Stroke Indexes (Hole Handicaps)

[rogolf]

8 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.

You've made your position for your own situation quite clear, and that's fine.  But If it doesn't affect you, ignore it.  And let others follow the guidance of WHS, they aren't bothering you.

Seems you just want a debate?  If so, it should be with your national association, who are part of WHS.

The way that we use Stableford, the hole indeces do make a difference.

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

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

 

Either you have read my posts carelessly or I have not been able to express myself clearly so let us recap.

 

You were worried about Stableford points being incorrect if the hole indeces are 'wrong'. I have stated that in the long run it makes no difference. So, in the long run and Stableford. Thus Match Play is not part of this discussion nor team play formats or individual rounds. Afa individual rounds are concerned I emphasize the fact that hole indexing makes a difference if and only if a player makes a score higher than net DB on an 'incorrectly indexed' hole and even in such a case only if the counterpart 'incorrectly indexed' hole does not even out the loss of point(s), After all, if a difficult hole has too low index then there must be an easier hole having too high index. Thus a player making a net triple bogey on a hole they should get one more stroke they just may have earned one extra stroke making a net birdie on a hole they should not have an extra handicap stroke.

 

As I stated earlier there are a few courses around here having only MP indeces on the score card as they, like myself, firmly believe there is no effect on the Stableford points in the long run. Equally that has no effect on the handicap index of a player, again in the long run and virtually no effect short-term either (WHS).

 

Finally, I have also stated that the indeces are 'correct' only to part of the players on the course. If we have 4 tees we should have at least 6 different indeces (4 for men and 2 for women) based on difficulty of each hole to each group of players on that particular course. I very much doubt that would be of anybody's interest to go through all that trouble.

 

I hope I have made myself clearer now.

 

Edited December 16, 2021 by Mr. Bean
Typo

[Nels55]

4 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

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.

 

I fixed the typo on my original post as I meant to say women's indices not ratings.  Thanks for catching that!  I am quite surprised that there are courses that do not have separate indices for men and women.  It seems that is a way of life where you live?

[Mudguard]

3 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

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.

Firstly, I'm sure the team is grateful for your plus contribution when you are making birdies on holes that you aren't giving back strokes to the course. So it goes both ways.

 

Yes in a perfect world holes would be ranked by difficulty. But courses still have to consider net matchplay, my former course had it's hardest holes by the scores as 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. But of course you can't have them as 1, 2 and so on as you could have a net match and have five strokes the difference (say scratch plays a five) and the match could be almost all over by the time the higher player receives any help. There are a few guidelines about not having the hardest ranked holes near the end etc for this reason. 

So it will mean there will be oddities purely down to having to mix between the nines. 

 

I know what you mean about par threes, I've looked at plenty of scoring data, net and gross and the reality is, the shorter the hole, the lower the net scores are going to be, that's just the way it is. 

[ThinkingPlus]

14 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

Firstly, I'm sure the team is grateful for your plus contribution when you are making birdies on holes that you aren't giving back strokes to the course. So it goes both ways.

 

Yes in a perfect world holes would be ranked by difficulty. But courses still have to consider net matchplay, my former course had it's hardest holes by the scores as 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. But of course you can't have them as 1, 2 and so on as you could have a net match and have five strokes the difference (say scratch plays a five) and the match could be almost all over by the time the higher player receives any help. There are a few guidelines about not having the hardest ranked holes near the end etc for this reason. 

So it will mean there will be oddities purely down to having to mix between the nines. 

 

I know what you mean about par threes, I've looked at plenty of scoring data, net and gross and the reality is, the shorter the hole, the lower the net scores are going to be, that's just the way it is. 

If your local course has a strong culture of match play, then you should have handicap holes assigned per the match play guidelines as an additional set to the ones determined by hole difficulty.  I have never had a problem with that even though I very rarely play match play of any kind.

 

We will just have to disagree on the rest of it.  Wide open, short par 4s and par 5s will always yield lower net scores than all, but the most benign par 3s.

[Newby]

Some years ago we switched from all tees (ie colour and gender) being indexed on historical scoring difficulty. We then switched to the then recommended Australian match play indexing. England golf were at the time suggesting two indices (match and stableford). When people asked why, we did two things.

Re-ran the difficulty allocation using the new indices showing negligible difference in results.

Quoted the old match play example of two low cap players with a difference of one stroke, standing all square on the short par 3 18th tee with an Index of 1. Who would you put your money on?

