[Tom Huckaby]

Tom Huckaby:

Most of the regional golf associations today are looking to increase the services they provide their member clubs or their constituency. They feel it helps the associations maintain  or increase their relevence.

I believe that, and it makes sense.

But have many - or will many - take on stroke allocations?

TH

[JESII]

And just what are these fractional differences?

In other words...the hole with the greatest difference between the 5 and the 18 might have, what... a 0.8 stroke differential while the hole with the least differential might be 0.6...why even worry about a formula that creates such a tight pattern?

[Jim_Kennedy]

JV - I was told NCGA will do that also, if asked-Huckaby

NCGA charges $50.00 to $100.00. (Info from their website)

[Ken Moum]

And just what are these fractional differences?

In other words...the hole with the greatest difference between the 5 and the 18 might have, what... a 0.8 stroke differential while the hole with the least differential might be 0.6...why even worry about a formula that creates such a tight pattern?

I'll bet there's more than 0.2 strokes variation.

The latest Golf magazine has some stats on various handicap levels and their average scores on par 3s, 4s, and 5s.

The differences between a 0 and a 20 ranged from 0.79 to 1.68, and that's an average of all holes.

Even the 0s and 10s ranged from .26 to .60 differential.

You can be sure that if you took averages for individual holes the differentials would be higher. FWIW, the USGA's sample table in the manual shows differentials ranging from 0.73 to 2.38 strokes per hole.

Ken

[Jim_Kennedy]

JES11,
Without establishing differentials, no matter how small, there would be no way to know which is the hardest hole or which hole is the one where a stroke is most needed.


 

[Jon Wiggett]

Jim,

my understanding is that stroke index (I pressume hole handicap is this) is to do with the allocation of shots given by one player to another or recieved during a stableford competition. As such it has nothing to do with the degree of difficulty of a hole and so this does not have to be taken into account. The strokes should be received evenly over the round and it should avoid a player receiving to many towards the end of the round.

[TEPaul]

Matter of fact, if the USGA and clubs allowed their computers (and their handicap "system") to do what they can do via hole by hole data crunching, the computer could actually come out with a match play handicap and a stroke play handicap for any golfer. Inherently, the stroke play handicap would have to be higher. Put the point is the match play handicap would inherently be much more representative of individual golfers' handicap needs at their own clubs.

It may seem like overkill but it certainly would create more equitableness for individual golfers at their own courses and clubs.

[Pete_Pittock]

Jim,
The handicap stroke allocation is used for match play. If you are in a medal play event your club can have a separate table for stroke allocation based on each hole's relative difficulty to par. I have played at many clubs which provide different competition scenarios.

[Jordan Wall]

Hole handicaps are designed so that the highest handicapped holes (1-6) are the holes in which there is the greatest difference in score between a scratch and an 18 handicap and the ower handicapped holes (13-18) are the holes in which the scratch and the 18 score the closest to each other, on average.

It is easier for an 18 to do well on a par-3 (hence the lower handicaps) because they only have to hit one good shot.  On long holes, an 18 would have to hit several good shots in a row to score well.

[SL_Solow]

We followed the recommended procedure and collected scorecards for a period of 6 weeks in the prime season a year ago.  It resulted in changing the relative positions of sweveral holes.  It is a very interesting process to see which holes cause scoring problems for the various classes of players on your home course and the number of surprises can be enlightening.  In particular, the deviations in scores on particular holes is very interesting and should be considered in determining relative positions.  A hole with a significant water hazard which leads to some very high scores may be overrated for difficulty if those avoiding the hazard generally score relatively well because the single stroke deduction may not be significant in impacting on the outcome of the match.  Lots to consider but the data is critical in really understanding how the course plays.

[David Whitmer]

I was on the golf staff of a golf club when it opened, and one topic we wrestled with was the handicaps of each hole. Since it was up to the golf committee at the club to allocate handicap strokes, we decided to get about 15 or 20 players (of all skill levels) and have them fill out what they thought it should be. Then, we would use averages, or decide as a group, or what have you. I think we did a decent job, but I personally would have changed a few. The one thing the owner of the club was adament about was that he did not want the 18th hole to be the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th handicap hole. He did not want a match between two very comparable golfers to come down to a stroke on the last hole.  I didn't quite know what to think of that at the time, and to be honest I'm still not sure how I feel about that philosophy.

