A rule conundrum!

[chrisd]

The whole idea of handicaps is to even up the disparity between the players and it's surely quite obvious that when and where those shots are given will have a bearing on the outcome. If a scratch player and a one handicapper play each other it would, in the great majority of times, be more advantageous to have a shot on the first rather than the last hole but the object of the system is not to advantage a player it's to even up the chances so that a real game can take place

 

[duncan mackie]

Duncan,
The mistake I feel you are making is artificially constructing scenarios and then adding in the location of the shot holes to go alongside those scenarios.

In order to say that shot allocation is "wrong" in a certain format, you have to say that " before 2 players start the match, if shots are allocated at holes x, x, x, x, etc etc, player A will have an advantage /disadvantage, because......".

So I'll throw it over to you. If I give you 10 shots, which holes should they not be allocated on because that will be unfair to me?
Fire away, you have to make your case on the basis that we haven't teed off yet.

1-10

 

[Foxholer]

Duncan,
The mistake I feel you are making is artificially constructing scenarios and then adding in the location of the shot holes to go alongside those scenarios.

In order to say that shot allocation is "wrong" in a certain format, you have to say that " before 2 players start the match, if shots are allocated at holes x, x, x, x, etc etc, player A will have an advantage /disadvantage, because......".

So I'll throw it over to you. If I give you 10 shots, which holes should they not be allocated on because that will be unfair to me?
Fire away, you have to make your case on the basis that we haven't teed off yet.

Congu appendix G has a pretty good explanation of WHY Stroke allocation should be done in a certain way!

Here's a link to EGU's copy of it!

http://www.englandgolf.org/page.aspx?sitesectionid=337

 

[Colin L]

Congu appendix G has a pretty good explanation of WHY Stroke allocation should be done in a certain way!

Here's a link to EGU's copy of it!

http://www.englandgolf.org/page.aspx?sitesectionid=337

But that's based on a complete lack of logic, scenarios made up to suit the argument and dodgy psychology.

 

[Martin Button]

Originally Posted by Threeimage: [url]http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png

[/URL]
Duncan,
The mistake I feel you are making is artificially constructing scenarios and then adding in the location of the shot holes to go alongside those scenarios.

In order to say that shot allocation is "wrong" in a certain format, you have to say that " before 2 players start the match, if shots are allocated at holes x, x, x, x, etc etc, player A will have an advantage /disadvantage, because......".

So I'll throw it over to you. If I give you 10 shots, which holes should they not be allocated on because that will be unfair to me?
Fire away, you have to make your case on the basis that we haven't teed off yet.

Read more at http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?91824-A-rule-conundrum!/page9#XDOQi9GSSjL0y3vM.99

1-10

Same answer as mine! And it would be the same even if fewer than ten shots were on offer because it is impossible to lose a match before completion of the tenth hole. Therefore you guarantee having the opportunity to use every shot. You may still waste some, or all of them, of course, but at least you are guaranteed having the opportunity to use them and for them to have the maximum influence on the game.

As I have never experienced winning (or losing!) a match 10&8 or, indeed, heard of a match ending this way, I suspect that in the majority of cases you could gamble a little and take your shots somewhere between holes 1-12 (or even 1-13 or 1-14), but holes 1-10 are definitely the only option to guarantee maximum benefit from the shots and for you to not waste any.

 

[rulefan]

it is impossible to lose a match before completion of the tenth hole.

Not so. A player can win a match on the 3rd hole with a score of 17 and 15. :thup:

 

[Martin Button]

Not so. A player can win a match on the 3rd hole with a score of 17 and 15. :thup:

Go on, educate me!

 

[rulefan]

For starters:

A player carries a non-conforming club (Rule 4-1).

Can you think of more?

 

[duncan mackie]

Originally Posted by Threeimage: [url]http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png

[/URL]
Duncan,
The mistake I feel you are making is artificially constructing scenarios and then adding in the location of the shot holes to go alongside those scenarios.

In order to say that shot allocation is "wrong" in a certain format, you have to say that " before 2 players start the match, if shots are allocated at holes x, x, x, x, etc etc, player A will have an advantage /disadvantage, because......".

So I'll throw it over to you. If I give you 10 shots, which holes should they not be allocated on because that will be unfair to me?
Fire away, you have to make your case on the basis that we haven't teed off yet.

