Jump to content
2024 Houston Open WITB Photos ×

Hole handicap ratings. Help me explain it to old timers that hate change.


Recommended Posts

Hey,

 

Our handicap chair at my club is on the ball. Attends all the rules seminars, plays a lot of golf, follows all the rules of handicap and ROG.

 

Anyway, our course opened up last Thursday with new cards. On the cards, nearly every hole’s handicap has been changed. And the natives are PISSED. I was shocked myself, but then started to think about every hole and compare a high cap vs. a low cap and where the shots SHOULD be.

 

I talked to the chair and he said he used 300 cards from high caps and low caps to create the averages etc. It all makes sense to me.

 

But not to the guys I play with.

 

Is there an easy way to explain it? I absolutely know none of these guys are ever going to look up the process and actually read it and become informed. They just gripe how “#12, a 170+ par 3 is tougher than #17, a 150 par 3 so how can #12 be the “easier” of the two and the “easiest” hole on the course as the #18 cap”.

 

As you can see, they are locked into easier/harder. When I ask the low caps how often they hit #12, most report 1/5 or 2/5 times. High caps say the same thing. So if everyone is missing the green that often, the average score for both the groups will be about the same.

 

Their eyes have glazed over at this point with ZERO comprehension.

 

They want the caps to make sense in an “easier/harder” way as they were. I’m also afraid some of these guys will piss and moan so much that our chair will be removed or quit. He’s REALLY GOOD at what he does which would be a travesty.

 

Sorry for the long post.

 

So, does anyone have an easy way, in layman’s terms, to explain how hole handicaps should be done?

 

Thanks in advance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what form of play are your members complaining?

If you are talking about match play, the stroke index is better based in the first place on the distribution of strokes received than on order of difficulty. If you are talking about medal stroke play it doesn't where strokes are allocated : you are just deducting the total handicap strokes from the gross score and so the relative difficulty of holes is irrelevant. If you are talking about stableford, par or bogey competitions, it is better to base the index on the difficulty ranking of holes. Some of our courses here have two stroke indices: one for match play and the other for these particular forms of stroke play.

 

This is part of the recommendation for a match play stroke index from CONGU, our handicapping authority:

_1. Of paramount importance for match play competition is the even spread of the strokes to be received at all handicap differences over the 18 holes.

2. This is best achieved by allocating the odd numbered strokes to the more difficult of the two nines, usually the longer nine, and the even numbers to the other nine.

3. The first and second stroke index holes should be placed close to the centre of each nine and the first six strokes should not be allocated to adjacent holes. The 7th to the 10th indices should be allocated so that a player receiving 10 strokes does not receive strokes on three consecutive holes.

4. None of the first eight strokes should be allocated to the first or the last hole, and at clubs where competitive matches may be started at the 10th hole, at the 9th or 10th holes. This avoids a player receiving an undue advantage on the 19th hole should a match continue to sudden death. Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, stroke indices 9, 10, 11 and 12 should be allocated to holes 1, 9, 10 and 18 in such order as shall be considered appropriate_.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Wales they have two stroke indexes (either 2 separate cards or both printed on the one). One is for strokeplay and is based solely on difficulty, the other is for match play and follows the CONGU guidelines quoted above which ensures a fair distribution.

The the indexes are very difficult and I seem to recall that one hole at Royal Porthcawl (17th?) was stroke 1 on one index and stroke 17 on the other.

Initially a bit confusing but makes a lot of sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the reply.

 

For match play and for net skins. I found a chart in section 17-1 of the USGA handicap manual of how to distribute handicap values by comparing lots of data from the low cap group (0-8), to lots of data from a group that is roughly 15 shots worse than the average cap of the 0-8’s. This is certainly what my chair did to a T I’m sure.

 

The chart might help these guys “see” what went on.

 

But to explain it to them in less than, say, 100 words, I’m still at a loss. They are stuck on “this hole is easier than that one” thinking. Instead of where worse players would actually need shots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that in Australia all matchplay cards are the same for all courses.

My club (in England) uses the CONGU matchplay allocation for strokeplay & stableford but there are a few local clubs with two cards.

Stableford possibly presents a problem but a study in Wales a some years ago showed that 'swings and roundabouts' came into effect and it made no difference how strokes were allocated, the resultant scores were virtually the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Newby said:

> I believe that in Australia all matchplay cards are the same for all courses.

