[Duncan Cheslett]

Stroke Indexes were originally devised to distribute shots in matchplay games. They are used more widely these days however, to determine which holes a player gets shots on in Stableford competitions.


There is a common perception that the difficulty of a hole is the most important factor in assessing its SI. Although this is not actually the case it clearly makes sense that it should be - for Stableford play at least.


As Sean points out in another thread, for a 5 handicapper to give shots in Matchplay  to a 10 handicapper on the five most difficult holes is unreasonable; they are the very holes which he expects to bogey more often than not.


Surely a more equitable system would simply be for all players to take their shots where they would in Stableford scoring. The aforementioned 5 handicapper would then be giving shots on holes 6-10 rather than 1-5.


This would then enable clubs to rate their Stroke Indexes purely on difficulty, and not on some artificial notion of distributing them around the card.


It would also make redundant the looming notion of seperate sets of indexes for Matchplay and Stableford.

[Sam Andrews]

I could not agree more

[Andy Stamm]

Some research along these lines. [size=78%]http://www.golf.com/tour-and-news/have-we-been-playing-match-play-incorrectly[/size]


This is a bit unwieldy in four ball play, particularly with a big spread in handicaps.


If you get rid of the concept of trying to spread the stroke indexes around the card (and avoiding giving strokes at the end and beginning), are you happy if the result is that the distribution of strokes is quite lopsided?


Regardless of the fact that people think the current system is based on absolute difficulty, it is actually based on giving strokes where the difference in difficulty for low handicap and high handicap man is highest, which in match play is optimal. Why change that?


A stableford card should be determined based on hole difficulty in relation to par. But par is irrelevant in a match. A stableford card will be skewed toward the holes that are hardest in relation to par, but not actually the most difficult, typically long holes (in relation to their par). Calling a 475 yard hole a 4 or a 5, will (and should) greatly influence it's stroke index for stableford purposes. Why should such a system be applied to match play, where such an outcome is clearly nonsense?


It seems to me that the optimal system is the one we currently have for match play and a separate stableford card. I don't think that's so hard to produce or administer. Why give up so much on the match play side solely to preserve one set of stroke indexes?

[Thomas Dai]

Never been convinced about current method of SI.
There ought to be 2 SI systems.

For matchplay strokes to be given/received on holes that are difference in players hcps, ie not SI 1, 2 etc.
For stableford, complete recalculation is necessary based on average scores by all on each hole - some courses I believe already have a 2 SI system.
Atb

[Jon Wiggett]

That's all great Duncan except SI on the holes is not an indication of the degree of difficulty of the hole compared to the others. It is to evenly distribute the strokes. Even in stableford the shots are better distributed evenly as the players playing standard will rise and fall in the round. This ensures the player will not use up all his shots for nothing if the hardest holes are bunched and the player has a bad patch through it.


Jon

[James Reader]

It’s always seemed to me that the importance of ‘which holes do I get a shot on’ is over-rated in Stableford play - and arguably in matchplay as well.  Setting aside the holes where a player scores a net triple bogey or worse (and I know that’s quite a caveat because it happens to all of us), it doesn’t actually have any effect on the overall score.  As with much of golf, it’s really in the mind of the player that it makes most difference.  We all feel a bit hard done by if we don’t get a shot on a hard hole which we always bogey, but if instead we get one on an easy hole which we normally par, does it really matter?  We still end up with 4 points over the two holes.

[Ken Moum]

It’s always seemed to me that the importance of ‘which holes do I get a shot on’ is over-rated in Stableford play - and arguably in matchplay as well.  Setting aside the holes where a player scores a net triple bogey or worse (and I know that’s quite a caveat because it happens to all of us), it doesn’t actually have any effect on the overall score.  As with much of golf, it’s really in the mind of the player that it makes most difference.  We all feel a bit hard done by if we don’t get a shot on a hard hole which we always bogey, but if instead we get one on an easy hole which we normally par, does it really matter?  We still end up with 4 points over the two holes.

That's precisely the case, IMHO.


I played for almost 20 years in a nine-hole match play league at a course where the allocations were done COMPLETELY wrong for match play, and in the end I believe it had virtually no impact on the matches.


