Rules of Handicapping - Stroke Index Allocation

[DaveLeeNC]

3 hours ago, nsxguy said:

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 was pretty actively involved in this at our club until the 2015 timeframe. The handicap committee usually drove the timing of SI changes (which we would time to match new batches of cards for the given course). Sometimes course changes were the drivers and on occasion the uproar from the members at large got too big and that was the driver. Every 5-10 years for a given course was about right. 

 

And we would collect scorecards from the Men's and Women's Golf Associations, cards 'donated' by the members at large into a donation box, and any tournament cards that the club might have laying around (if any). That data got loaded into a spreadsheet and the handicap committee would get together and review the data before finalizing the numbers. 

 

dave (not the one that memorized the rules a year or two back🙂)

[MisterT]

On 2/15/2023 at 12:58 PM, syenkoc said:

 

Is par the same across all holes for the men's and women's tees? My home track has three 9s, two of which are par 35 for men but par 36 for women; two longish (440 and 470) par 4s are converted to par 5s for on the women's scorecard, so the stroke allocation basically has to be different. We have a men's ratings for the forward-most tees, but those holes still play as par 4s. (They actually don't make for great par 5s, since the greens are large and with little trouble in front, the design assumption being that you are landing a mid/long iron rather than flipping in a wedge.)

 

Incidentally, the 3rd 9 is par 36 for everyone and the stroke allocation is identical.

 

Yes, par for each hole is the same for men and women.

[Mr. Bean]

52 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

And we would collect scorecards from the Men's and Women's Golf Associations, cards 'donated' by the members at large into a donation box, and any tournament cards that the club might have laying around (if any). That data got loaded into a spreadsheet and the handicap committee would get together and review the data before finalizing the numbers. 

 

 

If Match Play is being played actively and Stableford is uncommon why don't you simply index the holes for MP ? You do not need such massive data for that. Net medal play gives the same results with MP indexing and I doubt there would be notable differences in handicaps either (with NDB cutter in WHS system).

 

Edited February 17, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[davep043]

4 hours ago, nsxguy said:

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

The previous suggestion for determining stroke allocation was to collect scorecards over a significant time period, maybe a full season, from two groups of golfers, relatively lower handicappers, and relatively high handicappers.  Average the scores for each group on each hole, and allocate the Number 1 index to the hole with the greatest difference.  There was another method that involved some other type of calculations with collected scorecards.  Previously, it was not recommended to rate the "hardest" hole as number 1, it was the hole where a higher handicapper was most likely to need a stroke.  Nobody has EVER suggested changing the allocation daily, to be honest its pretty foolish to even mention the possibility.

And the re-rating doesn't determine the Stroke Allocation, it merely provides the data to do it per the recommendations, if that's what the club wants to do.  But that data is there for every hole from every tee right now, based on the most recent rating.  All that is needed is the Scratch Rating, the Bogey Rating, and the par for each hole.  The final decision is always with the club, they can throw an 18-sided die if they want to, without violating any hard rule.  

Every format gives some kind of edge to a different group of players.  I get that you are a low handicapper, so you want to skew the competition towards lower handicappers.  That's fine.  Just be aware that low-handicappers all over the world play Stableford as their primary form of competition, and we simply don't hear the complaints you're voicing.

[DaveLeeNC]

25 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

If Match Play is being played actively and Stableford is uncommon why don't you simply index the holes for MP ? You do not need such massive data for that. Net medal play gives the same results with MP indexing and I doubt there would be notable differences in handicaps either (with NDB cutter in WHS system).

 

 

We were simply following the guidance provided by the USGA at the time. And we had pretty much converted to the hole difficulty (coming off MP) approach by the end of that time frame. 

 

A good portion of the competitions at our club were/are 4 person team events. 2 BB of 4 net would be a typical competition. And players don't like to 'contribute' worse than net par.

 

Things, on occasion, can get kind of screwey WRT net hole scores when the SI tables are set for MP. I recall a time back then when my index was in the 5-6 range, where I 'got a stroke' on what was (based on years of my personal data) the absolute easiest hole (for me) across all 108 holes at our club that I was playing regularly at that time. And I did not 'get a stroke' on the hole that was the absolute hardest for me across those same 108 holes. That was back in the MP SI Table era. 

 

dave

[Mr. Bean]

15 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

Things, on occasion, can get kind of screwey WRT net hole scores when the SI tables are set for MP. I recall a time back then when my index was in the 5-6 range, where I 'got a stroke' on what was (based on years of my personal data) the absolute easiest hole (for me) across all 108 holes at our club that I was playing regularly at that time. And I did not 'get a stroke' on the hole that was the absolute hardest for me across those same 108 holes. That was back in the MP SI Table era. 

