Bookmarks

Yahoo Gmail Google Facebook Delicious Twitter Reddit Stumpleupon Myspace Digg

Search queries

1ringrat, nevada commission eric morel 2005, snitsky poem its not my fault, nicole bass beat husband, big boss man poem, Jennifer barretta playboy, MUSCLE WOMAN MAYHEM – ‘BEATS HUBBY, BITES COP, MUSCLE NICOLE BASS BEAT AND KILL, stephen a smith radio theme song, golf club grace before meals

Links

XODOX
Impressum

#1: SI allocation

Posted on 2006-06-01 15:42:54 by John Laird

Having nothing better to do over lunch, I was perusing our club
competition results on <a href="http://www.howdidido.co.uk" target="_blank">http://www.howdidido.co.uk</a>

&gt;From our most recent (board) comp, here are our 18 in increasing order
of difficulty (SI in brackets) with the average score and par (and
difference) shown:

4 (18) 3.75 3 0.75
2 (16) 4.76 4 0.76
7 (14) 3.89 3 0.89
15 (13) 3.94 3 0.94
12 (11) 4.10 3 1.10
9 (12) 5.11 4 1.11
14 ( 9) 6.19 5 1.19
17 (15) 5.21 4 1.21
5 (10) 5.21 4 1.21
13 (17) 5.23 4 1.23
6 ( 4) 6.30 5 1.30
1 ( 8) 5.36 4 1.36
16 ( 3) 5.38 4 1.38
3 ( 6) 5.39 4 1.39
18 ( 7) 5.40 4 1.40
8 ( 2) 5.60 4 1.60
10 ( 5) 5.66 4 1.66
11 ( 1) 5.81 4 1.81

151 rounds were played.

It's interesting how good a job was done on the original SI allocation
- just a shame it hasn't been re-done according to CONGU guidelines !
(I think we break just about every one of their &quot;rules&quot;).

--
John

Report this message

#2: Re: SI allocation

Posted on 2006-06-01 16:29:02 by Malcolm Wadsworth

&quot;John Laird&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:lairdy&#64;gmail.com" target="_blank">lairdy&#64;gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:1149169374.149517.7860&#64;i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1149169374.149517.7860&#64;i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...</a>
&gt; Having nothing better to do over lunch, I was perusing our club
&gt; competition results on <a href="http://www.howdidido.co.uk" target="_blank">http://www.howdidido.co.uk</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;From our most recent (board) comp, here are our 18 in increasing order
&gt; of difficulty (SI in brackets) with the average score and par (and
&gt; difference) shown:
&gt;
&gt; 4 (18) 3.75 3 0.75
&gt; 2 (16) 4.76 4 0.76
&gt; 7 (14) 3.89 3 0.89
&gt; 15 (13) 3.94 3 0.94
&gt; 12 (11) 4.10 3 1.10
&gt; 9 (12) 5.11 4 1.11
&gt; 14 ( 9) 6.19 5 1.19
&gt; 17 (15) 5.21 4 1.21
&gt; 5 (10) 5.21 4 1.21
&gt; 13 (17) 5.23 4 1.23
&gt; 6 ( 4) 6.30 5 1.30
&gt; 1 ( 8) 5.36 4 1.36
&gt; 16 ( 3) 5.38 4 1.38
&gt; 3 ( 6) 5.39 4 1.39
&gt; 18 ( 7) 5.40 4 1.40
&gt; 8 ( 2) 5.60 4 1.60
&gt; 10 ( 5) 5.66 4 1.66
&gt; 11 ( 1) 5.81 4 1.81
&gt;
&gt; 151 rounds were played.
&gt;
&gt; It's interesting how good a job was done on the original SI allocation
&gt; - just a shame it hasn't been re-done according to CONGU guidelines !
&gt; (I think we break just about every one of their &quot;rules&quot;).
&gt;
&gt; --
&gt; John
&gt;
Seems good to me, John.
I presume from the spread your club does not have 2-tee starting.

Meets CONGU recommendations (a), (b)
Meets 2 out of 3 of (c)
Not so good on (d)

Hopefully, the Committee will leave well alone .

Malcolm

Report this message

#3: Re: SI allocation

Posted on 2006-06-01 17:45:04 by John Laird

Malcolm Wadsworth wrote:
&gt;(snipped)
&gt; Seems good to me, John.
&gt; I presume from the spread your club does not have 2-tee starting.

