Stroke Indexes (Hole Handicaps)

[DaveLeeNC]

The rating organizations have the best data that you are likely to get (IMHO) regarding the calculations of the hole handicaps (stroke index) for all rated courses/tees. They have their (estimated) expected scores (from each set of tees) for scratch golfers and bogey golfers. And that is precisely the data needed to calculate hole handicaps.  

 

Prior to the WHS hole handicaps were really just 'competition things' that did not affect actual scoring or posting. But now they most definitely do affect scoring (for Stableford anyway - something that I wish were used more commonly in the US) and posting. It seems to me to now be something that should be coming from the rating authorities rather than whoever it is that does it now (it varies club to club, at least here in the US). 

 

Has this ever been seriously discussed at the USGA/R&A level and what was the general consensus? 

 

Thanks.

 

dave

 

[ThinkingPlus]

I don't know, but I really, really hope that when our course is re-rated that they re-do the hole handicaps.  Someone did it previously based mostly on hole distance only.  Ludicrous.

[Mr. Bean]

I doubt that rating is about setting 18 holes in the order of difficulty as that depends on so many variables that IMO it is not a mission possible. So...

 

Hole indexing has been done in at least two different ways.

1. Stroke play indexing. Collecting data from the holes being played in competitions and indexing the holes based on the average score of each hole. In practice that does not work too well as there are multiple tees and (at least...) two genders playing almost each tee.

2. Match Play indexing. Creating indeces that do not reflect the difficulty of each hole as such but is more suitable for MP than the SP indexing.

 

For higher cappers playing Stableford there may be a slight effect depending on which of those two systems is used but taking into account the weakness of system nr 1 there is no effect at all. You get the same number of strokes no matter what.

 

All in all, IMO it does not really matter how the holes are indexed when playing Stableford and even less when playing handicapped stroke play.

 

EDIT: To give a real example on nr 1 system. At my club the indexing was made for years by collecting data from the club championships. Average scores from back tees for men and women was collected hole per hole. then the indexing was done based on the men's scores. So, how does that reflect to

a) an average club player with less skills

b) an average man playing from men's club tees

c) an average woman paying from women's club tees

d) any player playing from any other tee than the back tees per gender?

 

The answer is that it does not reflect at all. So, if in club championships the most difficult hole for men was hole #6 that hole for women was only 7th most difficult and vice versa. Thus I need to ask how does one create hole indexing suiting for everybody? Well, there is no way, not even rating.

 

 

 

Edited December 15, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[DaveLeeNC]

@Mr. Bean , I guess you are saying that it doesn't matter.  I would say that it most certainly can matter on a given round of Stableford scoring, or a given match, or a given posted score. Maybe at some level of increasing granularity it no longer matters, but I don't find that satisfying. 

 

When I was doing hole ratings it quickly came to my mind that 'damn, this is a bunch of work when the data that the rating organization has is probably of higher quality and would give me everything I need'. And with that data you could do a lot more than is currently done. 

 

First I think it is rare for a course to not have separate ratings for men and women. But I am sure it happens ( @ThinkingPlus probably has some insight here). The issue that hole #x from the back tees might well have a natural  different stroke index than the same hole from the front tees is certainly valid, and the data from the rating process tells you what you need to know about that (I have seen scorecards with different stroke indexes by tee). You could even take a stab at addressing the issue of the relative difficulty of holes (from a given set of tees) varying by skill level, although the implementation complexity is probably not worth it. 

 

At least (IMHO) the rating organization should make that data routinely available for use (if the club chooses) in determining hole handicaps. And (to me) the USGA/R&A allowing random/ad hoc processes to determine hole handicaps seems slightly irresponsible. 

 

dave

 

[rogolf]

38 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

@Mr. Bean , I guess you are saying that it doesn't matter.  I would say that it most certainly can matter on a given round of Stableford scoring, or a given match, or a given posted score. Maybe at some level of increasing granularity it no longer matters, but I don't find that satisfying. 

 

When I was doing hole ratings it quickly came to my mind that 'damn, this is a bunch of work when the data that the rating organization has is probably of higher quality and would give me everything I need'. And with that data you could do a lot more than is currently done. 

 

First I think it is rare for a course to not have separate ratings for men and women. But I am sure it happens ( @ThinkingPlus probably has some insight here). The issue that hole #x from the back tees might well have a natural  different stroke index than the same hole from the front tees is certainly valid, and the data from the rating process tells you what you need to know about that (I have seen scorecards with different stroke indexes by tee). You could even take a stab at addressing the issue of the relative difficulty of holes (from a given set of tees) varying by skill level, although the implementation complexity is probably not worth it. 

