Why is a tie decided on 'the back 9'?

[DStar 1,437]

Just curious to see if anyone knows the logic behind it.

Could there be a fairer way of doing it like number of birdies, then pars etc? Seems a little harsh on someone who may have a great front 9 then a few bad holes on the back 9 against someone who may have had a bad front nine but a good back 9..

Yes, I am the former and lost out due to countback  

[Shapotomous 5,034]

I have seen it done different ways, but I always thought it made sense to start with the hardest handicap hole and go as far as needed rather than start at 18 and go backwards.

[Kenny B 33,416]

22 minutes ago, Shapotomous said:

I have seen it done different ways, but I always thought it made sense to start with the hardest handicap hole and go as far as needed rather than start at 18 and go backwards.

This is the only way I've seen it, and it seems the fairest to me.

[cnosil 25,253]

32 minutes ago, Shapotomous said:

I have seen it done different ways, but I always thought it made sense to start with the hardest handicap hole and go as far as needed rather than start at 18 and go backwards.

Is the hardest handicap hole on the front or the back?   
 

as for tie breakers, the committee should have explained/documented all tie breaking procedures prior to play but like you said, there are multiple ways to break the tie.  

[DaveP043 5,609]

If there's going to be some guidance, its going to be arbitrary.  You can find ONE method of resolving ties in section 5A(6) in Committee Procedures in the Rules of Golf.  That suggests using the score for the final round in a multi-round competition, then in order the final 9 holes, the final 6, the final 3, the 18th, etc.  Is this more or less fair than any other method?  I wouldn't say that.  Is another method more fair?  I wouldn't say that either, its arbitrary.  Someone is going to win, someone is going to lose, and the loser would always prefer that a different way of resolving ties is used.

As for using the "hardest" handicap hole, wouldn't that give the advantage to the higher handicapper in a net competition?  Simplified, I feel that a 9 handicapper has about a half-stroke advantage on every hole, as compared to an 18.  When you apply 9 handicap strokes, the 18 has a half-stroke edge on 9 holes where he gets a stroke, the better player has a half-stroke edge on the remaining 9 holes.  So breaking ties based on the #1 handicap hole gives an edge to the 18 handicapper.  Is that more fair?

4 hours ago, DStar said:

Could there be a fairer way of doing it like number of birdies, then pars etc?

Wouldn't this favor a more erratic player, one who makes a bunch of birdies and a bunch of doubles?  Why not look at the fewest doubles?  Neither is more or less fair, but each one favors a different type of player.  

[ballhawk 41]

We stopped that front vs back or hardest hdcp hole with a very easy solution................A playoff.....

[scooterhd2 869]

Hardest cap hole regardless what 9 it is on. 

[DaveP043 5,609]

1 hour ago, scooterhd2 said:

Hardest cap hole regardless what 9 it is on. 

Have you read the recommendation in the Rules of Golf?

[alfriday101 1,150]

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

 

As for using the "hardest" handicap hole, wouldn't that give the advantage to the higher handicapper in a net competition?  Simplified, I feel that a 9 handicapper has about a half-stroke advantage on every hole, as compared to an 18.  When you apply 9 handicap strokes, the 18 has a half-stroke edge on 9 holes where he gets a stroke, the better player has a half-stroke edge on the remaining 9 holes.  So breaking ties based on the #1 handicap hole gives an edge to the 18 handicapper.  Is that more fair?

 

Doesn’t this cut the other way?

 

Both a 1 handicap and an 18 handicap (and all golfers in between) would get a stroke on the hardest hole, they would cancel each other out.  It seems to me it would favor the lower handicap golfer.  
 

 

[DaveP043 5,609]

6 minutes ago, alfriday101 said:

Doesn’t this cut the other way?

Both a 1 handicap and an 18 handicap (and all golfers in between) would get a stroke on the hardest hole, they would cancel each other out.  It seems to me it would favor the lower handicap golfer.  

You're right, I was thinking of stroking off the low, rather than full strokes.  To me, the USGA's suggestion minimizes the advantage that one handicap group has over the other, in a way that a hole by hole card-off can't do.

[scooterhd2 869]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

Have you read the recommendation in the Rules of Golf?

Probably not to be honest. I was assuming gross and thats just how we've always done it. 

[DaveP043 5,609]

4 minutes ago, scooterhd2 said:

Probably not to be honest. I was assuming gross and thats just how we've always done it. 

Yeah, I remember doing it that way too, I don't know whether that was tradition or something recommended by the USGA at the time or something else.  Would you do it differently if it was a net competition?

[scooterhd2 869]

1 hour ago, DaveP043 said:

Yeah, I remember doing it that way too, I don't know whether that was tradition or something recommended by the USGA at the time or something else.  Would you do it differently if it was a net competition?

