Stroke Index allocation

[rosecott]

I played in a seniors match today at a course where someone had clearly decided there was no need to find out how to allocate the SIs.

Each 9 had a mixture of odds and evens.
SI 1 and 2 were on consecutive holes (14 and 15).
I was receiving 5 shots, 3 of which were on the last 5 holes.

Has anyone come across a course where the CONGU recommendations were so completely ignored?

 

[louise_a]

That is a shocking allocation of stroke indices. Rochdale has a strange allocation 7 out of 1-9 are on the front nine. But that is nothing like 3 of the lowest 5 being the last 3 holes.

 

[duncan mackie]

Not uncommon when
1. Very old course and they haven't been updated in line with modern thinking
2. Some municipal courses where everything was initially set up purely on hole length, and again they have never been ...

One day every course will have the same SI pattern through the 18 holes ( I think the Australian union has is dictated this way).

This is the right way for matchplay; as I've posted before I believe that stableford is generally more enjoyable when using SIs based on difficulty but that should be handled separately if considered appropriate.

 

[rulefan]

Not uncommon when
1. Very old course and they haven't been updated in line with modern thinking
2. Some municipal courses where everything was initially set up purely on hole length, and again they have never been ...

One day every course will have the same SI pattern through the 18 holes ( I think the Australian union has is dictated this way).

This is the right way for matchplay; as I've posted before I believe that stableford is generally more enjoyable when using SIs based on difficulty but that should be handled separately if considered appropriate.

Yes, Australia has a standard matchplay SI allocation and a separate allocation (card) for stableford.

I hope that comes with the proposed WW system.

 

[irip]

I have played a course before (Hever Castle i think) that had two sets of stroke index.

One set for stroke play and one for matchplay, i thought this was a good idea, although not sue if it was allowed within the rules of golf.

 

[rosecott]

Allowed - and encouraged by CONGU.

 

[williamalex1]

I played in a seniors match today at a course where someone had clearly decided there was no need to find out how to allocate the SIs.

Each 9 had a mixture of odds and evens.
SI 1 and 2 were on consecutive holes (14 and 15).
I was receiving 5 shots, 3 of which were on the last 5 holes.

Has anyone come across a course where the CONGU recommendations were so completely ignored?

Did you win ?

 

[Kellfire]

A very cheap course is Norton but the SIs have to be seen to be believed....

http://www.swingbyswing.com/courses/United-Kingdom/UK/Stockton-On-Tees/Norton-Golf-Course/35055

 

[rulefan]

A very cheap course is Norton but the SIs have to be seen to be believed....

http://www.swingbyswing.com/courses/United-Kingdom/UK/Stockton-On-Tees/Norton-Golf-Course/35055

I don't think it has an SSS

 

[Kellfire]

I don't think it has an SSS

I don't think it has a membership. It's one of those "rights of passage" courses in the area. Everyone's hacked around it in 100+ a few times when they learn.

 

[pbrown7582]

Not uncommon when
1. Very old course and they haven't been updated in line with modern thinking
2. Some municipal courses where everything was initially set up purely on hole length, and again they have never been ...

One day every course will have the same SI pattern through the 18 holes ( I think the Australian union has is dictated this way).

This is the right way for matchplay; as I've posted before I believe that stableford is generally more enjoyable when using SIs based on difficulty but that should be handled separately if considered appropriate.

we trialled two SI one for matchplay as per guidelines and one for stableford against deemed difficulty of the hole it last only one season and was abandoned due to much confusion! Not sure whats confusing myself...... just make sure you have the correct card!

 

[Foxholer]

Has anyone come across a course where the CONGU recommendations were so completely ignored?

From memory, The Old Course didn't use to conform - but does now.

Conforming can actually distort matches as much as not not conforming! Courses with tough finishes, not fully reflected in the SI because of the need to conform, can distort either player's attitude to the score as that region is approached!

It'll never be perfect though! A course I used to play at had a vastly different length/difficulty hole for Ladies (120-ish) from what it did for Men (200+). The result of a mixed match on that hole was obvious distorted whichever card was used! There was no obviously 'compensatory' hole the other way around!

 

[Three]

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until someone can come up with some concrete argument that makes any sense in reality : it makes absolutely no difference at all where strokes are allocated.

Golf is such a random game day to day, just allocate the strokes anywhere you want, it's irrelevant in the long run.

If someone is getting 5 shots in a match, they are getting 5 shots over 18 holes, the only place it's relevant where those shots are allocated is in their head. If I'm giving 5 shots and they all came on holes 1-5, I would be thinking "great, no shots after the 5th". If the shots came on holes 14-18 I'd be thinking " great, 13 holes to build up a lead".

