Mostly in proper golf
What do you mean you don't understand?
You gave a hypothetical situation that I'm getting 3 shots and they come on 16, 17 and 18, but I lose 4&3. The above is my response.
Read it again if you don't understand, I think my English is good enough.
So, you have now made a statement that the player receiving 3 shots, and gets them on 16, 17 and 18, is at a disadvantage because he might not reach the 16th tee.
Now, for every person who agrees with that, there will be somebody who says, hang on a minute, surely it's unfair to GIVE the 3 shots on the last 3 holes. They will then quote a hypothetical situation opposite to yours, eg they are 2 down with 3 to play.
NEITHER argument has any logical merit.
Let's say I give you 6 shots, tell me exactly which holes you want them on to gain maximum advantage in your mind?
Please don't patronise. Incomprehension is not necessarily a failure on the part of the reader and you don't have any knowledge of my grasp of English. The illustration of player receiving his 3 strokes on the last 3 holes was, in fact, yours in the first place, not mine and I have no difficulty in agreeing that there could be a similarly inequitable situation in which the player giving the strokes could be 2 down with 3 to play. But that would be the outcome of the same uneven distribution of the strokes and merely reinforces the point that an uneven distribution is undesirable.
In terms of a stroke index, I am not looking for maximum advantage, just a reasonable distribution to give both me and my opponent the best chance of enjoying an evenly contested match. Allocating SI 1, SI 2 and SI 3 to holes 16, 17 and 18 does not do that for either of us.
6 strokes? On my course where we put a good deal of thought into our stroke indices, 6 strokes would fall on Holes 2, 5 , 7, 12, 13, 15. Make of that what you will: it seems to work tolerably well - and that has nothing to do with maximising advantage and everything to do with maximising enjoyment of a contest.
Surely the millions that play for fun every weekend are the "proper golf"?
I'll ask you again, if you think that I'm wrong and there is an advantage in taking shots on particular holes, tell me where you would love to take 6 shots in order that it would be weighted in your favour.
What Colin is saying, quite correctly, is that stroke allocations should not be made in anyone's favour. Strokes are meant to equalize the match - the higher handicap player should receive a stroke on a hole where such stroke is necessary to achieve a half, or tie. Some holes are difficult for both lower and higher handicap players, often for different reasons, and the higher handicap player does not require a stroke to achieve a half. In a perfect world, strokes given/received would be spaced throughout the 18 holes such that neither player has an advantage or disadvantage.
You don't need to tell me what's the point of giving / receiving strokes, I was playing club matchplays in the early 80s.
Colin is categorically saying that strokes allocated at certain positions favour one of the players.
You CANNOT allocate strokes somewhere to favour a particular player, I challenge anyone to prove otherwise. Hence this business of spreading the stroke allowances artificially throughout the 18 holes is completely without foundation.
As the foundation of allocating strokes isn't favouring a particular player, your deduction is made from the same false premiss.Hence this business of spreading the stroke allowances artificially throughout the 18 holes is completely without foundation.
As you clearly have the wrong idea of why strokes are given/received, it seems that we do need to.
Colin is categorically not talking about favouring one player over another but about the distribution of strokes to be as equitable as possible to both. You pointed out yourself that 3 strokes being given/received in the last 3 holes could be disadvantageous to either of the players depending on the state of the match after the 15th.
Your base your challenge on a false premiss (that we are allocating strokes to favour a particular player) and so I can't rise to it.
As the foundation of allocating strokes isn't favouring a particular player, your deduction is made from the same false premiss.
As long as your argument is based on this misunderstanding of the purpose of a stroke index, there's nothing much more to be said.
You don't need to tell me what's the point of giving / receiving strokes, I was playing club matchplays in the early 80s.
So what? If you want to go by seniority, I've been playing club match play since the early 60s. That makes neither of us smarter than the other. There are smarter people than either of us providing guidance for stroke allocations and we should follow them. It's fine if you want to volunteer for those positions and offer your suggestions, just do it -get involved instead of merely criticizing good works by others.
You are obviously avoiding my point, so let me ask you very clearly once again.
You claim that your "evenly spreading the allocation" is somehow "better", and it's a good system. You claim that having 3 shots on the last 3 holes would favour one player, bit then you immediately admitted it could favour the other, which shows that it can't be proved to favour either before they tee off.
So all I'm very simply asking is, show me a stroke allocation of 6 shots anywhere within the 18 holes that is unfair because it categorically favours one player, in this example the person receiving shots. As you are claiming that your system is a good way, all I'm asking is for you to show a bad way for comparison, with a solid argument as to why it's bad.
If you are determined that you have found the good way, it must be extremely easy to show the bad method....
Am i the only one who hasn't a clue what is being argued about? All i know is that Three has some firmly entrenched view on SI allocation but the devil alone knows what it is.
.
On the contrary.
We are told that there are ways of strategically allocating the strokes so that it's "better".
I think this is nonsense, far from having entrenched views, I just think the strokes can go anywhere as it's completely random what happens day to day, player to player.
I'm just asking the people who believe they have a good way of doing it, to provide a bad example for comparison. They appear unwilling / unable to do so.