One of the biggest myths in golf...

... well two myths actually, on the same subject - Stroke indexes

1) That SI is a "degree of difficulty"
2) That SI makes a difference in strokeplay

How many people here believe these myths?

1) for me it seems less a degree of difficultly against the par of the hole, but represents the fact a lower handicapper will on average take 1 less stroke on the longer holes that a high handicapper. for example, our stroke index 2 hole is a par 5, which is probably one of the easiest pars on the course for me. however in matchplay, giving a stroke away is fair to a higher handicapper as more often than not i will beat them by at least one stroke. there is obviously the odd occasion where it doesn't work so well, for example, last year playing in a 4bbb match against 2 five handicappers, one of them eagled the hole, only to be beaten by my eagle - nett albatross. they were really angry about it. so it is about degree of difficulty, just not with respect to the 'par' of the hole.

2) the only difference it makes in strokeplay is when working out the handicap adjustment afterwards against the stableford system - not while playing if thats what your getting at.

Not sure 1) is entirely inaccurate. CONGU rules do make a it a bit of a lottery at times but I know our SI 1 hole is statistically the hardest on the course. Interestingly, I played at Clacton GC a couple of years ago and they have separate stroke indeces for strokeplay (based purely on stats) and matchplay (based on the CONGU rules).

Yes ban_bam - stableford adjustments make it relevant, but no other reason.

Taking statistical reasons for allocating SI isn't always accurate either (and as you say will often go again the CONGU recommendations)

"Most difficult" is often very subjective - certainly between low and high handicappers.

The SI 18 hole on my course is indeed probably the "easiest" for low handicappers, yet is one of the toughest holes for high handicappers!

majority of golf courses will have a par 3, or a very short par 4 as si18. i'm guessing yours has a dog-leg or something to make it tricky for the higher handicappers?

the si 7 hole at our club is regarded as one of the toughest holes on the course, but as its sandwiched in between the si 1 and 3 it gets demoted, as i guess they want to keep the stoking spread over the course of the round as much as possible.

ban_bam wrote:majority of golf courses will have a par 3, or a very short par 4 as si18. i'm guessing yours has a dog-leg or something to make it tricky for the higher handicappers?

Yes - I described it in more detail yesterday on anotehr thread but basically it's a dogleg left with the corner needing a good driver for high handicap players yet probably only a 4 or 5 iron for low handicappers. With trees left and water right it's a very tough tee shot for the high h/cs. Then once to the corner it's only a 50-80 yard flick b ut over a pond which can also catch out the lesser players.

So for good players it's a 5 iron to the corner and a shot chip. For the not-so-good it needs a long, straight drive with danger of lost ball left, water right and then a knee-trembling shot over a pond.

A recent stableford competition had 45 pars or better, but 43 doubles or worse

not a great fan of the wee 50 yard flick with loft. i always feel i need to be 70 yards or more back to have an aggressive go at the flag. don't mind a wee pitch and run with a 9iron from that distance though. big fan of a short par 4 that requires a 4 /5 iron off the tee for placement followed by a wedge, can either make golf enjoyable, or make you want to dislocate your eyebrows.

playing in stableford comps, there are a couple of par 3s i wish had a lower SI! i guess it's swings and roundabouts as i'd hope to pick up a few points at some par 4s that i get a shot on.

just checking the scorecards, SI2 on balcomie is the 214yd, uphill, blind, par 3 13th. it is probably marginally easier than hell's hole but only just!

1. Don't think it really equates properly to level of difficulty, but then tell that to higher handicappers at my club. E.g our SI1 I would rate as on of the easiest holes on the course. Yet the higher guys are always complaining its too tough a par 4 and should be a 5. Yet it is not the hole they or anyone seems to score poorly on regularly but compare that to our 4th (descirbed on another thread yesterday) is tougher driving hole which demands accuracy, has more trouble around the green and in every comp and normal round see's much higher scores it's not uncommon to average out as the toughest hole in comps average score over the field usually 5.4+). Yet they always forget this and focus on our SI1 as source of complaint.