 

At least (IMHO) the rating organization should make that data routinely available for use (if the club chooses) in determining hole handicaps. And (to me) the USGA/R&A allowing random/ad hoc processes to determine hole handicaps seems slightly irresponsible. 

 

dave

 

Check this out from Golf Australia,

https://assets.ctfassets.net/3urhge2ecl20/4rKvz2XPUu5H87jgDIk8Px/51da793fc0dfeca98f37b1a2dde19ef1/00044819-source.pdf

[Mr. Bean]

1 minute ago, rogolf said:

Check this out from Golf Australia,

https://assets.ctfassets.net/3urhge2ecl20/4rKvz2XPUu5H87jgDIk8Px/51da793fc0dfeca98f37b1a2dde19ef1/00044819-source.pdf

 

Oh no, 6 pages of numbers.... could you please give us a short overview...?

[Mr. Bean]

41 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

@Mr. Bean , I guess you are saying that it doesn't matter. 

 

 

Well, it doesn't. In the long run it makes absolutely no difference how you index the holes. No difference. None.

[rogolf]

29 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Oh no, 6 pages of numbers.... could you please give us a short overview...?

If you don't want to read it, that fine.  I'll not be summarizing it for you!

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, DaveLeeNC said:

@Mr. Bean , I guess you are saying that it doesn't matter.  I would say that it most certainly can matter on a given round of Stableford scoring, or a given match, or a given posted score. Maybe at some level of increasing granularity it no longer matters, but I don't find that satisfying. 

 

When I was doing hole ratings it quickly came to my mind that 'damn, this is a bunch of work when the data that the rating organization has is probably of higher quality and would give me everything I need'. And with that data you could do a lot more than is currently done. 

 

First I think it is rare for a course to not have separate ratings for men and women. But I am sure it happens ( @ThinkingPlus probably has some insight here). The issue that hole #x from the back tees might well have a natural  different stroke index than the same hole from the front tees is certainly valid, and the data from the rating process tells you what you need to know about that (I have seen scorecards with different stroke indexes by tee). You could even take a stab at addressing the issue of the relative difficulty of holes (from a given set of tees) varying by skill level, although the implementation complexity is probably not worth it. 

 

At least (IMHO) the rating organization should make that data routinely available for use (if the club chooses) in determining hole handicaps. And (to me) the USGA/R&A allowing random/ad hoc processes to determine hole handicaps seems slightly irresponsible. 

 

dave

 

I have seen it, but most of the time they have hole ratings for each gender, but not necessarily for each tee and gender.  That can make it confusing for men playing all the way forward (doesn't happen often because most men would rather die first) as well as women playing back a tee or two (usually only me).

 

As a plus cap I regularly have 1 to 2 holes where I have to make birdie to get net par.  Shortest club I can hit on the #18 rated hole is 9i (3 of our 4 "easiest holes" are par 3s - I can hit a wedge on one if it's a front pin).  It's usually somewhere between a small 8i and small 7i.  You would think I could at least get to hit a wedge on my "must make birdie" hole.  LOL!

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Well, it doesn't. In the long run it makes absolutely no difference how you index the holes. No difference. None.

 

I don't know how long your long run is. Regardless we will have to agree to disagree unless you have some additional information to back up your statement when match outcomes, posted scores, and results of Stableford tournaments all are  potentially affected by hole handicap assignments. 

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

9 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I have seen it, but most of the time they have hole ratings for each gender, but not necessarily for each tee and gender.  That can make it confusing for men playing all the way forward (doesn't happen often because most men would rather die first) as well as women playing back a tee or two (usually only me).

 

As a plus cap I regularly have 1 to 2 holes where I have to make birdie to get net par.  Shortest club I can hit on the #18 rated hole is 9i (3 of our 4 "easiest holes" are par 3s - I can hit a wedge on one if it's a front pin).  It's usually somewhere between a small 8i and small 7i.  You would think I could at least get to hit a wedge on my "must make birdie" hole.  LOL!

 

No problem - you are free to hit a PW on #18  if you choose 😀.

 

dave

 

ps. I was (long ago) playing with a very 'spirited group'. Milt hit an approach shot with some iron, it came up short, and he mumbled "not enough club". His nemesis (Bill) responded "plenty of club, not enough golfer". 

[davep043]

2 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

At least (IMHO) the rating organization should make that data routinely available for use (if the club chooses) in determining hole handicaps.