Read more at http://forums.golf-monthly.co.uk/showthread.php?91824-A-rule-conundrum!/page9#XDOQi9GSSjL0y3vM.99




Same answer as mine! And it would be the same even if fewer than ten shots were on offer because it is impossible to lose a match before completion of the tenth hole. Therefore you guarantee having the opportunity to use every shot. You may still waste some, or all of them, of course, but at least you are guaranteed having the opportunity to use them and for them to have the maximum influence on the game.

As I have never experienced winning (or losing!) a match 10&8 or, indeed, heard of a match ending this way, I suspect that in the majority of cases you could gamble a little and take your shots somewhere between holes 1-12 (or even 1-13 or 1-14), but holes 1-10 are definitely the only option to guarantee maximum benefit from the shots and for you to not waste any.

Don't forget that if the match is level after 18 you are going to get your shots again, from the 1st...that alone provides a pure mathematical advantage.

 

[Martin Button]

For starters:

A player carries a non-conforming club (Rule 4-1).

Can you think of more?

Ah! Well done, you got me!

Of course that is only a maximum two hole penalty, so presumably the same player was also carrying 15 (or more clubs) - another two hole penalty, and ............ sorry, I can't be bothered to think of any more!

Sadly I have not been lucky enough to play against an opponent who was kind enough to give me such advantage(s) - or if I have, I was unaware of it and didn't collect my bonus for passing go!

From now on I shall avidly search through my opponents bag in the hope of collecting such a bonus. Although, to ensure maximum bonus, I won't do this until completion of the second hole!

However, for the purpose of continuing my (and Colin and Duncan and a few others) discussion with Three about where it is most beneficial to receive your shots (given the opportunity to choose), I will stick with my assertion that "you can't lose a match before before completion of the tenth hole".

I will pass that gem on to my friend who started all of this off (as he likes puzzles) - although as I think he is now following this thread, he will probably get the right answer!

 

[Martin Button]

Don't forget that if the match is level after 18 you are going to get your shots again, from the 1st...that alone provides a pure mathematical advantage.

That's true - forget my little gamble about maybe taking them in holes 1-12 or 1-13, holes 1-10 is definitely the best!

 

[rulefan]

Ah! Well done, you got me!

Of course that is only a maximum two hole penalty, so presumably the same player was also carrying 15 (or more clubs) - another two hole penalty, and ............ sorry, I can't be bothered to think of any more!

In order to save your little grey cells --

A player carries a non-conforming club (Rule4-1). He changes the weight of his driver after teeing off, but he does notmake a stroke with the club after the adjustment (Rule 4-2). He starts hisround with 15 clubs (Rule 4-4a). He has two caddies (Rule 6-4). He violates theone-ball condition on the opening two holes (Appendix I, Part C, Item 1c). Hehas a parent as a caddie when they are not allowed (Appendix I, Part C, Item2). He takes an unauthorized ride in a cart on both holes (Appendix I, Part C,Item 8).
If all of these violations are discovered onthe second hole, each would carry a two-hole adjustment to the state of thematch. That's 14 holes. Assuming the player also loses the first two holes, henow is 16 down with 16 to play.
His opponent could win the 18-hole match onthe third hole by a score of 17 and 15.

 

[Martin Button]

In order to save your little grey cells --

A player carries a non-conforming club (Rule4-1). He changes the weight of his driver after teeing off, but he does notmake a stroke with the club after the adjustment (Rule 4-2). He starts hisround with 15 clubs (Rule 4-4a). He has two caddies (Rule 6-4). He violates theone-ball condition on the opening two holes (Appendix I, Part C, Item 1c). Hehas a parent as a caddie when they are not allowed (Appendix I, Part C, Item2). He takes an unauthorized ride in a cart on both holes (Appendix I, Part C,Item 8).
If all of these violations are discovered onthe second hole, each would carry a two-hole adjustment to the state of thematch. That's 14 holes. Assuming the player also loses the first two holes, henow is 16 down with 16 to play.
His opponent could win the 18-hole match onthe third hole by a score of 17 and 15.

I reckon I have more chance of winning the lottery than playing against this feller!

The two-caddie one I knew in addition to the first two. The others are some that I might have been aware of at one-time (but maybe not!), but if so they are long since forgotten.

Only thing I can say is it would never happen to me....... my old-man is far too old to caddie for me now and with dodgy knees and ticker as well! So I would last to at least the fifth!

But I am now wiser without having to expend any grey cells - a win:win situation!