2) Has no relevance whatsoever in stroke play, at end of the day you subtract handicap from total score not as you play the round. Really only is useful for stableford

Maverick wrote:
2) Has no relevance whatsoever in stroke play, at end of the day you subtract handicap from total score not as you play the round. Really only is useful for stableford

Mav - not even that relevant in stableford (apart from the point raised above about stableford adjustment to handicap calculations)

In practise unless you have some pretty extreme scores, stableford works out the same as stroke play - you could calculate your points as if you were playing off scratch then add on 1 point for each stroke of your handicap. Yes that calculation can break down with some large numbers, but basically it's the same

If the SI1 and SI18 were exchanged (and on the assumption they really were the easiest and hardest holes on the course, you would likely get one point less on the SI1 but one point more on the SI18 if they were switched

Surely the SI comes into play for countback?

i don't know davie, SI can have a psychological effect during a stableford both positively and negatively. if you bogey a difficult par 3 that you don't get a stroke on for a single point, you can find yourself looking to get that point back. however, if you par or birdie a tough hole that you don't get a stroke on, it can give you a real boost.

BTW, and totally off topic, happy birthday graeme !

Davie wrote:BTW, and totally off topic, happy birthday graeme !

oh, very well spotted, sir. thanks a lot, davie!

Quite an interesting debate this one.

Here is a lttle something to throw into the melting pot.............

At my club, SI 1 has a carry over a gully of about 200 yards for the 2nd shot (it's a par 4). Pretty tough for the higher handicapper but not an issue for the low guys. If you can't make the carry, there is fairway down in the gully where you can play a wedge up to the green.

Our SI 18 hole is the shortest par 4 on the course, about 280/300 yards straight downwind so very much driveable for the low boys. However, it has.....yes, a 200 yard carry over a gully from the tee! For those that can't make the carry, it's a rescue or long iron down into the gully then a wedge up to the green. Ring any bells?

Not sure what this adds to the debate but thought I'd mention it........

Playing the monthly medals i always hear people saying 'i / you get a shot here' and every time i do actually think to myself 'what difference does that make' !!

To be honest, stroke index or no stroke index, - aside from to score the card - i've never really seen the merits in taking special note of the holes you get shots on. Surely you try and play the best shot you can each time you hit it??
I can imagine these guys saying 'i get a shot here, i'm going to try extra hard on this one'. Really??!

When I re-built a course I set the SI.

Many members said that it was wrong and there was a lot of heated debate on this.
The Handicap Secretary volunteered to do a 3 month check on medal cards to see how the SI fitted. This was BC [before computers] so it was quite a tough job as it was a busy club.

Result was there was only one minor change regarding two shortish par 4s.

In those days the short holes were generally SI- 15 to 18. Also it was usually evens out and odds in.
I had one of the short holes as SI-3 which retained it's spot after the 3 month trial, much to everyones surprise.

What really bugs me are clubs who make the ladies SI the same as the mens irespective of how different the holes are.

drive4show wrote:Quite an interesting debate this one.

Here is a lttle something to throw into the melting pot.............

At my club, SI 1 has a carry over a gully of about 200 yards for the 2nd shot (it's a par 4). Pretty tough for the higher handicapper but not an issue for the low guys. If you can't make the carry, there is fairway down in the gully where you can play a wedge up to the green.

Our SI 18 hole is the shortest par 4 on the course, about 280/300 yards straight downwind so very much driveable for the low boys. However, it has.....yes, a 200 yard carry over a gully from the tee! For those that can't make the carry, it's a rescue or long iron down into the gully then a wedge up to the green. Ring any bells?

Not sure what this adds to the debate but thought I'd mention it........

