Resolving stroke play ties

[chrisd]

The countback has nothing to do with any subjective determination that playing better over the back nine is more worthy than playing better over the front nine. It is essentially arbitrary, and you could decide it by who played better on the odd vs even holes except that looks a bit stupid and is harder to work out. So since it is arbitrary, makes no difference what tee people start. You would settle a shotgun strokeplay the same way.

I'm sorry Ethan, whilst I agree its arbitrary, but, our back 9, (as I posted earlier) starts with a par 5 that is a good birdie chance for thr longer hitters but is less likely to be the case when it's the first hole of the day. It's the hole on the course that I've birdied more than any other but not often when I start on it. So I believe that starting on the 10th gives an unfair advantage to the player starting on the 1st if two players going off the different starting tees were to tie.

Why do clubs not take 9 holes, say, starting from the 5th so, the middle 9 to decide ? Just as arbitrary but at least being when players from both starting tees have got into their stride?

 

[Colin L]

I guess I go with countback as it is at least indicative of the relative ability of players ability to 'hold it together' when pressure of competition increases...as it does as soon as a player finds or puts himself in a position of being at least potentially in contention...and that starts with a good front nine.

Doesn't change the fact and your argument that the whole point of strokeplay is the total number of shots over the totality of a round.

I don't really buy the "holding it together" idea. Take Fred and Barney again. Fred was declared the winner on the basis of being one stroke better on the back nine That means of course that Barney was one stroke better than Fred on the front nine. You know that the difference on the back nine came about because Fred had a 3 to Barney's 4 on the 10th. What was not revealed was that Barney had a 4 to Fred's 5 on the 9th and that otherwise they matched scores on every hole. We separate the two on the basis of the scores of two successive holes halfway through the round, on the notion that that shows Fred "held it together" better than Barney? Really?

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

I don't really buy the "holding it together" idea. Take Fred and Barney again. Fred was declared the winner on the basis of being one stroke better on the back nine That means of course that Barney was one stroke better than Fred on the front nine. You know that the difference on the back nine came about because Fred had a 3 to Barney's 4 on the 10th. What was not revealed was that Barney had a 4 to Fred's 5 on the 9th and that otherwise they matched scores on every hole. We separate the two on the basis of the scores of two successive holes halfway through the round, on the notion that that shows Fred "held it together" better than Barney? Really?

It's the only logic I see to giving any basis to countback...not saying that agree - in fact I don't like it but have simply come to acceptance of countback on that basis and that's how it is...

In fact might as well do countback on basis of SIs. At least these are distributed across the 18holes and are independent of starting hole.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

I'm sorry Ethan, whilst I agree its arbitrary, but, our back 9, (as I posted earlier) starts with a par 5 that is a good birdie chance for thr longer hitters but is less likely to be the case when it's the first hole of the day. It's the hole on the course that I've birdied more than any other but not often when I start on it. So I believe that starting on the 10th gives an unfair advantage to the player starting on the 1st if two players going off the different starting tees were to tie.

Why do clubs not take 9 holes, say, starting from the 5th so, the middle 9 to decide ? Just as arbitrary but at least being when players from both starting tees have got into their stride?

No reason why you shouldn't birdie the 10th playing it as your 1st if you spend a little time warming up properly.

 

[Ethan]

I'm sorry Ethan, whilst I agree its arbitrary, but, our back 9, (as I posted earlier) starts with a par 5 that is a good birdie chance for thr longer hitters but is less likely to be the case when it's the first hole of the day. It's the hole on the course that I've birdied more than any other but not often when I start on it. So I believe that starting on the 10th gives an unfair advantage to the player starting on the 1st if two players going off the different starting tees were to tie.

Why do clubs not take 9 holes, say, starting from the 5th so, the middle 9 to decide ? Just as arbitrary but at least being when players from both starting tees have got into their stride?

Sure, some courses have different 9s, but the method was designed for all courses and was intended to be random/arbitrary but look reasonable and be easy to operate. I don't particularly care for it, and would prefer exact handicap instead.

 

[chrisd]

No reason why you shouldn't birdie the 10th playing it as your 1st if you spend a little time warming up properly.

I'm sorry but I've played the course 2 or 3 times a week and for 24 years, I always warm up before playing, I think I know the nuances of my course well enough to write what I did.

 

[Jimaroid]

Glad to see this thread as I've never understood what count-back is attempting to resolve because it seemed so flawed. I thought I was being stupid and was missing something obvious.

In my mind it's daft because:

1. All (e.g. trophy and physical prize) competitions that require an outright winner should go to play off or are match-play to begin with.
2. If the prize can't be split, the organiser has got the format wrong so goto 1.
3. What's wrong with a draw anyway?