We certainly do.

&gt; Meets CONGU recommendations (a), (b)
&gt; Meets 2 out of 3 of (c)
&gt; Not so good on (d)

I've only got access to the web-site which manages not to itemise with
letters. In turn:
1. The spread is fairly even. +
2. Yes, odd and even SIs are allocated to different nines. (This
wasn't always the case.) +
3. SIs 1 and 2 are not placed close to the middle of each nine. -
There are no adjacent holes with SIs 1-6 +
No 3 consecutive holes with SIs 1-10 +
4. 3 of the 1st 8 SIs are allocated to the first or last hole of each
half. -
5. SIs are almost entirely length/difficulty allocated. --- !

SIs 1-10 are (with the exception of our two par 5s) all par 4s, pretty
much in descending order of length. The first par 3 does not appear
until SI 11, with the others being 13, 14 and 18. SIs 15-17 are the
shortest par 4s.

&gt; Hopefully, the Committee will leave well alone .

Well, now that I have actually put my brain in gear, I see that some
subtle changes were made (which of course had escaped my memory, as I
don't get to play in many comps). It's not as bad as it was, and
avoids the worst situations (like 3 holes in a row with lowish SI).
However it's still very skewed to the old-fashioned difficulty scale.

I can guarantee they will leave well alone, but not perhaps for the
reasons you suspect !

--
John

Report this message

#4: Re: SI allocation

Posted on 2006-06-01 18:42:21 by Crispin Roche

On 1 Jun 2006 08:45:04 -0700, &quot;John Laird&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:lairdy&#64;gmail.com" target="_blank">lairdy&#64;gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;Malcolm Wadsworth wrote:
&gt;&gt;(snipped)
&gt;&gt; Seems good to me, John.
&gt;&gt; I presume from the spread your club does not have 2-tee starting.
&gt;
&gt;We certainly do.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Meets CONGU recommendations (a), (b)
&gt;&gt; Meets 2 out of 3 of (c)
&gt;&gt; Not so good on (d)
&gt;
&gt;I've only got access to the web-site which manages not to itemise with
&gt;letters. In turn:
&gt;1. The spread is fairly even. +
&gt;2. Yes, odd and even SIs are allocated to different nines. (This
&gt;wasn't always the case.) +
&gt;3. SIs 1 and 2 are not placed close to the middle of each nine. -
&gt; There are no adjacent holes with SIs 1-6 +
&gt; No 3 consecutive holes with SIs 1-10 +
&gt;4. 3 of the 1st 8 SIs are allocated to the first or last hole of each
&gt;half. -
&gt;5. SIs are almost entirely length/difficulty allocated. --- !
&gt;
&gt;SIs 1-10 are (with the exception of our two par 5s) all par 4s, pretty
&gt;much in descending order of length. The first par 3 does not appear
&gt;until SI 11, with the others being 13, 14 and 18. SIs 15-17 are the
&gt;shortest par 4s.
&gt;
&gt;&gt; Hopefully, the Committee will leave well alone .
&gt;
&gt;Well, now that I have actually put my brain in gear, I see that some
&gt;subtle changes were made (which of course had escaped my memory, as I
&gt;don't get to play in many comps). It's not as bad as it was, and
&gt;avoids the worst situations (like 3 holes in a row with lowish SI).
&gt;However it's still very skewed to the old-fashioned difficulty scale.
&gt;
&gt;I can guarantee they will leave well alone, but not perhaps for the
&gt;reasons you suspect !


Quit epossibly what Malcolm was refering to was the following from the
English Golf Union Website

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'.