> My club (in England) uses the CONGU matchplay allocation for strokeplay & stableford but there are a few local clubs with two cards.

> Stableford possibly presents a problem but a study in Wales a some years ago showed that 'swings and roundabouts' came into effect and it made no difference how strokes were allocated, the resultant scores were virtually the same.

 

A quick sampling of the 30 Australian cards easily to hand suggests around 75-80 per cent of courses use only one matchplay index, but note there is very little matchplay handicap golf played - probably no more than 3 or 4 per cent of competition rounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @"Colin L" said:

> What about bounce games? Match play is the norm here when people get together for an informal game of golf.

 

Does bounce involve a trampoline? Or is it when you just turn up for social play? There is a little of the latter here, but it is a very small proportion of play, almost all club golf is individual competition play, mostly Stableford. On my course, around 750 rounds a week in that format, from a playing membership base of around 500-700 active players.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no "right way" - per the USGA manual there are "two right ways" (as others have stated in this thread). Our club has bounced back and forth between 'hardest holes are low handicap holes' and 'biggest scoring spread between low and high handicappers' is the low handicap holes. In my experience golfers rarely complained about the 'difficulty method' results - the matchplay hole handicap results almost always generated complaints. We are a mostly a stroke play kind of club.

 

IMHO, the USGA should start encouraging a stroke play kind of hole handicapping for two reasons.

 

1) The US should be moving toward Stableford type scoring as a nice and clean (rules based) way to keep blow up holes from slowing down play

2) Hole handicaps are going to become a fundamental part of the WW Handicap System which inherently assumes a 'difficulty' kind of hole handicapping.

 

And just for the record the USGA suggested way to do match play handicaps DOES NOT identify which hole two (almost) equally matched golfers give/take a stroke, because the data is NOT based on two almost equally matched golfers. What that approach does do is to identify which hole that two golfers with course handicaps differing by 17 strokes must play even.

 

dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't forget too add that the location of the handicap holes should be placed as early enough in the round as possible. IE, a high cap is gonna need their strokes well before hole 16 in the round.

SIM 2 Max 9.0 turned 7.0
TM Sim2 Titaniu, 13.5
TM RBZ 19* hybrid

TM RBZ 22* hybrid
Mizuno JPX 900 HM 5-PW
Vokey SM7 48* F Grind
Vokey SM7 54* F Grind
Vokey SM7 58* M Grind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> 1) The US should be moving toward Stableford type scoring as a nice and clean (rules based) way to keep blow up holes from slowing down play

> 2) Hole handicaps are going to become a fundamental part of the WW Handicap System which inherently assumes a 'difficulty' kind of hole handicapping.

> dave

 

This is only my opinion but I feel the maximum score stroke play was brought in with the U.S. golfers in mind. While I can't speak for the rest of the world, I believe most of it had gotten used to Stableford over the years whereas it seems like a rarity in the U.S. Reading this site, I believe the U.S. players more strongly want some kind of a score with actual strokes rather than "some points". (That is naturally true for all golfers though)

 

The handicapping bodies also settled on the maximum score stroke play to be the basis for the upcoming WHS as opposed to Stableford. I'm not a huge fan of the maximum score format. Keeping pure stroke play scores (gross/net) and Stableford points completely separate was very clear for most leisurely golfers (whether or not they were able to count their own points). Now it all gets tangled up in different kinds of stroke scores, actual stroke play score (gross/net) and maximum stroke score (gross/net) and the average Joe is left scratching his head.

 

Of course it's possible building the handicapping system was easier using strokes rather than points and that's the reason they decided to go that way and there was no push from the USGA side.

 

 

Swing DNA: 91/4/3/6/6
Woods: ST 180 or MP-650 - Irons: MP-H5 / MP-53 / MP-4, KBS Tour S - 50º: MP-T5 / 55º: FG Tour PMP  / 60º: RTX ZipCore - Mizuno Bettinardi BC-4

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, the combination of specific math and subjective judgments required to allocate handicap holes makes it the worst job in golf. Any change is thereby challengable, and people will remember that you made that change for years and years every time it has impact on their match.