Not sure that I've played in a comp like that. Mostly everything is gross or has two categories that I engage in. But off the top of my head, wouldnt score on the hardest holes give the advantage to the better player (so long as they are not a plus or true scratch)? A 3 handicap, gets a stroke on the 3 hardest holes. A 18 handicap gets a stroke on every hole, including the 3 hardest holes. If we look at the hardest hole, both players get a stroke. So the better player just has to beat the higher handicap player gross on that hole. If there is a series of ties, the advantage would go to the higher handicap player once the better player no longer got a stroke, so the 4th hardest in this example. 

 

[DaveP043 5,609]

2 hours ago, scooterhd2 said:

Not sure that I've played in a comp like that. Mostly everything is gross or has two categories that I engage in. But off the top of my head, wouldnt score on the hardest holes give the advantage to the better player (so long as they are not a plus or true scratch)? A 3 handicap, gets a stroke on the 3 hardest holes. A 18 handicap gets a stroke on every hole, including the 3 hardest holes. If we look at the hardest hole, both players get a stroke. So the better player just has to beat the higher handicap player gross on that hole. If there is a series of ties, the advantage would go to the higher handicap player once the better player no longer got a stroke, so the 4th hardest in this example. 

Agree, @alfriday101 pointed out my error a couple of posts back.  No matter how it works, with any kind of hole-by-hole card matching, one of the players has an advantage.  That's why I think the USGA method, comparing the last 9 holes, then the last 6, the last 3, the last hole, minimizes the advantage for any individual player based on handicap level.  Handicap strokes are spread throughout the larger number of holes being compared.

[scooterhd2 869]

56 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

Agree, @alfriday101 pointed out my error a couple of posts back.  No matter how it works, with any kind of hole-by-hole card matching, one of the players has an advantage.  That's why I think the USGA method, comparing the last 9 holes, then the last 6, the last 3, the last hole, minimizes the advantage for any individual player based on handicap level.  Handicap strokes are spread throughout the larger number of holes being compared.

Gotcha. I see what you are saying. I'm admittedly biased toward the better player winning. Net comps already favor the higher caps. If there's a tie, I'd rather the better player win. 

[DaveP043 5,609]

12 hours ago, scooterhd2 said:

Net comps already favor the higher caps

We could talk about this forever, and perhaps never agree.  I've read studies that show higher and lower handicaps win money in approximate proportion to their representation in an event.  But there are LOTS more higher handicappers than lower, so the higher handicappers take a LOT more money.  

[scooterhd2 869]

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

We could talk about this forever, and perhaps never agree.  I've read studies that show higher and lower handicaps win money in approximate proportion to their representation in an event.  But there are LOTS more higher handicappers than lower, so the higher handicappers take a LOT more money.  

Thats a good point, and not an angle that I have thought about before.

Here's a good one that actually happened to my father in law 10 years ago or so. 2 man best ball tournament at Pebble Beach. He and his partner are 6-10 handicaps. It's a 2 day tournament, and both days these guys are on a heater, ham and egging it perfectly. They end up with a score several under par. When they get back to the clubhouse after the second round, its clear that they crushed the net field. But they soon realize they tied a team of scratch golfers for gross as well. The tournaments heads didn't seem to have any procedures for the tie and defaulted to giving them the net trophy and the 'better team' the gross trophy. They are in a room with an open bar, buffet, couple hundred people at Pebble, so they werent going to throw a fit, but my father in law is still pissed to this day. He wanted some effort to check a tie breaker because he wanted that gross title. 

[Zugger01 0]

Being a high school golfer. At tournaments we always do card backs when we do with the hardest handicap hole. unless at certain tournaments when we do sudden death playoffs. But we as high school golfers always enjoy a good play off. I fully believe that when there is a tie at medalist there should be a play off. In Scooter's case, I don't know how that would work with strokes or not. But their should of did a play off.

[DaveP043 5,609]

3 hours ago, Zugger01 said:

Being a high school golfer. At tournaments we always do card backs when we do with the hardest handicap hole. unless at certain tournaments when we do sudden death playoffs. But we as high school golfers always enjoy a good play off. I fully believe that when there is a tie at medalist there should be a play off. In Scooter's case, I don't know how that would work with strokes or not. But their should of did a play off.

I'll agree with you and a number of others, an actual playoff is the best way to handle a tie for the top spot.  But there are times where a playoff isn't practical, think about a small competition at a public course, they're not going to clear the first tee for you to go back out.  Or maybe the organizers prefer not to split secondary prize money, you might do a match of cards for thirds place.  The RoG provide a suggested method for a card-off, but that's not a requirement.  I think the RoG method is reasonably fair, particularly in any kind of net competition.