I sincerely think that stroke allocation has been seriously over - analysed over the years, there is absolutely nothing "better" about the "modern" way of doing it, it's just a different way of doing things.

 

[Foxholer]

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until someone can come up with some concrete argument that makes any sense in reality : it makes absolutely no difference at all where strokes are allocated.

Golf is such a random game day to day, just allocate the strokes anywhere you want, it's irrelevant in the long run.

If someone is getting 5 shots in a match, they are getting 5 shots over 18 holes, the only place it's relevant where those shots are allocated is in their head. If I'm giving 5 shots and they all came on holes 1-5, I would be thinking "great, no shots after the 5th". If the shots came on holes 14-18 I'd be thinking " great, 13 holes to build up a lead".

I sincerely think that stroke allocation has been seriously over - analysed over the years, there is absolutely nothing "better" about the "modern" way of doing it, it's just a different way of doing things.

That's an excellent 'glass half full' approach!

Unfortunately, at least for the folks that are otherwise inclined - the glass half empty ones! - not everyone has that attitude - even if they know they should!

 

[Three]

I played in a seniors match today at a course where someone had clearly decided there was no need to find out how to allocate the SIs.

Each 9 had a mixture of odds and evens.
SI 1 and 2 were on consecutive holes (14 and 15).
I was receiving 5 shots, 3 of which were on the last 5 holes.

Has anyone come across a course where the CONGU recommendations were so completely ignored?

Can you provide a fact-based analysis of exactly what is wrong with what you describe?

1. A mixture of odds and evens on each 9.
So what?

2. SI 1 & 2 on the 14th and 15th.
So what?

3. You received 3 of your 5 shots of the last 5 holes.
So what?


Genuinely, what is the factual basis of your complaint?

 

[Hosel Fade]

I've said it before and I'll keep saying it until someone can come up with some concrete argument that makes any sense in reality : it makes absolutely no difference at all where strokes are allocated.

Golf is such a random game day to day, just allocate the strokes anywhere you want, it's irrelevant in the long run.

If someone is getting 5 shots in a match, they are getting 5 shots over 18 holes, the only place it's relevant where those shots are allocated is in their head. If I'm giving 5 shots and they all came on holes 1-5, I would be thinking "great, no shots after the 5th". If the shots came on holes 14-18 I'd be thinking " great, 13 holes to build up a lead".

I sincerely think that stroke allocation has been seriously over - analysed over the years, there is absolutely nothing "better" about the "modern" way of doing it, it's just a different way of doing things.

Taking extreme examples if you were giving 5 shots.

Giving them on the first 5 holes would give a very significantly different win percentage vs giving them on the last 5. If you played 100 matches doing each the difference would be massive.

 

[Colin L]

Exactly. Three must be overlooking the basic purpose of giving and receiving strokes which is to put the players on as even a footing as possible. To achieve that, the distribution of strokes has to be even as possible. Starting off by allocating odd and even numbers to different halves is an obvious base on which to work.

 

[Three]

Exactly. Three must be overlooking the basic purpose of giving and receiving strokes which is to put the players on as even a footing as possible. To achieve that, the distribution of strokes has to be even as possible. Starting off by allocating odd and even numbers to different halves is an obvious base on which to work.

There's absolutely nothing "obvious" about that whatsoever. Please provide some facts to back up the fact that that it's "obvious.... the distribution of strokes has to be even as possible". I've been playing nearly 40 years, I'm all for progress, there's nothing factually "obvious" about that to me.

Secondly, you are contradicting yourself. I agree entirely, the purpose of giving and receiving shots is to try and even it out. So on that basis, if no shots are given on a hole, theoretically the hole should be halved. If a shot (shots) are given on a hole, that hole should also be halved. So on that basis, if I give 5 shots over 18 holes, 13 SHOULD be halved off scratch and 5 SHOULD be halved giving a shot. I don't care where the shots come in the round, it's statistically totally irrelevant unless someone has some magic evidence that a huge portion of club golfers perform better on holes with certain numbers.

I've honestly never seen anyone post anything to back up this "modern, better" way of allocating shots other than a perceived, made-up mental negativity to giving /receiving shots at a particular place in the round.

 

[Three]

Taking extreme examples if you were giving 5 shots.

Giving them on the first 5 holes would give a very significantly different win percentage vs giving them on the last 5. If you played 100 matches doing each the difference would be massive.

What evidence do you have of that?

I honestly don't even know which one you think is better /worse?

 

[Kellfire]

What evidence do you have of that?

I honestly don't even know which one you think is better /worse?

The mental side of the game is huge and it's pretty obvious you're trolling if you're going to claim that you wouldn't be very annoyed at having to give all five shots, as per this example, in the first five holes.