Net Match Play - Extra Holes

[bkuehn1952]

In a tied match after 18, the two players go to #1. Player A gets 1 stroke per 18. The first hole is the #1 handicap hole. Does he get his stroke again (he obviously got it the first time around)?

I think yes but have no foundation for my answer. I also think it was too bad that the course had #1 as the #1 handicap hole.

[iacas]

6 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

In a tied match after 18, the two players go to #1. Player A gets 1 stroke per 18. The first hole is the #1 handicap hole. Does he get his stroke again (he obviously got it the first time around)?

I think yes but have no foundation for my answer. I also think it was too bad that the course had #1 as the #1 handicap hole.

Yep.

This is one of the reasons they suggest that 1 and 2 handicap holes are in the middle "triad" of holes.

[klineka]

41 minutes ago, iacas said:

Yep.

This is one of the reasons they suggest that 1 and 2 handicap holes are in the middle "triad" of holes.

Why just 1 and 2 handicap holes being in the middle triad? Wouldn't the same thing happen if say the #3 handicap hole was the opening hole and a player gets 3 strokes per round?

I don't know enough about how hole handicaps are determined but isn't it somewhat based on the difficulty of the hole? I guess "difficulty" probably doesn't scale linearly across different handicap levels though.

Or let's say the opening hole is handicap 2 or 3 and player A makes a gross 5 on that opening hole in the playoff but player B gets a stroke and makes a gross 6 net 5 so they tie the hole. Unlikely that player B who got the gross 6 net 5 for the tie would have an issue with the opening hole being the 2 or 3 handicap hole then.

I guess I kinda get the point for player A that over a full 18 holes they only got 1 handicap stroke so seems a bit unlucky for player B that in a 1 hole playoff player A gets a stroke, but in my head I'm trying to figure out where to draw the line. Like what about if player B gets 6 strokes and the opening hole is the #5 handicap hole. Wouldn't that just be "lucky" for player B and "unlucky" for player A since player B wouldn't get a stroke on 2/3 of the holes but they'd get one in the one hole playoff? I know that getting a stroke on 1/18 is much lower of a percentage than say 6/18 but just trying to figure out how/where to draw that line in my head.  

[iacas]

1 minute ago, klineka said:

Why just 1 and 2 handicap holes being in the middle triad? Wouldn't the same thing happen if say the #3 handicap hole was the opening hole and a player gets 3 strokes per round?

I mean, "wouldn't the same thing happen if say the #17 handicap hole was the opening hole and the player gets 17 strokes per round"?

Get it?

When A and B are so close together that one only gets ONE stroke… awarding it on the first playoff hole is a big advantage to the guy getting the stroke.

7 minutes ago, klineka said:

I don't know enough about how hole handicaps are determined but isn't it somewhat based on the difficulty of the hole? I guess "difficulty" probably doesn't scale linearly across different handicap levels though.

Thing is, these guys are separated by only one stroke. So every hole is roughly "as difficult" as each other hole (relative to each other). One has to give the other a stroke at some point, but putting it in the middle of a nine is the fairest.

Consider it this way: let's say a player gets nine strokes. Would it be fair to give the player all nine strokes on the first nine holes? The player who is giving the strokes is likely to be down like seven holes after those nine holes, and thus wouldn't have much chance to play the guy straight up on the other nine holes. He'll likely lose 6 & 5 or something.

Similarly, if the nine stroke holes were 10-18, the guy giving the strokes might build a 7-up lead at that point, and close the guy out pretty early, before he gets to use the strokes he's due.

Distributing the strokes somewhat evenly throughout the round is considered fairest. Awarding it on the first hole is not very evenly distributed.

7 minutes ago, klineka said:

I guess I kinda get the point for player A that over a full 18 holes they only got 1 handicap stroke so seems a bit unlucky for player B that in a 1 hole playoff player A gets a stroke, but in my head I'm trying to figure out where to draw the line. Like what about if player B gets 6 strokes and the opening hole is the #5 handicap hole.

Those players aren't as closely matched. It's less likely to decide the outcome of the match.

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Appendix E Stroke Index Allocation.htm

Quote

• Spread stroke index allocations evenly over the 18 holes so that players receiving strokes will have the opportunity to use a high proportion of these strokes before a match result has been decided.
• Apply the lowest stroke index hole (1 or 2) on each nine in the middle triad. If no hole within the middle triad is ranked within the lowest 6 holes relative to par, then it can be moved into an adjacent hole at the end of the first triad or the beginning of the third triad on each nine.
• Apply the second lowest stroke index hole (3 or 4) on each nine in either the first or third triad, unless the lowest stroke index hole has been allocated in that same triad.
• If possible, avoid low stroke indexes (6 or less) on consecutive holes.

[sjduffers]

Yes, that's a really bad break for the player having to give the stroke. Considering that in Match Play, the strokes are given/taken by the difference in handicaps, the guy receiving one stroke is not necessarily a 1 index and the other guy scratch.  They could be 14 and 15, and in Stroke Play they both would get a stroke on the #1 handicap hole (and many more obviously), but in Match Play, the 14 index gives one stroke to the 15 index and is at a real disadvantage on the first playoff hole in this situation...