Having had two major course changes in those years we have considered the WHS Appendix E but that is now on hold considering inter alia the cost of refurbishing course furniture

[Mr. Bean]

3 minutes ago, Newby said:

Quoted the old match play example of two low cap players with a difference of one stroke, standing all square on the short par 3 18th tee with an Index of 1. Who would you put your money on?

 

 

Why would you have a short par 3 with an Index of 1 ?

[Mr. Bean]

12 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

We will just have to disagree on the rest of it.  Wide open, short par 4s and par 5s will always yield lower net scores than all, but the most benign par 3s.

 

I believe Mudguard was talking about difficulty of par3 holes, not all holes. The shorter a par3, the lower the scores on the average.

[cardoustie]

As a former captain and handicap chair etc the problem is this

 

The high guys need (18 cap vs scratch) strokes on par 5's - IN MATCHES - which are not at all the hardest holes as we all know.  They just need hedging where a scratch is likely making birdie 4, the yardage is the longest, and they need to make 3 swings

 

The same HDCP hole ratings are then used in MEMBER GUESTS (generally a net better ball 2-man format) where the HARDEST holes are not reflective and it really does effect the NET scoring.  You have a guy getting 4 shots overall, 3 of them on par 5's and the team can go LOW !!!  I will say clubs are converting over to divisions where you play five 9 hole matches and then the flight winners go into alternate shot playoffs

 

Working thru our provincial golf association I learned that it is extremely rare (2 courses in all of Ontario) to have two diff handicap ratings to be used based on format played.  TO ME THIS IS A BIG OVERSIGHT.  If you have the data accumulated (which of course we did at my club) this can be done with little effort

 

We found the hardest part was juggling the holes to fit their place in the 9 and 18.    I played a top course last fall and believe it or not one guy was getting 8 shots from a +3 .... and 6 of the 8 shots fell in the last 8 holes, GARBAGE !!!

 

Of course the other issue is most of the membership thinks hole ratings should reflect the hardest holes for them

[Obee]

11 minutes ago, cardoustie said:

 

 

Of course the other issue is most of the membership thinks hole ratings should reflect the hardest holes for them

 

More than anything, we need to keep pounding on this mistake that people make. That is NOT what hole handicaps exist for.

 

There's a reason that, at most clubs, par 3's are the "easiest" rated holes -- even if the hole is 220! The average score on a tough par 3 is much closer for a scratch golfer and an 18-index than it is on a par 5 or a tough par 4. That's why. scratch golfers make lots of bogeys on 190+ yard par 3's -- and so do 18-indexes! There are exceptions to this, of course 220 yards, super-tough green, water right, etc.) but they are few and far between.

 

Bottom line: For the most part, your par-3 holes, no matter how tough, should be your higher handicap holes.

[cardoustie]

5 minutes ago, Obee said:

 

More than anything, we need to keep pounding on this mistake that people make. That is NOT what hole handicaps exist for.

 

There's a reason that, at most clubs, par 3's are the "easiest" rated holes -- even if the hole is 220! The average score on a tough par 3 is much closer for a scratch golfer and an 18-index than it is on a par 5 or a tough par 4. That's why. scratch golfers make lots of bogeys on 190+ yard par 3's -- and so do 18-indexes! There are exceptions to this, of course 220 yards, super-tough green, water right, etc.) but they are few and far between.

 

Bottom line: For the most part, your par-3 holes, no matter how tough, should be your higher handicap holes.

 

preaching to the choir baby !!!!!!!!!!

[ThinkingPlus]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I believe Mudguard was talking about difficulty of par3 holes, not all holes. The shorter a par3, the lower the scores on the average.

They based our handicap allocations on distance for all holes, not just the par 3s. Four of our 5 "easiest" (based on handicap stroke allocation) holes are par 3s.  I can, at best, hit PW on only 1 of the par 3s under ideal (no wind) conditions with a front pin.  The remainder of the par 3s and under normal conditions, I need 9i to a full 7i.  They are not really birdie holes most of the time.

 

In contrast, I usually hit some kind of partial wedge on 3 of 4 par 5s and rarely hit more than 9i on all but a couple of the longer par 4s and par 5.  The par 3s are not the easiest holes at my course despite what the handicap stroke allocation says.

[ThinkingPlus]

7 minutes ago, Obee said:

 

More than anything, we need to keep pounding on this mistake that people make. That is NOT what hole handicaps exist for.

 

There's a reason that, at most clubs, par 3's are the "easiest" rated holes -- even if the hole is 220! The average score on a tough par 3 is much closer for a scratch golfer and an 18-index than it is on a par 5 or a tough par 4. That's why. scratch golfers make lots of bogeys on 190+ yard par 3's -- and so do 18-indexes! There are exceptions to this, of course 220 yards, super-tough green, water right, etc.) but they are few and far between.