Under the current guidelines, the hole indexing should be based largely on the relative difficulty, as measured by the average of the scratch and bogey ratings in relation to par.  There are other considerations recommended, to spread the higher and lower index holes somewhat evenly through the round.  This is all in Appendix E in the Rules of Handicapping. Your state association retains all of the course rating information, and can provide them to you, along with a recommended numbering that fits the recommendations as well as possible.

I do agree with you, the handicap indexing can certain affect individual competitions, but I don't believe that it would necessarily provide an advantage to one group of handicap ranges over another group.

[DaveLeeNC]

13 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Under the current guidelines, the hole indexing should be based largely on the relative difficulty, as measured by the average of the scratch and bogey ratings in relation to par.  There are other considerations recommended, to spread the higher and lower index holes somewhat evenly through the round.  This is all in Appendix E in the Rules of Handicapping. Your state association retains all of the course rating information, and can provide them to you, along with a recommended numbering that fits the recommendations as well as possible.

I do agree with you, the handicap indexing can certain affect individual competitions, but I don't believe that it would necessarily provide an advantage to one group of handicap ranges over another group.

 

I tried to get that info once (back in the early 2000's and was turned down. But maybe if our club asked for it ......... Or maybe that perspective has changed. 

 

dave

 

 

[Augster]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Well, it doesn't. In the long run it makes absolutely no difference how you index the holes. No difference. None.

For net skins it absolutely matters. We subtract out the low guy specifically to keep the higher caps from getting strokes on the par 3’s. 
 

When we do “everyone gets their shots” the higher caps nearly always “net 1” all the par 3’s depending on how many are in. 
 

If every course in the world agreed the par 3’s are going to be indexes 18, 17, 16 etc. then I’d agree with you that it doesn’t really matter. The strokes for the par 3’s would always be in the same place. 

[Augster]

24 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Under the current guidelines, the hole indexing should be based largely on the relative difficulty, as measured by the average of the scratch and bogey ratings in relation to par.  There are other considerations recommended, to spread the higher and lower index holes somewhat evenly through the round.  This is all in Appendix E in the Rules of Handicapping. Your state association retains all of the course rating information, and can provide them to you, along with a recommended numbering that fits the recommendations as well as possible.

I do agree with you, the handicap indexing can certain affect individual competitions, but I don't believe that it would necessarily provide an advantage to one group of handicap ranges over another group.

Our handicap chair changed the hole caps based on all data from competitions and comparing scratch to bogey etc. By the book and appendix E. 
 

That lasted about 5 events and the masses revolted and made him change it back to stroke play averages by difficulty. 
 

The appendix E way of doing things, the masses couldn’t wrap their heads around it. “No way is 14 tougher than 15”. Etc. etc. 
 

14 isn’t tougher than 15. But a scratch is going to birdie 14, 8/10 times and he’s going to birdie 15, 0/10, and bogey it 4-5/10. So the bogey golfer doesn’t need the protection. 

[davep043]

24 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I tried to get that info once (back in the early 2000's and was turned down. But maybe if our club asked for it ......... Or maybe that perspective has changed. 

 

dave

 

 

I would think that a request from the pro or the handicap committee chair would get a response.  I'm not nearly so sure that a request from an individual would get the same type of response.

10 minutes ago, Augster said:

Our handicap chair changed the hole caps based on all data from competitions and comparing scratch to bogey etc. By the book and appendix E. 
 

That lasted about 5 events and the masses revolted and made him change it back to stroke play averages by difficulty. 
 

The appendix E way of doing things, the masses couldn’t wrap their heads around it. “No way is 14 tougher than 15”. Etc. etc. 
 

14 isn’t tougher than 15. But a scratch is going to birdie 14, 8/10 times and he’s going to birdie 15, 0/10, and bogey it 4-5/10. So the bogey golfer doesn’t need the protection. 

When we used the old recommendations, and collected hole by hole scores and based the numbering on the difference between high handicappers and low on each hole, we had the same problem.  Some holes are tough to par for good players, but easy to bogey for higher handicappers, the difference once between the groups was smaller so they rated "easier", even though they were harder holes.  I'm interested to see what the course rating data would suggest.  The committee still has the authority to number the holes any way they see fit, there's probably a way of compromising between methods.  On the other hand, people resist almost any change, even when it makes complete sense.

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

I would think that a request from the pro or the handicap committee chair would get a response.  I'm not nearly so sure that a request from an individual would get the same type of response.