[Rulesman]

The WHS Manual Appendix E: Stroke Index Allocation includes the latest (rather convoluted) recommendation from the USGA/R&A but includes the following: 

These recommended procedures support the guidance contained in the Rules of
Golf, Committee Procedures, Rule 5I (4).

But 5I is about a Code of Conduct. What am I missing?

[klineka]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

When A and B are so close together that one only gets ONE stroke… awarding it on the first playoff hole is a big advantage to the guy getting the stroke.

Thing is, these guys are separated by only one stroke. So every hole is roughly "as difficult" as each other hole (relative to each other). One has to give the other a stroke at some point, but putting it in the middle of a nine is the fairest.

10 hours ago, sjduffers said:

Yes, that's a really bad break for the player having to give the stroke. Considering that in Match Play, the strokes are given/taken by the difference in handicaps, the guy receiving one stroke is not necessarily a 1 index and the other guy scratch.  They could be 14 and 15, and in Stroke Play they both would get a stroke on the #1 handicap hole (and many more obviously), but in Match Play, the 14 index gives one stroke to the 15 index and is at a real disadvantage on the first playoff hole in this situation...

Yeah those parts in bold are what I forgot, that it's the difference in handicaps in match play. I was thinking about it from a net stroke play perspective where both players would be getting the stroke on the playoff hole. (Like one was a 1 handicap and one was a 10 or something)

 

[Ty_Webb]

11 hours ago, klineka said:

Why just 1 and 2 handicap holes being in the middle triad? Wouldn't the same thing happen if say the #3 handicap hole was the opening hole and a player gets 3 strokes per round?

I don't know enough about how hole handicaps are determined but isn't it somewhat based on the difficulty of the hole? I guess "difficulty" probably doesn't scale linearly across different handicap levels though.

Or let's say the opening hole is handicap 2 or 3 and player A makes a gross 5 on that opening hole in the playoff but player B gets a stroke and makes a gross 6 net 5 so they tie the hole. Unlikely that player B who got the gross 6 net 5 for the tie would have an issue with the opening hole being the 2 or 3 handicap hole then.

I guess I kinda get the point for player A that over a full 18 holes they only got 1 handicap stroke so seems a bit unlucky for player B that in a 1 hole playoff player A gets a stroke, but in my head I'm trying to figure out where to draw the line. Like what about if player B gets 6 strokes and the opening hole is the #5 handicap hole. Wouldn't that just be "lucky" for player B and "unlucky" for player A since player B wouldn't get a stroke on 2/3 of the holes but they'd get one in the one hole playoff? I know that getting a stroke on 1/18 is much lower of a percentage than say 6/18 but just trying to figure out how/where to draw that line in my head.  

I believe that hole handicaps should be based on the scoring variance by handicap. The difficulty comes about, as Erik said, because if you're 1 stroke better than someone over 18 holes, that's 0.05555... shots better per hole (on average). That difference might manifest itself as being 0.1 shots different on some holes and only 0.01 shots different on others. Depending on the player, it could even swing the other way depending on how their strengths and weaknesses compare by hole.

Anyway, absent any other factors, it would be fairest to have the shot on the hole with the highest difference, but even then, because scoring is discrete, you'd still expect the higher handicap player to win their shot hole and lose one of the other holes each round. If that shot hole comes on 1, then that's a significant advantage. 

There was a move afoot at one point in the UK to have stroke indices fixed for every course regardless of individual hole difficulty or variance. So on every course stroke 1 hole would be say the 5th and so on. Then stroke allocations would always be applied in the same part of the round. Theory was if you take a stroke away in one place and give it in another, that evens out. I am not sure what happened, but it seems it didn't go ahead (or if it did then I'm way out of the loop). 

[Dick Kusleika]

8 hours ago, Rulesman said:

The WHS Manual Appendix E: Stroke Index Allocation includes the latest (rather convoluted) recommendation from the USGA/R&A but includes the following: 

These recommended procedures support the guidance contained in the Rules of
Golf, Committee Procedures, Rule 5I (4).

But 5I is about a Code of Conduct. What am I missing?

Yeah, that was a head scratcher for me too. I found it in 5J (4).

[Rulesman]

3 hours ago, Dick Kusleika said:

Yeah, that was a head scratcher for me too. I found it in 5J (4).

Thanks.👍

[bkuehn1952]

Thank you for all the responses and discussion. As always, I learn a lot from these exchanges of ideas.

Unfortunately, I do not think a lot of courses in Michigan have embraced the "triad" idea of the USGA/R&A for hole handicapping. 

[iacas]

14 minutes ago, bkuehn1952 said:

Thank you for all the responses and discussion. As always, I learn a lot from these exchanges of ideas.

Unfortunately, I do not think a lot of courses in Michigan have embraced the "triad" idea of the USGA/R&A for hole handicapping. 

A lot of them may need a scorecard update, a new rating… or to just be made aware of it, as it's a somewhat recent suggestion.

Plus, it's only a suggestion.