Stroke Index allocation

[rosecott]

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.

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?

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.

“the only place it's relevant where those shots are allocated is in their head” .

Maybe you live in a completely different golf world to me but that is unbelievably dismissive of the mental state of almost all the golfers I know when they’re playing a match.

I have no need to provide a factual base for the issues I mentioned. Those, and many other factors to be considered, are set out by CONGU as the basis for Stroke Index Allocation.

You may have nearly 40 years of golf behind you. I have over 60 and, I suspect, those who have been using their experience to formulate the handicapping system will have many thousands of years of experience to contribute to the constant refining of the system.

 

[rosecott]

Did you win ?

Not that it's any of your business Billy, but we lost 2 & 1 on the 17th on which I hit the pin with my approach but took another 2 to get down for a par 4 to halve the hole and lose the match - and I didn't get my final shot SI4 as it was on the 18th.

 

[Colin L]

Three.
You have already had two examples of how an uneven distribution of strokes was inequitable and disadvantaged the higher handicapper - from the OP and from Rosecott. I'll add another. I was receiving four strokes and had had the benefit of only one of them when the match finished on the 14th when I was beaten 5 & 4. The SI allocated my 2nd, 3rd and 4th strokes to holes 15, 16, and 17. That is a concrete example of uneven distribution resulting in a failure to balance out the differing abilities of the players.

 

[williamalex1]

Not that it's any of your business Billy, but we lost 2 & 1 on the 17th on which I hit the pin with my approach but took another 2 to get down for a par 4 to halve the hole and lose the match - and I didn't get my final shot SI4 as it was on the 18th.

Unlucky Jim lad , you should get a scorecard with movable indices,

But seriously , why not allow the player /team that are getting strokes to pick the hole where they want a stroke , before the start of the hole, simple.:thup:

 

[duncan mackie]

But seriously , why not allow the player /team that are getting strokes to pick the hole where they want a stroke , before the start of the hole, simple.:thup:

Because logically the team giving the shot has as much right to decide as the one receiving it - and we don't need debates like that!

Which hole, difficulty wise, isn't relevant; there's no more logic to giving a shot at the hardest hole than the easiest. It follows that the issue is distribution.

In an attempt to give three that one logical argument he has never had; I will post a question. In a match where a single shot is given is it fair that the first hole is SI 1 given the situation when the match is all square after 18?

 

[Foxholer]

Three.
You have already had two examples of how an uneven distribution of strokes was inequitable and disadvantaged the higher handicapper - from the OP and from Rosecott. I'll add another. I was receiving four strokes and had had the benefit of only one of them when the match finished on the 14th when I was beaten 5 & 4. The SI allocated my 2nd, 3rd and 4th strokes to holes 15, 16, and 17. That is a concrete example of uneven distribution resulting in a failure to balance out the differing abilities of the players.

Er...Rosecott WAS the OP!

And your example doesn't demonstrate any real 'disadvantage' - except in folks heads! - either!
As a counter argument....if the difficulty of holes 15, 16 and 17 justified giving a shot to a player (compared to earlier ones), then surely Congu's 'spread' decree would actually be giving you an (unfair?) advantage on the earlier holes!

Your example is actually equivalent to mine, but from the other perspective! If the higher handicap player can make it to the 15th only a couple down, then they could well have a good chance of winning! the 5/4 versus 1 Down (say) result isn't really a reflection of the difference in the match, simply a reflection of the course not being particularly suited to (handicap) Matchplay!

In an attempt to give three that one logical argument he has never had; I will post a question. In a match where a single shot is given is it fair that the first hole is SI 1 given the situation when the match is all square after 18?

Statistically....Yes! If that's the hole where it's most likely that a player would need a shot to halve the hole in a match with someone 1 shot lower than them, then it certainly would be!

The Congu method is just as 'unfair' as any other. however, it's less likely to throw up noticeable examples of the likes of Colin's example, so that's probably a good thing - imo of course!

 

[Colin L]

Rosecott was indeed the OP. The other was Hosel Fade.

I'm astonished that you do not see the inequity of allocating 3 of 4 strokes being received to holes 15, 16 and 17. The less able player is less able on every hole of the course regardless of the relative difficulty of the hole (a difficult hole is difficult for both players). The theoretical ideal would be to provide support to the weaker player at each hole, but that is not possible until the handicap difference is 18: you can't allocate one-eighteenth of the differential to each hole below that. What you can do, and should do however, is get as close as you can to that ideal of providing support at each hole by spreading the strokes to be received as evenly as possible. Loading the support to the last few holes in my example means that I was denied the support I should have had in the earlier stages of the match.