 

Bottom line: For the most part, your par-3 holes, no matter how tough, should be your higher handicap holes.

That's only true for match play.  Under WHS it has become more important to allocate based on difficulty.  If your club has alot of match play then having both allocations is important.

[Obee]

3 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

That's only true for match play.  Under WHS it has become more important to allocate based on difficulty.  If your club has alot of match play then having both allocations is important.

 

Makes sense.

 

But why does it matter in stroke play? You just take the total strokes off at the end in stroke play. Why does it matter where they fall?

 

So I'm a 2 and you're a +2 for instance. I shoot 76 and you shoot 72. We push our bet doesn't matter where I got the strokes, right?

[Nels55]

8 minutes ago, Obee said:

 

More than anything, we need to keep pounding on this mistake that people make. That is NOT what hole handicaps exist for.

 

There's a reason that, at most clubs, par 3's are the "easiest" rated holes -- even if the hole is 220! The average score on a tough par 3 is much closer for a scratch golfer and an 18-index than it is on a par 5 or a tough par 4. That's why. scratch golfers make lots of bogeys on 190+ yard par 3's -- and so do 18-indexes! There are exceptions to this, of course 220 yards, super-tough green, water right, etc.) but they are few and far between.

 

Bottom line: For the most part, your par-3 holes, no matter how tough, should be your higher handicap holes.

Yep.  At my course after the change of stroke holes the number one handicap hole went from being the most difficult and longest par 4 on the course to a drive and pitch par 4.  LOL it is a drive or long iron pitch and putt birdie hole for scratch players and for mid handicaps up it is; ob left, penalty area and then ob right, ob long, ditch in front of the green and two nasty bunkers protecting the green along with a severely sloping green that has several pin placements where you better put your approach shot in the right place below the hole.  Because of these factors the data showed that this short par 4 had the largest differential between low handicap players and higher handicap players thus becoming the number one handicap hole.  

 

I often get comments on how stupid it is to have this particular hole as the number one handicap hole and no amount of explaining seems to make much difference to some guys.  Others get it right away though...

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, Obee said:

 

Makes sense.

 

But why does it matter in stroke play? You just take the total strokes off at the end in stroke play. Why does it matter where they fall?

 

So I'm a 2 and you're a +2 for instance. I shoot 76 and you shoot 72. We push our bet doesn't matter where I got the strokes, right?

 

As already explained in this thread indeces play a role in individual Stableford rounds and only for players who make worse scores than net DB's. For players who never score worse than gross DB need no indexing at all (excl. plus cappers) even for individual rounds.

[Obee]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

As already explained in this thread indeces play a role in individual Stableford rounds and only for players who make worse scores than net DB's. For players who never score worse than gross DB need no indexing at all (excl. plus cappers) even for individual rounds.

 

Ahhh. Gotcha. Should have read through.

[Golferpaul]

On 12/15/2021 at 9:51 AM, Mr. Bean said:

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.

 

 

 

This is true.  But some courses at least have separate hole handicaps for men and women.  That's a good start.  And one course I played (Crosswater in OR) has a separate hole handicap for those playing from the members tees.

[ThinkingPlus]

3 hours ago, Obee said:

 

Makes sense.

 

But why does it matter in stroke play? You just take the total strokes off at the end in stroke play. Why does it matter where they fall?

 

So I'm a 2 and you're a +2 for instance. I shoot 76 and you shoot 72. We push our bet doesn't matter where I got the strokes, right?

It matters in other casual games (team stuff), but not straight up net stroke play.

[Mudguard]

4 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

The par 3s are not the easiest holes at my course despite what the handicap stroke allocation says.

 

You can probably ask your course for the data. 

I would be surprised if a par five had a lower net average than a par three. The shorter the hole is, the lower the average score is going to be, all things considered. 

Here's some data from a course I'm a member at. NB, these are male scores only, and will be over several thousand rounds. No filtering for handicap. The rough length of the course is used for tee markers. 

 

One par five plays easier than the par threes. And it's straight downhill so even from the back tee it could be an iron in. 

 

 

[rogolf]

31 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

 

You can probably ask your course for the data. 

I would be surprised if a par five had a lower net average than a par three. The shorter the hole is, the lower the average score is going to be, all things considered. 

Here's some data from a course I'm a member at. NB, these are male scores only, and will be over several thousand rounds. No filtering for handicap. The rough length of the course is used for tee markers. 