Crispin Roche

Report this message

#5: Re: SI allocation

Posted on 2006-06-01 20:55:57 by John Turner

&quot;John Laird&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:lairdy&#64;gmail.com" target="_blank">lairdy&#64;gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:1149169374.149517.7860&#64;i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1149169374.149517.7860&#64;i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...</a>
&gt; Having nothing better to do over lunch, I was perusing our club
&gt; competition results on <a href="http://www.howdidido.co.uk" target="_blank">http://www.howdidido.co.uk</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;From our most recent (board) comp, here are our 18 in increasing order
&gt; of difficulty (SI in brackets) with the average score and par (and
&gt; difference) shown:
&gt;
&gt; 4 (18) 3.75 3 0.75
&gt; 2 (16) 4.76 4 0.76
&gt; 7 (14) 3.89 3 0.89
&gt; 15 (13) 3.94 3 0.94
&gt; 12 (11) 4.10 3 1.10
&gt; 9 (12) 5.11 4 1.11
&gt; 14 ( 9) 6.19 5 1.19
&gt; 17 (15) 5.21 4 1.21
&gt; 5 (10) 5.21 4 1.21
&gt; 13 (17) 5.23 4 1.23
&gt; 6 ( 4) 6.30 5 1.30
&gt; 1 ( 8) 5.36 4 1.36
&gt; 16 ( 3) 5.38 4 1.38
&gt; 3 ( 6) 5.39 4 1.39
&gt; 18 ( 7) 5.40 4 1.40
&gt; 8 ( 2) 5.60 4 1.60
&gt; 10 ( 5) 5.66 4 1.66
&gt; 11 ( 1) 5.81 4 1.81
&gt;
&gt; 151 rounds were played.
&gt;
&gt; It's interesting how good a job was done on the original SI allocation
&gt; - just a shame it hasn't been re-done according to CONGU guidelines !
&gt; (I think we break just about every one of their &quot;rules&quot;).
&gt;
&gt; --
&gt; John

I went through the same type of exercise at Lahinch two years ago. I
analysed a years worth of competitions in the process of re-assigning the
SI,s . When it came to trying to meet the CONGU recommendations, it seemed
to me that the only way to do that was to buy another site and give the
architect the CONGU book and ask him to construct a course that complied.
What we actually did was very well received by the membership, especially as
we ditched the idea that indices 15-18 must be assigned to par threes,
indices 11-14 must be assigned to par fives and the rest according to Macho
Man.

Cheers

John T

Report this message

#6: Re: SI allocation

Posted on 2006-06-01 20:55:57 by Don Lilley

&quot;John Turner&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:jgturner&#64;not.for.use.net" target="_blank">jgturner&#64;not.for.use.net</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:8PGfg.9838$<a href="mailto:j7.306944&#64;news.indigo.ie..." target="_blank">j7.306944&#64;news.indigo.ie...</a>
&gt;
&gt; &quot;John Laird&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:lairdy&#64;gmail.com" target="_blank">lairdy&#64;gmail.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:1149169374.149517.7860&#64;i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com..." target="_blank">1149169374.149517.7860&#64;i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...</a>
&gt;&gt; Having nothing better to do over lunch, I was perusing our club
&gt;&gt; competition results on <a href="http://www.howdidido.co.uk" target="_blank">http://www.howdidido.co.uk</a>
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;From our most recent (board) comp, here are our 18 in increasing order
&gt;&gt; of difficulty (SI in brackets) with the average score and par (and
&gt;&gt; difference) shown:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; 4 (18) 3.75 3 0.75
&gt;&gt; 2 (16) 4.76 4 0.76
&gt;&gt; 7 (14) 3.89 3 0.89
&gt;&gt; 15 (13) 3.94 3 0.94
&gt;&gt; 12 (11) 4.10 3 1.10
&gt;&gt; 9 (12) 5.11 4 1.11
&gt;&gt; 14 ( 9) 6.19 5 1.19
&gt;&gt; 17 (15) 5.21 4 1.21
&gt;&gt; 5 (10) 5.21 4 1.21
&gt;&gt; 13 (17) 5.23 4 1.23
&gt;&gt; 6 ( 4) 6.30 5 1.30
&gt;&gt; 1 ( 8) 5.36 4 1.36
&gt;&gt; 16 ( 3) 5.38 4 1.38
&gt;&gt; 3 ( 6) 5.39 4 1.39
&gt;&gt; 18 ( 7) 5.40 4 1.40
&gt;&gt; 8 ( 2) 5.60 4 1.60
&gt;&gt; 10 ( 5) 5.66 4 1.66
&gt;&gt; 11 ( 1) 5.81 4 1.81
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; 151 rounds were played.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; It's interesting how good a job was done on the original SI allocation
&gt;&gt; - just a shame it hasn't been re-done according to CONGU guidelines !
&gt;&gt; (I think we break just about every one of their &quot;rules&quot;).
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; --
&gt;&gt; John
&gt;
&gt; I went through the same type of exercise at Lahinch two years ago. I
&gt; analysed a years worth of competitions in the process of re-assigning the
&gt; SI,s . When it came to trying to meet the CONGU recommendations, it seemed
&gt; to me that the only way to do that was to buy another site and give the
&gt; architect the CONGU book and ask him to construct a course that complied.
&gt; What we actually did was very well received by the membership, especially
&gt; as we ditched the idea that indices 15-18 must be assigned to par threes,
&gt; indices 11-14 must be assigned to par fives and the rest according to
&gt; Macho Man.
&gt;
&gt; Cheers
&gt;
&gt; John T
My point of view as to the allocation of Si, for what it's worth!
Which results in all courses having the same Si!!
<a href="http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/donlilley/strokeindex.htm" target="_blank">http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/donlilley/strokeindex.htm</a>
Enjoy!
Don