The Congu method is just as 'unfair' as any other. however, it's less likely to throw up noticeable examples of the likes of Colin's example, so that's probably a good thing - imo of course!

How can the CONGU method be as unfair as any other if it is less likely to throw up examples of unfairness and probably be a good thing?

 

[Foxholer]

Rosecott was indeed the OP. The other was Hosel Fade.

I'm astonished that you do not see the inequity of allocating 3 of 4 strokes being received to holes 15, 16 and 17. The less able player is less able on every hole of the course regardless of the relative difficulty of the hole (a difficult hole is difficult for both players). The theoretical ideal would be to provide support to the weaker player at each hole, but that is not possible until the handicap difference is 18: you can't allocate one-eighteenth of the differential to each hole below that. What you can do, and should do however, is get as close as you can to that ideal of providing support at each hole by spreading the strokes to be received as evenly as possible. Loading the support to the last few holes in my example means that I was denied the support I should have had in the earlier stages of the match.

The Congu method is just as 'unfair' as any other. however, it's less likely to throw up noticeable examples of the likes of Colin's example, so that's probably a good thing - imo of course!

How can the CONGU method be as unfair as any other if it is less likely to throw up examples of unfairness and probably be a good thing?

Er..Why do you need (outside) support? Surely that's unfair to the lower handicap player?

It's not 'loading support to the last few holes' if that's genuinely how they play!

I'm not actually arguing against the way that Congu recommends it; simply arguing that they are 'corrupting' things as much, if not more, as any other allocation!

 

[Colin L]

The whole point of handicapping is to support the less able player to the extent of equalising his chances of beating the better player. Equalising is fairness to both players; it cannot, if done properly, be unfair to either. If I consistently score more highly than you, I need the support of handicap strokes in order to compete on an equal basis. Receiving strokes in a match is integral to the game. It's not "outside" support.

 

[rulefan]

In a match where a single shot is given is it fair that the first hole is SI 1 given the situation when the match is all square after 18?

An example often quoted.

A (0.5 ie 1) plays b (0.4 ie 0).

After 17 holes they are all square on the tee of the 350 yard par 4 18th SI 1.

Who do you put your money on?

 

[Three]

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.

Sorry mate but as an approximate scratch player who's been playing for nearly 40 years, stick your stupid "trolling" comment where it belongs.

Your answer contains no facts whatsoever, in fact you completely agree with me that it's purely down to your own mental weakness how you deal with where shots are allocated.

 

[Three]

“the only place it's relevant where those shots are allocated is in their head” .

Maybe you live in a completely different golf world to me but that is unbelievably dismissive of the mental state of almost all the golfers I know when they’re playing a match.

I have no need to provide a factual base for the issues I mentioned. Those, and many other factors to be considered, are set out by CONGU as the basis for Stroke Index Allocation.

You may have nearly 40 years of golf behind you. I have over 60 and, I suspect, those who have been using their experience to formulate the handicapping system will have many thousands of years of experience to contribute to the constant refining of the system.

Do you start off by saving the club in question has no clue what they are doing, but you can't provide any factual evidence to back this up.

Your only argument is that I'm "dismissive of the mental state of almost all the golfers I know when they’re playing a match"...

Errrr, yes I am, that's exactly my point!
Apart from your perceived advantage /disadvantage of strokes allocated at certain holes, you can provide no evidence at all.

 

[Three]

Because logically the team giving the shot has as much right to decide as the one receiving it - and we don't need debates like that!

Which hole, difficulty wise, isn't relevant; there's no more logic to giving a shot at the hardest hole than the easiest. It follows that the issue is distribution.

In an attempt to give three that one logical argument he has never had; I will post a question. In a match where a single shot is given is it fair that the first hole is SI 1 given the situation when the match is all square after 18?

Never had a problem with that if it's statistically the hardest hole.

 

[Fyldewhite]

An example often quoted.

A (0.5 ie 1) plays b (0.4 ie 0).

After 17 holes they are all square on the tee of the 350 yard par 4 18th SI 1.

Who do you put your money on?

Or, they are level after 18 and SI 1 is the 1st. Again, just unfair.

