Stroke Indexes (Hole Handicaps)

[rogolf]

24 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

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. 

For as long as I've kept a handicap (started in the early 60's), it has only been necessary to enter a total score.  In the "paper" days, there was no way to enter hole-by-hole scores.  Only "recently" has that been an option, and it remains an option - not a requirement.  The vast majority (probably >95%) of scores are entered by the individual player.  As you said, there are cultural and behavioral differences, and, imo, there isn't one system that works better than another.  The integrity of the player is paramount.

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

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

Only the total corrected score.  No hole by hole information at all.

[DaveLeeNC]

This doesn't really speak to the necessity of doing calculated vs just assigned hole handicaps, but I find it interesting in retrospect. 

 

A decade or so back my Friday Group was younger than it is now and we were a mixed tee group (middle vs. 'senior tees' - 6100-6300'ish vs. 5600 to 5800 yards at par 72). We did the prescribed course handicap adjustments and a couple of the guys would, very week take a close look at the cards and 'game sheet' which had their strokes for each set of tees. The difference was typically 2 to 4 strokes. It depended on the course, their index, and how roundoff played out at that time. 

 

Of course they were always looking to move back when the round off played in their direction from the middle tees. But the other thing that they looked at very carefully was 'on which holes do I get my extra stroke'. This mattered because, at that time, we often played Stableford games that gave you more than one extra point for going (for example) from net par to net birdie. And if we weren't playing Stableford we were playing something like 2 BB (4 person team format) where yet another net par had little value but net birdie/better might be a gain on the field. 

 

This doesn't demonstrate or prove anything, but it was interesting to watch. 

 

dave

[Mr. Bean]

11 hours ago, rogolf said:

For as long as I've kept a handicap (started in the early 60's), it has only been necessary to enter a total score.  In the "paper" days, there was no way to enter hole-by-hole scores.  Only "recently" has that been an option, and it remains an option - not a requirement.  The vast majority (probably >95%) of scores are entered by the individual player.  As you said, there are cultural and behavioral differences, and, imo, there isn't one system that works better than another.  The integrity of the player is paramount.

 

Yes, I remember those days when scores were written on the score card made of cardboard and some people (including my wife) still do that. Then again, the first Stableford point calculators in the internet were introduced some 20 years ago and more than 15 years ago every single course in Finland had their own calculator into which you entered your hcp index before round and scores for every hole and the calculator told you what was your new hcp after the round for you to know your exact hcp. Then you gave the score card to the caddiemaster who entered the scores into the nationwide system to make it official.

 

First real-time application for entering the scores while you play was introduced 2007 or 2008, called GameBook. This was (and is) not only for keeping the score but much more from statistics to a platform for organizing competitions. Later, maybe 6-7 years ago the scores entered into GameBook were directly forwarded into the nationwide handicap system so there is no need to fill in any physical score card. For quite a few years ago the nationwide system also introduced an application for entering the scores, so today very few golfers do not use anything else than these (or similar) applications or feed the scores at home by computer. I always use GameBook, faster than any paper-and-pencil method.

 

Entering the scores at home by computer has been available for more than 10 years and that has been very popular since the very beginning. All those scores are found in the system hole-by-hole for many years back. My oldest ones date back to 2008, although at that time not all the scores were not yet entered.

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

Of course they were always looking to move back when the round off played in their direction from the middle tees. But the other thing that they looked at very carefully was 'on which holes do I get my extra stroke'. This mattered because, at that time, we often played Stableford games that gave you more than one extra point for going (for example) from net par to net birdie. And if we weren't playing Stableford we were playing something like 2 BB (4 person team format) where yet another net par had little value but net birdie/better might be a gain on the field. 

 

This doesn't demonstrate or prove anything, but it was interesting to watch. 

 

dave

 

 Good grief. And I thought *I* had no life.

 

Thank goodness all we ever played was a GROSS 2 man best ball.

 

 

 

Edited December 17, 2021 by nsxguy

[ThinkingPlus]

26 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Yes, I remember those days when scores were written on the score card made of cardboard and some people (including my wife) still do that. Then again, the first Stableford point calculators in the internet were introduced some 20 years ago and more than 15 years ago every single course in Finland had their own calculator into which you entered your hcp index before round and scores for every hole and the calculator told you what was your new hcp after the round for you to know your exact hcp. Then you gave the score card to the caddiemaster who entered the scores into the nationwide system to make it official.

 

First real-time application for entering the scores while you play was introduced 2007 or 2008, called GameBook. This was (and is) not only for keeping the score but much more from statistics to a platform for organizing competitions. Later, maybe 6-7 years ago the scores entered into GameBook were directly forwarded into the nationwide handicap system so there is no need to fill in any physical score card. For quite a few years ago the nationwide system also introduced an application for entering the scores, so today very few golfers do not use anything else than these (or similar) applications or feed the scores at home by computer. I always use GameBook, faster than any paper-and-pencil method.

 

Entering the scores at home by computer has been available for more than 10 years and that has been very popular since the very beginning. All those scores are found in the system hole-by-hole for many years back. My oldest ones date back to 2008, although at that time not all the scores were not yet entered.