 

One par five plays easier than the par threes. And it's straight downhill so even from the back tee it could be an iron in. 

 

 

Very interesting how the score decreases as the length increases?  Every hole is more difficult at 5000m that at 6500m. 

Obviously, handicaps of the players must have an impact - higher handicap players playing the shorter courses, lower handicap players playing the longer courses?

[Mudguard]

2 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Very interesting how the score decreases as the length increases?  Every hole is more difficult at 5000m that at 6500m. 

Obviously, handicaps of the players must have an impact - higher handicap players playing the shorter courses, lower handicap players playing the longer courses?

Yeah the long tees are tough, so I'd argue there would be very few rounds played off them by 10 or more. I did look at that data. Most golf is played off the composite and 55 tee. So that would be where the bulk of the scores are. The shortest tees wouldn't have many male rounds to be honest. There is in fact a shorter tee than that but it wasn't on my spreadsheet for some reason. 

 

I did discover I had the women's data. Their hardest hole is the seventh which was a par four when I did the numbers. Most single figure players will hit either a long iron or hybrid and a wedge in. Problem is, the second shot is all carry. Some short hitters flat out cannot complete the hole. So if 200m is a good nudge with driver for you, then you're looking at a long club in, all carry. 

It's now played as a par three for women now. There is a worse par four at that course. Another forced carry. So some women will hit a six or seven off the tee, then try hit three wood onto the green which is over a penalty area.

I just shake my head at the design. 

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

 

You can probably ask your course for the data. 

I would be surprised if a par five had a lower net average than a par three. The shorter the hole is, the lower the average score is going to be, all things considered. 

Here's some data from a course I'm a member at. NB, these are male scores only, and will be over several thousand rounds. No filtering for handicap. The rough length of the course is used for tee markers. 

 

One par five plays easier than the par threes. And it's straight downhill so even from the back tee it could be an iron in. 

 

 

Not sure how many folks post hole-by-hole scores outside of our women's group.  Course wouldn't have the data (they don't even have yardage correct on one of our holes - 50 yards off and they've known about it for years), but the state association would have it for a.l hole-by-hole posted scores.  I doubt they would provide the data, but they might.  It would be interesting to see what scores the women have at your course.

[Mr. Bean]

5 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Not sure how many folks post hole-by-hole scores outside of our women's group. 

 

Now you've lost me. In my country all posted scores are hole-by-hole scores and all those scores are stored in the system. How else the WHS could operate?

[DaveLeeNC]

2 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Now you've lost me. In my country all posted scores are hole-by-hole scores and all those scores are stored in the system. How else the WHS could operate?

 

It would be easier to answer if you were to explain the problem that you see WRT to not posting hole by hole. 

 

dave

 

ps. I think I now understand your thinking the the stroke index stuff - thanks for the clarification. 

[sui generis]

7 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Now you've lost me. In my country all posted scores are hole-by-hole scores and all those scores are stored in the system. How else the WHS could operate?

 

Ah, 7,000 km to the west, hole-by-hole is uncommon. With a beer in hand on the patio watching the sun go down over the Smoky Mountains, it's type in one number and Bob's your uncle. 🙂

[ThinkingPlus]

10 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Now you've lost me. In my country all posted scores are hole-by-hole scores and all those scores are stored in the system. How else the WHS could operate?

Folks do the math themselves like they have always done whether using the old ESC stroke limits or net DB stroke limits.

[Mr. Bean]

16 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Folks do the math themselves like they have always done whether using the old ESC stroke limits or net DB stroke limits.

 

So when the data is stored there may be no gross score at all but only the corrected score. Interesting.

[rogolf]

28 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Now you've lost me. In my country all posted scores are hole-by-hole scores and all those scores are stored in the system. How else the WHS could operate?

As others have indicated, WHS operates perfectly without posting hole-by-hole scores; it is not a requirement.  Even though the capability for posting hole-by-hole scores has existed for several years, I have never posted a score in that manner.  And all my posted scores have complied with the handicapping Rules.

 

[Mr. Bean]

13 minutes ago, rogolf said:

As others have indicated, WHS operates perfectly without posting hole-by-hole scores; it is not a requirement.  Even though the capability for posting hole-by-hole scores has existed for several years, I have never posted a score in that manner.  And all my posted scores have complied with the handicapping Rules.

 

 

Another big cultural difference. In my country all scores are entered into the system with one digital application or another, hole-by-hole. In fact, I believe it is not even possible to enter the score as a total.