BIH: winning on countback

Is this the fairest way to decide who wins a club competition?

Last weekend I was congratulating a mate on winning a medal competition a couple of months back, which he'd won with a nett -4 playing off 10, beating a 7 handicapper and a 13 handicapper, with the same score, on countback. He was pleased to have won, but said that he felt that the 7 handicapper ought to have won: that BIH should only come into play after a full gross countback (ie. if nett scores tied, then lowest gross wins, if gross scores are tied then you go to BIH countback).

Agree or not?

This is probably a dumb comment that I'll regret later, but it's Monday morning and my brain is sluggish: what is BIH?

Best in Handicap Davie.

Better inward half

At the moment Davie, ties in club comps are generally decided by whoever had the best nett back 9 (bih). I guess the theory is, that the player who is showing greater improvement, relative to their handicap, toward the end of the round (or at least for the 2nd half) would be more likely to win a playoff.

Ok thx - at least I understand the poll question now

I disagree, my club always has a best gross score prize in medals so if you have a really good gross but miss out on countback to a higher handicapper then you have the consolation of still picking up a prize.

And to be honest, most low handicappers are more interested in gross scores than handicap scores.

What is is with all these low handicapper moans? First we get people moaning that 3/4 handicap difference isn't fair in 4bbb, now suddenly we're expected to hand them the prizes when they've finished relatively (to their handicap) less well than a higher handicapper? If it's a handicap competition, handicaps count. If you want to count gross scores enter a scratch comp.

Rant over, carry on.

Mine has that too D4S. Makes sense I think. I think most low handicappers aren't particularly interested in winning club competitions either unless it's one of the biggies such as a club championship. Most I know are interested in handicap reductions primarily unless playing in scratch Open's, regional competitions etc.

super_realist wrote:Mine has that too D4S. Makes sense I think. I think most low handicappers aren't particularly interested in winning club competitions either unless it's one of the biggies such as a club championship. Most I know are interested in handicap reductions primarily unless playing in scratch Open's, regional competitions etc.

Totally agree, I don't play in clubs monthly medals to win handicap prizes, only play to try win the lowest gross score to keep competitive, other than that its all scratcg comps.

Only agreed to playing in the handicapped 4bbb comp as a stand in so my oldmans regular partner can play as he is out with hip replacement surgery.

BIH: is there a better fairer way? Whatever route is chosen it will always have someone against it so if it aint broke....... Well you get the rest

SJ, the same would apply if a 20 and a 28 handicapper tied, the 20 would win.

Basically, when it comes to ties we are talking about small margins when deciding the victor. I'm not convinced that over an 18 hole competition, the best way to decide a winner when tied is to look at the last 9 holes... why not just the last hole... or the first hole for that matter. Surely a better way is to look at the 18 holes in their entirety use a deciding factor which does the same?

come on mav, you said yourself you've won 4 club comps this year and that was a good year - winning those must have been at least a little satisfying.

No doubt satisfying Ban, but not the reason for playing them.

I could see this being an issue if there weren't already handicap categories, Why do low handicapers feel the need to justify themselves all the time "i didn't want to win the handicap comp anyway" & such likes. From my point of view i can win the handicap or the scratch prize in the comp, im not worried il take anyones money !! there aint no opt out for us all or nothing. Sure you get the odd net 59, then these boys disappear but generaly the weather / conditions give everyone a fair chance.

I think both methods are rubbish.

Lowest gross: well what's the point of having a handicap competition if you then ignore handicaps. As others have said, there is usually a lowest gross prize anyway.

Back nine countback: why is the back nine more important than the front nine? It's not fair that someone who has a great front nine then plays steady on the back nine loses to someone who has a great back nine. Can you imagine in football if a knock out match finished as a draw then the team who "won" the second half would go through... ridiculous.

My opinion is that first place should be shared, and if you want a winner you should have a play off.

Fair enough Super. This question is not exclusively about low handicappers though. This is about how we sort out the winner of a hcap comp whether it be between a +1 and a 16 handicapper tied, a 6 and an 8, a 15 and an 18, a 26 and a 28 - whatever. For me, the key issue is settling an 18 hole competition using a factor which looks at the 18 holes in their entirety and decides a winner from that.

raycastleunited wrote:I think both methods are rubbish.

Love your style Ray, nae beating around the bush! Actually, I'm with you, playoffs would potentially be quite fun to watch.

ban_bam wrote:come on mav, you said yourself you've won 4 club comps this year and that was a good year - winning those must have been at least a little satisfying.

Very staisfying Ban indeed. But 3 of the 4 the goal was to win the lowest gross to stay competitive and was lucky enough my scratch that won me the lowest gross was also lower than the nearest net score so would say those were bonus wins I'd gladly take all day long.

The other was one I did go all out for as it was a club major so was even more satisfying. Don't get me wrong I'll never complain about winning, by sheer good play or luck a wins a win no matter how you get it.

All I was saying in medal comps at my club the goal is never on handicap score/win always trying for lowest gross score to stay competitve.

