Stroke Index

[balaclava]

Looking at all the score cards for all the courses in my area the SI on the card follow a pattern of odds and evens i.e. the front 9 and the back 9 are all odd or all even i.e. if the front nine are all even numbers the back nine are all odd numbers. There must be a reason for this - what is that reason?

 

[Wabinez]

APPENDIX G
HANDICAP STROKE INDEX

Rules of Golf 33-4 requires Committees to ’publish a table indicating the order of holes at which handicap strokes are to be given or received’.

To provide consistency at Affiliated Clubs it is recommended that the allocation is made based on the following principles.

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.

3. The first and second stroke index holes should be placed close to the centre of each nine and the first six strokes should not be allocated to adjacent holes. The 7th to the 10th indices should be allocated so that a player receiving 10 strokes does not receive strokes on three consecutive holes.

4. None of the first eight strokes should be allocated to the first or the last hole, and at clubs where competitive matches may be started at the 10th hole, at the 9th or 10th holes. This avoids a player receiving an undue advantage on the 19th hole should a match continue to sudden death. Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, stroke indices 9, 10, 11 and 12 should be allocated to holes 1, 9, 10 and 18 in such order as shall be considered appropriate.

5. Subject to the foregoing recommendations, when selecting each stroke index in turn holes of varying length should be selected. Index 1 could be a par 5, index 2 a long par 4, index 3 a shorter par 4 and index 4 a par 3. There is no recommended order for this selection, the objective being to select in index sequence holes of varying playing difficulty. Such a selection provides more equal opportunity for all handicaps in match play and Stableford and Par competitions than an order based upon hole length or difficulty to obtain par.

Note 1: Par is not an indicator of hole difficulty. Long par 3 and 4 holes are often selected for low index allocation in preference to par 5 holes on the basis that it is easier to score par on a par 5 hole than 4 on a long par 4. 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. Difficulty in relation to par is only one of several factors to be taken into account when selecting stroke indices.

Note 2: When allocating a stroke index it should be noted that in the majority of social matches there are small handicap differences thereby making the even distribution of the lower indices of great importance.

The above recommendations for the ‘Handicap Stroke Index’ provision are principally directed at match play and have proved to be suitable for that purpose. The ‘Handicap Stroke Index’, however, is also used widely for Stableford, par and bogey competitions. In these forms of stroke play competition the need to have a uniform and balanced distribution of strokes is less compelling. There is a cogent case for the Index in such competitions to be aligned to the ranking of holes in terms of playing difficulty irrespective of hole number. Such a ranking facility is available through many of the licensed handicap software programs currently used by Affiliated Clubs.

Clubs that conduct a significant number of Stableford, par and bogey competitions may wish to provide separate stroke indices for match play and the listed forms of stroke play. To avoid confusion this would be best done on separate scorecards.

 

[Crow]

I'd guess so that you get the most equal spread of shots across the two nines for matchplay, which is what stroke indexes are primarily for.

When stroke indexes are done based on what are actually the hardest to easiest holes the shot allocation is far more random.

Edit: Mine's the short version.

 

[rosecott]

APPENDIX G
HANDICAP STROKE INDEX

Rules of Golf 33-4 requires Committees to ’publish a table indicating the order of holes at which handicap strokes are to be given or received’.

To provide consistency at Affiliated Clubs it is recommended that the allocation is made based on the following principles.

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.

3. The first and second stroke index holes should be placed close to the centre of each nine and the first six strokes should not be allocated to adjacent holes. The 7th to the 10th indices should be allocated so that a player receiving 10 strokes does not receive strokes on three consecutive holes.

4. None of the first eight strokes should be allocated to the first or the last hole, and at clubs where competitive matches may be started at the 10th hole, at the 9th or 10th holes. This avoids a player receiving an undue advantage on the 19th hole should a match continue to sudden death. Unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary, stroke indices 9, 10, 11 and 12 should be allocated to holes 1, 9, 10 and 18 in such order as shall be considered appropriate.

5. Subject to the foregoing recommendations, when selecting each stroke index in turn holes of varying length should be selected. Index 1 could be a par 5, index 2 a long par 4, index 3 a shorter par 4 and index 4 a par 3. There is no recommended order for this selection, the objective being to select in index sequence holes of varying playing difficulty. Such a selection provides more equal opportunity for all handicaps in match play and Stableford and Par competitions than an order based upon hole length or difficulty to obtain par.

Note 1: Par is not an indicator of hole difficulty. Long par 3 and 4 holes are often selected for low index allocation in preference to par 5 holes on the basis that it is easier to score par on a par 5 hole than 4 on a long par 4. 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. Difficulty in relation to par is only one of several factors to be taken into account when selecting stroke indices.

Note 2: When allocating a stroke index it should be noted that in the majority of social matches there are small handicap differences thereby making the even distribution of the lower indices of great importance.

