Resolving stroke play ties

[Voyager EMH]

I'm not seriously advocating this, but it is a thought that came to mind.
Scratch events are whole number of shots.
Club handicap comps entail Course Rating that is a decimal, Handicap Index that is a decimal and (Slope Rating)/113.
Yet we round everything to whole numbers to make it look just like a scratch event.
Instead of whole number nett scores how about,

Differential minus Handicap Index.

Then place all entrants of the comp in order.
This would rank everyone by how much they played below and above handicap.
Winner might be -4.3 or something like.
Very, very rarely would we need to invoke "best back nine".

After all, aren't we all watching how many under (or minus) top players at Augusta are doing right now? We would merely have one decimal place as well.

Betterballs, greensomes, AmAms etc? I haven't thought that far yet, sorry.

I was +5.7 with the above calculation yesterday and came just above halfway in a field of 126 stableford comp. I doubt I would place much different, but it would be interesting to see.

 

[Ethan]

I'm not seriously advocating this, but it is a thought that came to mind.
Scratch events are whole number of shots.
Club handicap comps entail Course Rating that is a decimal, Handicap Index that is a decimal and (Slope Rating)/113.
Yet we round everything to whole numbers to make it look just like a scratch event.
Instead of whole number nett scores how about,

Differential minus Handicap Index.

Then place all entrants of the comp in order.
This would rank everyone by how much they played below and above handicap.
Winner might be -4.3 or something like.
Very, very rarely would we need to invoke "best back nine".

After all, aren't we all watching how many under (or minus) top players at Augusta are doing right now? We would merely have one decimal place as well.

Betterballs, greensomes, AmAms etc? I haven't thought that far yet, sorry.

I suggested this a long time ago. Use precise handicap. Logical, easy to do and fair.

 

[Colin L]

I suggested this a long time ago. Use precise handicap. Logical, easy to do and fair.

There is a reason, however, for your playing handicap being a whole number but that just brings me back to my original contention. If you have to separate tied scores, it's at least got something to do with verifiable ability.

 

[chrisd]

Do it by age!

The older player will have repaired more of the younger players pitch mark's and replaced their divots. Older players will have scored the same as the younger player whilst being more tired and the younger player will probably have received a hefty discount on his subs so the older player has paid more to play the game anyway. Finally, the older player will know the rules better, so it's a given that the younger player will have assumed the green keepers meant that oob should follow the grassy line and not a straight line between the white stakes and didn't apply the penalty!

 

[rulefan]

The easiest way is to let the computer do it. Removes all the hassle.

 

[Foxholer]

The easiest way is to let the computer do it. Removes all the hassle.

You surely jest!
If not....how do you think 'it' knows how to 'do it'?

 

[Foxholer]

There is a reason, however, for your playing handicap being a whole number but that just brings me back to my original contention. If you have to separate tied scores, it's at least got something to do with verifiable ability.

Then all you have to do is deem whether you judge it on past performance (so lower actual handicap wins) or performance in the comp under consideration (so higher actual handicap wins).
I don't believe this is a proper way to decide.
Countback (best relative finish) works fine imo.

 

[cliveb]

I suggested this a long time ago. Use precise handicap. Logical, easy to do and fair.

My previous club routinely had a three tee start for comps, and used to do precisely this: exact handicap to resolve ties.
Then a few years ago they switched to the "standard" countback method - I think maybe because it was what England Golf recommend.
But I agree with you that using exact handicap seems fairer.

 

[Foxholer]

...
But I agree with you that using exact handicap seems fairer.

Seems quite the opposite to me! For the sake of perhaps 0.1, one of the players has to actually score better than the other to win.
Countback (however calculated) seems 'fairer' than that!

 

[Ethan]

Seems quite the opposite to me! For the sake of perhaps 0.1, one of the players has to actually score better than the other to win.
Countback (however calculated) seems 'fairer' than that!

So you reckon that a 6.5 and a 7.4 who score the same have played equally well?

You could say precisely the same about the 'for the sake of 0.1' if one player is 0.1 off a lower or higher handicap.

 

[Foxholer]

So you reckon that a 6.5 and a 7.4 who score the same have played equally well?
...

According to the Rules of Handicap Competitions, Yes! So Why would one of them need to actually score better than the other to win?
Just another reason that Countback - however done - is 'fairer'.

You could say precisely the same about the 'for the sake of 0.1' if one player is 0.1 off a lower or higher handicap.

Indeed! But 'thems the Rules' and all who enter do so knowing that.

 

[Ethan]

According to the Rules of Handicap Competitions, Yes! So Why would one of them need to actually score better than the other to win?
Just another reason that Countback - however done - is 'fairer'.

Indeed! But 'thems the Rules' and all who enter do so knowing that.

We are discussing whether the rule makes sense and whether a better one could be used. If you are happy to believe that it must be the best answer because it is already in the rules, then you can rest your case and watch smugly as we fools debate it.

 

[Foxholer]

We are discussing whether the rule makes sense and whether a better one could be used. If you are happy to believe that it must be the best answer because it is already in the rules, then you can rest your case and watch smugly as we fools debate it.

My 'thems the rules...' simply meant that entrants know how it works beforehand, so enter on the/whatever basis prescribed. Not a justification/preference of any method.
However....
I think you missed my point! A 6.5 (or 7.4) knows they are off 7 while a 6.4 knows they are off 6 before the comp starts. So 'even-handed', the entire purpose of handicapping, is probably a better way to describe it - unlike the 6.4 vs 6.5 or 6.5 vs 7.4, where the higher actual handicap would have to win outright to win, even though they are the same playing handicap.
As I've maintained...The countback method - however calculated - seems, to me, to be 'fairer'.

 

[Ethan]

My 'thems the rules...' simply meant that entrants know how it works beforehand, so enter on the/whatever basis prescribed. Not a justification/preference of any method.
However....
I think you missed my point! A 6.5 (or 7.4) knows they are off 7 while a 6.4 knows they are off 6 before the comp starts. So 'even-handed', the entire purpose of handicapping, is probably a better way to describe it - unlike the 6.4 vs 6.5 or 6.5 vs 7.4, where the higher actual handicap would have to win outright to win, even though they are the same playing handicap.
As I've maintained...The countback method - however calculated - seems, to me, to be 'fairer'.

I got your point, I just don't agree with it. The decimal is important and baked in as a factor that drives the playing handicap and course handicap. I just don't think the whole number approach is logically any fairer than one with more precision.

Countback is only 'fair' because it is clear (its only real purpose) and has taken on a familiarity with time, even though there is little logic that the guy who started worse but finishes better has played better than the one who started better but finishes worse.

 

[Foxholer]

I got your point, I just don't agree with it.'...

I've no problem with that.
As I've maintained...The countback method - however calculated - seems, to me, to be 'fairer'.
I wouldn't care if it was a the opposite to now - on a 'first' cf 'last' basis, though the 'stronger finish' maybe just edges it - for me.
FWIW, it's not simply the (say) 6.5 vs 7.4 comparison... It's actually (say) 6.5 vs 6.6 - or any lower real handicap vs higher real but same playing one where the higher real handicap has to play better to win, while the lower real one simply has to play as well to win - which doesn't seem as fair as countback (however organised).