The USGA Handicap Manual does suggest that clubs might want to have two separate allocations for match vs. four-ball or best ball play (which I think would apply to stableford, even though, sadly, we don't play iy much here.)


In the several stableford comps I've played in on trips to Scotland, I've seen fellow competitors just use their gross score minus handicap to estimate their point total.  A 10 who shoots 82 on a par 72, is going to have 36 points most of the time.  As someone who has a lot of no return holes in links golf, I know it's not going to work, but it does show that where you get the strokes isn't THAT important.


FWIW, I have long believed that the simplest and "best" way to allocate strokes is based entirely on the length of the holes.  Long holes offer more chances to screw up than short ones.  And no one wants to give shots on a par three.


K

[Andy Stamm]

It’s always seemed to me that the importance of ‘which holes do I get a shot on’ is over-rated in Stableford play - and arguably in matchplay as well.  Setting aside the holes where a player scores a net triple bogey or worse (and I know that’s quite a caveat because it happens to all of us), it doesn’t actually have any effect on the overall score.  As with much of golf, it’s really in the mind of the player that it makes most difference.  We all feel a bit hard done by if we don’t get a shot on a hard hole which we always bogey, but if instead we get one on an easy hole which we normally par, does it really matter?  We still end up with 4 points over the two holes.

By that logic, we don't need to allocate the strokes to holes at all. We can just tally scores off scratch and add the shots at the end.


But it very much does matter because we do make big numbers. And if the stroke holes aren't properly allocated for stableford play, this will effect results. And because medal rounds are reduced to stablefords for handicap purposes, this also effects handicaps.

[Nick Prafke]

I would love to see a change in the way strokes are applied. I am usually 0-3 and feel like I can't play in any of my club events because they are all handicapped. Competing against a single person they work okay but in a group someone mid to high handicap is always going to best their handicap by 6 or more and that is just somewhere I can't compete, on my best day I can beat my handicap by 2-3.

[Jerry Kluger]

I remember that Jonathan Cummings' father wrote a book on this and related subjects.  I came away from the book with the conclusion that all matches should be played with full handicaps off the scorecard.  The reasoning is twofold.  First:  The better player doesn't do better on the more difficult holes - it is the easier holes where the difference comes out.  A 5 playing against a 15 would not play better on the 5 most difficult holes - it would be that next 10 where his superior play would come out.  Second: If you get into a 4 ball match playing off the lowest handicap you wind up with some very strange handicaps concerning where players are getting strokes.

[James Reader]

It’s always seemed to me that the importance of ‘which holes do I get a shot on’ is over-rated in Stableford play - and arguably in matchplay as well.  Setting aside the holes where a player scores a net triple bogey or worse (and I know that’s quite a caveat because it happens to all of us), it doesn’t actually have any effect on the overall score.  As with much of golf, it’s really in the mind of the player that it makes most difference.  We all feel a bit hard done by if we don’t get a shot on a hard hole which we always bogey, but if instead we get one on an easy hole which we normally par, does it really matter?  We still end up with 4 points over the two holes.

By that logic, we don't need to allocate the strokes to holes at all. We can just tally scores off scratch and add the shots at the end.


But it very much does matter because we do make big numbers. And if the stroke holes aren't properly allocated for stableford play, this will effect results. And because medal rounds are reduced to stablefords for handicap purposes, this also effects handicaps.

You’re right Andy; strokes do need to be allocated to holes.  My point is that I don’t think which holes they are allocated to is quite as big a deal as most golfers think it is. 

[Duncan Cheslett]

I would agree that in Matchplay the distribution of shots is less important than people imagine. In the UK at least however, the bulk of club golf is played these days using Stableford scoring.


Most golfers IMO would prefer the Stroke Indexes for Stableford play to be ranked strictly in accordance with the hole's difficulty in relation to par. The statistics for determining these rankings are easily obtained by all clubs from their computer handicapping system.


All I am suggesting is that these Stroke Indexes could then be utilised in Matchplay by each player taking his shots as normal rather than using the traditional method of calculating the net number of shots from the low man.


This would obviate the need for two sets of Stroke Indexes - a rather unwieldy and confusing solution.




