Countback

[HowlingGale]

Reading the thread in the rules section reminded me of something I've been thinking about for a while.

I've always thought the countback process of finding the winner in a comp after a draw in the scores generally rewards inconsistent golf. That may just be my perception rather than fact, but would a way to reward the consistent golfer not be a fairer way?

For illustrative purposes I'll use stableford as an example but can be applied to strokeplay.

If a player has a weak front nine (say 14 points) and a storming back nine (say 22 points) they would win over someone who can a consistent front 9 of 18 points and a back 9 of 18 points.

I think changing the system to reward the consistent golfer should apply and the winner should be the person with the lowest difference between the two nines. So for the front 9 of 14 and the back 9 of 22 the difference is 8 and for the two 18 pointers the difference is zero.

So in my example the person with zero wins as it's more consistent rather than someone just having a good back nine. If it's still a draw after checking the difference you can go to the usual back 9, back 6, back 3 etc.

This is not me being disgruntled as I always get pumped on countback whenever I draw with the winner 😀.

 

[BTatHome]

Changing for the sake of it doesn't make it better.

A person having two nines of 18 pts can be inconsistent too, they could of scored.all their points on just a few holes between 6 and 15 ... is this consistent?

Basically any changes is just a change, it doesn't make it better it just makes it different.

 

[ScienceBoy]

Changing for the sake of it doesn't make it better.

Basically any changes is just a change, it doesn't make it better it just makes it different.

Countback is the best of a bad bunch, without bringing people back to the course and letting Golf decide he winner.

The “best” golfers generally can finish strong so in many ways countback rewards those.

 

[duncan mackie]

Changing for the sake of it doesn't make it better.

A person having two nines of 18 pts can be inconsistent too, they could of scored.all their points on just a few holes between 6 and 15 ... is this consistent?

Basically any changes is just a change, it doesn't make it better it just makes it different.

Exactly.

The same principle applies to the allocation of strokes in a match. Even if the SI reflect the difficulty of a hole precisely it's no more appropriate to give a single shot on the hardest hole than the easiest. The distribution of the strokes is the important issue. But we have the system we have.

 

[Papas1982]

Reading the thread in the rules section reminded me of something I've been thinking about for a while.

I've always thought the countback process of finding the winner in a comp after a draw in the scores generally rewards inconsistent golf. That may just be my perception rather than fact, but would a way to reward the consistent golfer not be a fairer way?

For illustrative purposes I'll use stableford as an example but can be applied to strokeplay.

If a player has a weak front nine (say 14 points) and a storming back nine (say 22 points) they would win over someone who can a consistent front 9 of 18 points and a back 9 of 18 points.

I think changing the system to reward the consistent golfer should apply and the winner should be the person with the lowest difference between the two nines. So for the front 9 of 14 and the back 9 of 22 the difference is 8 and for the two 18 pointers the difference is zero.

So in my example the person with zero wins as it's more consistent rather than someone just having a good back nine. If it's still a draw after checking the difference you can go to the usual back 9, back 6, back 3 etc.

This is not me being disgruntled as I always get pumped on countback whenever I draw with the winner .

I think the main reason I’d disagree is that if comps were settled by a play off over 1/3 holes, you’d probably expect the player with the better back 9to win as they have clearly come into a good run of form.

 

[USER1999]

We have exact handicaps. To point one. Go by that, then count back.

Just my view.

 

[USER1999]

Oh, and don't get me started on count back in a shot gun start.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

We have exact handicaps. To point one. Go by that, then count back.

Just my view.

How do you do it on Stableford or pairs comps ?

All comps are played used “playing Handicap” not exact.

Countback is the proven fairest way for Handicap competitions to be sorted if two players have the same scores - the Comp has to be sorted on the scores made on the day

 

[HowlingGale]

I think the main reason I’d disagree is that if comps were settled by a play off over 1/3 holes, you’d probably expect the player with the better back 9to win as they have clearly come into a good run of form.

Think that's the strongest argument for countback I've heard. 'It's the way it's always been done' doesn't wash.'

If we just carried on without progress we'd still be on 2 points for a win in football or still off 3/4 in pairs golf. Realise statistics played a part in the latter.

I realise the actual idea might be guff and I'm advocating a fix for something that's not broken. I'm still not sure how countback is a proven fairest way though.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Think that's the strongest argument for countback I've heard. 'It's the way it's always been done' doesn't wash.'

If we just carried on without progress we'd still be on 2 points for a win in football or still off 3/4 in pairs golf. Realise statistics played a part in the latter.

I realise the actual idea might be guff and I'm advocating a fix for something that's not broken. I'm still not sure how countback is a proven fairest way though.

Unfortunately play offs would be the best way but they are also unrealistic to administer with people playing throughout the day - it’s ok for Scratch comps like Club Champs though

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Countback is not the ideal way of sorting a tie but the easiest to administer from a club's perspective. I've been on both ends (one in a GM event) bit we all know the way these events are sorted. I don't think it makes sense to change it for most comps although I can see how major club events like the club championship should be sorted by play-off and I think many clubs already have that in place

 

[shortgame]

We have exact handicaps. To point one. Go by that, then count back.

Just my view.

This 👆

Or in the event of a tie award the 'W' to the lowest exact hcp 😉