A side note the 4bbb I'm playing I'm in a sadistic way starting to look forward to giving away that many shots as it will be a real test.

ban_bam wrote:Fair enough Super. This question is not exclusively about low handicappers though. This is about how we sort out the winner of a hcap comp whether it be between a +1 and a 16 handicapper tied, a 6 and an 8, a 15 and an 18, a 26 and a 28 - whatever. For me, the key issue is settling an 18 hole competition using a factor which looks at the 18 holes in their entirety and decides a winner from that.

I think what I'm probably trying to say Ban is that whoever wins, does so by virtue of the rules/decisions in place.
I would never question a decision, because they are in place before I tee off. If I felt I had to question it on some sort of Duckworth Lewis hairsplitting I'd probably have to re-assess why I play the game.
Whoever wins, wins. If that's me off my handicap or someone else off 28, it's fine by me.

Just to add to Ray's point. What if one of them started off on the 10th? Is it fair to compare someone's front 9 against someone's back nine?

1GrumpyGolfer wrote:Just to add to Ray's point. What if one of them started off on the 10th? Is it fair to compare someone's front 9 against someone's back nine?

Very good point that!

In which case having a share of 1st place is the fairest outcome

Fair enough super. My guess is that these things will be re-assessed from time to time by the R&A or whoever, so having the odd conversation about changes such as these are fairly harmless. I think conversations like these usually tend toward people sticking up for the status quo, and in a sense that is good for maintaining a positive attitude toward the inclusive nature of this game. I hope i'm not giving you the impression I'm losing sleep over this - just trying to stir up some interest as once again things seem to be drying up on here. Anyone else care to give the barrel a scrape and come up with an interesting thread to chew on??!!!

Come on, let's get real here. You can't have two or three - or potentially half a dozen people - all declared joint winners. The whole idea of medal play is that you have a winner, a single winner.

Clearly play offs are impractical, because one guy might be back at home mowing the lawn having finished his round before the second guy has even teed off.

So, since there has to be a winner, and since play offs are impractical, then it has to be decided on the card. And if it's a handicap event, then it has to reflect nett scores, not gross, otherwise the lower handicap guy is likely to win. So the back 9, back 6, back 3, last hole mechanism has come to be accepted.

Remember that everyone understands and accepts the way that ties are decided, it's been that way for years, and if it ain't bust it don't need fixing.

ban_bam wrote:Fair enough super. My guess is that these things will be re-assessed from time to time by the R&A or whoever, so having the odd conversation about changes such as these are fairly harmless. I think conversations like these usually tend toward people sticking up for the status quo, and in a sense that is good for maintaining a positive attitude toward the inclusive nature of this game. I hope i'm not giving you the impression I'm losing sleep over this - just trying to stir up some interest as once again things seem to be drying up on here. Anyone else care to give the barrel a scrape and come up with an interesting thread to chew on??!!!

Don't get me wrong Ban, I'm all for change if it needs changing, to be fair I probably don't pay enough attention to how the competitions are run, as I'm not in them with the purpose of winning, just for handicap purposes and shooting a good score. So you probably know better than I if there's an issue with who wins competitions and what separates scores fairly.

At my place, in the major competitions if there is a tie for first place then those guys arrange an 18 play off at a time that suits them. Actually think it's a really good idea as losing a comp on countback is so frustrating.

Not strickly on topic, but an interesting related story.

North East Youths Strokeplay (36 holes) a long time ago. Two guys tied and fog prevented a play-off. Both had same scores. Both had same 9's on the second round. Both had same last 6 holes and last 3 holes on the second round. Eventually went to last 12 or 15 on the second round (can't remember which). I recall the rules beyond last 3 holes were not clear at that time.

There was a competition at my club a few years ago where two guys off the same handicap had identical scores on every hole. There was no alternative but to have a play off in that instance. It was held later in the season I think.

BLimey, what are the odds of that? Think i'd just toss a coin.

super_realist wrote:BLimey, what are the odds of that? Think i'd just toss a coin.

Nah...let Harry Hill sort it out.

FIGHT!!!!

If it is a nett competition then it is clear that it has to be nett score. However I don't believe the current countback system is fair (it can work to penalise the high or low handicap golfer depending) I would propose a based on nett performance on certain indexes holes (to capture accross the full range of 18) e.g. indexes 1-3 AND 16-18, or 1,4,7,10,13,16.

jeff, think that would drive everyone crazy!

i like the idea of having playoffs - though obviously it wouldn't always be feasible on the day of the comp.

how about an end of season 'playoffs day', where any players who have tied for a trophy play an 18 hole medal round to decide the winners - grouping together, where possible, players who are fighting it out for the same trophy. that way if there are still any ties, then sudden death holes would be possible.

The best way I have heard suggested is best back 9 but use exact handicap i.e. if 2 players are off 10 but one is 10.3 versus 10.4 then the 10.4 would win.

otherwise I favour the best back 9, 6 , 3, 1 even tho' I lose more that way... Guess I must get tight in the back 9 or something

GWR - why is that a fair way to decide ties? It just favours the higher handicap regardless.

