Guidelines to resolve ties in medal play (with handicap)

[jim8flog]

One thing I would say is that I have been the scorer for many comps but have never had to use anything other the countback. If you are using a computer based dedicated system it is normally done by the software.

 

[Esteban_M]

One thing I would say is that I have been the scorer for many comps but have never had to use anything other the countback. If you are using a computer based dedicated system it is normally done by the software.

The countback based on what score? Gross? Net (by hole)? That's the quid.

 

[rulefan]

One thing I would say is that I have been the scorer for many comps but have never had to use anything other the countback. If you are using a computer based dedicated system it is normally done by the software.

Have you never thought to enquire of the software supplier what the algorithm is in fact?

 

[Banchory Buddha]

We're both saying the same thing, and that's the intent that started this thread.

But as a general thing, I like to reward the best player, and the gross untie is the simplest to explain.

Handicap is a way to level the game, but in a single category competition it always favors the highest handicap, it's a statistical fact.

Quite the opposite, lower handicaps (at least under the previous system) won more events than higher handciaps. Too early to judge WHS

 

[Esteban_M]

Quite the opposite, lower handicaps (at least under the previous system) won more events than higher handciaps. Too early to judge WHS

Lower handicaps play more consistently, but higher handicaps in "one of those lucky days" can shoot 10 under par (net) easily. And they do. For a single digit handicapper doing so is rare.

 

[rulefan]

Handicap is a way to level the game, but in a single category competition it always favors the highest handicap, it's a statistical fact.

Where did you find this fact?
CONGU published figures that show that in strokeplay competitions the number of winners from various handicap ranges is in direct proportion to the number of entrants in the handicap range.

Matchplay is different. The figures show that with full difference (100%) the lower handicapper wins 55% of matches.
Where the difference in handicap was more than 12, the lower handicapper won every time.

 

[Banchory Buddha]

Lower handicaps play more consistently, but higher handicaps in "one of those lucky days" can shoot 10 under par (net) easily. And they do. For a single digit handicapper doing so is rare.

Correct, but over the piece, lower handicaps win more often. SG did a huge analysis half a dozen years ago or so. My own club's results align with their findings. It's rare to see silverware going to the higher handicaps.

 

[Esteban_M]

Where did you find this fact?
CONGU published figures that show that in strokeplay competitions the number of winners from various handicap ranges is in direct proportion to the number of entrants in the handicap range.
Matchplay is different. The figures show that with full difference (100%) the lower handicapper wins 55% of matches.

Interesting. And it makes sense, the more players are in category range, the more changes there is a winner from that range.

But if handicapping was as effective as it was intended, there would be no need to having different categories, since a +3 could play next to a 30 hcp, and the handicap would level both. But we know it doesn't, because scoring 20% below handicap for a 30 handicapper is about 6 strokes less, while the same for a 8 hcp is just 2.

I should run the numbers again, since I wrote the software and I have ~20K cards and ~1K tournaments in the database. We currently provide histograms grouping players by handicap, but I should find a way to factor that into the computation, because in "good tournaments" the chart is skewed towards single digits (players come from other clubs), whereas during regular tournaments, the distribution is that of the local field, which is skewed towards mid-high (+17) handicappers.

 

[Esteban_M]

Correct, but over the piece, lower handicaps win more often. SG did a huge analysis half a dozen years ago or so. My own club's results align with their findings. It's rare to see silverware going to the higher handicaps.

We make all the important tournaments 36 holes, that filters out one of those "lucky days", since it's very unlikely you'll shoot -8 both days. And since the lower the handicap, the more consistent the score, that favors the lower one. But if there is a tie...

 

[rulefan]

I'm afraid I can't reproduce the the charts/plots that go with this text but I'm sure you will get the gist.

Research
A large number of stroke play returns were obtained for players in Category 1 and the nett scores plotted against frequency of occurrence. The resulting bar chart is shown below left.
The plot shows a normal distribution once again depicted by a ‘bell shaped curve’. It can be seen that Cat.1 players typically score in the range 2 below to 6 above their handicap with a mean score of around 2 above the CSS.
In contrast the chart on the right shows the nett scores plotted against frequency of occurrence returned by Category 4 players

It is worth re-iterating that each time a scratch player takes part in a stroke play competition his expected score is not to his handicap (i.e. nett differential of zero) but to two strokes above his handicap. In contrast if a Cat.4 player plays to five/six strokes above the CSS that is no more, or no less, than his expected performance.