Report this message

#7: Re: SI allocation

Posted on 2006-06-02 01:13:29 by newbryford

Don Lilley wrote:


&gt; My point of view as to the allocation of Si, for what it's worth!
&gt; Which results in all courses having the same Si!!
&gt; <a href="http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/donlilley/strokeindex.htm" target="_blank">http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/donlilley/strokeindex.htm</a>
&gt; Enjoy!
&gt; Don

If S.I. is related to the difficulty of the hole, then this is about
perfect for stableford. (I know Don has cited reasons why this may be
different for different types of player). However, this type of rating
does cause problems when the game is matchplay.
Our S.I. 1 is most definitely 1 (an uphill par 5). So why, for example,
if I'm giving 1 shot to my competitor, should I give it on SI 1? Me off
13, is easily expected to take take 6 (on average), as is my opponent
off 14 hcp.
Surely a fairer method is for me to give a shot at the hole with SI 14?
I'm expected (on average) to make par, whilst he should make a nett
par.

Similarly, If I was giving 5 shots, then they would be on SI 14-18. If
I was giving 8 shots, then that would be SI 14-18 and 1-3.

Why not use the hcp of the lowest player as a &quot;starting point&quot; for SI
and then give shots at higher SI's - continuing past 18 to 1 and up if
that's the case?

Or is that just too simple?

Cheers,
Mick

Report this message

#8: Re: SI allocation

Posted on 2006-06-02 11:07:05 by John Laird

newbryford wrote:
&gt;
&gt; Why not use the hcp of the lowest player as a &quot;starting point&quot; for SI
&gt; and then give shots at higher SI's - continuing past 18 to 1 and up if
&gt; that's the case?
&gt;
&gt; Or is that just too simple?

Back when I was a member of a new club and regarded (almost certainly
erroneously) as some kind of authority, I had to run out to the 1st tee
one morning to &quot;advise&quot; two match-play competitors who were about to do
exactly as you described. While I can sort of follow the logic, it's
way too complicated for the Average Golfer ;-)

Don's thoughts make interesting reading. I too think that precise SI
allocation is neither here nor there for Stableford comps, but would
admit that's easy to say when playing at a level when one regards
anything worse than gross bogey as not worth a point anyway.
Interestingly, when ploughing through the paperwork I had from last
year's USG event, I came across my card from the first day. Like our
Greek friend, I was out of the starting blocks rather quickly and
collected 3 birdies on my way round. All at stroke holes for me !

--
John

Report this message

#9: Re: SI allocation

Posted on 2006-06-02 17:50:12 by Denis Cary

newbryford wrote:
&gt; Don Lilley wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt; My point of view as to the allocation of Si, for what it's worth!
&gt;&gt; Which results in all courses having the same Si!!
&gt;&gt; <a href="http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/donlilley/strokeindex.htm" target="_blank">http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/donlilley/strokeindex.htm</a>
&gt;&gt; Enjoy!
&gt;&gt; Don
&gt;
&gt; If S.I. is related to the difficulty of the hole, then this is about
&gt; perfect for stableford. (I know Don has cited reasons why this may be
&gt; different for different types of player). However, this type of rating
&gt; does cause problems when the game is matchplay.
&gt; Our S.I. 1 is most definitely 1 (an uphill par 5). So why, for example,
&gt; if I'm giving 1 shot to my competitor, should I give it on SI 1? Me off
&gt; 13, is easily expected to take take 6 (on average), as is my opponent
&gt; off 14 hcp.
&gt; Surely a fairer method is for me to give a shot at the hole with SI 14?
&gt; I'm expected (on average) to make par, whilst he should make a nett
&gt; par.
&gt;
&gt; Similarly, If I was giving 5 shots, then they would be on SI 14-18. If
&gt; I was giving 8 shots, then that would be SI 14-18 and 1-3.
&gt;
&gt; Why not use the hcp of the lowest player as a &quot;starting point&quot; for SI
&gt; and then give shots at higher SI's - continuing past 18 to 1 and up if
&gt; that's the case?
&gt;
&gt; Or is that just too simple?
&gt;
&gt; Cheers,
&gt; Mick
&gt;