 

Second, Augster, the only way to explain the match play allocation is to drive people away from the Hard/Easy equation. It generally means hard or easy vs. par, and that has zero to do with a match. A match is not against par, it's against an opponent. The differential between average scores of skilled and unskilled players is the key to that. As an example, one could have a simple 260-yard par four. While it might be the easiest hole on the course, it is likely to be a hole where a high capper needs a stroke to compete with a low capper's likely birdie. That hole shouldn't be handicap #18 despite its easiness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Sawgrass said:

> First, the combination of specific math and subjective judgments required to allocate handicap holes makes it the worst job in golf. Any change is thereby challengable, and people will remember that you made that change for years and years every time it has impact on their match.

>

> Second, Augster, the only way to explain the match play allocation is to drive people away from the Hard/Easy equation. It generally means hard or easy vs. par, and that has zero to do with a match. A match is not against par, it's against an opponent. The differential between average scores of skilled and unskilled players is the key to that. As an example, one could have a simple 260-yard par four. While it might be the easiest hole on the course, it is likely to be a hole where a high capper needs a stroke to compete with a low capper's likely birdie. That hole shouldn't be handicap #18 despite its easiness.

 

Agree-and the 225 yard par 3 surrounded by bunkers at my previous club should not be handicap #1 because everyone bogeyed it. High and low handicaps alike.

Titleist TSR4 9° Tensei AV White 65

Titleist TSi3 strong 3w 13.5° Tensei AV White 70

Titleist TS3 19°  hybrid Tensei Blue/Titleist TSR3 24° Diamana Ahina

Titleist T150 5-pw Nippon Pro Modus 125

Vokey SM8 50° F & 56° M SM9 60°M

Cameron Newport w/ flow neck by Lamont/ Cameron Del Mar

 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Sawgrass said:

> First, the combination of specific math and subjective judgments required to allocate handicap holes makes it the worst job in golf. Any change is thereby challengable, and people will remember that you made that change for years and years every time it has impact on their match.

>

> Second, Augster, the only way to explain the match play allocation is to drive people away from the Hard/Easy equation. It generally means hard or easy vs. par, and that has zero to do with a match. A match is not against par, it's against an opponent. The differential between average scores of skilled and unskilled players is the key to that. As an example, one could have a simple 260-yard par four. While it might be the easiest hole on the course, it is likely to be a hole where a high capper needs a stroke to compete with a low capper's likely birdie. That hole shouldn't be handicap #18 despite its easiness.

 

Brother, you ain't lyin'.

 

Nothing will bring out more differences of opinion within a group/club than which hole is harder that the other.

 

Lets the COURSE do it and use that. End of all arguments.

 

@Augster - Just tell 'em the really short version, "Statistics" (They don't want to know how it really was done anyway LMAO)

Callaway Epic Flash SZ 9.0 Ventus Blue 6S

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP 6X

Ping G425 MAX 20.5 7 wood Diamana Blue 70 S

Titleist 716 AP-1  5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, DGS300

Taylormade MG3 52*, 56*, TW 60* DGS200

LAB Mezz Max 34*, RED, BGT Stability

Titleist Pro V1X

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Sawgrass said:

> First, the combination of specific math and subjective judgments required to allocate handicap holes makes it the worst job in golf. Any change is thereby challengable, and people will remember that you made that change for years and years every time it has impact on their match.

>

> Second, Augster, the only way to explain the match play allocation is to drive people away from the Hard/Easy equation. It generally means hard or easy vs. par, and that has zero to do with a match. A match is not against par, it's against an opponent. The differential between average scores of skilled and unskilled players is the key to that. As an example, one could have a simple 260-yard par four. While it might be the easiest hole on the course, it is likely to be a hole where a high capper needs a stroke to compete with a low capper's likely birdie. That hole shouldn't be handicap #18 despite its easiness.

 

OTOH, in the near future if this 260 yard hole is a par 4 and (for whatever reason) the hole is unplayed in a stipulated round of golf, a 3 handicapper will take a bogey on this hole where he would probably 'take par' on other unplayed holes that are far more difficult (vs. par).

 

Unfortunately there is not a single approach to hole handicaps that works across both match and medal play. And this despite the fact that the same data used to generate match play handicaps could also be used to generate medal play handicaps.