[SL_Solow]

That is a common philosophy but the reasons are usually different.  Most often the rationale is that a player should not be "closed out" before they get a chance to use their strokes.

[Doug Siebert]

It is easier for an 18 to do well on a par-3 (hence the lower handicaps) because they only have to hit one good shot.  On long holes, an 18 would have to hit several good shots in a row to score well.

The 18 doesn't even have to hit a good shot, he can hit a bad shot and often still has some chance of getting up and down, and a very good chance he'll still end up no worse than bogey.

The scratch is more likely to make bogey on a par 3 than anywhere else because he's approaching with longer clubs on average than he does on par 4s or 5s (not including going for par 5s in two)  Even on tour no pro averages under par on par 3s, but they are all under par on par 5s, and the really good ones are a little under par on par 4s (since they mostly have wedges to them these days, they'd be under par on par 3s if they were all under 150 yards I guess)

[Rich Goodale]

This whole "debate" just shows how stupid the "hole handicap" concept is.  You can argue about where these holes "ought" or ought not to be based on relative hole difficulty, psychological implications on various betting games and or the phases of the moon, but at the end of the day it is all about "different strokes for different folks," as Sly Stone famously said.

I say have a universal hole handicap for every course, probably based on the principle that strokes ought to be given and taken in the middle of 9's rather than at either end.  So, wherever you stroll up to, be it Podunk Muni or Royal Feathersupurarse, you know that if you are getting or giving two strokes they will be on (say) 5 and 14.

All this kerfuffle about trying to "scientifically" determine where the strokes ought to fall is just mental merchant banking.  KISS!

[Jim_Kennedy]

It doesn't reveal itself as 'stupid' to me, just the opposite. Using scores from the 0.0 and the -20 range players establishes the differentials, recognizing that a -5 is closer to a -15 than he is to a 0.0, but a -20 will never be mistaken for a 0.0. If you refer to the first section you'll see that there is latitude if two, or more, holes are nearly similar their placement can be moved around.

It's simply some math that is then used judiciously by a club to help them place their holes in a sequence that fosters more equitable matches between their members.

Of course, the system doesn't get in the way of negotiating on the first tee.      

[Rich Goodale]

Jim

Maybe I'm particularly stupid today, but I don't really see what the difference is whether you give or take shots on "easy" holes or "hard" holes.  Yes, the psychology is different, but the overall outcome will be the same.  For example, assume a 2 hole course and a scratch vs. 9 handicap player.  If both holes are of average difficulty and both players play to their handicap, the scratch player will shoot them each in level par and the 9-handicap will bogey one and par the other.  No matter where strokes are given the match is halved.  At the other extreme, assume that one hole is the easiest on the course and another the hardest.  The scratch player will shoot birdie-bogey and the 9 handicap par-double bogey.  Again, no matter which hole in the stoke hole, the outcome is the same.

ta da!

Rich

[JESII]

RFG,

Is that how it will happen every time on this two hole course?

[Jim_Kennedy]

Rich,
Not over time, hence, the collection of several hundred scorecards from those at either pole.

The only 'scientific' part is the math employed to come up with  differentials, and then using them to identify where a stroke is most likely to be needed by the higher handicap. Nothing cut in stone in the latter, only probabilities.  

A few weeks ago our 'best' player went out in 37 and came in with 30. We are nine holes.

[Adrian_Stiff]

When two golfers play with just a one stroke handicap difference they are fairly matched. Wherever the stroke is 'given' it is likely the receiver will win. As a receiver you tend to play cautiously and make sure you do not waste your shot (well, thats the theory). When you start receiving lots of shots it matters less, although if you were giving 12 shots you would not want to give them in the first 12 holes. Even distribution of the strokes is ALL that really matters.