I'm making notes of all this Drive. Anything else you want to share with me before next wednesday

Noshankingtonite wrote:

drive4show wrote:Quite an interesting debate this one.

Here is a lttle something to throw into the melting pot.............

At my club, SI 1 has a carry over a gully of about 200 yards for the 2nd shot (it's a par 4). Pretty tough for the higher handicapper but not an issue for the low guys. If you can't make the carry, there is fairway down in the gully where you can play a wedge up to the green.

Our SI 18 hole is the shortest par 4 on the course, about 280/300 yards straight downwind so very much driveable for the low boys. However, it has.....yes, a 200 yard carry over a gully from the tee! For those that can't make the carry, it's a rescue or long iron down into the gully then a wedge up to the green. Ring any bells?

Not sure what this adds to the debate but thought I'd mention it........

I'm making notes of all this Drive. Anything else you want to share with me before next wednesday

Yep, it's not for girls, bring your 'A' game

Quite simple really. It is directly related to par, and a scratch golfer and the difficultly in getting to the green, as par on all holes assumes 2 putts. Hence, virtually NEVER should a par 5 hole be SI 1, as they are "all" designed so that the shot to land the ball on the green (ie the third shot) is a relatively easy, short lofted club.

Compare this to a 220 yard par three, or a 450 yard par 4, and that should explain the calculation of SI. ie, what is needed to get it on the green compared to the hole's par

Does anyone really think about SI unless you are playing in matchplay? I would rather concentrate on getting as low a score as possible on each hole regardless of SI or even Par. Do not let a number on a card dictate how you play a hole let your strengths govern what shots you should play.

mac, it doesn't dictate how i play a hole, as you say. however, if i drop a point or two, you can begin to pressure yourself based on the SI of coming holes and where you should try to pick up points.

in an ideal world, i'd pay the SI no heed but it's a psychological game and everything has an influence. that's probably part of why i'm still a double digit handicapper.

Or it could be that I have it wrong and that is why I dont go as low as i feel I should. All I know is that I have never really thought about SI.

SI is something purely related to matchplay and stableford golf. In the first it allows for the allocation of shots to the less skilled player thus levelling the ability and making it competitive. In the later it allows for the allocation of shots in order to show the hackers when to pick the ball up and get round in less than a week.

i have thought of s.i. in the past when making shot decisions, but feel that it is a mistake as it tends to make me over defensive. i still play the odd defensive shot - usually as a result of a poor tee shot - but only if an out-and-out attack is not possible!

I think the whole stroke index system is inherently flawed. It doesn't take into account the number of opportunities that you have to correct a mistake.

For example, if you hit a bad shot on a par 3, you are not going to be on the green in regulation.
If you hit a bad tee shot on a par 4, you have one more opportunity to get on in regulation and salvage par, likewise on a par 5 you have 2 more chances.

But on most courses, the par 3's are nearly always the highest SI holes. On my course, they used to be SI15-18 until a recent review yet they are particularly tough round my track.

Unless you are playing a handicap match (boring) or a stableford (double boring) or are clutching at straws for a stableford adjustment to your handicap then the SI is of no real consequence. I can't see what all the fuss is about them.

In any form of game it's a great feeling to birdie SI. 1

The stroke index used to reflect the difficulty of the hole, up until the 1980s. That's when the R&A started to issue edicts about how to distribute the different SI numbers about the course.

So there is some valid reason for people to think that a low SI indicates a hard hole.

The most common myth that I see is some irrational feeling that if you are entitled to a free drop - perhaps off a path, or because of some obstruction - you should be dropping it completely in the clear away from bushes or trees.

I saw a guy on sunday taking relief from a road, preparing to ignore the 'closest point of relief' concept, because he would have been playing it out of a bush. I pointed this out to him, and he ended up hitting it off the road. He said he though he was entitled to find a nice patch of grass somewhere in the area, away from the road and bushes and trees, and smack a 3 wood away.

