Rules of Handicapping - Stroke Index Allocation

[MisterT]

A person in my group suggested that those playing from the forward tees should use the Women's Stroke Index Allocation versus the Men's. I know is wrong (all Men's tees use the same Stroke Index Allocation), but cannot find where this is defined.

 

Here is the hole handicap data for the course:

Hole       1         2          3           4           5           6           7           8           9            10          11           12           13           14            15          16           17          18

MHCP    9        3         11          15         17         13            7           5           1            12           2            10           18           14             6            4           16           8

WHCP   11        5        13          15         17           9           1            7           3            12           6            10           18           14             8            2           16           4             

 

Thank in advance.

Edited February 15, 2023 by MisterT

[Mr. Bean]

Men use men's indeces and women use women's.

 

FWIW, I have never played a course with separate SI for men and women.

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[sui generis]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

Men use men's indeces and women use women's.

 

FWIW, I have never played a course with separate SI for men and women.

 

 

It's common here, Mr Bean.

[Mr. Bean]

4 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

It's common here, Mr Bean.

 

Sheer sexism, I say! 😱

[sui generis]

"It was also a recommendation to have separate stroke index tables for women and men . . . ."

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system--education-resources-for-club-administrators/stroke-index-allocation.html

[Mr. Bean]

Considering how little Match Play is played compared to Stableford it is remarkable how much effort is put into creating SI-tables per (natural) gender.

 

A few decades ago in my country it was common to have separate MP and SP SIs on each course but as MP is played to little virtually no course today has two SIs. Furthermore, many courses have only MP type SIs as it really makes very little difference on which holes you get your handicap strokes in Stableford. If you net DB a tougher hole with high SI you net birdie an easier hole with low SI. Total net outcome is the same.

 

I remember some 10 years back one very popular holiday resort course changed their SIs into sheer MP indeces. This lead to a situation where the clearly most difficult hole had SI 18. Especially high cappers were so confused of this that the resort had to change the indeces pretty soon to better reflect the relative difficulty of each hole. It was remarkable to see how so many players were completely fixed to think at one single hole instead of the big picture. After all, if you make your 10 strokes on that tough par5 you'll get no points regardless of the index but if you par an easier hole you may get a net eagle and a lot of Stableford points resulting in higher net points for the total round.

[sui generis]

19 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

how much effort is put into creating SI-tables per (natural) gender.

 

Women and girls are also encouraged to enjoy golf around here. The extra "effort" is just an extra few minutes on a rainy morning about once every decade.

[DaveLeeNC]

18 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

Women and girls are also encouraged to enjoy golf around here. The extra "effort" is just an extra few minutes on a rainy morning about once every decade.

 

IMHO, it should be that easy. But (unless something changed in the last year or two) it is not that easy, at least at our club. We collect a whole bunch of scorecards, enter 18 x "a whole bunch" of hole scores into Excel, and then it takes a couple of minutes. 

 

I believe that we should be using the par golfer and bogey golfer hole ratings generated by the rating team. That would be consistent, certainly as accurate as the rating slope data itself, and (once and for all) easy to do. 

 

Do any clubs do it that way? To me Stroke Index tables are much more significant than they used to be, since they now affect posted scores. 

 

dave

Edited February 15, 2023 by DaveLeeNC

[MisterT]

Thanks for the answers and links. This course needs the different allocations based on doglegs, elevation changes, and forced carries on certain holes.

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, DaveLeeNC said:

and then it takes a couple of minutes. 

 Bean's gripe appeared to be the "extra effort" need to assign stroke index numbers to women.

[Newby]

See Appendix E:  Stroke Index Allocation in the WHS Manual

[davep043]

1 hour ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

IMHO, it should be that easy. But (unless something changed in the last year or two) it is not that easy, at least at our club. We collect a whole bunch of scorecards, enter 18 x "a whole bunch" of hole scores into Excel, and then it takes a couple of minutes. 

 

I believe that we should be using the par golfer and bogey golfer hole ratings generated by the rating team. That would be consistent, certainly as accurate as the rating slope data itself, and (once and for all) easy to do. 

 

Do any clubs do it that way? To me Stroke Index tables are much more significant than they used to be, since they now affect posted scores. 

 

dave

@Newby beat me to it, the new recommendations (since 2020) are to do exactly as you suggest.  I don't know how many courses have adopted that method, it may depend to some extent on the schedule for printing new scorecards.  I know, its a silly excuse, but courses don't want to make a stockpile of perfectly good scorecards obsolete.