The above recommendations for the ‘Handicap Stroke Index’ provision are principally directed at match play and have proved to be suitable for that purpose. The ‘Handicap Stroke Index’, however, is also used widely for Stableford, par and bogey competitions. In these forms of stroke play competition the need to have a uniform and balanced distribution of strokes is less compelling. There is a cogent case for the Index in such competitions to be aligned to the ranking of holes in terms of playing difficulty irrespective of hole number. Such a ranking facility is available through many of the licensed handicap software programs currently used by Affiliated Clubs.

Clubs that conduct a significant number of Stableford, par and bogey competitions may wish to provide separate stroke indices for match play and the listed forms of stroke play. To avoid confusion this would be best done on separate scorecards.

This has now been replaced by Appendix E of My Document (congu.co.uk)

The principle of odds and evens on the two nines is still there but there are some changes.

 

[balaclava]

APPENDIX G
HANDICAP STROKE INDEX

Thanks . . . . that's my day sorted (studying App G)

 

[balaclava]

This has now been replaced by Appendix E of My Document (congu.co.uk)
The principle of odds and evens on the two nines is still there but there are some changes.

Thanks

 

[2blue]

Just wondering if anyone has changed their Indexes due to these slight changes?

 

[wjemather]

Just wondering if anyone has changed their Indexes due to these slight changes?

We are planning to. Unfortunately it would seem that England Golf do not make the individual hole rating data (as required if following the guidance in the Rules of Handicapping) available (or simply haven't retained it) so we'll just have to go by historical scoring averages as a rough guide (as suggested by our county handicap advisor). Go figure.

As we are due re-rating this year, we have delayed until then in the hope that we can get the detail out of the rating team.

 

[rulefan]

Just wondering if anyone has changed their Indexes due to these slight changes?

Many/most clubs didn't even change from 'difficulty' to 'match play effect' as previously recommended by CONGU. I reckon most will stay as they are.

 

[rulefan]

We are planning to. Unfortunately it would seem that England Golf do not make the individual hole rating data (as required if following the guidance in the Rules of Handicapping) available so we'll just have to go by historical scoring averages as a rough guide (as suggested by our county handicap advisor). Go figure.

I believe it is available on request.

 

[wjemather]

I believe it is available on request.

Requested and declined - got the impression they may not have it for courses rated before a certain date.

 

[USER1999]

Just wondering if anyone has changed their Indexes due to these slight changes?

Yes, we have.

 

[rulefan]

Requested and declined - got the impression they may not have it for courses rated before a certain date.

As virtually all England courses were rated in the last couple of years that sounds very odd. Unless the club hasn't been rated yet.

 

[wjemather]

As virtually all England courses were rated in the last couple of years that sounds very odd. Unless the club hasn't been rated yet.

We were last rated prior to WHS being conceived and are due re-rating this year. I was told they only had front & back 9 summary details available. Maybe I'll ask again; it wouldn't be the first time if I got a different answer to the same question!

 

[rulefan]

We were last rated prior to WHS being conceived and are due re-rating this year. I was told they only had front & back 9 summary details available. Maybe I'll ask again; it wouldn't be the first time if I got a different answer to the same question!

I would guess that it hasn't been done as virtually rating was affected by Covid.
Check here:-
https://www.randa.org/chc-lookup
Either there will be no entry or 'dummy' Rating (72) and Slope (125) figures will show.

 

[wjemather]

I would guess that it hasn't been done as virtually rating was affected by Covid.
Check here:-
https://www.randa.org/chc-lookup
Either there will be no entry or 'dummy' Rating (72) and Slope (125) figures will show.

Our ratings are valid... although we do have other issues (apparently due to changes made to the CR system last year - removal of psychological premiums on hole 1 & 18) which resulted in EG issuing incorrect rating certificates (and handicap tables) that don't match the central database. All good fun!

 

[rulefan]

Our ratings are valid... although we do have other issues (apparently due to changes made to the CR system last year - removal of psychological premiums on hole 1 & 18) which resulted in EG issuing incorrect rating certificates (and handicap tables) that don't match the central database. All good fun!

You said 'We were last rated prior to WHS being conceived '. That was years ago.

 

[wjemather]

You said 'We were last rated prior to WHS being conceived '. That was years ago.

I see. Yes, that probably wasn't particularly informative of me. You could argue 2011, but I'd say much later than that as not a great deal of was done in terms of development before 2016 - when our ratings were done.

 

[Captainron]

I have always hated the way that clubs are asked to index their holes and I think it's a load of absolute horse droppings!

Spread the stokes for matchplay? TOSH!!

The actual difficulty of the hole should dictate the stroke index.

 

[rulefan]

I see. Yes, that probably wasn't particularly informative of me. You could argue 2011, but I'd say much later than that as not a great deal of was done in terms of development before 2016 - when our ratings were done.

The new USGA rating system was not being used in 2016. A few courses may have been rated in late summer 2017 but my teams didn't start our county until spring 2018. Your course would have been rated under the old EGU system. Hole by hole rating data would no longer be relevant and there was no concept of bogey rating and slope. Your old SSS would be used as the CR until Nov 1 and you will now have 'dummy' values assigned