 

[chrisd]

In order to save your little grey cells --

A player carries a non-conforming club (Rule4-1). He changes the weight of his driver after teeing off, but he does notmake a stroke with the club after the adjustment (Rule 4-2). He starts hisround with 15 clubs (Rule 4-4a). He has two caddies (Rule 6-4). He violates theone-ball condition on the opening two holes (Appendix I, Part C, Item 1c). Hehas a parent as a caddie when they are not allowed (Appendix I, Part C, Item2). He takes an unauthorized ride in a cart on both holes (Appendix I, Part C,Item 8).
If all of these violations are discovered onthe second hole, each would carry a two-hole adjustment to the state of thematch. That's 14 holes. Assuming the player also loses the first two holes, henow is 16 down with 16 to play.
His opponent could win the 18-hole match onthe third hole by a score of 17 and 15.

That happened to me twice last week, I just wish I knew this :lol:

 

[Slab]

Not sure I'm completely following the shot allocation discussion but can I clarify a point

It reads as if those suggesting it does matter where shots are allocated are working with an assumption that the person receiving a shot will likely win that hole

Is there stats that support that?

I thought the whole reason for getting any shot was so that the most likely outcome is that the hole would still be halved or is it just so that the match will most likely be halved?

 

[Colin L]

It reads as if those suggesting it does matter where shots are allocated are working with an assumption that the person receiving a shot will likely win that hole

I would say it's a matter of having a more favourable opportunity than likelihood. It's part of the balancing effect of the the handicap system. A higher handicap gives you a better chanceor indeed the only chance of winning against better players. In stroke play, handicaps even out the opportunities over a whole round. Match play, where the outcome of each hole matters, necessitates handicap differences being applied to a number of individual holes which makes it all a bit arbitrary as you can't predict where a handicap stroke is going to be needed most. At any hole at which a stroke is given and received, it affects both players. If receiving, you think "I've got a better chance of taking this one"; if giving, you feel a bit of pressure on you. There is added satisfaction at taking a hole at which you were giving a stroke and I guess we all know the disappointment of "throwing away a stroke" by screwing up on that hole. To me all of that and more is about the enjoyment of match play but if the contest is to be as evenly pitched as possible we have to allocate strokes throughout a round in such a way that the balancing out effect of strokes is not distorted to the advantage or disadvantage of either side. The worst distortion would be allocating strokes in hole order: Hole 1 is SI 1; Hole 2 is SI 2; and so on. There are other less obvious ways in which there could be distortion and avoiding it is the basis of the CONGU advice on how to achieve a distribution of strokes that would best contribute to the enjoyment of a closely fought match between two players of disparate abilities. I recently had a bounce match in which I was giving 10 strokes and lost on the 18th after a close and enjoyable contest. Our stroke index has been carefully thought out and is based on the CONGU recommendations. Given a poorly thought out or random allocation, that match might well have been unequal march to an early win by either one of us. The stroke index does not favour one player or the other: every feature of it has an effect on both. It's a bit like equal and opposite forces. Getting a stroke at hole is to your advantage and your opponent's disadvantage: not getting a stroke at a hole is more difficult for you and gives your more able opponent something of an edge. The stroke index should be controlled to distribute these effects in a way that makes for the best chance of an even contest over 18 holes or as near to 18 as possible. Random just would not do it - other than by chance. I will leave the mathematicians amongst you to work out the chances of a random distribution arriving at the ideal distribution. Plucking a vague memory from Higher Maths longer ago than I can count, I recall "factorial 18" as a possibility. Tell me if that's rubbish!

 

[Slab]

Cheers Colin

I’d like to think that the SI allocation is a thorough process but can’t help seeing Three’s viewpoint that it doesn’t matter simply because sometimes the formula doesn’t appear anything other than adherence to the base-guide of don’t make hole 1, 9,10 18 SI 1, stick SI 1 & 2 near the middle of each nine etc etc etc and then filling in the remaining blanks with the leftover odd/even numbers, rather than the kind of effort some courses clearly do put in when determining a SI

Indeed England Golf (at first glance anyway) appear all about applying a mathematical balance and once you follow their base-allocation of do’s/don’ts there’s really not much choice left on which hole gets what, but I can’t help thinking playing a golf match isn’t about solving a mathematical problem and I don’t immediately see the connection to any players ability (& its this lack of understanding/visibility of player ability being considered that makes me think it doesn't really matter where they are)

On a separate note, it could be the age of the courses or that there really isn’t much match-play done but courses here seem set up differently and it’s not unusual (even common) to see a low SI at the start/finish of a round (one course even as hole one as SI 2 and the eighteenth as SI 1, so definitely not done with match-play as the driving requirement)

 

[Martin Button]

Not sure I'm completely following the shot allocation discussion but can I clarify a point

It reads as if those suggesting it does matter where shots are allocated are working with an assumption that the person receiving a shot will likely win that hole

Is there stats that support that?

