Resolving stroke play ties

[Colin L]

Tired of defining boundaries? Fed up wakening up with night sweats after dreaming of someone about to drive a white stake through your heart? Had enough of blazered dinosaurs telling you how it is? Then read on.

Familiar with the common (and R&A endorsed) count back method of resolving ties by comparing scores over the last three holes, the last six, the last nine even unto the last fifteen in order? I expect so, but can anyone claim that it is anything other than arbitrary; that it actually demonstrates that the lucky winner who came in, say, with a final 3, 5, 4 played better than the runner-up who came in with 4, 5, 4; that it wouldn't be easier and just as fair to toss a coin and save having to do the sums?

Sorry I have to refer to them (I just can't help myself) but the Rules are very clear about who is the winner of a regular (medal) competition. It is the player who goes round the designated course in the fewest strokes[Rule 3.3a]. I cannot think of any argument against the conclusion that if two or more players complete their round in the same number of strokes they are not equal winners. The composition of their scores whether a stronger start and a weaker finish, a particularly strong middle or a weaker start and a stronger finish is irrelevant. The only measure of their joint success is the number of strokes taken over the round or rounds.

My contention is, then, that countbacks (and indeed any method of distinguishing one winner from another other than playing more golf in a play-off) are inequitable and unjust. If, as is the case in most club competitions a play-off is not practical, the players who come in with the same score should be equal winners and share the prizes.

For the avoidance of doubt, I haven't recently been miffed at coming second as a result of a count back. In truth, I haven't been that close for quite some time.

 

[Crow]

I'd agree but some competitions need a winner's name on a cup or board, it won't work having 3, 3, 4 or more names as winners in the Drongo Cup for 2022.

For meaningful competitions a play-off is the only fair way but not everyone can make the play-off time. Less meaningful competitions, such as the Drongo Cup, are fine decided by countback, tossing a coin, drawing straws etc.

 

[srixon 1]

For the actual trophy, in this case the Drongo cup it will always be back 9, 6, 3, 1 etc. However, the sweep money will be shared between the winners. That is what happens at our club. Count back has been around for years and is unlikely to change anytime soon.

 

[wjemather]

I read recently that at least one club uses the "see who turns up to the presentation" method.

Seriously though, there are a few options for breaking ties in handicap competitions without using scorecard countback, extra holes, or coin tossing, that might meet your requirements: e.g. applying unrounded handicaps, lowest gross, etc.

 

[phillarrow]

Personally I agree with using countback.
As you say, in tournament golf they would use a play off in the event of a tie. As that option isn't available to most club golfers, the next best thing, in my opinion, is to go with the player who would have had the most momentum going into said play off.
Whilst it's not a given that the player with the best back 3, 6, 9 would definitely win the play off, they would be going into it particularly confident, as they're on a good run.

 

[Colin L]

I'd agree but some competitions need a winner's name on a cup or board, it won't work having 3, 3, 4 or more names as winners in the Drongo Cup for 2022.

For meaningful competitions a play-off is the only fair way but not everyone can make the play-off time. Less meaningful competitions, such as the Drongo Cup, are fine decided by countback, tossing a coin, drawing straws etc.

I sense agreement here, that a count back is just one of a set of arbitrary ways of choosing a winner, of determining the outcome of a golf competition by lottery?

 

[Colin L]

Personally I agree with using countback.
As you say, in tournament golf they would use a play off in the event of a tie. As that option isn't available to most club golfers, the next best thing, in my opinion, is to go with the player who would have had the most momentum going into said play off.
Whilst it's not a given that the player with the best back 3, 6, 9 would definitely win the play off, they would be going into it particularly confident, as they're on a good run.

Two players, Fred and Barney, come in with the same winning score. Fred is declared the winner because he had a lucky 3 on the 10th and Barney had a a competent 4, that being the only stroke that separates them on the back 9? And the justification for that is that something that happened on the 10th would have fired Fred up for a play-off had there been one? Unfortunately, I have inside knowledge that Fred is nothing like as fit as Barney and was utterly knackered by the time he came off the 18th green and could barely find the energy to reach the bar. Mercifully, with a little help from his friends, he made it.

Not convinced.

 

[Ross61]

Personally I agree with using countback.
As you say, in tournament golf they would use a play off in the event of a tie. As that option isn't available to most club golfers, the next best thing, in my opinion, is to go with the player who would have had the most momentum going into said play off.
Whilst it's not a given that the player with the best back 3, 6, 9 would definitely win the play off, they would be going into it particularly confident, as they're on a good run.

I agree with you , but I always wonder if you can really apply that to a Shotgun start.
Although I’m a high handicapper I believe, in the case of a tie in strokeplay, the win should go to the lower gross score.

 

[Foxholer]

As long as the Rules are known beforehand, any such 'tiebreaker' is fair by me.