Similarly, why does choosing scores on index holes 1,2 and 3, and 16, 17, and 18 help? They aren't necessarily the hardest and easiest holes, just a selection of holes from the round. You could draw 6 holes from a hat and compare scores on those holes.

What's wrong with the back 9, back 6, back, back 1 system? It usually works, everyone knows how ties are resolved, and they sign up on that basis.

BIH is used because, you are aware you have a good score going & its to see if you handle the pressure.

On the front 9 you are just setting it all up for the back 9.

Therefore as they say the "Masters" is won on the back 9 on the Sunday.

Re football comment.

I always think football would be more exciting to watch if it adopted the following rule

When the match is drawn a bonus point is awarded to the team scoring the last goal.

We had a great debate a few years ago when we agreed that we would if a tie exists use BIH to obtain the winner.

However when we went to play we teed off at the 10th, therefore to my mind the BIH were holes 1-9, but to others it was still 10-18.

The argument raged for hours.

BIH is holes 10-11 according to me

George1507 wrote:GWR - why is that a fair way to decide ties? It just favours the higher handicap regardless.

Similarly, why does choosing scores on index holes 1,2 and 3, and 16, 17, and 18 help? They aren't necessarily the hardest and easiest holes, just a selection of holes from the round. You could draw 6 holes from a hat and compare scores on those holes.

What's wrong with the back 9, back 6, back, back 1 system? It usually works, everyone knows how ties are resolved, and they sign up on that basis.

George - I understand what you say about higher handicap .... it was just a thought

I don't understand what you mean by index holes - I never mentioned them. I meant use the last 9 holes if still a tie, then last 6 if a tie, last 3 etc etc

oh - just seen what Jeff said

The suggestion to use scores on particular index holes was Jeffkenna's.

The current system works perfectly well, I see no reason to change it whatsoever.

George1507 wrote:The suggestion to use scores on particular index holes was Jeffkenna's.

it was indeed my suggestion. It is just an idea, a way of capturing a factor accross the range of 18 holes and indexes

Just recalled a round where the current system worked in my favour.

I was playing an 18 hole scratch competition at the start of the year many years ago. I was drawn with one the best players in the field (International player) and out very early. First 9 into the wind which was increasing all the time. One of those cold and windy late April days.

I got it out one more than he did. I got a good start on the back 9 and went a shot ahead but then fell one behind after 17. He was level par and I was one over par playing the last so very likely one of us would win as we got the best of a bad day (one of us did win).

18 was a par 3. I knocked it onto the very front about 50/60 feet away. He missed the green left. He pitched stiff and his dad took out the pin as he tapped in.

I stood over my putt. I knew, he knew and his dad knew I had to hole to match his score but I would win on the count back. As the put ran to the hole and dropped for an unlikely birdie and win I can still remember his dad's face as he watched this put get closer, closer then finally drop into the hole.

BIH is only good for scratch scores IMO.

the easiest way to determine a winner in handicap competitions is to use your exact handicap. only after a tie would i use BIH

liegerwoods wrote:BIH is only good for scratch scores IMO.

the easiest way to determine a winner in handicap competitions is to use your exact handicap. only after a tie would i use BIH

Don't think I like the sound of that suggestion, hardly fair if there is a difference of 0.1 between the 2 handicaps. I think the current system works quite well and as a lower handicapper, I'm often on the wrong end of countback decisions

drive4show wrote:

liegerwoods wrote:BIH is only good for scratch scores IMO.

the easiest way to determine a winner in handicap competitions is to use your exact handicap. only after a tie would i use BIH

Don't think I like the sound of that suggestion, hardly fair if there is a difference of 0.1 between the 2 handicaps. I think the current system works quite well and as a lower handicapper, I'm often on the wrong end of countback decisions

im not sure whats unfair about it. i would think that most of the time the guy with the higher handicap wins on countback. it would give a porpose to having an exact handicap.

I've been both the beneficiary and victim of the countback system, when the victor (I won a big drawn event off 10 with a net 5 under 66 beating a 3 handicapper on back 9) I did feel a tad guilty. On the other hand my 69 net 61 round Carnoustie burnside was the best net of the day but I was trumphed for the best net over all by a 10 handicapper shooting 71 the following day (it was a 36 hole medal over 2 days) and beating me on countback (last 6)...gutted!! As if to compound the agony I then missed qualification for the Scratch knockout in the Tassie....yep on COUNTBACK!!
So...in short, I don't like countback but I understand the reason why it sometimes has to be used (because the ideal other solution - playoff. Is simply not practical from a logistics point of view.

Our club played in a local 7 man team inter-club scratch even. Three teams include us had the same score. We won the the count back of 7 x last nine holes.

A few of us watched our last man play the last as we knew it was close. Our last guy out also knew it was close and was real nervous playing the last. Par 3. He missed the green way right and was on the practice putting green. He hit a great ship to about 4 feet. As he walked onto the green he was getting increasingly nervous so he pulled out the flag and holed out in a rush rather than marking as he knew the longer he waited the more likely he would miss.