 

dave

 

Does that make any difference if you win the easy hole and lose the tough one? 1-1=0

[DaveLeeNC]

1 minute ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Does that make any difference if you win the easy hole and lose the tough one? 1-1=0

It is about the intermediate steps, not the end result. Net par on a hole means something in one case. Not so much in the other.  dave

[Mr. Bean]

30 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Just be aware that low-handicappers all over the world play Stableford as their primary form of competition, and we simply don't hear the complaints you're voicing.

 

Around here there are two kinds of net competitions. All Stableford or net medal play for lower cappers (like <18) and Stableford for high cappers.

[Newby]

37 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Does that make any difference if you win the easy hole and lose the tough one? 1-1=0

Many years ago a pal of mine did some massive number crunching using what was then a powerful computer (IBM360).

He randomly allocated SIs to the holes to produce about a dozen 'courses' and then matched about 100 real stableford score cards against each 'course'. 

He found that there was virtually no difference in the top ten places. The only differences were as a result of 'countbacks'.

Swings and Roundabouts.

 

[nsxguy]

6 hours ago, davep043 said:

The previous suggestion for determining stroke allocation was to collect scorecards over a significant time period, maybe a full season, from two groups of golfers, relatively lower handicappers, and relatively high handicappers.  Average the scores for each group on each hole, and allocate the Number 1 index to the hole with the greatest difference.  There was another method that involved some other type of calculations with collected scorecards.  Previously, it was not recommended to rate the "hardest" hole as number 1, it was the hole where a higher handicapper was most likely to need a stroke.  Nobody has EVER suggested changing the allocation daily, to be honest its pretty foolish to even mention the possibility.

And the re-rating doesn't determine the Stroke Allocation, it merely provides the data to do it per the recommendations, if that's what the club wants to do.  But that data is there for every hole from every tee right now, based on the most recent rating.  All that is needed is the Scratch Rating, the Bogey Rating, and the par for each hole.  The final decision is always with the club, they can throw an 18-sided die if they want to, without violating any hard rule.  

 

Every format gives some kind of edge to a different group of players.  I get that you are a low handicapper, so you want to skew the competition towards lower handicappers.  That's fine.  Just be aware that low-handicappers all over the world play Stableford as their primary form of competition, and we simply don't hear the complaints you're voicing.

 

Easy there big guy. You HAVE to know the "daily" wasn't serious. Frankly, neither was weekly or monthly.

 

Incorrect, I am not looking to skew anything towards any (group of) cappers. I simply want the fairest game possible - and IMO, Stableford ain't it.

 

In that vein, I realize, statistically speaking, low cappers are at a disadvantage against a larger group of higher handicappers. The exceptional scoring odds demonstrate that quite clearly.

 

That said, it's anybody's choice whether or not to play in the game.

 

As for the Stableford issue, perhaps most golfers simply go along like sheep; without studying the game itself ? Lord knows much of the world does that every day. Question everything ? Relatively speaking, we barely question anything.

 

But the point is pretty simple. I believe the WHS is the fairest way of making a match as fair as possible whether it be one-on-one or in a group event.

 

But the issue with Stableford is simple.

 

Joe, an 8, shoots 79, net 71, or 37 Stableford points (Par 72).

Harry, a 20, shoots 90*, net 70, or 38 Stableford points.

 

BUT, Harry made, or likely would have had he not picked up, a 10 on a par 4 where he got 1 shot. NDB on that hole was 7. He was allowed to ignore 3 strokes.

 

In net stroke play, counting all strokes, Harry would've (most likely) shot 93, net 73 and finished 2 behind Joe.

 

So instead of Harry scoring 35 Stableford points and losing by 2 to Joe, he instead makes 38 Stableford points and beats Joe.

 

So where Joe wins the real net game, counting every stoke that is, Harry wins the Stableford. This is NOT an unusual occurrence.

 

So, while Harry is in that group of considerably higher handicappers, and statistically more like to "go low" than the lower handicapper, he ALSO is more likely to need to reach NDB before he's done with a hole.

 

It's more likely than not that Stableford was invented to facilitate faster play while keeping higher handicappers in the game.

 

For THAT, it works just fine. For the fairest game possible, not so much.

Edited February 18, 2023 by nsxguy

[Mr. Bean]

49 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

It's more likely than not that Stableford was invented to facilitate faster play while keeping higher handicappers in the game.

 

For THAT, it works just fine. 

 

You have understood it spot on. It is just like in the WHS, one lousy hole does not ruin your entire round.

Edited February 18, 2023 by Mr. Bean

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

But the point is pretty simple. I believe the WHS is the fairest way of making a match as fair as possible whether it be one-on-one or in a group event.

 

But the issue with Stableford is simple.

 

Joe, an 8, shoots 79, net 71, or 37 Stableford points.

Harry, a 20, shoots 90*, net 70, or 38 Stableford points.

 

BUT, Harry made, or likely would have had he not picked up, a 10 on a par 4 where he got 1 shot. NDB on that hole was 7. He was allowed to ignore 3 strokes.

 

In net stroke play, counting all strokes, Harry would've (most likely) shot 93, net 73 and finished 2 behind Joe.