I always write my score down on a physical card.  Here is an example from a few weeks ago where I performed the extremely rare feat of making birdie on both my "anti-stroke" holes.  Otherwise it was a fairly forgettable round of golf.  We were playing a best 2 of 3 net game against other teams.  It's a dollar per person for each 6-hole stretch.

 

 

[nsxguy]

28 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Yes, I remember those days when scores were written on the score card made of cardboard and some people (including my wife) still do that. Then again, the first Stableford point calculators in the internet were introduced some 20 years ago and more than 15 years ago every single course in Finland had their own calculator into which you entered your hcp index before round and scores for every hole and the calculator told you what was your new hcp after the round for you to know your exact hcp. Then you gave the score card to the caddiemaster who entered the scores into the nationwide system to make it official.

 

First real-time application for entering the scores while you play was introduced 2007 or 2008, called GameBook. This was (and is) not only for keeping the score but much more from statistics to a platform for organizing competitions. Later, maybe 6-7 years ago the scores entered into GameBook were directly forwarded into the nationwide handicap system so there is no need to fill in any physical score card. For quite a few years ago the nationwide system also introduced an application for entering the scores, so today very few golfers do not use anything else than these (or similar) applications or feed the scores at home by computer. I always use GameBook, faster than any paper-and-pencil method.

 

Entering the scores at home by computer has been available for more than 10 years and that has been very popular since the very beginning. All those scores are found in the system hole-by-hole for many years back. My oldest ones date back to 2008, although at that time not all the scores were not yet entered.

 

Thanks for the history lesson.

 

Finland's been around for more than 900 years. The U.S. was only "discovered" about 600 years ago. Maybe we'll catch up at some point ?

 

FWIW (not much I'm sure) but, speaking only for myself, I'm not risking a $400+ electronic device to poor weather or an accident during a round.

 

I also don't pay for internet access on my smartphone except in an emergency. I use the internet quite enough from home.

 

But maybe that's just me.

[Mr. Bean]

57 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Thanks for the history lesson.

 

1) Finland's been around for more than 900 years. The U.S. was only "discovered" about 600 years ago. Maybe we'll catch up at some point ?

 

2)

FWIW (not much I'm sure) but, speaking only for myself, I'm not risking a $400+ electronic device to poor weather or an accident during a round.

 

3)

I also don't pay for internet access on my smartphone except in an emergency. I use the internet quite enough from home.

 

But maybe that's just me.

 

1) Well, that depends on how you define it, but I share your wish 😉

 

2) Around here EVERYBODY has their phone with them on the round. And when it is raining we tend to use umbrellas...

 

3) Wow. Around here more or less everyone has unlimited SMS, unlimited domestic calls and unlimited internet on their mobile devices as it is so cheap per month. Maybe some day you will catch up...

 

 

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

1) Well, that depends on how you define it, but I share your wish 😉

 

2) Around here EVERYBODY has their phone with them on the round. And when it is raining we tend to use umbrellas...

 

3) Wow. Around here more or less everyone has unlimited SMS, unlimited domestic calls and unlimited internet on their mobile devices as it is so cheap per month. Maybe some day you will catch up...

 

 

 

[Colin L]

I hope this stops before we get to the "mine is bigger than yours" stage. 😲

[Pepperturbo]

IMO - a holes rating should be based on its difficulty in relationship to 17 other holes.  It's not rocket science.  Anyone capable of critical reasoning should be able to figure out which hole is the most difficult and work back to the easiest hole.

[Mr. Bean]

8 minutes ago, Pepperturbo said:

IMO - a holes rating should be based on its difficulty in relationship to 17 other holes.  It's not rocket science.  Anyone capable of critical reasoning should be able to figure out which hole is the most difficult and work back to the easiest hole.

 

Well, maybe BUT, there are up to five (5) (or even 6) different teeing areas on a single course and two (2) genders. That means there has to be up to 10 different indeces per course to satisfy the need. IMHO that is NOT needed AS  in the long run there is NO effect.

 

There's your rocket science to deal with.

[bekgolf]

7 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

1) Well, that depends on how you define it, but I share your wish 😉

 

2) Around here EVERYBODY has their phone with them on the round. And when it is raining we tend to use umbrellas...

 

3) Wow. Around here more or less everyone has unlimited SMS, unlimited domestic calls and unlimited internet on their mobile devices as it is so cheap per month. Maybe some day you will catch up...

 

 

A little off topic but I didn't realize your were in Finland.  Some of the most interesting history I've read involves "The Winter War".  Truly remarkable.

[finleysg]

I took the time to pull the 2021 hole by hole scoring data for our club out of Golf Genius and dump it into a database. Over 1400 scores for each of our three nines (we are a 27 hole facility). The results were interesting. 

 

1. The golf course bases hole handicaps based on hardest to easiest holes. These ratings don't align with the data we collected.