 

dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @Sawgrass said:

> > First, the combination of specific math and subjective judgments required to allocate handicap holes makes it the worst job in golf. Any change is thereby challengable, and people will remember that you made that change for years and years every time it has impact on their match.

> >

> > Second, Augster, the only way to explain the match play allocation is to drive people away from the Hard/Easy equation. It generally means hard or easy vs. par, and that has zero to do with a match. A match is not against par, it's against an opponent. The differential between average scores of skilled and unskilled players is the key to that. As an example, one could have a simple 260-yard par four. While it might be the easiest hole on the course, it is likely to be a hole where a high capper needs a stroke to compete with a low capper's likely birdie. That hole shouldn't be handicap #18 despite its easiness.

>

> OTOH, in the near future if this 260 yard hole is a par 4 and (for whatever reason) the hole is unplayed in a stipulated round of golf, a 3 handicapper will take a bogey on this hole where he would probably 'take par' on other unplayed holes that are far more difficult (vs. par).

>

> Unfortunately there is not a single approach to hole handicaps that works across both match and medal play. And this despite the fact that the same data used to generate match play handicaps could also be used to generate medal play handicaps.

>

> dave

 

What am I missing here ? How would a 3 handicapper take a bogey on such an easy, unplayed, hole ?

 

 

Callaway Epic Flash SZ 9.0 Ventus Blue 6S

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP 6X

Ping G425 MAX 20.5 7 wood Diamana Blue 70 S

Titleist 716 AP-1  5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, DGS300

Taylormade MG3 52*, 56*, TW 60* DGS200

LAB Mezz Max 34*, RED, BGT Stability

Titleist Pro V1X

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @nsxguy said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > First, the combination of specific math and subjective judgments required to allocate handicap holes makes it the worst job in golf. Any change is thereby challengable, and people will remember that you made that change for years and years every time it has impact on their match.

> > >

> > > Second, Augster, the only way to explain the match play allocation is to drive people away from the Hard/Easy equation. It generally means hard or easy vs. par, and that has zero to do with a match. A match is not against par, it's against an opponent. The differential between average scores of skilled and unskilled players is the key to that. As an example, one could have a simple 260-yard par four. While it might be the easiest hole on the course, it is likely to be a hole where a high capper needs a stroke to compete with a low capper's likely birdie. That hole shouldn't be handicap #18 despite its easiness.

> >

> > OTOH, in the near future if this 260 yard hole is a par 4 and (for whatever reason) the hole is unplayed in a stipulated round of golf, a 3 handicapper will take a bogey on this hole where he would probably 'take par' on other unplayed holes that are far more difficult (vs. par).

> >

> > Unfortunately there is not a single approach to hole handicaps that works across both match and medal play. And this despite the fact that the same data used to generate match play handicaps could also be used to generate medal play handicaps.

> >

> > dave

>

> What am I missing here ? How would a 3 handicapper take a bogey on such an easy, unplayed, hole ?

>

>

 

If it becomes the #1 handicap hole (because the average scoring difference between low and high handicap golfers is high on this hole), then that would be one of 3 holes where a 3 handicap golfer (assume 3 as a course handicap as well) would get a stroke WRT an unplayed hole.

 

There is an alternative methodology WRT hole handicaps that would not have 'this problem' (but would have others WRT match play).

 

dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> > @nsxguy said:

> > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > First, the combination of specific math and subjective judgments required to allocate handicap holes makes it the worst job in golf. Any change is thereby challengable, and people will remember that you made that change for years and years every time it has impact on their match.

> > > >

> > > > Second, Augster, the only way to explain the match play allocation is to drive people away from the Hard/Easy equation. It generally means hard or easy vs. par, and that has zero to do with a match. A match is not against par, it's against an opponent. The differential between average scores of skilled and unskilled players is the key to that. As an example, one could have a simple 260-yard par four. While it might be the easiest hole on the course, it is likely to be a hole where a high capper needs a stroke to compete with a low capper's likely birdie. That hole shouldn't be handicap #18 despite its easiness.

> > >

> > > OTOH, in the near future if this 260 yard hole is a par 4 and (for whatever reason) the hole is unplayed in a stipulated round of golf, a 3 handicapper will take a bogey on this hole where he would probably 'take par' on other unplayed holes that are far more difficult (vs. par).

