Handicapping Holes

[BC MIST]

I am intersted in the logic or reasoning that golf clubs use in handicapping their golf holes. In one of the articles Dan posted it indicated that the #1 or #2 holes are the HARDEST holes on the respective nines, while #17 and #18 become the EASIEST holes on their two nines.

Very frequently, the 1/2 holes are the long holes while the 17/18 are the short holes. This means that the long par 5's are the hardest while the par 3's are the easiest. In reality, the opposite is true. The 5's are the easiest and the 3's are the hardest. Therefore, the reasoning behind the long holes being the hardest must be that they are the holes on which the high handicapper is more likely to take more strokes, and so he needs his handicap strokes on these holes. Because the 3's are short holes, they are rated high as it is unlikely that an 18 handicapper will have a big number on a very short hole and so may not need his handicap stroke here.

Is there an RCGA recommended way to determine the degree of difficulty of each of the holes? Logic says to collect scorecards from a wide variety of golfers over a period of time, average the scores and subtract the par, for each of the nines. This should give you a true picture of what hole is really the hardest/easiest, however, lower handicap players will probably have a completely different set of hard/easy holes than a 20 handicapper.

[jvincent]

I'd have to say the overwheliming majority of the courses I have played use length as the handicap determination, which I agree is wrong.

A better method would be to use the course rating system to assign the handicaps. As I understand the rating system, each hole is assigned positive or negative increments wrt par for that hole. So, in practice the hole with the highest rating value wrt par should be the number one hole, and so on.

[Colby]

Check out this article:

http://www.popeofslope.com/guideline...ngstrokes.html

[nice_lag]

Many things come into play when rating a golf course. Having played with some people from the OGA in charge of doing so, it is a difficult task with many factors involved. So my hats off to them.

On the other hand, it is true that length seems to be a predominant factor when rating holes. I would disagree on that for the reasons I'm sure the other people who have posted have. One must remember though that a "bogey golfer" by definition hits the ball 200 yards off the tee while the "scratch golfer" hits it 250. That has a direct impact on rating.

The OGA has started to look at Clubs' average scores to adjust rating and slope. They have experimented last year at my home course and it seems to work half decently. So the link posted by Colby and the point made by BC Mist are very valid.

[DCH]

The following is the procedure recommended by the English Golf Union (and used in the UK & Ireland generally. I believe Canada operates the USGA system which has a more sophisticated (complicated) approach to the relationship between player's abilities and the particular course but I think the way that given strokes are distributed is relevant.

STROKE INDEX ALLOCATION

(HANDICAP STROKE TABLE)

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 Clubs it is recommended that the allocation is so made as follows:

(a) Of paramount importance is the even spread of the strokes to be received at all handicap differences over the 18 holes.

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

(c) 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 indexes should be allocated so that a player receiving 10 strokes does not receive three strokes on consecutive holes.

(d) None of the first eight strokes should be allocated to the 1st 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 indexes 9, 10, 11 and 12 should be allocated to holes 1, 9, 10 and 18 in such order as shall be appropriate.

(e) Subject to satisfying 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 par4. Long par 3 and 4 holes are difficult pars for low handicap players but often relatively easy bogeys for the player with slightly higher handicaps. Difficulty in relation to par should not be taken into account when selecting stroke indexes.

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 indexes of great importance.

The above recommendations supplement those made by the Royal and Ancient Golf Club of St. Andrews contained in 'Guidance on Running a Competition'.

[Kilroy]

That's really odd. The method described in the Pope of Slope article seems much more sensible.

[DCH]

Have a look at Section 17.1 (Discretion of the Committee) of the USGA Handicapping Manual. There is more commonality that the Pope of Slope article suggests, this seems to be more about section 17.2.
I haven't had chance to work out when the USGA recommend 17.1 as opposed to 17.2 yet but will have another look when I get back from actually playing the game!