Common Indexing!!??

[Robobum]

Played with the old h'cap sec last weekend and started talking about our stroke indexes.

He said that there were rumours that plans are afoot to introduce one set of indexes which will apply to every single course in the UK.

If true, I suppose the current recommendations of where to place low indices will be redundant and it can become a set rule.

I tend to pay little attention to the hole index so not sure yet what I think about this.

Anyone else heard this? Any thoughts??

 

[USER1999]

That would be weird. What if stroke index 1 was a 110 yard par 3?

 

[Robobum]

That would be weird. What if stroke index 1 was a 110 yard par 3?

Would it matter if it was the same for everyone?

My first reaction was that I thought everywhere would need a matchplay set of index numbers as well, but that's a gut reaction and nothing to back it up

 

[FairwayDodger]

I haven't heard this but it's a nonsense if true.

SI already doesn't reflect the difficulty of each hole, needing to spread the strokes given/received in a match as evenly as possible. I guess this suggestion would provide the "best" set of indices for this goal.

However, IMO, you can't just ignore the difficulty of the holes when doing this; a balance must be struck. For example, our SI 3 is a downhill par 3 with the left half of the green unguarded. High handicappers can (and do) dunt the ball and let it run onto the green. Nothing more frustrating than having to give two shots to someone doing that!

With a common set of indices you will get anomalies like this at courses all over......

 

[Birchy]

They should just collate the average scores at clubs in medals for each hole and do them 1-18 off that in order of actual difficulty. What does it matter if all hard holes are close together etc? That's how the golf course plays.

Saves anybody whining saying that's not SI1 or I hate playing against people with shots on that hole etc.

 

[Deleted member 1147]

Are the low SI holes not supposed to be together then?
Our holes indexed 1,2 & 3 cover just a 4 hole stretch (9th is no2, 11th is no3, 12th is no1), we then have no's 7 & 5 on the 15th & 16th.

 

[FairwayDodger]

They should just collate the average scores at clubs in medals for each hole and do them 1-18 off that in order of actual difficulty. What does it matter if all hard holes are close together etc? That's how the golf course plays.

Saves anybody whining saying that's not SI1 or I hate playing against people with shots on that hole etc.

Pretty harsh on the player giving 9 strokes, all on the front nine! Or the player getting 9 strokes, all on the back nine - match over before they've had most of their shots.

Really affects the dynamic of the match if they're not dispersed throughout the round.

 

[Imurg]

The guidelines for SI allocation are many and difficulty comes way down the list of criteria. In fact they should be spread around the card in a semi-specific manner.
It seems to me that many (most?) Clubs use difficulty as the main criteria.
And that's simply incorrect.
But a lot do it.....so having a set SI for a set hole number will mean that you will get simple SI 1's and difficult SI18's.
Wouldn't it be better if all clubs just followed the guidelines.....?

 

[Fyldewhite]

Much confusion and frustration on this subject in general caused I believe by the fact that 100% of golfers have it explained when starting golf by being told stroke 1 is that hardest hole, stroke 2 the second hardest etc when it isn't that nowadays at all. They are then surprised when playing a course and where a straightforward par 4 is stroke 7 and a 200 yard par 3 is stroke 15.

SI is all about fairly distributing the shots in matchplay rather than ranking the holes on difficulty. Hole ranking is more relevant in stableford but really, if you are going to make a decent score you are probably not blobbing many times and the advantage/disadvantage on holes where the index is "wrong" will even out. You'll (say) get 1 point at a harder hole you feel you should have received a shot on but 3 points for an easy par somewhere else etc.

So, overall, I think this idea has some merit as it would bring consistency across the board. However, although quirky, I don't think the current system is broken. It just needs a shift in thinking to understand it better coupled with more willingness from committees to implement the objectives of it rather than stick to the hole ranking system which IMO often allocates shots unfairly in matchplay.

EDIT: You beat me to it Imurg.... fully agree!

 

[Birchy]

Pretty harsh on the player giving 9 strokes, all on the front nine! Or the player getting 9 strokes, all on the back nine - match over before they've had most of their shots.

Really affects the dynamic of the match if they're not dispersed throughout the round.

Fact is the player getting 9 shots is still getting 9 shots and the player giving 9 shots is still giving 9 shots. The allocation of shots would be much more accurate in relation to handicap rather than forcing shots to be spread onto holes where they shouldn't really be given/received imo.

Lets be honest how many courses do you think will have 9 consecutive hardest holes on front or back? There wont be many if any at all.

I suppose like the handicap system though no matter which way you do it people are gonna kick off. Glad its not my job

 

[HawkeyeMS]

Played with the old h'cap sec last weekend and started talking about our stroke indexes.

He said that there were rumours that plans are afoot to introduce one set of indexes which will apply to every single course in the UK.

If true, I suppose the current recommendations of where to place low indices will be redundant and it can become a set rule.

I tend to pay little attention to the hole index so not sure yet what I think about this.

Anyone else heard this? Any thoughts??

I don't really pay much attention to SI either so I don't think it would bother me that much. I can certainly see there would be a lot of moaning about it if it did happen though.