 

[phillarrow]

Two players, Fred and Barney, come in with the same winning score. Fred is declared the winner because he had a lucky 3 on the 10th and Barney had a a competent 4, that being the only stroke that separates them on the back 9? And the justification for that is that something that happened on the 10th would have fired Fred up for a play-off had there been one? Unfortunately, I have inside knowledge that Fred is nothing like as fit as Barney and was utterly knackered by the time he came off the 18th green and could barely find the energy to reach the bar. Mercifully, with a little help from his friends, he made it.

Not convinced.

?? Fair enough! You've won me over!

 

[Colin L]

As long as the Rules are known beforehand, any such 'tiebreaker' is fair by me.

That's not only pragmatically reasonable but generally how it works. It's the "purist" in me that drives the argument plus the unquestionable fact that by making an arbitrary distinction between two players on the same score we are actually going against a rule of golf. My faint hope is that someone can convince me of a rationale for countbacks based on their identifying a demonstrable difference between two equal players.

I suppose applying playing handicaps to one decimal place in a net competition would be fairer but golf is a game decided on whole strokes and 1st equal will always be indivisible in my mind. But I can live with what is.

 

[Crow]

That's not only pragmatically reasonable but generally how it works. It's the "purist" in me that drives the argument plus the unquestionable fact that by making an arbitrary distinction between two players on the same score we are actually going against a rule of golf. My faint hope is that someone can convince me of a rationale for countbacks based on their identifying a demonstrable difference between two equal players.

I suppose applying playing handicaps to one decimal place in a net competition would be fairer but golf is a game decided on whole strokes and 1st equal will always be indivisible in my mind. But I can live with what is.

How about the player with the oldest clubs wins?

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Along these lines I've always thought there should be no shots in matchplay if it goes to extra holes but I'm in the minority.

 

[chrisd]

I agree with Colin absolutely. I have lost more times on countback than won, and come second knowing I played equally as well as the other player. My club has a 2 tee start and I feel that which 9 you start on can skew the scores for that 9. Starting cold on the 10th, a shortish par 5, a par is quite acceptable, but, as the 10th it's a quite birdie'able, whilst the 1st would be a happy par all day long even when playing it as the back 9, so even that one hole could lose you the comp on countback

 

[Foxholer]

Along these lines I've always thought there should be no shots in matchplay if it goes to extra holes but I'm in the minority.

And rightly so imo!

 

[Region3]

Not sure I like this, but it’s an alternative…

Take the tied cards and take the scores from the start as if they’re playing matchplay against each other. Sudden death.

I’m with Foxholer; as long as we know before we start, I’m fine with it.

 

[Foxholer]

Two players, Fred and Barney, come in with the same winning score. Fred is declared the winner because he had a lucky 3 on the 10th and Barney had a a competent 4, that being the only stroke that separates them on the back 9? And the justification for that is that something that happened on the 10th would have fired Fred up for a play-off had there been one? Unfortunately, I have inside knowledge that Fred is nothing like as fit as Barney and was utterly knackered by the time he came off the 18th green and could barely find the energy to reach the bar. Mercifully, with a little help from his friends, he made it.

Not convinced.

Given that knowledge, Fred did far better to achieve the same score as Barney, so deserves it more!
Just a different alternative metric to the one you proposed!
Have you considered/reflected that your attitude in this thread is pretty similar to that of others in the OOB Posts one - that you have, quite reasonably and correctly, quashed with a 'them's the Rules' view. And the potential for this thread to meander in a similar way - as it has already done - exists too! Is there a touch of self-interest sliding into the normal black/white style? Welcome to the world of 'Golf ain't fair'!
Oh...And I can see this thread running on and on just like the OOB one too!

 

[Colin L]

Given that knowledge, Fred did far better to achieve the same score as Barney, so deserves it more!
Just a different alternative metric to the one you proposed!
Have you considered/reflected that your attitude in this thread is pretty similar to that of others in the OOB Posts one - that you have, quite reasonably and correctly, quashed with a 'them's the Rules' view. And the potential for this thread to meander in a similar way - as it has already done - exists too! Is there a touch of self-interest sliding into the normal black/white style? Welcome to the world of 'Golf ain't fair'!
Oh...And I can see this thread running on and on just like the OOB one too!

Calumny and defamation. ?. Slithering down from the regulatory high ground? Qui moi?

My contention is that a countback ain't the rules. By the rules you win a regular stroke play comp by taking the least number of strokes to go round. The only inference to draw from that is that if two or more take the same number of strokes, they are first equal.

I'm confident, however, that protesting has as much value as letting off in a thunderstorm.

 

[Jason.H]

I won the other week on count back and I think it’s good ?

 

[Colin L]

I won the other week on count back and I think it’s good ?

And the other guy is, of course, delighted for you.