> > >

> > > Unfortunately there is not a single approach to hole handicaps that works across both match and medal play. And this despite the fact that the same data used to generate match play handicaps could also be used to generate medal play handicaps.

> > >

> > > dave

> >

> > What am I missing here ? How would a 3 handicapper take a bogey on such an easy, unplayed, hole ?

> >

> >

>

> If it becomes the #1 handicap hole (because the average scoring difference between low and high handicap golfers is high on this hole), then that would be one of 3 holes where a 3 handicap golfer (assume 3 as a course handicap as well) would get a stroke WRT an unplayed hole.

>

> There is an alternative methodology WRT hole handicaps that would not have 'this problem' (but would have others WRT match play).

>

> dave

 

I must have missed that part but in any case, no matter which way the course(?) decides to go in assigning handicap holes, however it becomes (or doesn't) a handicap hole, if it's in the hardest 3, the 3 would receive a bogey on that unplayed hole.

 

I guess I'm not seeing the issue.

 

 

Callaway Epic Flash SZ 9.0 Ventus Blue 6S

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP 6X

Ping G425 MAX 20.5 7 wood Diamana Blue 70 S

Titleist 716 AP-1  5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, DGS300

Taylormade MG3 52*, 56*, TW 60* DGS200

LAB Mezz Max 34*, RED, BGT Stability

Titleist Pro V1X

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has worked for me:

"It's not where a higher handicap player needs strokes to get a net par. It's where a higher handicap player needs strokes to beat a lower handicap opponent. If the likelihood is that a lower handicap player will get a bogie on a hole, a higher handicap player doesn't need a stroke there."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @nsxguy said:

> > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > @nsxguy said:

> > > > @DaveLeeNC said:

> > > > > @Sawgrass said:

> > > > > First, the combination of specific math and subjective judgments required to allocate handicap holes makes it the worst job in golf. Any change is thereby challengable, and people will remember that you made that change for years and years every time it has impact on their match.

> > > > >

> > > > > Second, Augster, the only way to explain the match play allocation is to drive people away from the Hard/Easy equation. It generally means hard or easy vs. par, and that has zero to do with a match. A match is not against par, it's against an opponent. The differential between average scores of skilled and unskilled players is the key to that. As an example, one could have a simple 260-yard par four. While it might be the easiest hole on the course, it is likely to be a hole where a high capper needs a stroke to compete with a low capper's likely birdie. That hole shouldn't be handicap #18 despite its easiness.

> > > >

> > > > OTOH, in the near future if this 260 yard hole is a par 4 and (for whatever reason) the hole is unplayed in a stipulated round of golf, a 3 handicapper will take a bogey on this hole where he would probably 'take par' on other unplayed holes that are far more difficult (vs. par).

> > > >

> > > > Unfortunately there is not a single approach to hole handicaps that works across both match and medal play. And this despite the fact that the same data used to generate match play handicaps could also be used to generate medal play handicaps.

> > > >

> > > > dave

> > >

> > > What am I missing here ? How would a 3 handicapper take a bogey on such an easy, unplayed, hole ?

> > >

> > >

> >

> > If it becomes the #1 handicap hole (because the average scoring difference between low and high handicap golfers is high on this hole), then that would be one of 3 holes where a 3 handicap golfer (assume 3 as a course handicap as well) would get a stroke WRT an unplayed hole.

> >

> > There is an alternative methodology WRT hole handicaps that would not have 'this problem' (but would have others WRT match play).

> >

> > dave

>

> I must have missed that part but in any case, no matter which way the course(?) decides to go in assigning handicap holes, however it becomes (or doesn't) a handicap hole, if it's in the hardest 3, the 3 would receive a bogey on that unplayed hole.

>

> I guess I'm not seeing the issue.

>

>

 

Some folks object to a close to scratch taking a bogey on a hole that (for this person) is likely the easiest hole for him/her on the course. That is the issue.

 

dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Schulzmc said:

> This has worked for me:

> "It's not where a higher handicap player needs strokes to get a net par. It's where a higher handicap player needs strokes to beat a lower handicap opponent. If the likelihood is that a lower handicap player will get a bogie on a hole, a higher handicap player doesn't need a stroke there."

 

Wait, what ??? Am I missing something again ?