George

Going back even earlier, before Dr Frank Stableford invented his system of scoring and the Stroke Index was just a table against which shots were given and received in match play, so that players of differing ability could compete against each other. It was nothing to do with difficulty until stableford was invented.

George has just nailed another of the great myths. Namely "NPR - nicest point of relief"

Remember that you can drop within ONE club length of the nearest point of relief. so it's a bit different from just dropping a millimetre outside the area which you might be impeded.

Yes, that's true. The incident on Sunday though was a guy on a road. His ball was lying close to one edge of the road, and right at the edge of the road was a big whin bush. One club length from the edge of the road wouldn't have seen him anywhere near to missing the bush, in fact it was maybe five or six clublengths to a clear area. So he decided he could drop it on the other side of the road, in the clear.

George1507 wrote:Yes, that's true. The incident on Sunday though was a guy on a road. His ball was lying close to one edge of the road, and right at the edge of the road was a big whin bush. One club length from the edge of the road wouldn't have seen him anywhere near to missing the bush, in fact it was maybe five or six clublengths to a clear area. So he decided he could drop it on the other side of the road, in the clear.

In that scenario, can you take a double drop? By which I mean drop it on the far side and hope it bounces back on the road, allowing you to drop again, this time the npr being on the nicer side?

Or alternatively, can you drop it so that it crosses back to the other side of the road (assuming the road is less than 2 clublengths wide)?

At one of my local courses SI is calculated on length. The 4 par 5's are 1-4 and the par 3's 15-18. How crazy is that?.

SJ, The bush comes right to the edge of the road. His ball was on the road, but about an inch from the bush. If he'd dropped it off the road, he would have been in the bush - I was wondering what the ruling is had he lost his ball in the course of a free drop!

4 putt - that would be ok if the par 4s and 5s are nicely distributed across the course.

For those that haven't seen it, here is the R&A stuff on stroke indices -

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Traditionally there has been no one basic principle for fixing the order of the Stroke Index. Some have based it on match play where Stroke Index 1 is assigned to the hole at which it is most likely to be needed, whereas others have based it on stroke play, allocating the holes in the order at which it is considered most difficult to achieve par. There are also those who have merely based it upon a mathematical formula and some separate the stroke index for match play and stroke play.

However, certain other factors have always been taken into consideration. The very early or very late holes should not be assigned to a low Stroke Index. The reason being that if a game were to finish all square and the players were required to go on to the 19th and subsequent holes to determine the winner, a player in receipt of very few strokes would gain an unfair advantage if he were to receive a stroke at the 19th or 20th. Similarly, if a low Stroke Index were assigned to a hole at the very end of the round, a player in receipt of very few strokes may not have the opportunity to use them as the game may be over by that stage. In general, therefore, Stroke Index 1 to 4 should not be on holes 1, 2, 17 or 18, or at courses where matches are likely to start at the 10th hole, holes 8, 9, 10 or 11.

The other important factor to be taken into account in fixing the order of the Stroke Index is that the strokes should be fairly evenly spread out over the 18 holes. If Stroke Index 1 is in the first 9 holes, Stroke Index 2 should be in the second 9 holes and so on.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

George1507 wrote:

However, certain other factors have always been taken into consideration. The very early or very late holes should not be assigned to a low Stroke Index. The reason being that if a game were to finish all square and the players were required to go on to the 19th and subsequent holes to determine the winner, a player in receipt of very few strokes would gain an unfair advantage if he were to receive a stroke at the 19th or 20th. Similarly, if a low Stroke Index were assigned to a hole at the very end of the round, a player in receipt of very few strokes may not have the opportunity to use them as the game may be over by that stage. In general, therefore, Stroke Index 1 to 4 should not be on holes 1, 2, 17 or 18, or at courses where matches are likely to start at the 10th hole, holes 8, 9, 10 or 11.