[DaveLeeNC]

7 minutes ago, davep043 said:

@Newby beat me to it, the new recommendations (since 2020) are to do exactly as you suggest.  I don't know how many courses have adopted that method, it may depend to some extent on the schedule for printing new scorecards.  I know, its a silly excuse, but courses don't want to make a stockpile of perfectly good scorecards obsolete.

 

Thanks - I did not realize that this had changed - https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Appendix E Stroke Index Allocation.htm#:~:text=Spread stroke index allocations evenly,nine in the middle triad. . 

 

dave

 

[Mr. Bean]

3 hours ago, sui generis said:

 

Women and girls are also encouraged to enjoy golf around here. The extra "effort" is just an extra few minutes on a rainy morning about once every decade.

 

I cannot see how enjoying golf and gender specific indeces rule each other out. Maybe it is one of those cultural differences.

[syenkoc]

Delete

Edited October 11, 2023 by syenkoc

[Mr. Bean]

8 hours ago, sui generis said:

"It was also a recommendation to have separate stroke index tables for women and men . . . ."

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system--education-resources-for-club-administrators/stroke-index-allocation.html

 

I checked this from our national association and in entire Europe excluding Britain there are no separate tables for men and women.

 

So much for recommendations...

[DaveLeeNC]

35 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

I checked this from our national association and in entire Europe excluding Britain there are no separate tables for men and women.

 

So much for recommendations...

 

How do they handle the case where par for the ladies is not the same as for the men? And how do they handle the scoring differences between the two genders (different pars or not)? Do they do some kind of averaging between the two? 

 

dave

[Mr. Bean]

17 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

1) How do they handle the case where par for the ladies is not the same as for the men? 2) And how do they handle the scoring differences between the two genders (different pars or not)? Do they do some kind of averaging between the two? 

 

dave

 

1) Different pars are extremely rare, personally I know only one course where there are two holes with different pars for men and women. The total par of the course is still the same for both genders, always.

 

2) I do not understand the question. Different genders have different pars on a hole, so what? See answer nr 1.

 

I am still puzzled. What has par number to do with hole indexing? If women have par 74 and men 72 what is the difference? As I explained before, hole indexing has real meaning only in Match Play. At least in Continental Europe it has. One of those cultural issues again...

 

 

 

Edited February 15, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[DaveLeeNC]

28 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

am still puzzled. What has par number to do with hole indexing? If women have par 74 and men 72 what is the difference? As I explained before, hole indexing has real meaning only in Match Play. At least in Continental Europe it has. One of those cultural issues again...

 

Hole Indexing and Hole Par both affect (in a material way) posted scores. And hole par affects the calculation of the Stoke Index for a hole (as hole difficulty is a function of scoring against par). 

 

dave

[Pfish]

There is 1 hole on our course with a par 4 for men #1 stroke hole.  For women it is a par 5 #16 stroke hole.

 

I can see how someone might suggest at their course the men’s stroke holes are incorrect for the forward tees.  There are some combination tees at ours that some of the older members use and one of those combo holes takes out a forced carry and a lot of yards.  Still both par 4s but if it was a match against someone using a longer tee it doesn’t seem that the forward tee should have the same stroke hole allocation.  

[Nels55]

On 2/15/2023 at 4:12 AM, Mr. Bean said:

Considering how little Match Play is played compared to Stableford it is remarkable how much effort is put into creating SI-tables per (natural) gender.

I have played a lot of match play but I don't recall ever playing in a Stableford competition.

[Mr. Bean]

2 hours ago, Nels55 said:

I have played a lot of match play but I don't recall ever playing in a Stableford competition.

 

Stableford is played commonly outside USA. Besides, current WHS system with maximum net double bogey more or less equals Stableford.

[nsxguy]

On 2/15/2023 at 9:23 AM, davep043 said:

@Newby beat me to it, the new recommendations (since 2020) are to do exactly as you suggest.  I don't know how many courses have adopted that method, it may depend to some extent on the schedule for printing new scorecards.  I know, its a silly excuse, but courses don't want to make a stockpile of perfectly good scorecards obsolete.

 

Don't think it's a silly excuse at all but how often are the holes supposed to be re-rated ?

 

Every decade ? Every year ? Month ? Week ? Day ?

[nsxguy]

On 2/15/2023 at 7:12 AM, Mr. Bean said:

Considering how little Match Play is played compared to Stableford it is remarkable how much effort is put into creating SI-tables per (natural) gender.