I am a high handicap golfer and as such I frequently receive shots at
multiple holes on courses with various SI's
I therefore am quite used to receiving comments like that expressed in
your posting about the justification of receiving shots on par 3's or as
you quoted on a difficult par 5.
Over the years I have discovered a reply that silences almost all
questions of the fairness on strokes received as a result of the SI.
My reply merely asks the low handicap player where he would prefer that
I would receive the shot I am about the receive on the hole we are about
to play. I have yet to receive an answer to my question. The truth is
that the low handicap player, understandably, does not enjoy giving a
stroke away and when he comes to Analise the course to determine where
he would like to give the strokes, he is lost. He really does not like
to give the shots. He, like us all, does not know which holes his
opponent is going to play well and which holes he is going to play badly.
Some high handicap players can hit the ball a long way and do not really
wish to be receiving a shot on a long par 5 whilst he would much rather
receive a shot on a par three. Other high handicap players would prefer
the reverse.
Of the many opinions as to where the SI's should be placed some will
suit some players but I doubt that any will suit ALL players.
The stroke index as applied to Stableford competition is irrelevant as
the same score will be achieved wherever the index is if the player
scores on all holes. It only become relevant where there is failure to
score on a hole.
Stroke Index only really matters in match play and by far the best
suggestion I have read is that all courses should have the same Index
based on even distribution over the whole of the course

Denis

Report this message

#10: Makes sense!

Posted on 2006-06-03 00:28:15 by Don Lilley

&quot;Denis Cary&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:denis.cary&#64;dsl.pipex.com" target="_blank">denis.cary&#64;dsl.pipex.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:Q8qdnbaAtKqjwx3ZnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d&#64;pipex.net..." target="_blank">Q8qdnbaAtKqjwx3ZnZ2dnUVZ8qSdnZ2d&#64;pipex.net...</a>
&gt; newbryford wrote:
&gt;&gt; Don Lilley wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt; My point of view as to the allocation of Si, for what it's worth!
&gt;&gt;&gt; Which results in all courses having the same Si!!
&gt;&gt;&gt; <a href="http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/donlilley/strokeindex.htm" target="_blank">http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/donlilley/strokeindex.htm</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt; Enjoy!
&gt;&gt;&gt; Don
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; If S.I. is related to the difficulty of the hole, then this is about
&gt;&gt; perfect for stableford. (I know Don has cited reasons why this may be
&gt;&gt; different for different types of player). However, this type of rating
&gt;&gt; does cause problems when the game is matchplay.
&gt;&gt; Our S.I. 1 is most definitely 1 (an uphill par 5). So why, for example,
&gt;&gt; if I'm giving 1 shot to my competitor, should I give it on SI 1? Me off
&gt;&gt; 13, is easily expected to take take 6 (on average), as is my opponent
&gt;&gt; off 14 hcp.
&gt;&gt; Surely a fairer method is for me to give a shot at the hole with SI 14?
&gt;&gt; I'm expected (on average) to make par, whilst he should make a nett
&gt;&gt; par.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Similarly, If I was giving 5 shots, then they would be on SI 14-18. If
&gt;&gt; I was giving 8 shots, then that would be SI 14-18 and 1-3.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Why not use the hcp of the lowest player as a &quot;starting point&quot; for SI
&gt;&gt; and then give shots at higher SI's - continuing past 18 to 1 and up if
&gt;&gt; that's the case?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Or is that just too simple?
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Cheers,
&gt;&gt; Mick
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; I am a high handicap golfer and as such I frequently receive shots at
&gt; multiple holes on courses with various SI's
&gt; I therefore am quite used to receiving comments like that expressed in
&gt; your posting about the justification of receiving shots on par 3's or as
&gt; you quoted on a difficult par 5.
&gt; Over the years I have discovered a reply that silences almost all
&gt; questions of the fairness on strokes received as a result of the SI.
&gt; My reply merely asks the low handicap player where he would prefer that I
&gt; would receive the shot I am about the receive on the hole we are about to
&gt; play. I have yet to receive an answer to my question. The truth is that
&gt; the low handicap player, understandably, does not enjoy giving a stroke
&gt; away and when he comes to Analise the course to determine where he would
&gt; like to give the strokes, he is lost. He really does not like to give the
&gt; shots. He, like us all, does not know which holes his opponent is going to
&gt; play well and which holes he is going to play badly.
&gt; Some high handicap players can hit the ball a long way and do not really
&gt; wish to be receiving a shot on a long par 5 whilst he would much rather
&gt; receive a shot on a par three. Other high handicap players would prefer
&gt; the reverse.
&gt; Of the many opinions as to where the SI's should be placed some will suit
&gt; some players but I doubt that any will suit ALL players.
&gt; The stroke index as applied to Stableford competition is irrelevant as the
&gt; same score will be achieved wherever the index is if the player scores on
&gt; all holes. It only become relevant where there is failure to score on a
&gt; hole.
&gt; Stroke Index only really matters in match play and by far the best
&gt; suggestion I have read is that all courses should have the same Index
&gt; based on even distribution over the whole of the course
&gt;
&gt; Denis

