[John Kavanaugh]

Thanks,


Before we get off track please everyone note that SI is not to determine the hardest hole it but to identify the hole that gives the scratch player the largest advantage. Obviously par 5's are most likely the lowest SI because scratch players can two putt for birdie. The 17th at St. Andrews is fairly the #5 hole because everyone plays it poorly and not just because of length.


I didn't go into this argument knowing the SI sequence of the great competitive courses in the world and was shocked to see the above. You might also check out Shinnecock and Pine Valley.

[Tom_Doak]

Before we get off track please everyone note that SI is not to determine the hardest hole it but to identify the hole that gives the scratch player the largest advantage. Obviously par 5's are most likely the lowest SI because scratch players can two putt for birdie. The 17th at St. Andrews is fairly the #5 hole because everyone plays it poorly and not just because of length.

As someone who has actually recommended the stroke index ratings for a lot of courses [I've suggested it for about 25 of my own], I can say there is certainly not a universally accepted way of doing it.


The USGA recommends collecting scorecards from low handicappers and mid-to-high handicappers and assigning strokes according to the differential between the two groups.  At Stonewall (Old), this resulted in a short, tight par 4 [the 4th hole], where low handicappers hit an iron off the tee and high handicappers make X hitting driver, becoming the #1 handicap hole.  Getting a stroke generally doesn't help when you are making X.  So I'm not a big fan of the official system.


As for architecture, I have long been resistant to the idea that the hardest hole should be at the end of the round, as many American designers seem to believe.  There are plenty of examples to the contrary, not only in the UK [where match play mentality dominated early design] but also in the U.S. [Pine Valley, Pebble Beach, Augusta, Shinnecock, National, Cypress Point, etc.].

[Thomas Dai]

An outline from England Golf of how SI is calculated on this side of the pond -

"Rule 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 strongly  recommended that Appendix G of the CONGU UHS is followed. Clubs and members alike should be aware that Stroke Index is not determined on hole difficulty but on ensuring an equal distribution of strokes is given/received in a match play competition. 

Below is an outline of Appendix G.

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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".

Always thought it odd that a system aimed at ensuring equity in matchplay is also used in stableford, which is why I rather like the 2xSI Aussie approach mentioned above, but that's another matter for debate.


Atb

[Paul Jones]

An outline from England Golf of how SI is calculated on this side of the pond -

"Rule 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 strongly  recommended that Appendix G of the CONGU UHS is followed. Clubs and members alike should be aware that Stroke Index is not determined on hole difficulty but on ensuring an equal distribution of strokes is given/received in a match play competition. 

Below is an outline of Appendix G.

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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".

Always thought it odd that a system aimed at ensuring equity in matchplay is also used in stableford, which is why I rather like the 2xSI Aussie approach mentioned above, but that's another matter for debate.


Atb

Thomas,


That is a great article, can you post the link?


I always thought it was pointless to make the 17th or 18th hole number 1,2, or 3 handicap as the match most likely will be over before the higher handicap will be able to use his stroke(s).

[Thomas Dai]

Paul,


The link - http://www.englandgolf.org/page.aspx?sitesectionid=337 - there are Appendices as well.


Interestingly one of the Appendices concludes with the words -

"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."
   2xSI. 2xscorecatds. 2xcourse furniture signs.


Atb

[MClutterbuck]

Just last week I heard that a potential client is concerned about "having three par-3's in five holes on the back nine."  I told them the same arrangement had not seemed to affect the public's opinion of Pacific Dunes; they were not aware of that. 

Tom, interesting reading this. First time I really focus on the fact that we have the same situation at El Desafio with 13, 15 and 17 being par 3s! Instead, I have always focused on stating how much fun it is to have 3 par 3s and 3 par 5's on the back nine.


The only real push back I had bad is questions about the back nine appearing to be relatively short on the card. Once you explain that the extra par 3's and 5's cause that, all is well.

[MClutterbuck]

Paul,


The link - http://www.englandgolf.org/page.aspx?sitesectionid=337 - there are Appendices as well.


Interestingly one of the Appendices concludes with the words -

"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."
   2xSI. 2xscorecatds. 2xcourse furniture signs.


Atb

I have seen CONGU articles in the past that also consider that the #1 index hole should be the hole where a scratch player is more likely to hold an advantaage over a 1 handicap, a 1 over a 2, and so forth. There was even discussion about processing a full years worth of cards to deliver a recommended guideline, to be modified by the considerations above.

[Tom_Doak]

An outline from England Golf of how SI is calculated on this side of the pond -

"Rule 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 strongly  recommended that Appendix G of the CONGU UHS is followed. Clubs and members alike should be aware that Stroke Index is not determined on hole difficulty but on ensuring an equal distribution of strokes is given/received in a match play competition. 

Below is an outline of Appendix G.

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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".

Thank you for posting that; I have never seen it before.  [Funny, since I just spent a week at England Golf HQ, at Woodhall Spa.]  It makes a lot more sense than the USGA system and seems to address many of John K's issues, too, so I will probably use it going forward -- assuming I ever build another new golf course that needs to be handicapped!

[Kyle Harris]

The verbiage of the USGA method is something to the effect that the 1st stroke allotment should be on a hole where the scratch golfer has an advantage over a 1-handicap, et. al.

What bollocks.

I feel stroke allotment should be used to put pressure on the player giving the shot and not for the relief of the player getting the shot, as it were. Things like forced carries, tricky greens, and shorter holes are all areas where the better player is forced to execute to overcome the inherent disadvantage. 

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()