Stroke Index allocation

[rulefan]

[TABLE="width: 764"]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Section 17
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="align: left"]Allocating Handicap Strokes
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: hfaqText, colspan: 2, align: left"]Q. Does the USGA® have any recommendations for allocating Handicap Strokes?
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: hfaqText, colspan: 2, align: left"]A. The USGA recommends that the Handicap Committee should review the course hole-by-hole to determine the appropriate allocation of handicap strokes for men and women. This procedure is not mandatory and will have minimal effect on a player's Handicap Index®. Common sense should be used to ensure that the handicap strokes are used as an equalizer and should be available where it most likely will be needed by the higher-handicapped player in order to obtain a halve on the hole.
When starting out, the Handicap Committee should remember a few basic guidelines:

• Allocate strokes based on the tees played most often by a majority of the members.
  
  
• Allocate the odd-numbered strokes to the front-nine holes and the even-numbered strokes to the back-nine holes—unless the back-nine is decidedly more difficult than the front—you can reverse the allocation.
  
  
• Avoid allocating the low numbered holes to the beginning or end of the nine holes

A method for allocating your handicap strokes is to collect 200 hole-by-hole scorecards from two different groups of golfers. Group A consists of golfers with a Course Handicapâ„¢ of 0-8 for men or 0-14 for women. If there are very few members within this range, take the low 25 percent of its golfers as group A.Group B consists of middle-to-high Course Handicap golfers, ranging 15-20 strokes higher than group A (20-28 for men and 26-40 for women).
The next step is to compare the average score per hole for group A against the average score per hole of group B. Rank the differential of hole scores between group A and group B from high-to-low (1 highest, 18 lowest) differential. Allocate odd and even numbers to front and second nine. The last step is to make sure low numerical holes are not at the beginning or end of each nine.
The Handicap Committee should use good judgment when allocating handicap stroke holes. The club makes the final determination.
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

 

[Colin L]

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.....

Thank you. That is precisely my point about unevenness.

 

[backwoodsman]

A fundamental principle of golf is equity. Allocation of strokes given in a match should reflect that. My opinion is that the way to maintain equity is to distribute the allocation reasonably evenly across the full 18 holes of the course. Clustering allocation into one segment of the course is not equitable.

If you want proof I offer..

Player A receives two shots from player B. Player C receives two shots from player D. Stroke index 1 & 2 are holes 17 and 18. It is a busy tournament day so one match starts at the first and one starts at the tenth. In one match strokes are given in the middle of the round, in the other, not until the end. Which is not equitable. Does it make a difference? Is a different argument entirely.

 

[Hosel Fade]

What evidence do you have of that? I honestly don't even know which one you think is better /worse?

The more chance of the higher handicapper not receiving shots (if they are at the end he may well have lost the match before receiving them), the more its of an advantage to the lower handicap player. If he receives them at the beginning he is quite likely to be 2 or 3 up through 5 which isn't really any better, its quite good the way it is now to be honest

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

If off 10 I was giving 5 shots to a 15 handicapper - so a player with reasonable golfing ability - and I had to give them all in the first five holes - I am sure I'd feel under a lot of pressure if I was 5 down after 5 having played the five holes in level par.

I would know I could still win the match - but by heck it puts me under a lot of pressure and changes the way I have to play shots and my risk/reward choices if my opponent does something as 'simple' as hitting a good tee shot on a subsequent hole. For me this would completely change the thinking around playing - forcing me to change my approach to a match as it would move me from the rather conservative approach that underpins my handicap to a more risky approach.

 

[IanM]

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.

I think I saw this at Goodwood (might have been somewhere else though) ....struck me as sort of "logical!"

 

[IanM]

If off 10 I was giving 5 shots to a 15 handicapper - so a player with reasonable golfing ability - and I had to give them all in the first five holes - I am sure I'd feel under a lot of pressure if I was 5 down after 5 having played the five holes in level par.

I would know I could still win the match - but by heck it puts me under a lot of pressure and changes the way I have to play shots and my risk/reward choices if my opponent does something as 'simple' as hitting a good tee shot on a subsequent hole. For me this would completely change the thinking around playing - forcing me to change my approach to a match as it would move me from the rather conservative approach that underpins my handicap to a more risky approach.

...if I was getting all my shots on the last few holes, I worry it'd be all over before we got there!

 

[AlanMills]

I'm in the camp where it DOES matter where the SI's are allocated.

Consider a match where player A gives player B a single shot and that's on the 18th.

3 things could happen. A wins before the 18th, B wins before the 18th or they actually play the 18th. Only in one of these scenarios does player B get his shot he's entitled to so although he's allowed a shot there's, statistically, only a 33% chance he will ever see that shot.

Of course if he wins before the 18th he's hardly complaining is he ;-)

 

[woody69]

I can see where Three is coming from, because ultimately all things being equal after 18 holes the match should be halved. As we know though, golf doesn't work like that. We sometimes lose holes we have shots on and sometimes we win those holes.

I guess the reason no hard facts / data exists is because of how SI is usually distributed we never have a scenario to see what would happen if the 5 allocated shots all came in holes 1-5 or 13-18 and the likely difference.

 

[JamPal]

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?

Perhaps they cleverly worked out the average score on each hole and allocated the SI's based on facts rather than some arbitrary nonsense. ;-)

 

[rosecott]

Perhaps they cleverly worked out the average score on each hole and allocated the SI's based on facts rather than some arbitrary nonsense. ;-)

Perhaps "they" and you were not so clever in that the first 2 paragraphs of instructions on how to allocate SI's are:

1. Of paramount importance for match play competition is the even spread of the strokes to be received at all handicap differences over the 18 holes.

2. This is best achieved by allocating the odd numbered strokes to the more difficult of the two nines, usually the longer nine, and the even numbers to the other nine.

That and the remainder of the factors also to be considered could hardly be described as arbitrary nonsense.

Have you even bothered to read Appendix G of the CONGU manual?

 

[Foxholer]

Perhaps they cleverly worked out the average score on each hole and allocated the SI's based on facts rather than some arbitrary nonsense. ;-)

Actually, SIs are allocated using a combination of both facts and (not so arbitrary) 'nonsense' that turns out to be rather sensible in fact! It certainly avoids the situation that rosecott encountered!