Alternative to countback

[timd77]

3 pals and I play a little league each year, playing a round at each other’s course and points allocated for 1st 2nd 3rd and 4th. All very friendly, the winner gets the trophy and a few quid.

We play strokeplay, no handicaps. In the last round 3 of scores exactly the same and so we went with countback to decide the points. The chap who ‘won’ wasn’t happy with it and said he’d feel better if the total points were shared, but the rest of us said to stick to countback. It did feel a bit annoying as we’d essentially played exactly the same but in a different order.

Got me thinking, wouldn’t it be fairer to see who scores better on the hardest holes, start at SI1 and work back from there? Am I missing an obvious flaw?

 

[RichA]

Surely starting with best score on the back 9 is fairer than just picking out a single hole.

 

[Imurg]

There is no, genuine, fair way to decide it...
Pick a method...someone wins, someone loses.

 

[GreiginFife]

I think some sort of Deathmatch is in order.

 

[Lord Tyrion]

Rock, paper, scissors. It's the only fair way.

I dislike countback intensely. Why is a strong back nine better than a strong front nine?

Alternatively, most pars, most birdies?

 

[Deleted member 1147]

How about, fastest to down a pint wins?

 

[sjw]

Rock, paper, scissors. It's the only fair way.

I dislike countback intensely. Why is a strong back nine better than a strong front nine?

Alternatively, most pars, most birdies?

Yeah, countback seems extremely daft, having just looked up what it means.

Agree with the sentiment above that provided the rules are established beforehand, no-one can be upset with the outcome. I accept that this isn't possible for the tournament just played.

 

[timd77]

How about, fastest to down a pint wins?

We have a winner!

 

[timd77]

Thanks for the comments, some fair points. I think @Imurg is right, as long as we all agree then it’s fair. Plus the chances of a 3 way tie again are pretty slim, I don’t think we’ve had a 2 way tie before now!

 

[GB72]

I always liked the idea of using the decimal place in the handicap so, scores tied, the person with a handicap of 12.4 beats the one off 12.2. If it is played off scratch, just apply handicaps as a way of dividing tied scores. The logic being that the person with the slightly higher handicap has had a slightly better round.

That would get the lower handicappers complaining but no solution is perfect.

 

[Orikoru]

I always liked the idea of using the decimal place in the handicap so, scores tied, the person with a handicap of 12.4 beats the one off 12.2. If it is played off scratch, just apply handicaps as a way of dividing tied scores. The logic being that the person with the slightly higher handicap has had a slightly better round.

That would get the lower handicappers complaining but no solution is perfect.

Agree with that. In regular Stablefords/medal I've often wondered why they don't decide it by gross score (effectively meaning the guy with the lower handicap wins). And here the reverse would still work, if you all got the same score, then the highest handicapper had the 'best' round for his ability so he wins.

Otherwise, go to the nearest par 3 and do nearest the pin.

 

[Pants]

I always liked the idea of using the decimal place in the handicap so, scores tied, the person with a handicap of 12.4 beats the one off 12.2. If it is played off scratch, just apply handicaps as a way of dividing tied scores. The logic being that the person with the slightly higher handicap has had a slightly better round.

That would get the lower handicappers complaining but no solution is perfect.

Don't forget that the SI of a hole isn't necessarily a measure of it's difficulty. As others have said, make the rules and stick to them - fair to all. Whilst not perfect, countback is the most commonly used method, probably because no-one has come up with a better system.

 

[Orikoru]

Don't forget that the SI of a hole isn't necessarily a measure of it's difficulty. As others have said, make the rules and stick to them - fair to all. Whilst not perfect, countback is the most commonly used method, probably because no-one has come up with a better system.

It is silly though really. My only comp win last year was on countback - despite the fact we have a three-tee start, so I started on the 13th and only three of the 'back nine' holes were actually on my back nine. So essentially it was just a random selection of 50% of the holes for each player depending on what hole they teed off on.

 

[Slab]

I'm fine with the established countback but if an alternative's sought then why not off to the practice green for a 'putt-off' to decide

 

[GB72]

Don't forget that the SI of a hole isn't necessarily a measure of it's difficulty. As others have said, make the rules and stick to them - fair to all. Whilst not perfect, countback is the most commonly used method, probably because no-one has come up with a better system.

That is true but you are not applying it on that basis. On any strokeplay event, the simple application would be that the higher handicap, including decimal places, wins. That would involve far less work and is no less arbitrary than using countback

 

[r0wly86]

instead of count back, agree on 3 randomly picked holes. And use that as a tie break, then at least it is a random selection of scores rather who was better at the end

 

[Imurg]

instead of count back, agree on 3 randomly picked holes. And use that as a tie break, then at least it is a random selection of scores rather who was better at the end

Not always at the end though..
I won a Medal a couple of weeks ago, on countback, starting on the 10th.
So I had a better "front" 9....
We have a 2 tee start for many comps with the exception ofnthe Club Champs and a couple of others

 

[sjw]

It is silly though really. My only comp win last year was on countback - despite the fact we have a three-tee start, so I started on the 13th and only three of the 'back nine' holes were actually on my back nine. So essentially it was just a random selection of 50% of the holes for each player depending on what hole they teed off on.

That's what I was thinking. I typically play worse on the back nine, and I'm never sure if that's because the back nine at my course are the harder holes, or because fatigue has set in a bit. Countback wouldn't take that into account at all, if it fatigue and I've played a different 9 first...

 

[sjw]

Don't think rounds should be decided on anything played after the 18, like nearest the pin or a putt-off. It should surely be based on something that's actually happened during the round. Playoffs for the pros, fair enough, as it adds more drama, and they don't have a handicap or anything to work with.

 

[cliveb]

It is silly though really. My only comp win last year was on countback - despite the fact we have a three-tee start, so I started on the 13th and only three of the 'back nine' holes were actually on my back nine. So essentially it was just a random selection of 50% of the holes for each player depending on what hole they teed off on.

It is precisely for that reason that until a few years ago Grims Dyke used to resolve ties by using exact handicap. Then some interfering busybody pointed out that it didn't conform to the recommendation from England Golf (or it might have been CONGU, not sure which), so they switched to countback.