 

A few decades ago in my country it was common to have separate MP and SP SIs on each course but as MP is played to little virtually no course today has two SIs. Furthermore, many courses have only MP type SIs as it really makes very little difference on which holes you get your handicap strokes in Stableford. If you net DB a tougher hole with high SI you net birdie an easier hole with low SI. Total net outcome is the same.

 

I remember some 10 years back one very popular holiday resort course changed their SIs into sheer MP indeces. This lead to a situation where the clearly most difficult hole had SI 18. Especially high cappers were so confused of this that the resort had to change the indeces pretty soon to better reflect the relative difficulty of each hole. It was remarkable to see how so many players were completely fixed to think at one single hole instead of the big picture. After all, if you make your 10 strokes on that tough par5 you'll get no points regardless of the index but if you par an easier hole you may get a net eagle and a lot of Stableford points resulting in higher net points for the total round.

 

11 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Stableford is played commonly outside USA. Besides, current WHS system with maximum net double bogey more or less equals Stableford.

 

We always had arguments at our club that the indices on the scorecard were "wrong" (however the course got them). We'd have arguments all the time that Hole 3 (SI 7 was much easier than hole 12 (SI 14).

 

I've seen golf courses that ranked the holes entirely on distance. Some ranked the same way except having the odds on the front and evens on the back.

 

I have however, never seen a scorecard or a tournament that had BOTH stroke play and match play allocations. That said, since match play isn't something a play very often anymore, I have no reason to look at the indices anymore.

 

I have seen different allocations for tee sets, or male/female. But I've never seen SP vs MP differences - as I basically agree with your "Get a stroke here and lose one there "philosophy".

 

I've played golf regularly for over 30 years (here in the USA of course) and, like @Nels55, never once played a Stableford here.

 

I've been to SE Asia 7 times in the last 10 years and except for a single "monthly medal(net)" single round tournament once a month, play nothing BUT Stableford.

 

A Stableford is very rare in the U.S. and thank goodness for small favors.

 

I say thank goodness because, as a low(er) handicapper, I am already at quite a disadvantage against a field of high handicappers in a net game and allowing those who are much more likely to have the big numbers, the ability to ignore those excess strokes, gives them an even bigger advantage.

 

Match play was not that common in my (organized) club as it takes a long time to get winner. 16 players in a tournament and you need 4 rounds. 64 players and it's 6 rounds. And playing once a week on Sunday mornings,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, well, you see the problem.

 

However, (especially) in a casual 4-some, and even (with)in stroke play tournaments, players will often play a "match" against 1 or more other players at the same time they're playing in the medal play.

 

And yes, some of the rules of match play are ignored since they'd contradict stroke play rules - but the players playing the match would simply live with that.

 

My club played stroke play always and lots of the guys, who weren't even playing in the same group, would bet each other and "match cards" after the round to determine the winner.

 

A year(?) or so ago I stated here on the board that Stableford was simply a net game where players could throw away any strokes over NDB and was told I didn't know what the he!! I was talking about.

 

[Newby]

I believe that in Australia it's virtually all stableford as opposed to medal.

They also had (not sure since WHS) two different SI cards. One for strokeplay and the other for matchplay. I believe the latter was fixed and compulsory for all clubs.

CONGU recommended two cards but it never really caught on.

Edited February 17, 2023 by Newby

[davep043]

10 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Don't think it's a silly excuse at all but how often are the holes supposed to be re-rated ?

 

Every decade ? Every year ? Month ? Week ? Day ?

Re-rating is required to be done once every 10 years.  A new course must get re-rated within the first 5 years.  But no matter, all the rating information is maintained at the Authorized Association, and that Association will provide recommended Stroke Allocations to comply with the WHS recommendation, if requested.  Re-rating isn't required.

9 hours ago, nsxguy said:

A year(?) or so ago I stated here on the board that Stableford was simply a net game where players could throw away any strokes over NDB and was told I didn't know what the he!! I was talking about.

Stableford can be played either net or gross, just as Stroke Play can.  And Net Stableford scoring is done in exactly the same way as scoring for handicap submission is done, its hard to define how using it puts you at a disadvantage.  The higher-handicappers have already thrown away those strokes over NDB for handicap calculation, and now you want them to count in a competition?  No question a small number of lower handicappers are disadvantaged when playing a larger field of higher handicappers, but that's based on population size.

[Halebopp]

10 hours ago, nsxguy said:

A Stableford is very rare in the U.S. and thank goodness for small favors.

 

I say thank goodness because, as a low(er) handicapper, I am already at quite a disadvantage against a field of high handicappers in a net game and allowing those who are much more likely to have the big numbers, the ability to ignore those excess strokes, gives them an even bigger advantage.