I have had the above work both for and against me. I played a match where I was giving one shot (2nd hole) which I lost on the 20th and also won a match on the 19th where I was receiving 3 shots and the 1st is SI3.

I also happen to believe that when playing a match, after 18 holes it should then be off scratch. The person receiving strokes has already had their allocation, if they haven't taken advantage over 18 holes then tough! It's bad enough that the lower handicapper is now having to give full allowance without giving additional shots in sudden death.

I still think that the way shots are allocated in matchplay is wrong. You should get your shots on the easiest holes not the hardest. A low handicapper is expected to drop a shot on SI 1 the same as a 12 handicapper is expected to drop a shot on SI 1. So how does that work? Give them shots on the holes which are relevant to their handicap range.

So a 1 plays a 12 and the 12 handicap gets his shots on indexes 2 - 12.
Mind you with some of the people out there they might have difficulty working that out on the 1st tee.

Some years ago I re-indexed my course for both the men's & ladies' cards. I followed as far as possible the guidelines issued by the R&A and CONGU. It took no amount of diplomatic skills to convince some of our members, particularly the category 1 crew (AKA the know alls), that their beliefs were invariably wrong.
The one guideline that was particularly awkward to follow was that a person receiving 10 shots, should not receive shots on 3 consecutive holes.
Since this was done we have noticed that stableford scores are much more consistent, ie mean, standard deviation & variance are lower and that matches go further.

LJ, true, but in a handicap situation the higher handicapper takes shots off the low man, so if we take a par 4 with a SI of 1. Presuming that the higher handicapper isn't such a chopper that he is getting two shots on this hole, then both are "expected" to shoot a 5 on the hole based on the SI (so long as the low handicapper isn't scratch) , however the lower handicap is receiving no shots on that hole as the higher handicapper either takes 3/4 or full handicap difference between the two players, so it is a gross five for the low handicapper as he's getting no shots, while the higher handicapper is awarded a net 4 and consequently wins the hole.


In any event I hate handicap competitions as it doesn't feel like real golf and I just can't get interested in them, but agree the system could do with an overhaul for those that do like it.

surely s_r, in a handicap competition, you are still aiming to put in your best possible score and don't think about the SI or your handicap or the fact it's a handicap comp?

for 99% of the golfing world, handicap golf is real golf. you're being a tad elitist and perhaps overlooking the fact that the handicap system makes golf about the only sport in the world where any 2 people, no matter their ability, can play a competitive game. that's a great thing.

Handicap golf isn't real golf. That isn't to say it's a bad thing however. And it's the reason why there is a lowest gross prize in most handicap comps.

I'm not sure there's anything to be overhauled really. It might not be perfect, but the way it's done has been proven over a lot of years, and it works pretty well I think.

As far as matchplay is concerned - ask yourself this. If you were a low handicapper giving away (say) 5 shots to your opponent. Would you rather give him shots on the easier holes, where there's a reasonable chance he'll get a par? Or would you rather give shots on tough par 4s, where there's a greater chance you might get a par then your opponent? And similarly, if you were the higher handicapper, wouldn't you rather receive a shot a tough par 4 where you know you are likely to struggle to match his score?

As far as stableford is concerned, I don't think it makes much difference, if the SI numbers are evenly spread across the course.

As far as medals are concerned, well the SI is irrelevant anyway.

****Handicap golf isn't real golf****

Of course it is. For the overwhelming majority of golfers, handicap golf is all they play. The reason golf is so popular is precisely because of handicaps.

Graeme, I'm not talking about Strokeplay where handicap comes into deciding who wins it, i'm talking about Handicap Matchplay competitions as those are the ones I'm not remotely interested in.
My peers vary from a HCP of 4 to +3 and we never give or receive strokes, we find that playing with people of better ability helps us play better, relying on getting shots does very little to motivate you to match players of better ability.
It's not being elitist if I say I don't enjoy playing against someone with a 20 handicap, it's just how it is.
I know the system is supposedly designed to make it a level playing field where people of varying abilities can "compete", but it is the higher handicap who will gain most satisfaction from such a game.

