A rule conundrum!
- Thread starter Martin Button
- Start date
Three
Tour Rookie
Surely the millions that play for fun every weekend are the "proper golf"?
Colin L
Tour Winner
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.
Three
Tour Rookie
There is absolutely ZERO logic in your statements regarding where shots are allocated.
You provide no factual back up as to why it's "undesirable", why it would be "evenly contested" and why your strokes are allocated where they are. The only justification you offer is based on perceived psychology, so basically nonsense.
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.
Fun golf is not proper golf. Proper golf is fun.
rulie
Head Pro
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.
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.
Three
Tour Rookie
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.
I'm saying that is absolute nonsense.
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.
Last edited:
rulie
Head Pro
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.
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.
Colin L
Tour Winner
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.
Last edited:
TheJezster
Tour Rookie
Fantastic response Colin. Very well written.
Three
Tour Rookie
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....
Three
Tour Rookie
My point is I haven't just picked up a golf club and need an explanation of what strokes are for.
If you feel you should just blindly follow a new system without question, that's your choice.
I, however, have never seen any logical explanation of the new stroke allocation theory. Due to the vastly variable nature of golf, and each person's golf every time they play, there cannot be a system of allocation that is somehow better or worse, fair or unfair, BEFORE two players step on the first tee.
I'm not the one arguing for a fixed system, a random allocation works for me.
The people arguing for a fixed system need to show why their's is better, rather than just saying "because it is".
rulefan
Tour Winner
The following is provided by Golf Australia as an option for clubs. This method provides for a fairly even distribution throughoutthe round. It also disregards hole difficulties (acknowledging that a 30-marker receives 5 strokes from a 25-marker, which isalso what a 5-marker receives from a scratch marker, but that there can be clear differences in the holes a 5-marker and scratchmarker will find the most challenging). It is fair to players on all handicap levels, and it has proved satisfactory in use. It avoidsallocating low-numbered strokes to the last two holes so players receiving few strokes will have the opportunity to use thesebefore a match is decided. It also avoids allocating low-numbered strokes to the first three holes in case a match goes to extraholes.(Note: When using the match play index in match play competitions, the index should be adapted when a match commences atany other hole on the course other than the 1st. Hole 1 in the recommendation should apply to the first hole to be played, Hole 2to the second hole to be played, etc.)
Hole Index
1 18
2 8
3 12
4 3
5 14
6 6
7 10
8 1
9 16
10 5
11 11
12 2
13 15
14 7
15 13
16 4
17 17
18 9
Hole Index
1 18
2 8
3 12
4 3
5 14
6 6
7 10
8 1
9 16
10 5
11 11
12 2
13 15
14 7
15 13
16 4
17 17
18 9
Martin Button
Hacker
If I may add my two pennyworth (an old saying I know, but I am knocking on a bit). Your argument is incorrect.
Mathematically it is rather easy to disprove. You have asked Colin to say which holes he would like to have his shots to give him an advantage? Let him decide after the match has been played!
So you play your match. It is a tight match because both of you are determined to win! Colin receives his six shots based on the course SI and you halve 15 holes, Colin wins one hole but you win two holes to win the match by one hole. However, the holes that Colin loses are shot holes and he loses them because his gross score is two (or more) than your score. Also, it doesn't matter where the two holes on the course that Colin loses are situated. If he wins the last hole he would have lost 2&1. If he won his hole anywhere else the match would always come down to the last hole.
Back in the clubhouse you give Colin the option of picking the holes that he wants to have those two shots. He selects, of course, two holes where the hole was halved but he did not receive a shot. Now, magically, the outcome of the game has changed from you winning by one hole to you losing by one hole (or possibly 2&1 or even 3&2). So, and to quote a previous comment of yours, "it makes absolutely zero difference to you what holes the shot (or shots) are given", is clearly incorrect.
However, the main argument behind your assertion (that it makes no difference where your shots are given) appears to be that in match play it is, "all in the mind". I would agree to a large extent, but your argument also falters here as well simply because of that fact!
In match play you don't play the course, you play your opponent, and how you play any particular hole depends on a number of different factors, including how your opponent plays the hole and whether you receive (or give up) a shot. More importantly, though, it depends on the state of the match at any given point, but especially so coming down the final stretch.
