Jump to content
Check out the Spin Axis Podcast! ×
Note: This thread is 5007 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Posted

I play at a 9 hole course very often but the scorecard is laid out as if it is an 18 hole course.  The 9th hole (on what the scorecard considers the front nine) has a handicap of 18, however on the back nine (9th hole again) it has a handicap rating of 13.  Why would it not be 17?  All the front nine holes are even handicaps, and the back nine are odd numbers.  Maybe I'm looking to far into this but shouldn't the same hole play the same difficulty?


Posted

Very interesting......

I have no idea!   My only thought is when it was rated......that maybe a different set of tees were intended for play the 2nd time around?

What's in Paul's Bag:
- Callaway Big Bertha Alpha Driver
- Big Bertha Alpha 815 3-wood
- Callaway Razr Fit 5-wood
- Callaway Big Bertha 4-5 Rescue Clubs
-- Mizuno Mx-25 six iron-gap wedge
- Mizuno Mp-T4 56degree SW
- Mizuno Mp-T11 60degree SW
- Putter- Ping Cadence Ketsch


Posted
Originally Posted by Motown88

All the front nine holes are even handicaps, and the back nine are odd numbers.

Should be the other way around.

In my bag ... 12 year old Balvenie DoubleWood


Posted
Originally Posted by WWBDD

Should be the other way around.

Should it?  I've never paid enough attention on 9 hole courses, and to be honest this is the only 9 hole course I play.

Originally Posted by BuckeyeNut

Very interesting......

I have no idea!   My only thought is when it was rated......that maybe a different set of tees were intended for play the 2nd time around?

That was my first thought, but the yardage for each hole is the exact same and thus why I stated it's the exact same hole.  I understand that over the course of hundred of thousands of rounds from a scratch golfer the holes may have varying average scores.  I believe this to be the reasoning that they have differing handicap ratings.


Posted
Originally Posted by Motown88

Should it?  I've never paid enough attention on 9 hole courses, and to be honest this is the only 9 hole course I play.

That was my first thought, but the yardage for each hole is the exact same and thus why I stated it's the exact same hole.  I understand that over the course of hundred of thousands of rounds from a scratch golfer the holes may have varying average scores.  I believe this to be the reasoning that they have differing handicap ratings.

The purpose of the handicap numbers on the holes is not to indicate the difficulty of the hole* but to apportion handicap strokes when playing a match.  Think about what would happen if the holes were given handicap numbers 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18 for both (identical) nines.  Someone playing to a 3 is playing a scratch golfer.  He should get three strokes.  What holes does he get them on?  On the front none he gets a stroke on the #2 handicap hole and on the back none he gets a stroke on the #2 hole.  And thereby gets cheated out of one of the three strokes he is entitled to.  If you play 18 holes, even if it is the same 9 twice, you need to have handicap numbers of 1-18.  Hence the workaround the 9-hole course uses.  Does that help with the reasoning?

* while we generally think of the handicap ratings as measures of difficulty, I believe that under the USGA guidelines they should ranked in order based on the difference in relative difficulty a scratch golfer would experience compared to a bogey golfer (which terms have specific meanings in the USGA HAndicap Manual) .  This frequently translates into absolute difficulty but doesn;t have to.

The following link explains how the USGA recommends that handicap strokes be allocated:

http://www.usga.org/HandicapFAQ/handicap_answer.asp?FAQidx=25

And yes, according to the USGA the front nine should be the odd numbers and the back nine should be the even numbers.  And the low number handicap holes should be allocated towards the middle of the nine, not the beginning or end.

But then again, what the hell do I know?

Rich - in name only

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Posted
Originally Posted by turtleback

The purpose of the handicap numbers on the holes is not to indicate the difficulty of the hole* but to apportion handicap strokes when playing a match.  Think about what would happen if the holes were given handicap numbers 2,4,6,8,10,12,14,16,18 for both (identical) nines.  Someone playing to a 3 is playing a scratch golfer.  He should get three strokes.  What holes does he get them on?  On the front none he gets a stroke on the #2 handicap hole and on the back none he gets a stroke on the #2 hole.  And thereby gets cheated out of one of the three strokes he is entitled to.  If you play 18 holes, even if it is the same 9 twice, you need to have handicap numbers of 1-18.  Hence the workaround the 9-hole course uses.  Does that help with the reasoning?