As far as I can see, And I am open to persuasion, the only time the Si
should be related to &quot;difficulty of hole&quot; (whatever that means) is in a
Bogey or parr comp. How often does that matter?
Don

Report this message

#11: Re: Makes sense!

Posted on 2006-06-03 08:41:06 by corbei

On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 22:28:15 GMT, &quot;Don Lilley&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:don.lilley&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">don.lilley&#64;ntlworld.com</a>&gt; wrote:


&gt;As far as I can see, And I am open to persuasion, the only time the Si
&gt;should be related to &quot;difficulty of hole&quot; (whatever that means) is in a
&gt;Bogey or parr comp. How often does that matter?
&gt;Don
&gt;
We had this discussion a couple of years ago and although I appeared
to be in the minority I still maintain that SI should be linked to
difficulty. Medal (Stroke play) is the only time when it supposedly
does not matter, but given that, while calculating handicap those
scores are related to S/Ford then it comes in again.

IMO the whole matter is concerned about fairness. When has golf ever
been fair. It is about competition and any time I have played the
object has been to win. Not at any cost, but how many of us have
played for a few coppers and seen the cut throat attitude come into
play. And that is with your friends in a normal bounce game.

If Fairness is the prime objective why bother with handicaps at all.
And for that matter why bother with the Rule Book, lets just all go
out for a walk and hit a few balls along the way. The general dumbing
down seems to be invading all aspects of life, dont have exams as
failure might cause a complex. Avoid competition because you may get
beat. Well Golf is competition and it is not fair, live with it.

All the people I have played with/against from this group have a fair
understanding of the game and also better than average skills. The
system is flawed in that it seems to favour those with very high
handicaps playing against those who have worked on and improved thier
game.

Rant over :-))

Regards Jaygee

Report this message

#12: Re: Makes sense!

Posted on 2006-06-03 09:41:38 by Malcolm Wadsworth

&lt;<a href="mailto:corbei&#64;post.com" target="_blank">corbei&#64;post.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:<a href="mailto:hh828256as7br1sp41tjbeqrb419g98der&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">hh828256as7br1sp41tjbeqrb419g98der&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt; On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 22:28:15 GMT, &quot;Don Lilley&quot;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:don.lilley&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">don.lilley&#64;ntlworld.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;&gt;As far as I can see, And I am open to persuasion, the only time the Si
&gt;&gt;should be related to &quot;difficulty of hole&quot; (whatever that means) is in a
&gt;&gt;Bogey or parr comp. How often does that matter?
&gt;&gt;Don
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
Rant cut
&gt;
&gt; All the people I have played with/against from this group have a fair
&gt; understanding of the game and also better than average skills. The
&gt; system is flawed in that it seems to favour those with very high
&gt; handicaps playing against those who have worked on and improved thier
&gt; game.
&gt;
&gt; Rant over :-))
&gt;
&gt; Regards Jaygee

Perhaps we should scrap SIs altogether.
Go back to Medal play being based on full gross score for the round and not
theStableford counting method.
We could then introduce a system of bisques.
For those unfamiliar with bisques, instead of receiving strokes at fixed
holes, the player decides at which holes he plays the strokes he receives.
The usual method is to declare one is taking a bisque, after a hole is
completed but before anyone tees off at the next hole.
The alternative is to declare them before the start of a hole or even before
the start of a match.

