based on our differential, my opponent wins 1-5 with my bogey to his net par, we halve 6-10 with par to net par, 11-15 I win par to bogey, and we halve 16-18 with pars.

Yes, I realize I'm getting a bit fanatical about this here, but it has always bugged me because it seems like such a trivial little change in what we do, but it seems like it would be the most in touch with the spirit of handicapping holes.

(Is there an official "right" answer?")

Anyone think of a first hole 1 handicap hole?
 

[Jordan Wall]

Ryan,

The first hole at my high school's home course is the #1 handicap hole.

What I dont get is why all the par-5's are the lower hanbdicaps, such as 1, 2, 3, or 4.  If you are more likely to par a par-5 than anything else why arent par fives the easiest holes on a course, at least handicap wise?

[Doug Siebert]

Jordan,

Watch what good players, halfway good players and bad players do on par 5s.  The worse the player the worse they score on par 5s, because the hole is longer and more shots give them more chance to screw up.

If a bogey golfer has to play a scratch golfer on one hole straight up, where do you think his best chance would be?  Certainly not on a par 5, where the scratch will probably make par at worst and perhaps a birdie, and the bogey golfer only needs one bad shot to get him on track to a 6 or worse.  And with generally at least three full shots, that bogey golfer is pretty likely to get himself that one bad one.

If I was advising that bogey golfer I'd tell him to pick a long par 3 that didn't have any really penal areas (no water, OB, thick trees, deep rough or nasty bunkers) that were in play for the bogey golfer.  The bogey golfer can probably come up with a bogey fairly easily on a 230 yard par 3, its just a really short par 4 to him where he enjoys a chip or pitch to the green for his second shot, while a 230 yard approach to reach the green in regulation is the longest a scratch player will face anywhere on the course, giving him his best odds of missing the green and making bogey.

[Paul Jones]

If a course wasn't officially dually-handicapped, could tournament organizers of a four-ball event arbitrarily re-handicap the way they think is best?  I know that at my home course I'd change some things around if I could arbitrarily assign them.

 

Ryan,

According to the rules of the USGA a committee can change the handicap holes for a competition...

"The committee in charge of the competition is permitted to assign a custom order. If so, it must publish a "stroke allocation table" indicating the order of holes at which handicap strokes are to be given or received. For example, while the score card may assign holes 3, 13, and 8 as the first, second, and third stroke holes, the committee may choose to designate 4, 12, and 7 instead. (The Rules of Golf, Rule 33-4)."

[Andrew Summerell]

The match play index has no correlation to par or difficulty. It is basically a way of spreading out the shots evenly through the entire 18 holes. I believe it was formulated by Noel Bartell, a prominent member of New South Wales GC since the 1950’s and still going strong now in his 80’s.

Match play index generally goes:
Hole/Index
1    -  18
2    -  8
3    -  12
4    -  3
5    -  14
6    -  6
7    -  10
8    -  1
9    -  16
10   -  5
11   -  11
12   -  2
13   -  15
14   -  7
15   -  13
16   -  4
17   -  17
18   -  9

To check this, I looked at cards from New South Wales GC, The Australian, Newcastle, Portsea, St Andrews Beach, The National (Old), Kingston Heath, and they all had the same index.

[peter_p]

John,
       You need to get out of the office. Our club recentlly collected hole by hole scores, so we know which holes are hardest to par and where high handicappers need a stroke to halve. I tried to get the committee to create two strole allocation lists, to no avail.

Brett,
       Each player plays a separate match against the others, thus three distinct matches are in play and you are involved in two. In your matches one could concede a hole to one player, but still be in play against the other, or you could be giving a hdcp stroke to one opponent but not the other. Covered in Rule 30.

    I know in the US we usually give the higher hdcp the full difference between the two players hdcps, but I think elsewhere they may give 60-80%, not sure of the exact percentage.