Another hypothetical example (I know you don't like these, but frankly the only way you can argue in such circumstances is to give hypothetical examples!); in a match (over 18 holes), player A gives player B six shots. These shots are spread evenly (i.e. he receives one shot every three holes) and for the purpose of this hypothetical example, player B wins every hole on which he receives a shot. After 18 holes the match is halved
Now let's say the same match is played with player B receiving his shots in the final six holes (in accordance with one of your points). After twelve holes player B would be anything from 2 up to 6 down, depending on which holes each player had won (for the match to finish all square each player could have won nine holes, or eight holes each and halved two, or seven holes each and halved four.......) and therefore in the final six holes player B could have won just his two shots holes and lost the other four, or he could have won all six (in the original scenario the 4 shot holes that he won in the first twelve holes would have been at worst halved or he may have still won them without his shot)!
If player B was 2 up coming down the final six holes, with six shots in hand, he would almost certainly be writing his acceptance speech. Even two down with six to go and six shots in hand he may well fancy his chances. However, 3, 4, 5 or 6 down, even the most optimistic among us may not fancy our chances!
My point here is that the state of the match in those final six holes changes the way you (and your opponent) plays those holes. 2 up with shots to come you will be happy; 2 down with shots to give away you will be concerned.
I suspect you may argue that in the previous scenario player B could have been 6 down and still halved the match with just two shots to come. This is true. However, I would suggest that this would be very unusual! I wonder how many times you have been in a match 6 down with six to play or 6 up with six to play and come off with a half? And how many times have you heard of others doing it? And this is regardless of how many shots you received (or gave away) during those final six holes! And I would go so far as to suggest this is also the case 4 down with 4 to play or even 3 down with 3 to play, again regardless of the number of shots still to be received (or given away).
Every golfer who has played match play golf knows that the state of the match in the final few holes affects the way you play those holes. If you were 6 down with six to play, or even 5 down with six to play, even you with your very calm head might be a tad concerned, thinking, "I am going to have to pull something out of the bag here!" And it would undoubtedly affect the way you (and your opponent) played those final six holes, even with six shots in hand. However, if you had already received four of your shots, the state of the match is likely to be less precarious and you would play the finals six holes differently.
Therefore where you receive those shots HAS to have an effect on the match as a whole, because it will affect the state of the match in the final few holes, which in turn has a direct bearing on how you and your opponent plays those holes. To suggest otherwise is, to my mind, ludicrous!
Three
Tour Rookie
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.
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.
backwoodsman
Tour Winner
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.
I'm definitely done with this thread so no point in anyone answering any comment of mine...
I'm definitely done with this thread so no point in anyone answering any comment of mine...
Three
Tour Rookie
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.
rulie
Head Pro
10 shots for me? I'll take them on the first 10 holes. Or one on the first eight and one on the last two.
chrisd
Major Champion
I know that if my opponent has to give me one shot I'd want it before the 18th
Martin Button
Hacker
One more point, if I may. Matches rarely last 18 holes, they are often over and done with by the 17th, 16th, or 15th holes, sometimes sooner.
If you receive three shots and receive them on the last three holes your shots have had no bearing on the outcome of the game. After 15 holes you may have won 4&3 and not used your shots. Having your shots earlier might not have changed the result if you would have won (or lost) your shot holes anyway, but in all likelihood you would have won the match one, two or three holes earlier. Therefore having your shots sooner has an influence on the result.
If however you are four down after 15 holes your (earlier) assertion was that you would have lost the match anyway. This is so not true! If you had received your shots earlier you may still be four down after 15 and lose the match (because your shots might not have made any difference). However, had you received your shots sooner you could be only one down after 15 and therefore still have the OPPORTUNITY to win or halve the match over the next three holes, which you clearly don't have if you receive your shots in the final three holes. You might still go on to lose, such is life, but you now have the opportunity to win or halve the match, an opportunity that you wouldn't have if your shots were in the last three holes. Therefore to say that where you receive your shots makes zero difference is completely and utterly incorrect.