When we used the old recommendations, and collected hole by hole scores and based the numbering on the difference between high handicappers and low on each hole, we had the same problem.  Some holes are tough to par for good players, but easy to bogey for higher handicappers, the difference once between the groups was smaller so they rated "easier", even though they were harder holes.  I'm interested to see what the course rating data would suggest.  The committee still has the authority to number the holes any way they see fit, there's probably a way of compromising between methods.  On the other hand, people resist almost any change, even when it makes complete sense.

We adjusted our stroke allocations using the triad method in WHS combined with a few years of scoring history (scratch and other) and our Committee's experience.  It's used for both match play and stroke play (Stableford).  We haven't received complaints.

[mark m]

Just based on anecdotal evidence, it looks like courses have changed the stroke allocations to one perhaps based more on difficulty(?) It’s hard to say for sure because more hole by hole data is in the system now. It used to be common to see par 5 holes ranked in the 1-4 spots, but I see less of that now. But again, this is just anecdotal observations. It could be some have changed as they care more about net skins games(?) My course adjusted the rankings about a year ago. The Association send us Stroke Index Progression sheets for each tee and gender. Here is one for males from one set of tees. The column on the right is the recommendation for the course based on everything including the Triads concept. But each tee is different and the actual final ranking was different.
 

 

[rogolf]

38 minutes ago, mark m said:

Just based on anecdotal evidence, it looks like courses have changed the stroke allocations to one perhaps based more on difficulty(?) It’s hard to say for sure because more hole by hole data is in the system now. It used to be common to see par 5 holes ranked in the 1-4 spots, but I see less of that now. But again, this is just anecdotal observations. It could be some have changed as they care more about net skins games(?) My course adjusted the rankings about a year ago. The Association send us Stroke Index Progression sheets for each tee and gender. Here is one for males from one set of tees. The column on the right is the recommendation for the course based on everything including the Triads concept. But each tee is different and the actual final ranking was different.
 

 

As noted in your message, our par 5's have moved to much higher stroke index while the par 3's have moved to much lower.

Our previous rankings were done by "where the higher handicap player needs a stroke to get a tie in match play".

I don't know of any "net skins" games that take place at our course - there may be some, but very insignificant in the whole scheme of things.

[Mr. Bean]

9 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I don't know how long your long run is. Regardless we will have to agree to disagree unless you have some additional information to back up your statement when match outcomes, posted scores, and results of Stableford tournaments all are  potentially affected by hole handicap assignments. 

 

dave

 

Dave, you can do the math exercise yourself. Take your last 50 rounds, calculate Stableford points for each round and each hole. Then change the hole indeces into something different and do the math again. Tell me if your total points would be much different.

 

Oh, and do note that the only time hole indeces have an effect on the Stableford points of an individual round is when a player makes a score worse than net double bogey. This effect will be outbalanced on the next few rounds unless that player constantly makes such scores on that particular hole which I feel unlikely for vast majority of golfers.

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

9 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

As a plus cap I regularly have 1 to 2 holes where I have to make birdie to get net par.  Shortest club I can hit on the #18 rated hole is 9i (3 of our 4 "easiest holes" are par 3s - I can hit a wedge on one if it's a front pin).  It's usually somewhere between a small 8i and small 7i.  You would think I could at least get to hit a wedge on my "must make birdie" hole.  LOL!

 

As a plus cap you very seldom make worse scores than net double bogey so for you there is zero meaning what the hole indeces are as your total gross score must be 1 or 2 strokes less than par of the course. It does not matter on which holes you make your birdies as long as you make them.

 

On my home courses there are holes that are relative easy for me to par and others relatively hard for me to par but the hole indeces do not support that as they are not specifically my hole indeces but average ones. As long as I do not make any gross double bogeys the effect is pure zero as long as I make a net par 72.

[Mr. Bean]

9 hours ago, Augster said:

For net skins it absolutely matters.

 Oh no! Maybe you need to make your own hole indeces for your net skins games 😁

[Nels55]

Our course re-did the men's indices this year based on 1000s of data points from tournaments.  The women's indices were unchanged as there was not enough data.  I was unaware that any courses did not have separate indices for men and women as I have never noticed that anywhere that I have played.  Generally the par threes got rated higher numbers and the par fives got rated lower numbers.  I had noticed that higher handicappers often wanted to change the previous hole rankings to get strokes on par fives so the changes made sense to me at least for match play.  A lot of golfers that I have golfed with have said that the new ratings are stupid and for things like skins games it may not be quite as ideal as ranking for actual difficulty.  Oh well, no system is going to please everybody!