FWIW, at my club we have gone a step further and started using Stableford points in our social 4 ball better ball games instead of taking shots off the low man. The potential for 3 or 4 point swings on a single hole makes the game far more interesting.

[Pete_Pittock]

The US course I call home has two different handicap stroke tables. One for normal match play which indexes which holes a bogey golfer most needs a stroke to tie a scratch player. The other is used for par, bogey, stableford and better ball partnerships, and that is based on the relative difficulties to par for each hole.


The stroke tables were approved by the handicap committee and management, so anything that can pass muster for both is all right.


Royal St George's has (in 1997) a large board near the first tee which tells the players where strokes fall, dependent upon the competition.

[Sean_A]

FWIW, at my club we have gone a step further and started using Stableford points in our social 4 ball better ball games instead of taking shots off the low man. The potential for 3 or 4 point swings on a single hole makes the game far more interesting.

Until a game becomes uncompetitive due to a large lead.  What you are suggesting is a totally different game which has the same pros and cons as off the low man except that I think your system has a higher chance of games ending early.  If the game is truly just a friendly, I much prefer Sunningdale Rules of no handicaps/once a team-person is down 2 holes a shot is given until the match is back to 1 down.  I think this has the highest chance of keeping games competitive which is he reason for giving shots in the first place.  Talk about interesting!

Ciao

[Andy Stamm]

It’s always seemed to me that the importance of ‘which holes do I get a shot on’ is over-rated in Stableford play - and arguably in matchplay as well.  Setting aside the holes where a player scores a net triple bogey or worse (and I know that’s quite a caveat because it happens to all of us), it doesn’t actually have any effect on the overall score.  As with much of golf, it’s really in the mind of the player that it makes most difference.  We all feel a bit hard done by if we don’t get a shot on a hard hole which we always bogey, but if instead we get one on an easy hole which we normally par, does it really matter?  We still end up with 4 points over the two holes.

By that logic, we don't need to allocate the strokes to holes at all. We can just tally scores off scratch and add the shots at the end.


But it very much does matter because we do make big numbers. And if the stroke holes aren't properly allocated for stableford play, this will effect results. And because medal rounds are reduced to stablefords for handicap purposes, this also effects handicaps.

You’re right Andy; strokes do need to be allocated to holes.  My point is that I don’t think which holes they are allocated to is quite as big a deal as most golfers think it is.

Well, I do agree that this doesn't have some huge influence on every game, it does matter and isn't that tough to address.


For a stableford (and therefore handicap), I'd very much like the strokes to fall on the holes where a player is most likely to run up a big number and therefore eat the extra shot.

Take the 17 at St Andrews. It's pretty easy to run up a triple there, but it's got a relatively high stroke index. It's common to take an NR there while not getting a shot. But as it's easily the hardest hole on the course in relation to its par, it should be stroke 1, and the player should therefore have to take the extra shot. Meanwhile stroke 1 (number 14), while not an easy hole for the high handicapper, doesn't yield a lot of 8s. This distorts scoring in favor of the player who makes big numbers.

[Sean_A]

Andy

I note you say TOC 17 should be #1 index for Stableford and compare it to TOC 14...which is #1 index, but it is used as an all round index.  For Stableford, sure, why not have a shot at 17.  For matchplay, I am not convinced this is the place for a shot so late in the round...especially on such a difficult hole which can easily be played as par 5 but bunting around all the trouble. 

There are no all-encompassing answers to handicapping...its still a bit of a dark art. What is certain is that the higher the handicap the less accurate it is.  It will always be a difficult when matches involve giving 7, 9 or 12 shots etc.  This is partly why it is important for handicaps to be determined on the same criteria and with no gimmies etc.  Tee to hole scores should be the only ones allowed for capping purposes so a most accurate picture of one's ability can be detrermined. 

Ciao

[Adrian_Stiff]

Years ago in Spain (maybe other places too) they had two indexes.


1. HANDICAP BASED ON Difficulty of hole ....for stableford
2. STROKE INDEX BASED ON Where the strokes are given evenly in match play


2. is the most important


If you think of strokes in a stableford given at the hard holes it then just make those holes easy! It does not really matter if you have 9 shots which 9 holes you have them at. If you make two nett pars for 2 points at each hole of a nett birdie/nett bogey for the same score.