Try it when next playing your friendly 4-ball and see how you like it.

Malcolm

Report this message

#13: Re: Makes sense!

Posted on 2006-06-03 11:32:49 by corbei

On Sat, 03 Jun 2006 07:41:38 GMT, &quot;Malcolm Wadsworth&quot;
&lt;<a href="mailto:mTHEwadsworth&#64;blueCACKLEyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">mTHEwadsworth&#64;blueCACKLEyonder.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote:

&gt;

&gt;
&gt;Perhaps we should scrap SIs altogether.

No I feel we do need some type of SI, I just dont agree with the
present system of allocating them. With computer power they could be
easily found using several years input. I think the sticking point
would be the printing of cards.

&gt;Go back to Medal play being based on full gross score for the round and not
&gt;theStableford counting method.

Too slow.

&gt;We could then introduce a system of bisques.
Far too complicated for me. It might work if there was just a couple
of shots involved.


Regards Jaygee

Report this message

#14: Re: Makes sense!

Posted on 2006-06-03 12:52:31 by Santa

Malcolm Wadsworth wrote:
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:corbei&#64;post.com" target="_blank">corbei&#64;post.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:hh828256as7br1sp41tjbeqrb419g98der&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">hh828256as7br1sp41tjbeqrb419g98der&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;
&gt;&gt;On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 22:28:15 GMT, &quot;Don Lilley&quot;
&gt;&gt;&lt;<a href="mailto:don.lilley&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">don.lilley&#64;ntlworld.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;As far as I can see, And I am open to persuasion, the only time the Si
&gt;&gt;&gt;should be related to &quot;difficulty of hole&quot; (whatever that means) is in a
&gt;&gt;&gt;Bogey or parr comp. How often does that matter?
&gt;&gt;&gt;Don
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt; Rant cut
&gt;
&gt;&gt;All the people I have played with/against from this group have a fair
&gt;&gt;understanding of the game and also better than average skills. The
&gt;&gt;system is flawed in that it seems to favour those with very high
&gt;&gt;handicaps playing against those who have worked on and improved thier
&gt;&gt;game.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Rant over :-))
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;Regards Jaygee
&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Perhaps we should scrap SIs altogether.
&gt; Go back to Medal play being based on full gross score for the round and not
&gt; theStableford counting method.
&gt; We could then introduce a system of bisques.
&gt; For those unfamiliar with bisques, instead of receiving strokes at fixed
&gt; holes, the player decides at which holes he plays the strokes he receives.
&gt; The usual method is to declare one is taking a bisque, after a hole is
&gt; completed but before anyone tees off at the next hole.
&gt; The alternative is to declare them before the start of a hole or even before
&gt; the start of a match.
&gt;
&gt; Try it when next playing your friendly 4-ball and see how you like it.
&gt;
&gt; Malcolm

Bisques????

That's a pretty difficult concept to swallow, but if one did, would that
make it a 'digestive bisque' ????
..
..
..
..
..
..
Sorry Malcolm - couldn't resist. :-)

David

Report this message

#15: Re: Makes sense!

Posted on 2006-06-03 22:32:36 by unknown

Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)

Report this message

#16: Re: Makes sense!