Edited December 16, 2021 by Nels55
Typo changed women's ratings to women's indices

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, Nels55 said:

Our course re-did the men's indices this year based on 1000s of data points from tournaments.  The women's ratings were unchanged as there was not enough data.  I was unaware that any courses did not have separate ratings for men and women as I have never noticed that anywhere that I have played.  Generally the par threes got rated higher numbers and the par fives got rated lower numbers.  I had noticed that higher handicappers often wanted to change the previous hole rankings to get strokes on par fives so the changes made sense to me at least for match play.  A lot of golfers that I have golfed with have said that the new ratings are stupid and for things like skins games it may not be quite as ideal as ranking for actual difficulty.  Oh well, no system is going to please everybody!

 

Let us not mix up ratings and hole indeces. Rating is done for the course to get CR and Slope factors while hole indeces are created to facilitate Stableford Stroke Play and handicap Match Play. Rating is always done for men and women separately while hole indexing may not be.

 

Personally I have never played on a course that has separate hole indeces for men and women but in the past most courses around here had separate SP and MP indeces. Nowadays most courses around here have only one set of indeces as handicap MP is hardly ever played. A few courses have only MP indeces as, like I have said before, in the long run it does not matter which indexing is used for Stableford but for handicap MP there may be a crucial difference how individual holes are indexed.

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by Mr. Bean

[Colin L]

15 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Well, it doesn't. In the long run it makes absolutely no difference how you index the holes. No difference. None.

Where  strokes are given or received in a match certainly makes a difference.

[DaveLeeNC]

6 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

Dave, you can do the math exercise yourself. Take your last 50 rounds, calculate Stableford points for each round and each hole. Then change the hole indeces into something different and do the math again. Tell me if your total points would be much different.

 

Oh, and do note that the only time hole indeces have an effect on the Stableford points of an individual round is when a player makes a score worse than net double bogey. This effect will be outbalanced on the next few rounds unless that player constantly makes such scores on that particular hole which I feel unlikely for vast majority of golfers.

 

Wow, for someone who refused to read the first couple pages of a pdf, the is a helluva request (rescoring 900 holes - possibly twice). I doubt that I even have that data, but maybe in some old backup files (somewhere). 

 

You keep saying "No difference. None."

 

Here is a list of things that might (or might not) change. Are you saying none of them ever change? If not, then which ones do change? 

 

1. A player's Stableford score on a round (and hence the outcome of a single individual or team competition) 
2. The average Stableford score of a player over some period of time (you seem to imply 50 rounds) 
3. The index of a player at any point in time 
4. The average index of a player over some period of time (50 rounds?) 
5. The outcome of a given match (MP scoring) 
6. The aggregate outcome of a bunch of matches between the same 2 players over 50 (?) rounds 

Could you clarify? Thanks.

 

dave

Edited December 16, 2021 by DaveLeeNC

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Colin L said:

Where  strokes are given or received in a match certainly makes a difference.

 

Yes, that I have stated quite explicitly. Although, even in MP it MAY make a difference but does not always do that.

[ThinkingPlus]

6 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

As a plus cap you very seldom make worse scores than net double bogey so for you there is zero meaning what the hole indeces are as your total gross score must be 1 or 2 strokes less than par of the course. It does not matter on which holes you make your birdies as long as you make them.

 

On my home courses there are holes that are relative easy for me to par and others relatively hard for me to par but the hole indeces do not support that as they are not specifically my hole indeces but average ones. As long as I do not make any gross double bogeys the effect is pure zero as long as I make a net par 72.

I have played a good bit with a group that plays a team net format.  It's a bit annoying making par net bogey and have that impact the team score.  I would like to have a bit more of a fighting chance making a birdie on demand.

 

Also, you are correct that I rarely make worse than a net double, but my "anti-stroke" holes being par 3s make it more likely.  Catch the ball a titch heavy into the wind and dump the ball into water or plug into the face of a bunker generates a high likelihood of a gross double net triple.  Bottom line is that the holes under WHS should be assigned handicap holes based on difficulty.

[jvincent]

5 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Yes, that I have stated quite explicitly. Although, even in MP it MAY make a difference but does not always do that.

And the same can be said of the current system.

[DaveLeeNC]

3 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Catch the ball a titch heavy into the wind and dump the ball into water or ....

 

@ThinkingPlus I am not sure how bit a 'titch' is. Can we start with this and work our way up or down 😀

 

dave