Matchplay

[demacca]

For years I have had concerns when playing in a matchplay competition. Currently, as you all know, you deduct the lower handicap from the higher and the difference is awarded at whatever the number is, starting at Index 1 and so on. I think that it penalises the lower handicapper as invariably lower the lower indexes are also the more difficult holes on the course and if playing the course the lower handicapper would look at these holes as their bogey holes and the rest the par holes.
The change that I would now suggest is that if someone off 10 is playing someone off 14 then the shots would be given on the holes where the 10 handicapper would be expected to get pars. i.e. holes with indexes 11,12 13 and 14. This aligns with expectations as per in a Stableford for instance.
I appreciate that golf is not always equitable, sometimes you may birdie index 1 and likewise, I can bogey or worse index 18.
Whilst in strokeplay you are playing an opponent but no matter what format you are always playing the course. At Chevin in the 31 years I've been a member I think I may have birdied index 2 once and usually play it as a par 5. Then there is Tribulation, index 4 where a par is a reason for celebration!

The current process has always been in place but who would have thought we would have seen the changes in General Handicaps that have recently happened.

 

[Bdill93]

Welcome to the forum and good first forum post!

I see your point, as a 15.8 index I play off 16 in comps at my place. In match play with any of my mates who are 18+ PH they get a shot on our SI 1 which is honestly such a nasty hole - I always lose the hole, at my level its always a great bogey and ill accept a double on a bad day or tough pin location.

I suppose you have to see it as a whole 18 hole game. So long as the disparity isn't too great, there should be plenty of holes that you're going shot for shot on and on any of those, you have the advantage as the better player to go low and win. If I got shots on our easier holes, id certainly beat them quite easily (not trying to blow my own trumpet).

I believe there's a statistic that the lower handicap player does tend to win in match play - so the system isn't broken but it can feel like it.

 

[Whereditgo]

Surely it comes down to where would you want/need the extra strokes when playing a match against a lower handicap player? On easier holes or on the harder holes?

 

[Swango1980]

However, stoke indices were originally set up to deal with match play, Stableford came along later and simply made use of the indice values (happy to be corrected if I'm wrong).

Now, imagine Player A plays off 17, Player B off 18. Currently Player B gets a stroke on SI 1. It is true that Player A will also find this hole difficult. However, that is technically true for every player, regardless of their handicap. Relative to their own ability, SI 1 will be the hardest (or one of the hardest) holes for a +5, 0, 5, 10, etc handicapper compared to all the other holes (obviously individual strengths and weaknesses can then cause variance to this). So, the reason the higher handicapper gets a shot on this hole, is not because one player finds it easy and one finds it hard. It is simply because one player is generally better than the other, and the most likely hole for this to show itself it SI 1, which are often long holes as well. Obviously, when the difference in handicaps is only 1 shot, the players are actually pretty well matched, and depending on the natural variance of scoring, the holes in which one player does better or worse than the other will be pretty random, it is simply that the most likely individual hole where the better player will score a better gross score is the most difficult hole.

The alternative, if done on holes where players would get Stableford strokes, in this example would be that Player B will get their shot at SI 18. The easiest hole on the course. Imagine that, having to give a player who is pretty much the same ability as you, a shot on the easiest hole on the course. Maybe it is a 100 yard par 3. It would be far more likely the low handicapper would need a birdie just to tie the hole, especially if the higher player hits the green.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

In addition to the @Swango1980 analysis it is also simply not the case that the SI is a consistent and accurate indicator of the absolute difficulty of any one hole. So for instance the SI 11 and 13 holes on my place are two of the toughest holes on the course, but they have these SIs due to their positioning on the course and the relative difficulty of preceding and following holes. In most matches strokes are not given/received on these holes and so the lower handicapper has an advantage - often a distinct advantage if the lower hcap is mid to low SF or better.

 

[DickInShorts]

It depends how the stroke indexes have been set by the committee.

My club re- ranked the indexes a couple of years ago based solely on scoring averages to par for all competition rounds. This makes them mixed up on each 9 between odd and even and also indexes 3 1 and 5 all come up in the last 5 holes.
If I’m giving shots I find I have to get well ahead to hold off the late charge!
If I’m receiving shots I need to make sure I don’t get too far behind not to be able to used my shots near the end!

I’m a great advocate for the allocation being done purely on matchplay - evens and odds different 9s , no low near beginning or end etc etc- as overall they don’t really affect Stableford ( swings and roundabouts) and only have an impact on stroke play reacting to nett double bogey

 

[wjemather]

However, stoke indices were originally set up to deal with match play, Stableford came along later and simply made use of the indice values (happy to be corrected if I'm wrong).

Further to that, guidance was for SIs to be allocated such that higher handicappers would get most use of their strokes received. As such, length is often the dominant factor; the result being that relatively easy par 5s often have/had low SIs.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent clubs from allocating two different sets of SIs, one for matchplay and one for strokeplay.