Posted on 2006-06-04 01:16:42 by Malcolm Wadsworth

&quot;Chalky&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:ianwhyte2000&#64;yahoo.co.uk" target="_blank">ianwhyte2000&#64;yahoo.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote in message
news:4483203c$<a href="mailto:1&#64;news.greennet.net..." target="_blank">1&#64;news.greennet.net...</a>
&gt; &quot;Malcolm Wadsworth&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:mTHEwadsworth&#64;blueCACKLEyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">mTHEwadsworth&#64;blueCACKLEyonder.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote in
&gt; news:S2bgg.80144$<a href="mailto:wl.17271&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">wl.17271&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk</a>:
&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:corbei&#64;post.com" target="_blank">corbei&#64;post.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt;&gt; news:<a href="mailto:hh828256as7br1sp41tjbeqrb419g98der&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">hh828256as7br1sp41tjbeqrb419g98der&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;&gt;&gt; On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 22:28:15 GMT, &quot;Don Lilley&quot;
&gt;&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:don.lilley&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">don.lilley&#64;ntlworld.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt; Perhaps we should scrap SIs altogether.
&gt;&gt; Go back to Medal play being based on full gross score for the round
&gt;&gt; and not theStableford counting method.
&gt;&gt; We could then introduce a system of bisques.
&gt;&gt; For those unfamiliar with bisques, instead of receiving strokes at
&gt;&gt; fixed holes, the player decides at which holes he plays the strokes he
&gt;&gt; receives. The usual method is to declare one is taking a bisque, after
&gt;&gt; a hole is completed but before anyone tees off at the next hole.
&gt;&gt; The alternative is to declare them before the start of a hole or even
&gt;&gt; before the start of a match.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Try it when next playing your friendly 4-ball and see how you like it.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Malcolm
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;
&gt; Malcolm what do you mean go back to medal play not being based on the
&gt; Stableford counting method. At my club in Scotland we play one Stableford
&gt; competition a year, the rest of the competitions and medals on every
&gt; Saturday from April to September plus all Tuesday medals and Sunday
&gt; medals and Winter medals are all what I call proper medal play with every
&gt; hole finished as golf should be played in my opinion.
&gt;
&gt; --
&gt; ***************
&gt; ___,
&gt; \o
&gt; |
&gt; / \ Chalky
&gt; ***************
&gt;
I meant the way of calculating handicap changes - net differentials ignoring
strokes over a double net bogie.

BTW, for others - bisque is pronounced &quot;bisk&quot; not &quot;biscay&quot;.
Bisques are found in croquet (pronounced &quot;crowcay&quot;)
Nothing to do with shellfish soup either :-)

Regards,
Malcolm

Report this message

#17: Re: Makes sense!

Posted on 2006-06-04 20:02:36 by Chalky

&quot;Malcolm Wadsworth&quot; &lt;<a href="mailto:mTHEwadsworth&#64;blueCACKLEyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">mTHEwadsworth&#64;blueCACKLEyonder.co.uk</a>&gt; wrote in
news:S2bgg.80144$<a href="mailto:wl.17271&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk" target="_blank">wl.17271&#64;text.news.blueyonder.co.uk</a>:

&gt;
&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:corbei&#64;post.com" target="_blank">corbei&#64;post.com</a>&gt; wrote in message
&gt; news:<a href="mailto:hh828256as7br1sp41tjbeqrb419g98der&#64;4ax.com..." target="_blank">hh828256as7br1sp41tjbeqrb419g98der&#64;4ax.com...</a>
&gt;&gt; On Fri, 02 Jun 2006 22:28:15 GMT, &quot;Don Lilley&quot;
&gt;&gt; &lt;<a href="mailto:don.lilley&#64;ntlworld.com" target="_blank">don.lilley&#64;ntlworld.com</a>&gt; wrote:
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;&gt;As far as I can see, And I am open to persuasion, the only time the
&gt;&gt;&gt;Si should be related to &quot;difficulty of hole&quot; (whatever that means) is
&gt;&gt;&gt;in a Bogey or parr comp. How often does that matter?
&gt;&gt;&gt;Don
&gt;&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt;
&gt; Rant cut
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; All the people I have played with/against from this group have a
&gt;&gt; fair understanding of the game and also better than average skills.
&gt;&gt; The system is flawed in that it seems to favour those with very high
&gt;&gt; handicaps playing against those who have worked on and improved thier
&gt;&gt; game.
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Rant over :-))
&gt;&gt;
&gt;&gt; Regards Jaygee
&gt;
&gt; Perhaps we should scrap SIs altogether.
&gt; Go back to Medal play being based on full gross score for the round
&gt; and not theStableford counting method.
&gt; We could then introduce a system of bisques.
&gt; For those unfamiliar with bisques, instead of receiving strokes at
&gt; fixed holes, the player decides at which holes he plays the strokes he
&gt; receives. The usual method is to declare one is taking a bisque, after
&gt; a hole is completed but before anyone tees off at the next hole.
&gt; The alternative is to declare them before the start of a hole or even
&gt; before the start of a match.
&gt;
&gt; Try it when next playing your friendly 4-ball and see how you like it.
&gt;
&gt; Malcolm
&gt;
&gt;
&gt;

Malcolm what do you mean go back to medal play not being based on the
Stableford counting method. At my club in Scotland we play one Stableford
competition a year, the rest of the competitions and medals on every
Saturday from April to September plus all Tuesday medals and Sunday
medals and Winter medals are all what I call proper medal play with every
hole finished as golf should be played in my opinion.

--
***************
___,
\o
|
/ \ Chalky
***************

Report this message