Shots in matchplay

[HomerJSimpson]

But your opponent has an easier ride before getting there and you risk losing before receiving many of your shots.


It does if you lose the match before getting to use one or more of your shots.

Then I'd argue you haven't been playing well enough to win. We have SI 3 on the 16th and so if I have lost before I play that then I wasn't good enough over the previous 15 holes

 

[sjw]

If you lose before getting to your shots, you deserve to lose - you've not been playing well enough on holes when you should be even. Shots aren't to give you an advantage, they're to level the playing field.

 

[wjemather]

Then I'd argue you haven't been playing well enough to win. We have SI 3 on the 16th and so if I have lost before I play that then I wasn't good enough over the previous 15 holes

Whether you are playing well enough to win without using all your strokes is irrelevant to the question.
It DOES matter on which holes you receive the strokes, because if you might still be in a live match and not already defeated had you been able to use them earlier in the round.

 

[PaulMdj]

It's not me teeing that hole off though.

Why not switch the order of who tees off on the 1st depending on how many shots you’re giving to your opponents?

 

[Orikoru]

Why not switch the order of who tees off on the 1st depending on how many shots you’re giving to your opponents?

We could do, but we chose which holes we tee off based on overall reduced distance (i.e. more distance between the red and white tees on odd-numbered holes). Vast majority of teams we've faced have done it that way round, only one team have done it the other way.

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

The handicap index on our holes at the club are based on how difficult a hole is
on that particular nine,
odd numbers going out and even numbers coming in.

But they're not sequenced for balance over the round.
They're rated on actual hole difficulty, so they may not appear in favorable sequence.
Also, we have brutal par 3s indexed accordingly and puppy par 5s indexed accordingly.

I hear a lot of negative comments on the indexing,
but for me, I find them spot on.

 

[birdiemachine]

Shouldn't matter a jot.
True handicaps, then who plays better on the day wins.
Only becomes an issue when dodgy handicaps become involved.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If I had the choice I’d both take and give shots on short par 4s. I am generally pretty steady off the tee and would, and can, play to a wedge distance as I am confident with my wedge yardages and ability to hit them to good birdie distance.

 

[cliveb]

This isn't how SIs, hole difficulty and expected scores for various handicaps work.

How do SIs and expected scores for handicap work? Can you explain?

 

[Backache]

Apparently on our course the SI one is based on the score difference between high and low handicappers.
It's far from the toughest hole on the course.

 

[wjemather]

How do SIs and expected scores for handicap work? Can you explain?

The guidelines for SI allocation have changed many times over the years but common themes include: having odds and evens on opposite nines, spreading the SIs out over the full 18 holes, not having too many low SIs in succession, not having a very low SI on the first hole (so in a match between players with similar handicaps, a stroke isn't immediately received on the first extra hole).

Current WHS guidance can be found here: https://www.randa.org/roh/appendices/appendix-e

Handicaps do not indicate an expected score for any given hole. WHS uses a mechanism called "expected scores" in place of unplayed holes; this mechanism is based on a theoretical hole of standard difficulty. The Course Rating process produces scratch and bogey ratings for holes which could be interpreted as the expected score for those model players, but they are not whole numbers so would not translate to a real expected score.

 

[cliveb]

Handicaps do not indicate an expected score for any given hole. WHS uses a mechanism called "expected scores" in place of unplayed holes; this mechanism is based on a theoretical hole of standard difficulty. The Course Rating process produces scratch and bogey ratings for holes which could be interpreted as the expected score for those model players, but they are not whole numbers so would not translate to a real expected score.

When I once put in an incomplete card with unplayed holes, I was given scores for them (presumably the "expected scores").
As far as I can tell, those scores depended on my handicap and the SIs of the holes. How else could it work out the scores that constituted a net bogey and some net pars?
And yet you tell me that the expected score has nothing to do with handicap & SI?

 

[wjemather]

When I once put in an incomplete card with unplayed holes, I was given scores for them (presumably the "expected scores").
As far as I can tell, those scores depended on my handicap and the SIs of the holes. How else could it work out the scores that constituted a net bogey and some net pars?
And yet you tell me that the expected score has nothing to do with handicap & SI?

WHS "Expected Scores" are an additional Score Differential, not nett pars and nett bogeys.

 

[cliveb]

WHS "Expected Scores" are an additional Score Differential, not nett pars and nett bogeys.

Ok, I googled "WHS expected score" and discovered that the rules changed in April 2024. The incomplete card I put in that had a net bogey and net pars added predates that. So that explains my confusion.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

Whether you are playing well enough to win without using all your strokes is irrelevant to the question.
It DOES matter on which holes you receive the strokes, because if you might still be in a live match and not already defeated had you been able to use them earlier in the round.

Your original statement said not getting a shot as the match was done before a shot hole so it can't be live. Our SI3 is the 16th and it may be a live match at that stage at which case giving/receiving will be pivotal at a late stage but that isn't what you alluded to in the first post.

 

[wjemather]

Your original statement said not getting a shot as the match was done before a shot hole so it can't be live. Our SI3 is the 16th and it may be a live match at that stage at which case giving/receiving will be pivotal at a late stage but that isn't what you alluded to in the first post.

You originally said it doesn't matter where you get your shots. I replied that it does matter if the match is over before you've received them all - i.e. if you had received them earlier the match could still be live, meaning you could still win.

Saving shots until the latter stages in the hope of it being "pivotal" is not a wise strategy for match play - remember this thread began as a question about where you would choose to take your shots, not where you currently do take them.

 

[HomerJSimpson]

You originally said it doesn't matter where you get your shots. I replied that it does matter if the match is over before you've received them all - i.e. if you had received them earlier the match could still be live, meaning you could still win.

Saving shots until the latter stages in the hope of it being "pivotal" is not a wise strategy for match play - remember this thread began as a question about where you would choose to take your shots, not where you currently do take them.

I'm not saying it is pivotal in as much as the SI3 is on 16 which is usually the last chance I'd get to give/receive and as you said in #23 the match may be live. I am not saying you should be waiting until a late shot hole but as others have agreed if the match is dead before the last shot received you haven't played well enough anyway. I am aware of where I'd like them but as that is hypothetical to where I am allowed to I'd rather deal with what I can control