Perhaps we should all play off scratch and it wouldn't matter

 

[pbrown7582]

SI as stated is like handicapping not fully explain as its aims to many therefore there are such wide ranging opinions on the subject.
I also agree the system isnt broken it is the understanding that is. We actually tried to sets of SI recently 1 as suggested for matchplay and another on difficulty ratings for stableford, all it did was confuse many!
If 1 set of SI is given for all courses everyone will understand but wont stop grumblings as pointed out so weird and wonderful configurations may occur, this may even mean some clubs rerouting their courses?

 

[the smiling assassin]

seperate indexes for matchplay and stableford(handicap adjustement) ought to be a necessity.

 

[sawtooth]

They should just collate the average scores at clubs in medals for each hole and do them 1-18 off that in order of actual difficulty. What does it matter if all hard holes are close together etc? That's how the golf course plays.

Saves anybody whining saying that's not SI1 or I hate playing against people with shots on that hole etc.

The guidelines (and that's all they are) can be found on the EGU web site. We just reviewed the SI for the whole course recently and its an almost impossible task to comply with everything CONGU suggested, but we met all but one I think, this one.....

"The 7th to the 10th indices should be allocated so that a player receiving 10 strokes does not receive strokes on three consecutive holes."

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

The guidelines (and that's all they are) can be found on the EGU web site. We just reviewed the SI for the whole course recently and its an almost impossible task to comply with everything CONGU suggested, but we met all but one I think, this one.....

"The 7th to the 10th indices should be allocated so that a player receiving 10 strokes does not receive strokes on three consecutive holes."

We comply with that one...16, 8, 4, 13

Must go look at the others and see how we do.

 

[CMAC]

more rumours

 

[CheltenhamHacker]

The guidelines (and that's all they are) can be found on the EGU web site. We just reviewed the SI for the whole course recently and its an almost impossible task to comply with everything CONGU suggested, but we met all but one I think, this one.....

"The 7th to the 10th indices should be allocated so that a player receiving 10 strokes does not receive strokes on three consecutive holes."

We definitely don't! Out 7 to 10 goes as follows: S.I 9,5,1,6, and the 11th is S.I 10!

 

[HawkeyeMS]

The guidelines (and that's all they are) can be found on the EGU web site. We just reviewed the SI for the whole course recently and its an almost impossible task to comply with everything CONGU suggested, but we met all but one I think, this one.....

"The 7th to the 10th indices should be allocated so that a player receiving 10 strokes does not receive strokes on three consecutive holes."

I've just taken a look and we seem to follow the guidelines quite well

Below is an outline of Appendix G.

This is best achieved by allocating the odd numbered strokes to the more difficult of the two nines, usually the longer nine, and the even numbers to the other nine.
This is subjective but I think most say that our back nine is tougher so we tick this

The first and second stroke index holes should be placed close to the centre of each nine and the first six strokes should not be allocated to adjacent holes.
SI2 is the 7th and 1 is the 16th so close enough and a tick for part 2.

The 7th to the 10th indices should be allocated so that a player receiving 10 strokes does not receive strokes on three consecutive holes.
Slap on the wrist for RAGC here!! A 10 handicapper does get shots on our 1st 3 holes (SI 10, 6, 8)

None of the first eight strokes should be allocated to the first or the last hole, and at clubs where competitive matches may be started at the 10th hole, at the 9th or 10th holes. This avoids a player receiving an undue advantage on the 19th hole should a match continue to sudden death.
Tick

Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, stroke indices 9, 10, 11 and 12 should be allocated to holes 1, 9, 10 and 18 in such order as shall be considered appropriate.
Holes 1, 9, 10 and 18 are SIs 10, 12, 11 and 9 respectively

 

[fundy]

Ours fails every single one of them Hawkeye lol. Our front and back 9s arent split odd/even, 5 and 6 are SI6 and SI2 13 and 14 are SI1 then SI3, 10 capper gets shots on 13-15, our 18th is SI7 and 1,2,17 and 18 are SIs 11,13,17 and 7. Cant say im overly surprised though

 

[HomerJSimpson]

I've just taken a look and we seem to follow the guidelines quite well

Below is an outline of Appendix G.

This is best achieved by allocating the odd numbered strokes to the more difficult of the two nines, usually the longer nine, and the even numbers to the other nine.
This is subjective but I think most say that our back nine is tougher so we tick this

The first and second stroke index holes should be placed close to the centre of each nine and the first six strokes should not be allocated to adjacent holes.
SI2 is the 7th and 1 is the 16th so close enough and a tick for part 2.

The 7th to the 10th indices should be allocated so that a player receiving 10 strokes does not receive strokes on three consecutive holes.
Slap on the wrist for RAGC here!! A 10 handicapper does get shots on our 1st 3 holes (SI 10, 6, 8)

None of the first eight strokes should be allocated to the first or the last hole, and at clubs where competitive matches may be started at the 10th hole, at the 9th or 10th holes. This avoids a player receiving an undue advantage on the 19th hole should a match continue to sudden death.
Tick

Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, stroke indices 9, 10, 11 and 12 should be allocated to holes 1, 9, 10 and 18 in such order as shall be considered appropriate.
Holes 1, 9, 10 and 18 are SIs 10, 12, 11 and 9 respectively

Slight error. SI 1 is the 12th not the 16th. I can't see how our 9th, playing 400 yards and always into a wind is SI12. Still on the bright side after the stableford on Sunday I'll be getting a shot there again!