In the real world some holes are easy some are hard. The equilibrium is merely changed by the Stroke Index. My Stroke 8 hole where I get a shot is an easy par 5 and probably the most likely hole I can birdie.

[Mark Pearce]

I think we waste more time over-thinking strokes indices here than any other subject, even ratings.

[A.G._Crockett]

The US course I call home has two different handicap stroke tables. One for normal match play which indexes which holes a bogey golfer most needs a stroke to tie a scratch player. The other is used for par, bogey, stableford and better ball partnerships, and that is based on the relative difficulties to par for each hole.


The stroke tables were approved by the handicap committee and management, so anything that can pass muster for both is all right.


Royal St George's has (in 1997) a large board near the first tee which tells the players where strokes fall, dependent upon the competition.

Pete,
Out of curiosity, how different are the two sets of handicaps? 

I'll guess in advance that there are a couple of holes on each side that have a significant difference, but that most are identical or different by only one place.  Of course, there can be a "domino effect"; if the #1 handicap hole in the matchplay table becomes #5 in the stroke play table, that automatically changes more than just the one hole.

[A.G._Crockett]

I think we waste more time over-thinking strokes indices here than any other subject, even ratings.

Mark,
Trust me when I tell you that if you become involved in running handicapped tournaments at a competitive club, you will see that this turns out to be a VERY big deal to a lot of players.

[Andy Stamm]

Andy

I note you say TOC 17 should be #1 index for Stableford and compare it to TOC 14...which is #1 index, but it is used as an all round index.  For Stableford, sure, why not have a shot at 17.  For matchplay, I am not convinced this is the place for a shot so late in the round...especially on such a difficult hole which can easily be played as par 5 but bunting around all the trouble. 

I agree with all of that. I'm trying to rebut the premise that for stablefords it doesn't matter where the strokes fall. I think it does, and I think the difficulty of 17 vs its par and its high stroke index illustrate that point (particularly to a back pin!).


I think 14 is a very good hole to have as stroke 1 for match play. Hell bunker makes the hole play much, much harder for a high handicapper than a low, and it falls nicely in the middle of the nine.


If we're just going to have one set of stroke indexes for the course, I'm quite happy with how they are (i.e. based on match play). But we don't have to have one set. (In fact we don't even have one set now, the ladies have there own par and the stroke indexes are completely different). Using the one set is distorting stablefords and handicaps. I think the trouble of having 2 sets of stroke indexes is worth it in order to get the correct ones for each type of play.

[Sean_A]

Andy

I largely agree with some above who say its rather pot luck where strokes are given in any format so far as making much difference and I would not advocate making the process more complicated with two sets of indexes.  Shit...golf is complicated enough.  That said, I never liked the idea of par 3s having low indexes just as I don't think ANYBODY should get more than 18 shots in Stableford and 14 shots in matchplay.  I don't care how high the handicap is...there should be a max for competitive purposes which is far lower than currently set out.  As I say, the higher up the handicap scale the more volatile and inaccurate handicapping becomes.   

Ciao

[Pete_Pittock]

The US course I call home has two different handicap stroke tables. One for normal match play which indexes which holes a bogey golfer most needs a stroke to tie a scratch player. The other is used for par, bogey, stableford and better ball partnerships, and that is based on the relative difficulties to par for each hole.


The stroke tables were approved by the handicap committee and management, so anything that can pass muster for both is all right.


Royal St George's has (in 1997) a large board near the first tee which tells the players where strokes fall, dependent upon the competition.

Pete,
Out of curiosity, how different are the two sets of handicaps? 

I'll guess in advance that there are a couple of holes on each side that have a significant difference, but that most are identical or different by only one place.  Of course, there can be a "domino effect"; if the #1 handicap hole in the matchplay table becomes #5 in the stroke play table, that automatically changes more than just the one hole.

I'm about a third of the way around the world and a few months removed for a definitive answer but the normal match play card is balanced between the sides, ie. the #1 and #2 handicap holes are on different sides. The stableford card eliminates sides, using the whole course. In the first example, a 12 hdcp would get 6 strokes on each side, in the stableford it might be split 9-3.
Hard to tell you for sure what it is, and we have 36 holes

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()