How should the winner be decided if scores are tied?

[clubchamp98]

I guess this is the theory. When you think about it, a 9 hole scorecard playoff gives the chance for handicap to take some account - that a real time single hole or nearest to the pin playoff would not. Even assuming you could get everyone with a decent score to hang around till all scores were in and you play down the 1st... A 4 handicap vs 11 handicap... if the 1st hole was SI 7 or below, then a full 1 shot advantage for the higher man over maybe 380 yards of golf. If it's SI 8 or above, then clear advantage for the low man who is going to make par or better probably 40% to 50% of the time on the 'easier' holes.

Wasn’t there a time when The first playoff hole was always deemed stroke 9.
Then revert to index.

 

[Deleted Member 1156]

No it’s not ,it’s the team that scores the most goals .
That’s not always the team that plays best.

Very pedantic, well done

 

[Grant85]

Wasn’t there a time when The first playoff hole was always deemed stroke 9.
Then revert to index.

I've never heard of that or played to it - but generally the 1st hole on most cards will be 9, 10 or 11. Perhaps this was a change that was made and led to that rule being not required, albeit some clubs may still use it if their 1st hole is clearly very easy or very hard and it wouldn't be right to fix the SI like that.

 

[clubchamp98]

I've never heard of that or played to it - but generally the 1st hole on most cards will be 9, 10 or 11. Perhaps this was a change that was made and led to that rule being not required, albeit some clubs may still use it if their 1st hole is clearly very easy or very hard and it wouldn't be right to fix the SI like that.

Yes it might be a local rule .
I remember it well because there was a big argument once on the tee.

 

[clubchamp98]

Very pedantic, well done

What’s pedantic about that ?
It’s got nothing to do with playing well it’s all about the score.
Ask Jose .

Both players scored the same.
So a play off is the only fair way.
Ours are playoff for board comps. Any time you like before the presentation night.
Count back everything else, but being beaten on a count back because someone has a shot isn’t great.

 

[clubchamp98]

I guess this is the theory. When you think about it, a 9 hole scorecard playoff gives the chance for handicap to take some account - that a real time single hole or nearest to the pin playoff would not. Even assuming you could get everyone with a decent score to hang around till all scores were in and you play down the 1st... A 4 handicap vs 11 handicap... if the 1st hole was SI 7 or below, then a full 1 shot advantage for the higher man over maybe 380 yards of golf. If it's SI 8 or above, then clear advantage for the low man who is going to make par or better probably 40% to 50% of the time on the 'easier' holes.

It’s supposed to be an 18 hole game though.
Why not use all the even holes or all the odd holes .
At least that’s representative of the whole round and not just the back 9.

 

[Papas1982]

What’s pedantic about that ?
It’s got nothing to do with playing well it’s all about the score.
Ask Jose .

Both players scored the same.
So a play off is the only fair way.
Ours are playoff for board comps. Any time you like before the presentation night.
Count back everything else, but being beaten on a count back because someone has a shot isn’t great.

It's pedantic because everyone knew what he meant and you chose to pick holes in his wording. Not his point.

Someone could also play a better round of golf and still score less points due to misfortune or luck on someone's behalf.

Look at the play off last night. 1st hole and JT had no right in holing that putt. As good as they are. Holing from that far out requires luck. Not just playing best.

 

[Grant85]

It’s supposed to be an 18 hole game though.
Why not use all the even holes or all the odd holes .
At least that’s representative of the whole round and not just the back 9.

I guess you could make a case for that, but as has been said, the back 9 means the winner has played better down the stretch. As opposed to someone who has gone round the front 9 all pars and birdies, then barely held it together when the pressure was on.

 

[rosecott]

It's good fun and very interesting, but why are we arguing and putting forward a plethora of alternatives. You may not like things that are laid down by the powers that be, but they are guided by many, many years of experience. Quite simply, there is no perfect answer, but they have come up with something that is at least as good as any suggested alternative, everyone knows and understands it before you strike the first ball, so why argue when the last ball has been struck.

 

[IanG]

Quite simply, there is no perfect answer, but they have come up with something that is at least as good as any suggested alternative, everyone knows and understands it before you strike the first ball, so why argue when the last ball has been struck.

People 'working from home' need some distraction

 

[clubchamp98]

It's pedantic because everyone knew what he meant and you chose to pick holes in his wording. Not his point.

Someone could also play a better round of golf and still score less points due to misfortune or luck on someone's behalf.

Look at the play off last night. 1st hole and JT had no right in holing that putt. As good as they are. Holing from that far out requires luck. Not just playing best.

, “we were the better team “ usually spoken by the losing fans. and I was merely pointing it out.
That’s just the truth.
Nobody else touches your ball in golf and what you score is your own fault / skill.
Football is totally different and a poor comparison. Where your opponents skill can stop you playing.

