Stableford adjustment - the bit that doesn't make sense.

To put this in context, I've recently familiarised myself with the Stroke Index allocation recomended by Congu as part of our handicap comittee this year it's been a topic of discussion (though not action!).

Stroke indexing is all about matchplay.

If you read through the details, difficulty of the each hole is not really a factor - it is mentioned in the 5th level of consideration - but according to Congu, the primary function of the stroke index is to provide the following:

Congu wrote: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.

So all that is fine and makes reasonable sense.

BUT

Why then, do these stroke indexes have a bearing on handicap adjustments at all, given they effectively could be randomly allocated numbers against each hole to provide an even spread of strokes over the 18 holes??

Handicap adjustments are based on your stableford adjusted score. That means that anything worse than a double bogey is rounded down. However, if you receive a stroke on that hole, then a triple bogey wouldn't be rounded down, it would be listed as an unadjusted 'nett' double bogey. This seems silly, that the stroke indexes - which should have no bearing on stroke play, are being used to manufacture an adjusted nett score.

Surely ALL gross scores that are worse than a double should be just rounded down to a gross double - as this would remove a fairly random element from the equation. This is how the initial handicap allocation works - why is it suddenly different once you have a handicap? If I have a triple bogey on my card, it shouldn't matter that it occurred on the stroke index 4 or the stroke index 16. My triple bogey's don't occur in a pattern, and the adjusment ought to be equal for both situations given that stroke indexing is NOT based on difficulty to complete a hole. Handicap adjustments based on gross scores would allow for a more fluid system where less competitors simply add 0.1 to their handicap after every round, and many receive minor cuts over and above what is granted under the current system - A positive step forward.

I know of at least one club that has separate indexes for matchplay and strokeplay. The CONGU formula is used for the matchplay card, and the strokeplay one is based on the historical data. Seems to make sense to me.

Agreed.

Interesting spot. Relevant to me this weekend as I had two quads and finished two over my hc so in the buffer zone but as was pointed out to me, I still may get cut. Just been down to the car to find a scorecard and see that I get a shot on one but not the other.

So I guess I probably 'lose' three shots from my stapleford adjusted score. So now one under net par. Shame as that indicates that I'll be cut 0.2 but if it had been 0.4 and I would go down a whole number.

Having moaned about it, having two quadruple bogeys I shouldn't really be cut!

this is where the whole idiocy of applying the stableford handicapping system to allowances in match play crops up too. i'm not suggesting 3/4 should be the allowance as was discussed in a recent thread, but feel that given how few competitions most handicap golfers play on average over the course of a year, every possible assistance ought to be given to adjust handicaps down appropriately based on absolutes (i.e. gross triple bogeys) rather than the randomosity of nett adjustments dependant on an arbitary stroke indexing system which has nothing to do with stroke play in the first place.

barragan wrote:this is where the whole idiocy of applying the stableford handicapping system to allowances in match play crops up too. i'm not suggesting 3/4 should be the allowance as was discussed in a recent thread, but feel that given how few competitions most handicap golfers play on average over the course of a year, every possible assistance ought to be given to adjust handicaps down appropriately based on absolutes (i.e. gross triple bogeys) rather than the randomosity of nett adjustments dependant on an arbitary stroke indexing system which has nothing to do with stroke play in the first place.

'Randomosity'...like it!

A word coined in my university days, you'd be amazed just how much you can get away with studying architecture

twoeightnine wrote:Interesting spot.  Relevant to me this weekend as I had two quads and finished two over my hc so in the buffer zone but as was pointed out to me, I still may get cut.  Just been down to the car to find a scorecard and see that I get a shot on one but not the other.

So I guess I probably 'lose' three shots from my stapleford adjusted score.  So now one under net par.  Shame as that indicates that I'll be cut 0.2 but if it had been 0.4 and I would go down a whole number.  

Having moaned about it, having two quadruple bogeys I shouldn't really be cut!

Two quadruple bogeys...

Am I missing something here? They will be corrected for handicap purposes to double bogeys. The fact you got a shot one of those holes is immaterial. So your score for handicap purposes will be 4 shots better than your nett score. Depending on the CSS you may be cut more than 0.2.

They'll be adjusted to nett doubles - I.e. 3 stroke adjustment rather than the 4 shots I believe it ought to be.

George1507 wrote:Am I missing something here? They will be corrected for handicap purposes to double bogeys. The fact you got a shot one of those holes is immaterial.