As for having two scorecards I'd say don't bother. In any stableford round the players in contention will have scored on every hole or probably won't have had more than the odd blob. So the allocation of shots on difficult or easy holes makes no (or very little) difference to the overall score. You get no shot on a tough par 4, bogey it and get a point but then get a shot on a short one, par it and get 3 points. Total is 4 just the same as if the shot had been received on the harder hole when it would have been 2 + 2. Not perfect I know but then again the wind blowing in the opposite direction changes things massively. Just do the SI fairly for matchplay and stick with that I'd say.......oh, and stop telling new golfers that SI1 is the hardest hole!

 

[Three]

Three.
You have already had two examples of how an uneven distribution of strokes was inequitable and disadvantaged the higher handicapper - from the OP and from Rosecott. I'll add another. I was receiving four strokes and had had the benefit of only one of them when the match finished on the 14th when I was beaten 5 & 4. The SI allocated my 2nd, 3rd and 4th strokes to holes 15, 16, and 17. That is a concrete example of uneven distribution resulting in a failure to balance out the differing abilities of the players.

No, you are wrong.
That is simply a concrete example of your opponent scoring better than you on one tiny specific example.
You played off scratch for 13 holes and you received a shot on one hole.
Unfortunately either he had a good day or you severely underperformed, resulting in you being 5 down with 4 to play.
Who knows, you could have won the next 4 holes with your 3 shots, resulting in an overall deficit of a meagre one hole over a whole round, hardly a cause for a radical criticism on the system is it?

 

[rosecott]

Do you start off by saving the club in question has no clue what they are doing, but you can't provide any factual evidence to back this up.

Your only argument is that I'm "dismissive of the mental state of almost all the golfers I know when they’re playing a match"...

Errrr, yes I am, that's exactly my point!
Apart from your perceived advantage /disadvantage of strokes allocated at certain holes, you can provide no evidence at all.

The advantage/disadvantage is perceived not only by me but those of greater experience and wisdom than you or me. I quote from the CONGU manual:

" Long par 3 and 4 holes are difficult pars for low handicap players but often relatively easy bogeys for the player with a slightly higher handicap."

If that doesn't demonstrate that strokes allocated at certain holes matter, then I concede to your closed mind and have nothing further to add.

 

[Three]

An example often quoted.

A (0.5 ie 1) plays b (0.4 ie 0).

After 17 holes they are all square on the tee of the 350 yard par 4 18th SI 1.

Who do you put your money on?

Since when have people been allowed to bet when the match gets to the 18th tee?

Obviously there's no difference between a lifelong 0.4 and a lifelong 0.5, it's a toss of a coin who would win that match.

But looking at the match before they tee off, why would it matter where the 1 shot is allocated?

Any facts or will you keep quiet as always?

 

[Three]

The advantage/disadvantage is perceived not only by me but those of greater experience and wisdom than you or me. I quote from the CONGU manual:

" Long par 3 and 4 holes are difficult pars for low handicap players but often relatively easy bogeys for the player with a slightly higher handicap."

If that doesn't demonstrate that strokes allocated at certain holes matter, then I concede to your closed mind and have nothing further to add.

So you are referring back to the original method of allocating shots, ie basing it on the merit of each hole.
This completely contradicts your original post which whinges about the fact that that the shots weren't allocated according to the number of each hole.

So you need to make your mind up, do you agree with what you've just quoted, in which case your original post is nonsense, or do you want the strokes allocated in a spread out fashion, which has no relevance to the difficulty or otherwise of each particular hole?

 

[rosecott]

So you are referring back to the original method of allocating shots, ie basing it on the merit of each hole.
This completely contradicts your original post which whinges about the fact that that the shots weren't allocated according to the number of each hole.

So you need to make your mind up, do you agree with what you've just quoted, in which case your original post is nonsense, or do you want the strokes allocated in a spread out fashion, which has no relevance to the difficulty or otherwise of each particular hole?

OK, I'll come out of a short retirement.

That quote is followed immediately by:

"Difficulty in relation to par is only one of several factors to be taken into account when selecting stroke indices."

There are many factors to be taken into account when allocating SIs.

You really should do some reading and research before you start spouting. From my observations from your postings, you really don't have a great deal in common with the average club golfer. And, by the way, those who know me know that I never whinge.

For the second and final time, I retire from a fruitless discussion.

 

[williamalex1]

An example often quoted.

A (0.5 ie 1) plays b (0.4 ie 0).

After 17 holes they are all square on the tee of the 350 yard par 4 18th SI 1.

Who do you put your money on?

Not on Rosie this time :smirk:

IMO, the player receiving strokes should be able to decide, where he uses his strokes . IE player getting say 7 shots = 3 on the front 9, 4 on back 9, or vice versa.