[A.G._Crockett]

John,
       You need to get out of the office. Our club recentlly collected hole by hole scores, so we know which holes are hardest to par and where high handicappers need a stroke to halve. I tried to get the committee to create two strole allocation lists, to no avail.

Peter,
JohnV has explained this before, but how hard a hole is relative to par is NOT the reason for it's handicap number.  In theory, a particular hole could be the hardest relative to par on the entire course, and yet have a very high handicap number if the lesser player and the better player were more likely to make the same score there than elsewhere on the course.

I think most courses would find a high degree of correlation between the difficulty of holes relative to par vs. the handicap, but they are NOT the same.  For instance, by convention, most course put the odd number handicaps on the front side in order to get more of the strokes out of the way before the end of the match.  Many courses do not give the 18th hole a 1 or 2 handicap so that an even match is not decided by a given stroke on the final hole.

[A.G._Crockett]

Ryan,

The first hole at my high school's home course is the #1 handicap hole.

What I dont get is why all the par-5's are the lower hanbdicaps, such as 1, 2, 3, or 4.  If you are more likely to par a par-5 than anything else why arent par fives the easiest holes on a course, at least handicap wise?

This is exactly the point!  The scratch golfer is actually most likely to birdie a par 5 (check the Tour stats on this), so that is where the lesser golfer most needs a shot to equalize the competition.  It isn't a difficulty rating!  It is a competition equalizer, at least in theory.  Because of the inordinate number of birdies on the par 5's, there would might be a relatively low overall difficulty rating, but a great need for a stroke to awarded in match play.

I think if you look at your course from the perspective of where the scratch golfer is most likely to take advantage of the course relative to the lesser player, those are the low handicap holes.  The holes where the lesser player can skull a driver, chunk a wedge, and still chip and putt for par will be the higher handicap holes.  Generally speaking, distance (along with forced carries) is going to the the single greatest factor that the higher handicapped player cannot overcome without the stroke help.

[Tom Huckaby]

The wise AGC nailed this.

Stroke allocation is not about difficulty; it's about competition equalization.  The lowest numbers are given to the holes on which the higher handicapper needs the strokes the most; and generally, the longer the hole, the more he has a chance to screw up, thus the more he needs the stroke.

TH

[rjsimper]

The wise AGC nailed this.

Stroke allocation is not about difficulty; it's about competition equalization.  The lowest numbers are given to the holes on which the higher handicapper needs the strokes the most; and generally, the longer the hole, the more he has a chance to screw up, thus the more he needs the stroke.

TH

Yes, but I am not asking what handicapping means...

I'm wondering where the differential falls because in a two-way match with a 4 and a 14, the 4 gives the 14 strokes on different holes than he would if the match was a fourball match with a 0, 4, 8, and 14.

Why should there be a difference?

[Tom Huckaby]

Ryan - sorry, I wasn't attempting to answer your question, but rather just trying to add some confirmation to what AGC posted to others asking about how this generally works.

Re your question, well... just listen to JV.

Santa Teresa has different stroke allocations for match play and stroke play....

TH

[Tom Huckaby]

One more thing:  I think the example you chose just makes this overly difficult.  See, the wisest way to do any match with more than two players is to stroke off the lowest handicap, as I'm sure you know.  Since you added a zero, that renders it impossible or I should say just means no one gets decreased at all.  So yes, as it pertains to the 4 and 14 getting strokes, the 4 is giving them on holes 5-14, not on 1-10 as he really should.  But that's only because of the presence of the zero... take him out, make this a 3ball, and all is right with the world.  The 4 becomes 0, the 8 becomes 4, the 14 becomes 10.

I guess it comes down to this:  handicapping fourball matches is always going to be inexact.  I'd guess JV could point us to a way the USGA/R&A have come up with to handle it, and I'd guess it would make sense... but in odd situations with diverse handicaps like this, I'd also guess one just does the best one can.

TH

[A.G._Crockett]

The wise AGC nailed this.