 

[howbow88]

It's good fun and very interesting, but why are we arguing and putting forward a plethora of alternatives. You may not like things that are laid down by the powers that be, but they are guided by many, many years of experience. Quite simply, there is no perfect answer, but they have come up with something that is at least as good as any suggested alternative, everyone knows and understands it before you strike the first ball, so why argue when the last ball has been struck.

The reasons I started the thread:

I think countback is daft, and I wanted to see if anyone agreed with lower gross score winning if nett scores were tied. (My Spanish friend told me this is what they do over there.)

Isn't this forum to discuss aspects of, you know, golf? I don't see the harm in that myself

 

[Deleted member 21258]

The reasons I started the thread:

I think countback is daft, and I wanted to see if anyone agreed with lower gross score winning if nett scores were tied. (My Spanish friend told me this is what they do over there.)

Isn't this forum to discuss aspects of, you know, golf? I don't see the harm in that myself

We lost 3rd place in a texas comp on the above basis(iirc), as it was done on the lowest gross score, as we had the same net score. At the time I thought that was wrong for a handicap comp. Its either handicap or not in my eyes. I don't see how you can say if the same after handicap(net), basically we will give it to the lower handicapper.

If handicap comp then it should be net scores, if tied net over 18 holes, then some kind of countback after handicap I think is the fairest for a handicap comp(whether back 17, 9, 6, 1 etc I don't care personally, its arbitrary at that stage)

 

[Papas1982]

, “we were the better team “ usually spoken by the losing fans. and I was merely pointing it out.
That’s just the truth.
Nobody else touches your ball in golf and what you score is your own fault / skill.
Football is totally different and a poor comparison. Where your opponents skill can stop you playing.

Two guys in a medal. Both play off 18. One guy hits 18 bogeys.

The other pars 17 but on one hole hits a couple ob, finds the water and has a meltdown. Hits 18 over.

Totally unlikely of course. But they tie in the medal. Most people would still say one layed better golf throughout the round.

The footy analogy was simply about only a small part of the match mattering. It wasn't about either teams performance.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

As already stated, I'm not against the Countback as an established tool, but let's not use this imaginary, mythical creature called "the pressure" that only exists in people's own minds as some sort of measuring stick to justify the back 9 being more important.

But I think the majority of handicap golfers on here, don't get into contention on a regular basis (and you could argue shouldn't be or their handicap is wrong but that's a whole different kettle of fish) and as a result DO get nervous over the last 3-4 holes. Even worse when one of your PP's comes out with that "you've a good card going". I always know my own score so know where I am in relation to my handicap and so sometimes can get nervous (and ahead of myself). There is pressure, whether that's beating your handicap for a cut, winning or getting top three and a cut of the prize fund (we pay top three per division for medal/stableford) or taking a few quid from a roll up bet or a swindle.

 

[Ethan]

The current method is essentially random, but explicit. There is no merit in winning the second half but losing the first nor does it reflect the psychology of finishing strong. It all ends with a coin toss.

The fairest merit-based way of settling is with precise handicap including the decimal place.

 

[Orikoru]

Lower handicap doesn't work for me as a result is already confirmed before going out (in the event of a tie)?
In another sport I play, we have discards to a series (get rid of your worse result). eg. why not drop your worst performing hole and keep dropping the next one until there's a winner

Because that would mean you get rewarded for having an absolute stinker and carding a 10??

 

[Ethan]

The problem with the exact handicap thing is that someone off 19.3, for example, actually gets a one shot advantage over someone off 19.2.
If the 19.3 shoots 89, the 19.2 needs to shoot 88 which doesn't really fairly reflect the difference in their handicap.

There doesn't seem to be any ideal answer other than a playoff.

Not sure J agree with your maths. If both players had a nett 68, say, off a gross 87 (assuming stableford dings at the 0 point score) one has a nett 67.8, the other 67.7.

We effectively do this already. A 19.5 gets 20, a 19.4 gets 19. Same thing, 0.1 making all the difference.

 

[rosecott]

The current method is essentially random, but explicit. There is no merit in winning the second half but losing the first nor does it reflect the psychology of finishing strong. It all ends with a coin toss.

The fairest merit-based way of settling is with precise handicap including the decimal place.

Which goes against the long established system of playing handicaps. Is a 19.2 handicapper better than - and more deserving than - a 19.3? So the 19.3 played the other day in awful conditions and got 0.1 back when the other didn't so he deserves it more?

 

[Ethan]

Which goes against the long established system of playing handicaps. Is a 19.2 handicapper better than - and more deserving than - a 19.3? So the 19.3 played the other day in awful conditions and got 0.1 back when the other didn't so he deserves it more?

The answer is obvious. The 19.2 is 0.1 better. If they were 19.5 snd 18.4, the 0.1 makes a difference. Playing handicaps make it simple but introduce distortions. If a 19.4 and a 18.5 have the same score, but the 18.5 wins on an arbitrary count back, is that still fair? Is a coin toss fairer?