Yes - you are missing something here

Yes, George. My thoughts too. I dont have many of them so two in a round was bad. To make me feel a little better I was four over for the other 16 holes which is a bit better!

Back to subject. I was cut 0.2 so three shots dropped from net score. Not seen the CSS yet so will report back. The computer was down so guess office have to enter everything manually although I would guess that they need all the scores in so that CSS can be calculated before making hc changes so maybe just not published on howdidido yet.

I know that you were all on tender hooks but the CSS was the same as par so looks like I got three shots off not four due to the one hole giving me a shot.

Who said golf was simple?

I don't understand that. If you had two quadruple bogeys, they would be adjusted to double bogeys. So your score for handicap purposes would be four better than your nett score. if the CSS and par were the same, then you should not have been pulled 0.3.

George. The gross quadruples are adjusted to NETT doubles NOT gross doubles - hence why receiving a stroke or not on either of those particular holes does have an impact.

First post!

Another oddity is that when working out your first handicap you're are assumed to be playing off scratch so anything more than a gross double bogey is wiped off. That gives you a handicap of 36 (if you could get higher than 28) even if you shoot 10 on each hole so it only takes a few ok holes to get a handicap better than 28 (I try to explain this to my friends who say they should have a handicap of 28 as they rarely break 100).

If you hacked around (as I do) and calculated a handicap of say 24 based on three cards it would be difficult to play to that using a maximum of net double bogeys instead of gross double bogeys. Clearly not a problem if you're any good though...

Welcome FabW.

At my club I think it's even worse than that (not sure it's a common practice though). They take three cards and as well as rounding down to double bogey, they take the best front 9 and best back 9 from the three and use that as an "eclectic" card to calculate your starting handicap.

Feeling a bit Woosie wrote:First post!

Another oddity is that when working out your first handicap you're are assumed to be playing off scratch so anything more than a gross double bogey is wiped off. That gives you a handicap of 36 (if you could get higher than 28) even if you shoot 10 on each hole so it only takes a few ok holes to get a handicap better than 28 (I try to explain this to my friends who say they should have a handicap of 28 as they rarely break 100).

If you hacked around (as I do) and calculated a handicap of say 24 based on three cards it would be difficult to play to that using a maximum of net double bogeys instead of gross double bogeys. Clearly not a problem if you're any good though...

Welcome woosie -

Yes I alluded to this in the OP:

barragan wrote:Surely ALL gross scores that are worse than a double should be just rounded down to a gross double - as this would remove a fairly random element from the equation. This is how the initial handicap allocation works - why is it suddenly different once you have a handicap?

It's definitely a problem if you're any good. Triple bogey's can occur at every level of the game, and having one on a 'stroke hole' (where the stroke indexing is allocated on effectively a random basis) could be the difference between a cut, or a buffer zone round. This also has an effect on the CSS calculation on the day as this is based on the percentage of cat 1-3s who make their buffer v's sss (i think). It's a small mess, but for the sake of having a watertight handicapping system, it's one which ought to be addressed. Either stroke indexing for holes ought to be based on historical data for stroke play comps (seperate s.i. for matchplay), or, SIMPLIFY the system, and make handicap adjustments on the basis of gross scores NOT nett scores. This removes the inconsistency, and means a few more cuts and buffers for all. Probably help to keep the CSS more stable too.


Bob,
congu allow for 9 hole cards to be submitted with the best 2x9 from 54 holes submitted considered as the card used for handicap allocation. if your club is taking best front and back nine from seperate 18 hole cards submitted they are not following the guidance - its amazing how many contrivances can emerge because commitees don't read the uhs!

Barragan,

Yes - sorry missed that in the OP. Good start!
I get your point on it being a problem for everyone - just meant that low handicappers would on average have less disaster holes.

Plenty people at my club who could do with a 54 handicap.

Basically not able to do much more than just walk from tee to green.

Barra - interestingly in this months Golf Digest there is a piece about handicap adjustments which suggests that under the US system with a handicap of 9 or less the maximum score on any hole is double bogey.

Puligny, that's correct. I have to adjust my score down to a double bogey if I have a triple or worse on any hole when I post my scores. For handicaps 10-19 the maximum score on any hole is 7, for 20-29 it's an 8 and for 30 and above it's a 9. For those of us who throw in a high number every now and then we can get an artificially lowered handicap.