Stroke allocation is not about difficulty; it's about competition equalization.  The lowest numbers are given to the holes on which the higher handicapper needs the strokes the most; and generally, the longer the hole, the more he has a chance to screw up, thus the more he needs the stroke.

TH

Yes, but I am not asking what handicapping means...

I'm wondering where the differential falls because in a two-way match with a 4 and a 14, the 4 gives the 14 strokes on different holes than he would if the match was a fourball match with a 0, 4, 8, and 14.

Why should there be a difference?

Ryan,
I think the answer to your question is that there is a difference because it is now a different competition.  Both the 4 and the 14 are now playing of the 0's ball.  The 14 now gets 4 additional shots over the match against the 4, while the 4 now gets 4 shots as well.  The 14 is still getting shots on the same holes that he would have against the 4 in a singles match, it's just off of 0's ball.

What you are wondering about is a way to equalize each situation within the fourball as compared to those same players playing singles against each other.  I can't see anyway to do that.  You are right that if the 4 and 14 both get a shot on the #1 handicapped hole, they 14 isn't getting a shot relative to the 4.  That's not the point, though; the 14 is still getting 10 more shots than the 4, but more importantly BOTH the 4 and 14 are equalized relative to the best player in the match.
 

[Tom Huckaby]

Whew!
Thanks again, AGC.  I have an understanding of how this works and how it doesn't and why, I just completely fail to articulate it.... and you succeed mightily.  Prepare for a call the next time I need a ghost-writer.

 

[Jerry Kluger]

Jonathan's dad wrote a book on the subject which he might have available if you're interested in an in-depth study of the subject.  

The problem which I see is that your handicap is based upon your total strokes but shot allocation is based upon hole difficulty.  I cannot put my finger on it but it seems that the two are not necessarily indicative of the same characteristics or abilities of a particular golfer.  

[Tony_Muldoon]

So Shivas if the match goes to the 19th, then the higher handicap will always get a stoke?

[peter_p]

AG,
  I've been handicap chairman at two clubs and compiled and crunched numbers to reallocate where the handicap strokes fall.
  Just chiding my longtime friend that if he played more golf around the world he would have seen scorecards with multiple handicap options based on play.
  He's never been to Royal St George's, which has the biggest such sign I've even seen

[Doug Sobieski]

Ryan:

The low handicap player is not competing against the course - he/she is competing against other players. A match is an entity unto itself - the rest of the world doesn't matter. For any match, the lowest handicap player is the standard by which all others are measured and they don't need any shots to equalize themselves with anybody. In a four-ball match, those four players may just as well be the only four players on earth. Forget about the rest of the golf world. As such, one player in the match is the benchmark that you start measuring from. I think that too often, this argument comes about because people factor in the ability of players that are not involved in the match ("scratch" players), and viewing them as the standard.

The example I always use is a match between a 17 and an 18. By giving the 18 a stoke on the 18 handicap hole, you will be practically giving him a win, rather than helping him halve the hole. Stokes are equalizers, not to win holes.

We've had this discussion countless times over the years on here (at least twice a year). We should put a tab over on the left to summarize it.

[Brent Hutto]

I still don't understand something. If you view a threeball match as three separate head-to-head matches (or a fourball as six separate matches) then why would everyone have to get strokes off the lowest handicapper?

In the original example there's a threeball of 0, 4, 14 handicaps. It would seem to me that the 0 and 14 would negociate strokes for their head-to-head match, the 0 and 4 do the same and the 4 and 14 also. In that case you could start allocating strokes for each of the three matches from the #1 handicap hole, no? Am I failing to miss the point?

I guess I've never played that kind of match. It all seems a bit hard to keep up with. In threeballs I've also either played the nine-point game or some kind of skins (or medal play which I hate). In fourballs it's always been either 4BBB or skins. Maybe that's why I don't understand the "problem" with the stroke allocation.