 

[rulefan]

We make all the important tournaments 36 holes, that filters out one of those "lucky days", since it's very unlikely you'll shoot -8 both days. And since the lower the handicap, the more consistent the score, that favors the lower one. But if there is a tie...

Bandits?
With the co-operation of clubs and players, the playing records of a wide range of ‘Bandits’ were obtained.
Analysis of these returns identified that ‘Bandits’ fell into three fairly distinct and evenly spread categories.

(Group A) Many displayed no previous ‘form’ and simply had a day ‘in the golfing sun’ playing beyond all reasonable expectation.
(Group B) With the benefit of hindsight the second group gave a fairly clear indication of their potential to score lower than their handicap. A more vigilant handicapping committee could perhaps have applied a Clause 19 (General Play) handicap reduction before the ‘scandalous’ score occurred
(Group C) Members of the third group were infrequent stroke play competitors and possessed handicaps that did not reflect their current improved ability.

 

[jim8flog]

The countback based on what score? Gross? Net (by hole)? That's the quid.

When we used to do it manually we would use the 'results' column on the card so that means in stableford we were using points, handicap cap nett and scratch the gross.

 

[Steve Wilkes]

If the stableford competitions use countback of back 9, 6, 3 , then I would have thought the clubs handicap strokeplay competitions would use the countback of back 9,6,3 of net scores based on Stroke Indexes

 

[Swango1980]

I'm not advocating to use gross score to break the ties. My initial post was about guidelines, as official as possible, on how to break ties using handicap.

I've been pointed to read Committee Procedures 5(a), which is abstract, but provides a good guideline.

If anybody has a better way to break ties other than counting back (as in Stableford) or using exact-handicap, I'll be happy to read it.

I'd imagine countback is about as good as you'll get. I'm only guessing that, because if there was genuinely a much better way then I'd assume it would quickly become adopted as the standard method. However, as it stands, Countback is still pretty much the standard way of resolving ties.

I mean, the best way would most likely be to have a play-off between those ties at the top. But, obviously that is clearly not practical for virtually all handicap competitions. So, I've only ever known it to be used in the club championships, when the leaders are likely to be out in one of the final groups anyway (and, even that is for the gross prize, not done for the handicap winner)

 

[Esteban_M]

If the stableford competitions use countback of back 9, 6, 3 , then I would have thought the clubs handicap strokeplay competitions would use the countback of back 9,6,3 of net scores based on Stroke Indexes

This is exactly what we're doing. The net scores.

 

[rulefan]

I'd imagine countback is about as good as you'll get. I'm only guessing that, because if there was genuinely a much better way then I'd assume it would quickly become adopted as the standard method.

And the ruling bodies would have recommended it. As it is, they have recommended a full countback involving all 18 holes.
See #2 & #3

 

[Esteban_M]

And the ruling bodies would have recommended it. As it is, they have recommended a full countback involving all 18 holes.
See #2 & #3

The Committee Decisions #6 states that 18 holes will be used only if the competition has more than 18 holes (e.g. 36 holes), otherwise it will be 9, 6, 3, 1...

"If the tying players have the same score for the last round or if the competition consisted of a single round, determine the winner based on the score for the last nine holes, last six holes, last three holes and finally the 18th hole. If there is still a tie, then the last six holes, three holes and final hole of the first nine holes will be considered in turn. If the round is less than 18 holes, the number of holes used in matching scores may be adjusted."

 

[Swango1980]

And the ruling bodies would have recommended it. As it is, they have recommended a full countback involving all 18 holes.
See #2 & #3

What? I'm pretty sure posts #2 and 3 back up what I said in #34? That is, playoff or countback as we understand it (back 9, 6, 3, etc)

How do you have full countback for 18 holes, when the scores are equal for 18 holes? Unless you meant that to be interpreted differently?

 

[rulefan]

The Committee Decisions #6 states that 18 holes will be used only if the competition has more than 18 holes (e.g. 36 holes), otherwise it will be 9, 6, 3, 1...

"If the tying players have the same score for the last round or if the competition consisted of a single round, determine the winner based on the score for the last nine holes, last six holes, last three holes and finally the 18th hole. If there is still a tie, then the last six holes, three holes and final hole of the first nine holes will be considered in turn. If the round is less than 18 holes, the number of holes used in matching scores may be adjusted."

Committee Decisions #6
Can you please provide the link to this? I can't find it.

I can only find
Committee Procedures
5A(6)
Matching Scorecards

 

[Esteban_M]

Committee Decisions #6
Can you please provide the link to this? I can't find it.

The right number is Decision 5.a (6):
https://www.randa.org/en/rog/committee-procedures/5a#6