[Scott Coan]

In Australia they have a match play index that is exactly the same for EVERY course:

1   18
2   8
3   12
4   3
5   14
6   6
7   10
8   1
9   16

10  11
11  5
12  2
13  15
14  7
15  13
16  4
17  17
18  9

Then they also have a par & stableford index that goes by degree of difficulty.

Thought this was quite interesting as had not come across it before.

[Brent Hutto]

In Australia they have a match play index that is exactly the same for EVERY course:

1   18
2   8
3   12
4   3
5   14
6   6
7   10
8   1
9   16

10  11
11  5
12  2
13  15
14  7
15  13
16  4
17  17
18  9

Then they also have a par & stableford index that goes by degree of difficulty.

Thought this was quite interesting as had not come across it before.

Scott,

Thanks for that. The Aussie approach is brilliant because once you memorize the pattern (half dozen games at worst) you no longer need a scorecard. It's hard enough for me to shake the card-and-pencil mentality anyway and having to drag a scorecard out of my pocket every couple holes to figure out who's getting a stroke rankles.

[Rich Goodale]

Thanks, Scott

That was exactly what I was getting at.  Smart guys those Aussies!

[Jim_Kennedy]

Scott,
That's not exactly correct, that table you posted is presented by the GA as an option that clubs might use.

For example: St. Lucia's stroke allocations are: 7, 4, 18, 17, 9, 11, 13, 15, 2, 1, 14, 6, 12, 5, 3, 8, 16, & 10
while Cape Schanck's are: 15, 7, 5, 13, 9, 1, 18, 3, 17, 2, 4, 11, 12, 6, 16, 10, 8, & 14

[Scott Coan]

Thanks Jim,

I assumed it was for all as we played 8 courses in the Melbourne area a couple years back and all had the same allocations for match play.  We were in a touring group playing a Ryder Cup style match each day and by the 3rd match I started seeing the pattern as I was always getting or giving a shot on the 8th hole, whether it was a monster par4 or a tiny par3!

Cheers

[JSPayne]

Ok, here's for Ken (since he said he's never seen a club make a point of the difference between stroke and match play handicapping) and everyone else. I've had a great conversation with my assistant pro and his description makes this topic very easy to understand (at least for me). Take a look at our scorecard:





Now here's the difference:

STROKE PLAY HANDICAPING:

Essentially, these numbers reflect the difficulty of the holes, 1 being the most difficult, 18 being the easiest. This is for everyone, so hole 3 is the hardest on our course for all players of all skill levels (long, uphill par 4). In stroke play, each player is playing against THE WHOLE FIELD of players and handicaps are simply subtracted from your gross score at the end of play, so handicaps assigned to holes in this case is meaningless EXCEPT....if there is a tie between scores in a stroke play match, and the tournament elects to use a scorecard playoff instead of a on-course playoff, they go to each player's score on the number 1 handicap (hardest) hole and the player who scored lower wins. If they tie, then they look at the number 2 handicap hole, etc etc.

MATCH PLAY HANDICAPING:

In any match play, it is ONE VS. ONE and the outcome of the match is determined on a per hole basis. Therefore, if the handicaps of the two players are similar, the match handicaps for the holes relflect a similar theme as the stroke handicaps as you can see in the cards. The big differences in handicap numbers come at: #3 (long uphill par 4) and #4 (short downhill par 5) and #10 (mid length, flat open par 5) and #11 (mid length dogleg narrow par 4). As you can see from the descriptions of these holes, #3 plays as a hard hole for any player, so does not need to be a high handicap (stroke hole) for the match, but #4 is definetely easier for lower handicap players (can reach easily in two) than high handicappers and so SHOULD be a high handicap (stroke hole) for the match between two players of dissimilar skills.

In this way, the MATCH handicapping gives the stroke advantages on only the holes with the largest dispair of difficulty between low and high handicappers. It forces the better player to play his easier holes at his best and rewards the less-skilled player more if he tries to play the hole like a better player CAN and succeeds.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()