 

The lower handicapper is most likely to make a bogie on the #1 handicap hole, no ? That's exactly where the higher handicapper needs a stroke.

Callaway Epic Flash SZ 9.0 Ventus Blue 6S

Ping G425 14.5 Fairway Tour AD TP 6X

Ping G425 MAX 20.5 7 wood Diamana Blue 70 S

Titleist 716 AP-1  5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, DGS300

Taylormade MG3 52*, 56*, TW 60* DGS200

LAB Mezz Max 34*, RED, BGT Stability

Titleist Pro V1X

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USGA has a very logical approach...

 

A method for allocating your handicap strokes is to collect 200 hole-by-hole scorecards from two different groups of golfers. Group A consists of golfers with a Course Handicap™ of 0-8 for men or 0-14 for women. If there are very few members within this range, take the low 25 percent of its golfers as group A.

Group B consists of middle-to-high Course Handicap golfers, ranging 15-20 strokes higher than group A (20-28 for men and 26-40 for women).

 

The next step is to compare the average score per hole for group A against the average score per hole of group B. Rank the differential of hole scores between group A and group B from high-to-low (1 highest, 18 lowest) differential. Allocate odd and even numbers to front and second nine. The last step is to make sure low numerical holes are not at the beginning or end of each nine.

 

The Handicap Committee should use good judgment when allocating handicap stroke holes. The club makes the final determination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If both are likely to bogie, then it's not needed, but more than likely the high cap is more than likely to double if it's going to be a true #1 cap hole and will need the stroke.

 

Our course #1 is 326 from the back (not tip) tees. 316 from the regular tees. Hole plays longer than score card as at the 200 yard mark the fairway ascends about 100 feet above the tees. No flat lies until you get on the green, and the fairway is 20yards at the widest point and shrinks as you get closer to the green. The green is about 7 yards wide and 25 long so unless you flirt with OB right you have no green to work with anywhere.(imagine Speith's nightmare at ANGC). Takes a decent drive and a good second to be putting. Missing the green is almost garaunteed bogey or worse. Usually worse. Most teams in scrambles don't birdie this hole.

SIM 2 Max 9.0 turned 7.0
TM Sim2 Titaniu, 13.5
TM RBZ 19* hybrid

TM RBZ 22* hybrid
Mizuno JPX 900 HM 5-PW
Vokey SM7 48* F Grind
Vokey SM7 54* F Grind
Vokey SM7 58* M Grind

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @DavePelz4 said:

> The USGA has a very logical approach...

>

> A method for allocating your handicap strokes is to collect 200 hole-by-hole scorecards from two different groups of golfers. Group A consists of golfers with a Course Handicap™ of 0-8 for men or 0-14 for women. If there are very few members within this range, take the low 25 percent of its golfers as group A.

> Group B consists of middle-to-high Course Handicap golfers, ranging 15-20 strokes higher than group A (20-28 for men and 26-40 for women).

>

> The next step is to compare the average score per hole for group A against the average score per hole of group B. Rank the differential of hole scores between group A and group B from high-to-low (1 highest, 18 lowest) differential. Allocate odd and even numbers to front and second nine. The last step is to make sure low numerical holes are not at the beginning or end of each nine.

>

> The Handicap Committee should use good judgment when allocating handicap stroke holes. The club makes the final determination.

 

Isn't that only one of their suggestions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @DavePelz4 said:

> The USGA has a very logical approach...

>

> A method for allocating your handicap strokes is to collect 200 hole-by-hole scorecards from two different groups of golfers. Group A consists of golfers with a Course Handicap™ of 0-8 for men or 0-14 for women. If there are very few members within this range, take the low 25 percent of its golfers as group A.

> Group B consists of middle-to-high Course Handicap golfers, ranging 15-20 strokes higher than group A (20-28 for men and 26-40 for women).

>

> The next step is to compare the average score per hole for group A against the average score per hole of group B. Rank the differential of hole scores between group A and group B from high-to-low (1 highest, 18 lowest) differential. Allocate odd and even numbers to front and second nine. The last step is to make sure low numerical holes are not at the beginning or end of each nine.

>

> The Handicap Committee should use good judgment when allocating handicap stroke holes. The club makes the final determination.