I thought the whole reason for getting any shot was so that the most likely outcome is that the hole would still be halved or is it just so that the match will most likely be halved?

With regard to your second paragraph, (to quote you, "I thought the whole reason for getting any shot was so that the most likely outcome is that the hole would still be halved") this (in theory) would be the case but only if SIs were allocated based on hole difficulty. However, even then it often would not matter because on any given day conditions (especially wind direction) can make difficult holes easy, and make easy holes impossible! Therefore the discussion has been more around how SIs are allocated to ensure they are fair to as many golfers as possible, especially when applied to a match play situation.

This discussion originates from post 6 (on the first page of this thread) where I made a rather throw-away comment and suggested that playing my course in the reverse order (back nine first, not 18 down to 1!) would disadvantage golfers (on my course every golfer) receiving shots, because SI1 was given to hole nine. I gave a further example that if you received 9 shots you would be further disadvantaged playing the back nine first as you would receive three shots in the final four holes rather than one shot in the final four holes if the course was played in the correct order.

I should point out at this stage that I wasn't complaining about the SI allocation at my course; I accept that it is impossible when allocating SIs to a course to be fair to absolutely everyone, because the final hole has to be allocated one of the SIs and whatever it is, everyone receiving that number of strokes (or higher) may have a disadvantage in a match play situation. I was merely observing the fact that on my course, playing the back nine first altered the way in which the strokes were given and that this in turn could have implications in a match play situation if the back nine was played first.

One person disagreed with my view (others might do, but most - in fact I think all - subsequent posts appear to agree with me) and this resulted in some lively discussions!

The person who disagreed with me had a rather entrenched view that it made no difference whatsoever where you received (or gave) your shots and that if he received three (or in one example six) shots, he would be happy to receive them in the final three (or six) holes and challenged me (and others) to prove otherwise. My view, supported by others, is that this simply isn't true.

With regard to your point, again to quote, ("It reads as if those suggesting it does matter where shots are allocated are working with an assumption that the person receiving a shot will likely win that hole")

Therefore to clarify (as you asked), the gist of my view (and as I say, others appear to agree with me) is that if you are NOT given the opportunity to use your strokes, you are also not given the opportunity for those strokes to have had an influence on the state of the game at any given point and therefore its subsequent outcome.

In subsequent posts I have given examples to prove (mathematically) the case, one being that if you received 3 shots and were 4 down after 15, you lose 4&3 without your shots having the chance to change the course of the game. If you had received your three shots earlier (on or before hole 15), you may still lose 4&3 if you would have won (or lost) your shot holes regardless. However, and this is the crucial point, if you had used just one of your shots to good effect you are now still in the game and have the opportunity to go on and halve the match - an opportunity you wouldn't have if your shots came in the final three holes. If you were fortunate enough to have made ALL of your shots count you would only be 1 down with three to play and would have the opportunity to go on and win the match, never mind halve it!

Therefore, to conclude, and hopefully clarify the point. It is true to say that the outcome of the match might be the same regardless of where shots are given or received for the simple reason (as I think is your point) that you may have won or lost those holes regardless. However, it is not correct to say (as the other poster did) that it makes zero difference as to where you are allocated your shots, because if those shots ARE used, it can, and often does, have an effect on the outcome of matches.

 

[Martin Button]

I am now retiring from this thread that I started! Many thanks for the contributions and for answering my original question. This was done relatively early in the course of this thread, and the majority of subsequent posts appear to have been about SIs.

It has all been interesting and good fun, and thanks to all, even (and perhaps especially) those with different viewpoints, as without them there would not be a forum. Special thanks to those (rulefan in particular, perhaps) for adding to my knowledge!

I will keep looking at it from time to time to see if further views are added or if it goes off on other tangents, but if not, the purpose of it (to see if my friend was disqualified or not) has been worthwhile - he may now go on to win the competition with peace of mind.

Best wishes and good luck to all!

 

[Slab]

.......

Therefore, to conclude,...... .

Thanks

So is the majority of the thread simply semantics between 'zero difference' and an 'unknown amount of difference' (even if on occasion that unknown amount is actually zero)