 

2. The harder holes for high handicappers are different than for low handicappers.

 

3. The relative difficulty from the senior tees is very different from the club tees.

 

The golf course is creating new scorecards this winter, and they plan to use this data to update the hole handicaps. Nice to see that our men's club had an impact on that.

Edited December 18, 2021 by finleysg

[finleysg]

One other finding: low handicappers abuse par 5's, two of which averaged under par for < 6 caps. High handicappers struggle with par 5's where they average over +2.

Edited December 18, 2021 by finleysg

[nsxguy]

19 hours ago, finleysg said:

I took the time to pull the 2021 hole by hole scoring data for our club out of Golf Genius and dump it into a database. Over 1400 scores for each of our three nines (we are a 27 hole facility). The results were interesting. 

 

1. The golf course bases hole handicaps based on hardest to easiest holes. These ratings don't align with the data we collected.

 

2. The harder holes for high handicappers are different than for low handicappers.

 

3. The relative difficulty from the senior tees is very different from the club tees.

 

The golf course is creating new scorecards this winter, and they plan to use this data to update the hole handicaps. Nice to see that our men's club had an impact on that.

 

1. Why should it ? Your 28-42 scores PER WEEK are a drop in the bucket.

 

2 & 3. Brought up before but again, how many different lines do you expect to see on a single scorecard ?

 

And how many rounds/comps even care about where strokes fall except for the (hopefully) occasional NDB calc ?

 

When you say they're going to use you data to update hole handicaps does that mean they're going to strictly use what YOU guys came up with ?

 

Or are they including your data in with the other 95% of the rounds played ?

Edited December 18, 2021 by nsxguy

[Mr. Bean]

9 hours ago, bekgolf said:

A little off topic but I didn't realize your were in Finland.  Some of the most interesting history I've read involves "The Winter War".  Truly remarkable.

 

It was really something.

[Mr. Bean]

4 hours ago, finleysg said:

One other finding: low handicappers abuse par 5's, two of which averaged under par for < 6 caps. 

 

Those two must be very short or all your <6 caps are big hitters...

[finleysg]

On 12/17/2021 at 10:53 PM, nsxguy said:

 

1. Why should it ? Your 28-42 scores PER WEEK are a drop in the bucket.

 

2 & 3. Brought up before but again, how many different lines do you expect to see on a single scorecard ?

 

And how many rounds/comps even care about where strokes fall except for the (hopefully) occasional NDB calc ?

 

When you say they're going to use you data to update hole handicaps does that mean they're going to strictly use what YOU guys came up with ?

 

Or are they including your data in with the other 95% of the rounds played ?

I was very not clear: we collected an average of 270 scores each Wednesday (90 per nine-hole rotation), so the 1400 or so rounds were per nine (5200 total). We are in Minnesota, so it's a pretty short season. We have hole-by-hole data available from our women's group and senior men's group, but I doubt they have anyone willing or able to pull it out of GG. It's a click-intensive process.

 

The assistant pro chatted with me yesterday, and affirmed that they intend to use the data we shared as a guide to re-rank the hole handicaps and to help with the creation of a couple of combination tees (white-blue, gold-white).

 

As a muni, they really don't have any other source of data beyond distance and their own judgement to guide the hole handicaps, and it does matter to our club since our Wednesday skins game is impacted on the net side (we have both net and gross events each week). 

Edited December 19, 2021 by finleysg

[finleysg]

On 12/18/2021 at 3:23 AM, Mr. Bean said:

 

Those two must be very short or all your <6 caps are big hitters...

Yes, one is 470ish (tho you have to hit the fairway) and the other is 505-515. They both fall on our "east" nine, which is over one shot easier than our other two nines.

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, finleysg said:

I was very not clear: we collected an average of 270 scores each Wednesday (90 per nine-hole rotation), so the 1400 or so rounds were per nine (5200 total). We are in Minnesota, so it's a pretty short season. We have hole-by-hole data available from our women's group and senior men's group, but I doubt they have anyone willing or able to pull it out of GG. It's a click-intensive process.

 

The assistant pro chatted with me yesterday, and affirmed that they intend to use the data we shared as a guide to re-rank the hole handicaps and to help with the creation of a couple of combination tees (white-blue, gold-white).

 

As a muni, they really don't have any other source of data beyond distance and their own judgement to guide the hole handicaps, and it does matter to our club since our Wednesday skins game is impacted on the net side (we have both net and gross events each week). 

 

So the scores are from a single Wednesday every week then ? That's certainly better than the 28-42 rounds I originally thought you meant. But it's still only 1/7 of a week. Wonder if that's enough ?

 

Munis are problematic. While they're not solely a profit making enterprise the powers that be certainly don't want to spend any money they don't have to.

 

My club played a muni for many years and we'd occasionally have this discussion as to the hole's relative difficulty. To be fair, while there'd be disagreements for pretty much any hole we'd concede that each of us could be wrong and the ratings were "good enough". There were a few seemingly glaring mistakes but,,,,,,,,,,,,

 

That and the fact we seldom needed the ratings for our games it was a "much ado about nothing".

 

Anyway, it sounds like you guys are doing it better than "distance and their own judgement". 👍