 

This is exactly what my handicap chair did.

 

I saw him on the course today and walked over and told him to not let any of these dufuses give him a hard time about the new hole handicaps. He told me, “If anyone wants to see the numbers, I’ll show them.”

 

I was happy he was sticking to it. He does everything by the book, so he has that to back him up.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Schulzmc said:

> This has worked for me:

> "It's not where a higher handicap player needs strokes to get a net par. **It's where a higher handicap player needs strokes to beat a lower handicap opponent**. If the likelihood is that a lower handicap player will get a bogie on a hole, a higher handicap player doesn't need a stroke there."

 

I think its more accurate to say that the strokes fall on the holes where the higher handicapper is most likely to need a stroke to TIE the lower handicapper.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @Augster said:

> Hey,

>

> Our handicap chair at my club is on the ball. Attends all the rules seminars, plays a lot of golf, follows all the rules of handicap and ROG.

>

> Anyway, our course opened up last Thursday with new cards. On the cards, nearly every hole’s handicap has been changed. And the natives are PISSED. I was shocked myself, but then started to think about every hole and compare a high cap vs. a low cap and where the shots SHOULD be.

>

> I talked to the chair and he said he used 300 cards from high caps and low caps to create the averages etc. It all makes sense to me.

>

> But not to the guys I play with.

>

> Is there an easy way to explain it? I absolutely know none of these guys are ever going to look up the process and actually read it and become informed. They just gripe how “#12, a 170+ par 3 is tougher than #17, a 150 par 3 so how can #12 be the “easier” of the two and the “easiest” hole on the course as the #18 cap”.

>

> As you can see, they are locked into easier/harder. When I ask the low caps how often they hit #12, most report 1/5 or 2/5 times. High caps say the same thing. So if everyone is missing the green that often, the average score for both the groups will be about the same.

>

> Their eyes have glazed over at this point with ZERO comprehension.

>

> They want the caps to make sense in an “easier/harder” way as they were. I’m also afraid some of these guys will **** and moan so much that our chair will be removed or quit. He’s REALLY GOOD at what he does which would be a travesty.

>

> Sorry for the long post.

>

> So, does anyone have an easy way, in layman’s terms, to explain how hole handicaps should be done?

>

> Thanks in advance.

 

Lol. Sorry OP. Wish I could help. I’ve come to know that it’s a futile exercise to try and talk sense to a murder of old crows. They know it all , seen it all , and don’t want you to make anything better.

 

 

Callaway epic max LS 9* GD-M9003 7x 

TM Sim2 max tour  16* GD  ADHD 8x 

srixon zx 19* elements 9F5T 

Cobra king SZ 25.5* KBS TD cat 5 70 

TM p7mc 5-pw Mmt125tx 

Mizuno T22 raw 52-56-60 s400

LAB Mezz Max armlock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True story here. I was on our local handicap committee for a number of years (it was a long time ago). We redid the hole handicaps on 6 courses (per the match play methodology). When this was done in many cases hole handicaps seemed (and were) unrelated to difficulty against par.

 

There was a good bit of uproar over this. Even though I personally did much of the data crunching I had great sympathy for the 'protesters'. First we are not a Match Play kind of club. LOTS of member rounds are club organized play and almost all of it is some flavor of team/medal play (including Stableford). So the analysis that we did was not really related to the games typically being played.

 

Also with the old handicaps (no one actually knew where they came from) there was kind of a relationship between difficulty against par vs hole handicap and that had (in many cases) disappeared. Before the change 'net par' for a player on a hole meant something that was kind of the same on every hole. Suddenly it was an OK score on some holes and a poor score on others. For example I had tons of data WRT my game on these courses and suddenly I was 'getting a stroke' on the two easiest holes (for me) across all 108 holes (mid single digit handicapper) and not getting a stroke on the two absolute hardest holes (against par) for me. It was actually a very dissatisfying way to play the games that we played, even though it probably was not changing outcomes (as measured at the end of a competition).

 

We ended up changing the hole handicaps to better match our medal play orientation, although the Match Play handicaps were available if folks wanted to use them.

 

dave

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> @DaveLeeNC said:

> True story here. I was on our local handicap committee for a number of years (it was a long time ago). We redid the hole handicaps on 6 courses (per the match play methodology). When this was done in many cases hole handicaps seemed (and were) unrelated to difficulty against par.