I don't think the OP's issue is with the holes not having identical handicap numbers, since that's obviously problematic, but that the same hole is not in the same relative position in the two 9s. The "obvious" way to fix it would be as the OP suggested, where the 17th and 18th handicap holes would be the same. (i.e., 1st is also 2nd, 3rd is also 4th, etc.)

The strange thing is that the same hole is 13th and 18th. That means they've scrambled the ordering between the front and back 9s.

Originally Posted by turtleback

And yes, according to the USGA the front nine should be the odd numbers and the back nine should be the even numbers.  And the low number handicap holes should be allocated towards the middle of the nine, not the beginning or end

I think your last sentence here is probably the reason: putting the 9th hole as the 17th handicap hole is not consistent with the suggested ordering of the handicap numbers. While I don't completely agree with the rationale for the ordering, that is what they want, so holes near the middle of the 18 would be expected to have lower numbers.

In the bag:
FT-iQ 10° driver, FT 21° neutral 3H
T-Zoid Forged 15° 3W, MX-23 4-PW
Harmonized 52° GW, Tom Watson 56° SW, X-Forged Vintage 60° LW
White Hot XG #1 Putter, 33"


Note: This thread is 5007 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Carl's Place
    PlayBetter
    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FitForGolf
    FlightScope Mevo

    Coupon Codes (save 10-20%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack/FitForGolf, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope. 15% off TourStriker (no code).
  • Posts

    • I work with a lot of golfers who want more shaft lean at impact, who currently have AoAs that range from +2° to -2°, and who love to see the handle lower and more "in front of their trail thigh" from face-on at P6. And a lot of these golfers try to solve the issue by working on the downswing. They do something to drag the handle forward. Or they just leave their right thigh farther back so the same handle location "looks" farther forward. Or they move the ball back in their stance. Or they push themselves down into the ground to get the handle lower and increase (decrease?) their AoA (to be more negative). The real fix is often to get wider in the backswing. To do LESS in the backswing. To hinge less, fold the trail arm less, abduct the trail arm less. I had a case of this over the weekend. Before, the player had 110° of trail elbow bend, "lifted" his trail humerus only a few degrees, etc. The club traveled quite a bit around him, and he tended to "pick" the ball from the fairways. In the "after" swings below (which are mild exaggerations — this golfer does not need to end up at < 70° of elbow bend. These were slower backswings with "hit it as hard as you normally would" intent downswings), you can see that he bent his elbow about 70° instead of 110° and lifted his right arm an extra ~15° or more. You can't see how much less this moved his hands across his chest (right arm abduction), but it was also decreased. His hands stayed more "in front of" his right shoulder rather than traveling "beside" them so much. The two swings look like this: The change at P6, without talking about the downswing one little bit (outside of him telling me that he tends to pick the ball), is remarkable: Without 110° of elbow bend to get out (which he gets to 80°, a loss of 30°), the golfer actually loses slightly less elbow bend (70 - 50 = 20), but delivers 30° less elbow bend, lowering the handle and letting the elbow get "in front of" the rib cage… because it never got "behind" or "beside" the rib cage. If you look at this video showing the before/afters of P6, you'll note the handle location (both vertically and horizontally) and the shoulders (the ball is in the same place in these frames). This golfer's path was largely unaffected (still pretty straight into the ball, < 3° path and often < 1.5°), but his AoA jumped to -5° ± 2°. I've always said, and in talking with other instructors they agree and feel similarly, that we spend a lot of time working on the backswing. This is another example of why.
    • We had a member of our senior club who developed a mental block on pulling the trigger. I played with him to see what the membership was talking about. I timed him a few times when he would get over the ball. 45 seconds. He knew he had a mental block and would chide himself, “Just hit it!” Once on the green he was okay and chipping was a bit better. It was painful to watch him struggle. Our “bandaid” was to put him in the last tournament  tee time with two understanding players. We should have suggested to him to take a break from our tournaments. I agree with the idea that when a player realizes they have a problem, the answer is to go fix it and not return until they are able to play at an acceptable pace.
    • Day 56 (4 May 26) - Worked on some ball-then-ground drills - going from P3 thru impact - with a slowed tempo, working to keep all parts in sync.   
    • Wordle 1,780 3/6 🟩⬜🟨🟨🟨 ⬜⬜⬜⬜⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
    • Wordle 1,780 4/6 🟨⬜⬜⬜🟨 ⬜🟨🟨🟨⬜ 🟩🟨🟩🟨⬜ 🟩🟩🟩🟩🟩
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.