Before anyone points it out, I get that organisers are attempting to fit people's life circumstances into the format. I just happen to think that's dumb.

To fix it? It can't. I don't think count-back can be made to work. Even if you take exact handicap you hit a point where numeric precision always results in a draw. Where do you end? Handicaps to 8 decimal places? Madness.

Personally, when I've been in countback situations, I would have been happier to flip a coin the same way that, occasionally, the only equitable way to resolve a match-play game is to flip a coin.

 

[Slab]

@Colin L
What about a short Rules quiz questionnaire each player must answer when handing in scorecard. Of course they may still tie after this so it’d then go to whoever completed the quiz in the shortest time

 

[IanMcC]

Did not read the whole thread, so apologies if mentioned above, but the simple answer is that HDID uses the back 9/6/3/1 then repeated on the front 9 method for countback.
If I was to post a result which differed from the HDID result there would be uproar, so that surely is the universal method to follow.

 

[Ethan]

To fix it? It can't. I don't think count-back can be made to work. Even if you take exact handicap you hit a point where numeric precision always results in a draw. Where do you end? Handicaps to 8 decimal places? Madness.

10% chance of same index to 1 decimal place, 1% chance to 2, 0.000001% to 8.

Exact same logic as saying that 2 players with an index 0.1 apart have playing handicaps 1 full shot different.

 

[phillarrow]

How about a play off, without the "play"?

Before the competition starts, the committee identifies the holes they would use in a four hole play off (with this being extended to six, eight, etc. in the event of a further tie).

These holes are identified before each player starts, so they carry just a little bit more importance than the other holes.

In the event of a tie after 18 holes, it is the scores on these four holes that are used to separate the players, rather than a countback.

I'm not sure it's that much better than countback, but there's something about the extra pressure of these holes from the very start that might make it just a little less arbitrary?

 

[Jimaroid]

10% chance of same index to 1 decimal place, 1% chance to 2, 0.000001% to 8.

Exact same logic as saying that 2 players with an index 0.1 apart have playing handicaps 1 full shot different.

Not sure if you're trying to prove or disprove the point, but, yes?

My other thought is that handicaps aren't a linear distribution so certain ranges of handicaps are more susceptible to being "more unfair" regardless of precision you use.

 

[Deleted member 3432]

I'm sorry but I've played the course 2 or 3 times a week and for 24 years, I always warm up before playing, I think I know the nuances of my course well enough to write what I did.

It's psychological then

 

[chrisd]

It's psychological then

Probably, the first tee shot in any comp can be a "safe" one so as not to wreck a card on the 1st shot.

 

[Ethan]

Not sure if you're trying to prove or disprove the point, but, yes?

My other thought is that handicaps aren't a linear distribution so certain ranges of handicaps are more susceptible to being "more unfair" regardless of precision you use.

My point is that with more precision it is very unlikely to continue to remain a tie. Everyone knows their index to one decimal place, and that will break 90% of ties.

Biases in different zone of the handicap range are a separate but irrelevant question. The only question if using exact handicaps to break a tie is which one is the higher one?

 

[doublebogey7]

How about a play off, without the "play"?

Before the competition starts, the committee identifies the holes they would use in a four hole play off (with this being extended to six, eight, etc. in the event of a further tie).

These holes are identified before each player starts, so they carry just a little bit more importance than the other holes.

In the event of a tie after 18 holes, it is the scores on these four holes that are used to separate the players, rather than a countback.

I'm not sure it's that much better than countback, but there's something about the extra pressure of these holes from the very start that might make it just a little less arbitrary?

Players know now which 9 holes are going to be used to determine the winner in the event of a tie, how is your proposal any different apart from using fewer holes to start the process. Seems to be way more complicated and just as arbitrary to me. Perhaps I'm missing something.

 

[Deleted member 15344]

How about the lowest handicapper wins in the case of a tie ? They would have played the better golf surely ?

 

[Colin L]

How about the lowest handicapper wins in the case of a tie ? They would have played the better golf surely ?

Neither has played better golf. Both have the same score. But if you want to go by which has achieved more, it would be the higher handicapper, would it not?

 

[Deleted member 15344]

Neither has played better golf. Both have the same score. But if you want to go by which has achieved more, it would be the higher handicapper, would it not?

Surely the better golf is the one who has played the fewest amount of shots

Why would a higher handicapper have played the better golf when they played more shots ?‍

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Surely the better golf is the one who has played the fewest amount of shots

Why would a higher handicapper have played the better golf when they played more shots ?‍

So why not simply have competitions of scratch and stop many enjoying playing on the even playing field handicaps allow and bothering to enter