>

> There was a good bit of uproar over this. Even though I personally did much of the data crunching I had great sympathy for the 'protesters'. First we are not a Match Play kind of club. LOTS of member rounds are club organized play and almost all of it is some flavor of team/medal play (including Stableford). So the analysis that we did was not really related to the games typically being played.

>

> Also with the old handicaps (no one actually knew where they came from) there was kind of a relationship between difficulty against par vs hole handicap and that had (in many cases) disappeared. Before the change 'net par' for a player on a hole meant something that was kind of the same on every hole. Suddenly it was a not so good score on some holes and a poor score on others. For example I had tons of data WRT my game on these courses and suddenly I was 'getting a stroke' on the two easiest holes (for me) across all 108 holes (mid single digit handicapper) and not getting a stroke on the two absolute hardest holes (against par) for me. It was actually a very dissatisfying way to play the games that we played, even though it probably was not changing outcomes (as measured at the end of a competition).

>

> We ended up changing the hole handicaps to better match our medal play orientation, although the Match Play handicaps were available if folks wanted to use them.

>

> dave

 

While we did nothing as wide ranging as you Dave, when a couple of our holes were modified with new teeboxes which dramatically changed the holes, our particular group sat down and did our own ratings. We adjusted to where we felt it matched our group’s needs better. And it worked very well for us. After a few years when we moved off the tips, we went back to the old ratings. Much like yours, ours is all strokeplay.

 


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Discussion and links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Thorbjorn Olesen - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ben Silverman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jesse Droemer - SoTX PGA Section POY - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      David Lipsky - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Martin Trainer - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Zac Blair - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jacob Bridgeman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Trace Crowe - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jimmy Walker - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Daniel Berger - WITB(very mini) - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Chesson Hadley - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Callum McNeill - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Rhein Gibson - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Patrick Fishburn - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Peter Malnati - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Raul Pereda - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Gary Woodland WITB (New driver, iron shafts) – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Padraig Harrington WITB – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Tom Hoge's custom Cameron - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Piretti putters - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ping putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Kevin Dougherty's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Bettinardi putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Erik Barnes testing an all-black Axis1 putter – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Tony Finau's new driver shaft – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
       
      • 8 replies
    • 2024 Valspar Championship WITB Photos (Thanks to bvmagic)- Discussion & Links to Photos
      This weeks WITB Pics are from member bvmagic (Brian). Brian's first event for WRX was in 2008 at Bayhill while in college. Thanks so much bv.
       
      Please put your comments or question on this thread. Links to all the threads are below...
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 31 replies
    • 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Matt (LFG) Every - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Sahith Theegala - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Cameron putters (and new "LD" grip) - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Bettinardi MB & CB irons - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Bettinardi API putter cover - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Swag API covers - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Golf Pride Reverse Taper grips - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2024 Cognizant Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #2
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #3
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #4
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Brandt Snedeker - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Max Greyserman - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Eric Cole - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Carl Yuan - WITb - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Russell Henley - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Justin Sun - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alex Noren - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Shane Lowry - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Taylor Montgomery - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jake Knapp (KnappTime_ltd) - WITB - - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Super Stoke Pistol Lock 1.0 & 2.0 grips - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      LA Golf new insert putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Garsen Quad Tour 15 grip - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Swag covers - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jacob Bridgeman's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Bud Cauley's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Ryo Hisatsune's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Chris Kirk - new black Callaway Apex CB irons and a few Odyssey putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alejandro Tosti's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 2 replies
    • 2024 Genesis Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #3
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #4
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Rory McIlroy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Sepp Straka - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Patrick Rodgers - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Denny McCarthy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Chase Johnson - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Matt Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Si Woo Kim - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Viktor Hovland - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Wyndham Clark - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Nick Taylor - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Ben Baller WITB update (New putter, driver, hybrid and shafts) – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Vortex Golf rangefinder - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Fujikura Ventus shaft - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods & TaylorMade "Sun Day Red" apparel launch event, product photos – 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods Sun Day Red golf shoes - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Aretera shafts - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Toulon putters - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods' new white "Sun Day Red" golf shoe prototypes – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      • 22 replies

×
×
  • Create New...