However, When playing in strokeplay comps, I'm only interested in playing as well as possible which has a consequence of getting my handicap lower, I don't really care about winning it.

I play scratch comps as you all know, but feel I must defend handicap players, I can see you point about you idea of real golf LJ but for many scratch play and scratch comps is beyond their level and their enjoyment comes from having a handicap system that levels the playing field and allows them to compete which in many other sports would simply be impossible.

That said SI really as far as any strokeplay event is concerned is irrelevant as it doesn't matter score on specific holes just overall end of round gross or net.

Maverick wrote:I play scratch comps as you all know, but feel I must defend handicap players, I can see you point about you idea of real golf LJ but for many scratch play and scratch comps is beyond their level and their enjoyment comes from having a handicap system that levels the playing field and allows them to compete which in many other sports would simply be impossible.

That said SI really as far as any strokeplay event is concerned is irrelevant as it doesn't matter score on specific holes just overall end of round gross or net.

Hence my statement that it's not a bad thing. And I think why most clubs give a nod to the natural way the game is played in the lowest gross score.

***My peers vary from a HCP of 4 to +3***

If you are the one off 4, you won't win very much.

It's good to play with other good players, nobody would deny that. But you shouldn't assume that you are the norm in that respect. The average ability at most clubs is around 16 handicap, and 80% of all club golfers have double figure handicaps. So the games that they play - which always involve handicaps - are the norm in golf, and what you play is an exception. How do the majority of people in your club feel about your not wanting to play with them, which is the inference from what you are saying?

LondonJonnyO wrote:I still think that the way shots are allocated in matchplay is wrong. You should get your shots on the easiest holes not the hardest. A low handicapper is expected to drop a shot on SI 1 the same as a 12 handicapper is expected to drop a shot on SI 1. So how does that work? Give them shots on the holes which are relevant to their handicap range.

So a 1 plays a 12 and the 12 handicap gets his shots on indexes 2 - 12.
Mind you with some of the people out there they might have difficulty working that out on the 1st tee.

quite a good idea.

with max 18 strokes allowed whatever the difference? i played a match recently where i was giving 12 shots away. its not really any fun being told you are playing well shooting pars and the odd birdie, but being blown away because of a string of 7 consecutive 'nett' birdies from your opponent.

George, I'm not the one off 4, but nor am I the one of +3.

It's not about winning anyway, it's about playing well and improving. Nor is it about not wanting to play with other players with double figure handicaps, they all have their own groups anyway.

Obviously I play in club strokeplay competitions where I can be drawn with anyone and any ability (although both my clubs make an effort to draw group players of similar ability) and the rest of the membership do not care that I or most other low players don't play in handicap matchplay competitions. We are not under any pressure to play in those events nor should we be under pressure to do so.
It isn't snobbery, elitism or any other sort of discrimination, it's just a personal preference of how I prefer to play my golf. It's worth bearing in mind it's fairly probable that there are a just as many mid-high handicappers who similarly don't like playing with low players.

ah, ok, i get you.

perhaps dragging things a little off topic here but it's got me thinking about how i approach strokeplay comps. playing off 12, that's 6 shots per 9. however, if i'm to be in with a chance of winning, realistically someone's going to shoot 5 or 6 under their handicap. so i'm therefore needing to play to 6, which is 3 over on each nine. now in my mind, that means aiming to play par golf and accept the odd dropped shot here and there.

it doesn't happen often (not within the last 2 years but that's down to not playing enough). but, is this a flawed mentality? when you play off around 18, you have a shot a hole but will often have a number of pars, therefore you can aim to bogie every hole and you will par a number. but now i really need to aim to par every hole and accept i'll bogie (and more) some. quite a mental leap for only 6 shots handicap difference. or am i mad?