 

[rulefan]

The recommendation for SIs has been changed significantly in the past few years. First was the change to reflect the significance in match play. (eg not allocate the very low indices to holes 1, 9, 10 & 18). And now there is the WHS recommendation in Appendix E.
Simple difficulty has long gone in theory but is still alive and kicking.

 

[Swango1980]

Further to that, guidance was for SIs to be allocated such that higher handicappers would get most use of their strokes received. As such, length is often the dominant factor; the result being that relatively easy par 5s often have/had low SIs.

Of course, there is nothing to prevent clubs from allocating two different sets of SIs, one for matchplay and one for strokeplay.

Very good point, and highlights a significant issue when clubs set their SI simply based on the average gross scores to par.

Imagine a relatively easy par 5, maybe 480 yards. A club may give it an SI of, I don't know, around 9 or 10 based on scores against par.

Then, the club decide they want to make it a 480 yard par 4. No surprise if it suddenly becomes stroke Index 1.

However, in match play, the hole is just the same hole. The par of it is irrelevant, because we are only interested in what one player scores against another. So, if a club decide they want to set SI values based on how they expect players to shoot against par, then they need to accept these are probably less appropriate for providing a reasonable distribution of shots in match play.

 

[CountLippe]

Very good point, and highlights a significant issue when clubs set their SI simply based on the average gross scores to par.

Imagine a relatively easy par 5, maybe 480 yards. A club may give it an SI of, I don't know, around 9 or 10 based on scores against par.

Then, the club decide they want to make it a 480 yard par 4. No surprise if it suddenly becomes stroke Index 1.

However, in match play, the hole is just the same hole. The par of it is irrelevant, because we are only interested in what one player scores against another. So, if a club decide they want to set SI values based on how they expect players to shoot against par, then they need to accept these are probably less appropriate for providing a reasonable distribution of shots in match play.

Been saying something similar for years, as a rule of thumb SI's for matchplay should be based on length. The longer the hole, the greater the variance of possible scores.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

I'm nearly always giving shots in matches, very rarely receiving. It really doesn't bother me which holes the shots are on the match is over 18 holes so it evens out.
The thing that does bother me is players getting more shots when you go to extra holes but that is a different subject altogether.

 

[Swango1980]

I'm nearly always giving shots in matches, very rarely receiving. It really doesn't bother me which holes the shots are on the match is over 18 holes so it evens out.
The thing that does bother me is players getting more shots when you go to extra holes but that is a different subject altogether.

Why does it bother you? A handicap is over 18 holes, not beyond that. If a 36 handicapper took a scratch handicapper to extra holes, the 36 handicapper doesn't suddenly become a scratch handicapper on the 1st extra hole, thus no longer needing shots.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Why does it bother you? A handicap is over 18 holes, not beyond that. If a 36 handicapper took a scratch handicapper to extra holes, the 36 handicapper doesn't suddenly become a scratch handicapper on the 1st extra hole, thus no longer needing shots.

As you say, a handicap is over 18 holes. If the higher player hasn't won in that time then he/she has had their chance.

 

[hairball_89]

As you say, a handicap is over 18 holes. If the higher player hasn't won in that time then he/she has had their chance.

Hasn’t the lower handicap player also had their chance?

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Hasn’t the lower handicap player also had their chance?

Fair point.

 

[rulefan]

Substantial studies by the USGA and Scottish Golf amongst others show that the lower handicap players beat the higher capper 55% of the time.

 

[williamalex1]

Why not leave it up to the player to decide where/what hole they receive their strokes, preferably before the start of a hole

 

[rulie]

Why not leave it up to the player to decide where/what hole they receive their strokes, preferably before the start of a hole

For the same reason that you wouldn't permit the player giving the strokes to decide where he was giving them! Neither player should have that choice.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Substantial studies by the USGA and Scottish Golf amongst others show that the lower handicap players beat the higher capper 55% of the time.

I've heard that many times but from what I've seen at my club and hearsay from others it doesn't appear to be the case.

 

[Swango1980]

I've heard that many times but from what I've seen at my club and hearsay from others it doesn't appear to be the case.

I get what your saying, though it would be interesting if you did some detailed analysis of actual results to see if this statement holds. You need to be cautious if you rely on hearsay. If a higher handicapper beats a lower handicapper, it is not uncommon for the lower handicapper to moan a little (a lot), and they feel hard done by because they had to give away shots. If they get beat heavily, they'll say they had no chance, and if they get beat narrowly, they'll say the shots were the difference, even though they felt the better player.

Whereas, if a lower handicapper wins, you don't often hear a higher handicapper moan that they didn't have enough shots. That would be quite a taboo. They'll often just accept they got beat by the better player and get on with life.