 

 

I have to disagree with the idea of you being disadvantaged in Stableford competitions (assuming we're talking about the target score being net par) because that's what everyone's handicap is based on. You're simply at an advantage when playing regular net stroke play as the higher handicappers are more likely to have strokes on their scores that are not accounted for in their handicaps.

[nsxguy]

42 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

I have to disagree with the idea of you being disadvantaged in Stableford competitions (assuming we're talking about the target score being net par) because that's what everyone's handicap is based on. You're simply at an advantage when playing regular net stroke play as the higher handicappers are more likely to have strokes on their scores that are not accounted for in their handicaps.

 

Not sure exactly what you mean by "target score".

 

The Stablefords I've played in are simple. Most points win, 2nd most are 2nd, and so on. No "targets" that I was aware of.

 

I get what you're saying about their 'caps not being "real" because of the NDB max, but I'm not sure there are any statistics proving the advantage they get from not having to record a 10 on a par 4, and being able to disregard those additional 3 or 4 strokes above NDB, is offset by their inability to include those extra 3 or 4 strokes into their cap in the first place.

 

Then again, 'cap calculations aren't, and weren't designed to be, an "average". On purpose.

[nsxguy]

15 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Re-rating is required to be done once every 10 years.  A new course must get re-rated within the first 5 years.  But no matter, all the rating information is maintained at the Authorized Association, and that Association will provide recommended Stroke Allocations to comply with the WHS recommendation, if requested.  Re-rating isn't required.

 

Stableford can be played either net or gross, just as Stroke Play can.  And Net Stableford scoring is done in exactly the same way as scoring for handicap submission is done, its hard to define how using it puts you at a disadvantage.  The higher-handicappers have already thrown away those strokes over NDB for handicap calculation, and now you want them to count in a competition?  No question a small number of lower handicappers are disadvantaged when playing a larger field of higher handicappers, but that's based on population size.

 

I was aware of the 10 year period for re-rating. I wasn't aware of the fact that the re-rating could include stroke allocation.

 

So then, if the course doesn't request the association to do the SI part, how does the course do it ? Similar to (exactly) as the other Dave (or are you the other Dave ?  ) suggested ? Take all the scorecards, add all the hole scores together, average and rate them that way ? And, if so, how often would that be done ? I mean that could conceivably change the SI daily.

 

I get what you mean about the strokes over NDB being thrown away for handicap purposes and how the higher capper is "punished" by those strokes not counting towards their cap.

 

But I guess my point is, if one believes a net game is the "correct" way of crowning a winner between disparate abilities/players, then why would anyone be allowed to throw away any "excess" strokes towards their final score - and, given that is the case in (net) Stableford, IMO (& experience in SE Asia) it is FAR more likely for a higher capper, in every round, to GET/NEED to throw away strokes that otherwise (net) would have counted toward their final score.

 

e.g. Give the players an island green. Play a true medal and lots of high handicappers might not even play the tourney. Who knows how many shots they'd take on Sawgrass 17 ?

 

So you hit the green and 2 putt and Joe Blow would've drowned 5 balls before 4 putting and posting a 15 - and gets to throw away 9 of those shots. And beats you by 3. OK, so that's extreme, but,,,,,,,,,

[Halebopp]

9 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Not sure exactly what you mean by "target score".

 

The Stablefords I've played in are simple. Most points win, 2nd most are 2nd, and so on. No "targets" that I was aware of.

 

I get what you're saying about their 'caps not being "real" because of the NDB max, but I'm not sure there are any statistics proving the advantage they get from not having to record a 10 on a par 4, and being able to disregard those additional 3 or 4 strokes above NDB, is offset by their inability to include those extra 3 or 4 strokes into their cap in the first place.

 

Then again, 'cap calculations aren't, and weren't designed to be, an "average". On purpose.

 

Stableford is a game in which a player gets two points for scoring the target score on a given hole, 1 point if they shoot one stroke over the target score and so forth. Usually the target score is either net par or par but it could be 8, triple bogey or whatever you wanted it to be. WHS handicaps are based on format that's equal to Stableford with the target score of net par.

 

You misunderstood me if you thought I was saying handicaps not being real because of the NDB max. I didn't imply anything like that. You said you are at a disadvantage in a net Stableford event because the excess strokes aren't counted. I refuted your claim on the simple fact that those strokes aren't included in their handicap indices either. I also pointed out that you, as the low handicapper, have the advantage in regular net stroke play because the higher handicap is more likely to have a blow-up hole for which there is no discount in that form of play.