 

So instead of Harry scoring 35 Stableford points and losing by 2 to Joe, he instead makes 38 Stableford points and beats Joe.

 

So where Joe wins the real net game, counting every stoke that is, Harry wins the Stableford. This is NOT an unusual occurrence.

 

I have a different view of 'fair' here. The game of golf in a handicap adjusted world is just different (vs. golf as defined by the RoG). The game is "how did you shoot (as in your postable score) against your index". That is the game. And Stableford measures exactly (within round-off) that.

 

When you say that a high handicapper will more frequently beat his index by a bunch (that is required to win against a large field) vs. a low handicapper, then the high handicapper is simply better at the handicap adjusted game. 

 

dave

[Mr. Bean]

7 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

When you say that a high handicapper will more frequently beat his index by a bunch (that is required to win against a large field) vs. a low handicapper, then the high handicapper is simply better at the handicap adjusted game. 

 

I do not agree.

 

It is a simple case of larger variance, and once you bundle up a group of players with large variance and another group with narrow variance you will see that statistically one of the large variance group members wins most of the time.

[DaveLeeNC]

24 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

I do not agree.

 

It is a simple case of larger variance, and once you bundle up a group of players with large variance and another group with narrow variance you will see that statistically one of the large variance group members wins most of the time.

 

I agree - that group (as you defined it) is better at the game being played, so they win more. 

 

dave

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I have a different view of 'fair' here. The game of golf in a handicap adjusted world is just different (vs. golf as defined by the RoG). The game is "how did you shoot (as in your postable score) against your index". That is the game. And Stableford measures exactly (within round-off) that.

 

When you say that a high handicapper will more frequently beat his index by a bunch (that is required to win against a large field) vs. a low handicapper, then the high handicapper is simply better at the handicap adjusted game. 

 

dave

 

- You can assign whatever description you like to what the "game" is, but to ME, it is a competition. I'm not playing against my index; I'm playing against other players.

 

It is handicapped because if it wasn't, nobody more than a stroke or 2 @ low indices, or maybe 3 or 4 shots @ higher indices would play against one another straight up. Guess how many large, or even medium field tournaments you'd have. Correct. Not many.

 

I'm sure you've seen the odds of an exceptional score,,,,,,,, and we can argue night and day about exactly what the table of odds truly represents, but there's no denying as one's handicap goes UP, he's more likely to be one of those going low.

 

And with typical handicap (net) fields that I've seen there has always been far more higher cappers than low - mostly(?) because the lower guys know the odds are against them and will avoid the game if they have other choices.

[DaveLeeNC]

@nsxguy I am not sure that we really disagree here. But handicap level (high, low, whatever) is not the key factor. VARIABILITY is the key factor. More high handicappers have wildly varying scores than lower handicappers. But I play with a bunch of (OLD) golfers with 20+ handicapp0ers who are quite consistent. Some of them even have pretty bad swings, but they have learned over the years to control it. They just can't hit the ball out of their own shadow unless it is around noon during the summer solistice (and I am headed there far more quickly than I would ever have imagined). 

 

I don't play with low handicappers much any more, but in the past have played with guys in the low single digits who are very steady. And I have also played with low single digit guys who quite long, have decent games all around, but spend way too much time (badly) off the fairway. These guys also have an advantage in a large field event, handicapped or not. Their good rounds are winning rounds - steady Eddy low handicapper's better rounds are not as good.

 

dave

 

 

[rogolf]

Another factor is the number of players in each handicap "division".  Say there are 100 players in a net competition.  It's likely that there are about 15 that are less than 8 handicap, about 45 between 9 and 18 and 40 above 19 (these numbers are estimates only).  Just because of the higher number of participants (more "chances"), it is likely that the winner will be a "higher" handicap.

[Nels55]

4 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

@nsxguy I am not sure that we really disagree here. But handicap level (high, low, whatever) is not the key factor. VARIABILITY is the key factor. More high handicappers have wildly varying scores than lower handicappers. But I play with a bunch of (OLD) golfers with 20+ handicapp0ers who are quite consistent. Some of them even have pretty bad swings, but they have learned over the years to control it. They just can't hit the ball out of their own shadow unless it is around noon during the summer solistice (and I am headed there far more quickly than I would ever have imagined). 

 

I don't play with low handicappers much any more, but in the past have played with guys in the low single digits who are very steady. And I have also played with low single digit guys who quite long, have decent games all around, but spend way too much time (badly) off the fairway. These guys also have an advantage in a large field event, handicapped or not. Their good rounds are winning rounds - steady Eddy low handicapper's better rounds are not as good.

 

dave

 

 

You nailed it here.

 

Wildly variable should be my name.  I am often a sandbagger and also often a vanity cap.  Being prone to huge swings in level of play means that I can win every now and then against anybody but I am more likely to finish out of the money which is how it should be with the system in place.  I really don't know of a way to make it easier for Steady Eddy to have a chance against guys like me who get on a heater every now and then.