How does the course assign a stroke index for each hole?

This content was originally published on The Golf Journalquarterly publication for USGA members only. To be among the first to accept The Golf Journal and learning how to ensure a strong future for the game, become a USGA Member today!

After you both convert your Handicap Index to Course Handicap, you get two strokes on the side from your golfer. Now it’s time to plan some strategy, based on looking at the scorecard to remind yourself where those strokes were assigned.

Few aspects of organized golf are as misunderstood as the process of assigning holes individual stroke index values ​​for handicap purposes. In something so important to the competitive elements of the game, there are a number of misconceptions about how each hole on a particular course is rated from hardest to easiest.

Another confusion arises from the relationship between the stroke index and the Course Rating System™. In short, there is none – at least not officially. The purpose of the system is to generate two numbers: Course Rating™, which indicates the expected total score from a given set of tees for a beginning golfer on a good day, and Slope Rating®, which measures the relative difficulty of the course for all players without a scratch. Both calculations are independent of stroke index.

They work in concert, however, as a player’s Course Handicap determines which holes they receive strokes from, and the maximum number of strokes they can take on any given hole for World Handicap System (WHS) scoring purposes. As the Rules of Handicapping state, “The maximum score for each hole played is limited to a net double bogey, which equals a double bogey plus any handicap strokes you are entitled to based on your Course Handicap.”

Course Ratings are administered nationwide by a network of 55 Allied Golf Associations (AGAs), whose partners are familiar with the Course Rating process. However, those measurement groups are not ultimately responsible for determining stroke indicators.

The final decision to assign stroke-index rankings from 1 to 18 is made independently by designated study staff or committee members. As technology continues to influence the Course Rating system, however, the art form of hole handicapping has become more data-driven. Some of the guesswork has been removed from the assignment process.

“Now we use Course Rating data to provide a recommended stroke index table or stroke index values ​​for each hole, because that’s really good data,” said Scott Hovde, USGA director of Course Rating and Handicap Research.

While statistics, weather conditions, and other factors have helped provide context for how a course is measured, many of the world’s factors can be applied to all courses around the world. Hovde says, “We look at the length of the hole, the obstacles that affect scoring, how close the penalty areas are, the size of the green, the depth and spread of the bunkers, and the length of the rough, among other factors.”

This consensus, according to Hunter Koch, director of Course Ratings for the Golf Association of Michigan, allows for global ratings that guide how courses are rated in terms of difficulty. “Whether you’re in Michigan or New Zealand, everyone uses the same guide,” Koch said. “Presumably, there will be a doubling of all valuations.”

Yes, there is still room for interpretation.

The evolution of the Course Rating System and golf officials’ recommendations on hole handicaps have come a long way, thanks in large part to the data Hovde mentioned. Although the data helps provide studies with an objective assessment of the measurement process, there remains the human factor.

“We walk the courses to do field work, measuring and measuring from tee to green,” Koch said. “After that, we will play the course to see and hear it from a player’s point of view.

“On the last course, I hit three greens with really good shots from the fairway, but the ball just went off the back,” Koch recalled as an example. “That’s the definition of a tight fit,” he adds, referring to a factor that can affect hole size.

As stated in the Golf Association of Michigan handbook, “The difficulty of the green is based on the speed and slopes of the putt. Speed ​​is determined using Stimpmeter readings under mid-season playing conditions.” This data point, Koch notes, may influence how you rate the study. “So you’re wondering, are these normal course conditions, or are these unusual conditions that caused this? Is it October and it’s very dry because the greens haven’t been watered recently? Or is it just a hard green and the ball doesn’t hold?”

This is a paradox that Hovde often encounters, especially when local AGAs provide recommendations in studies about stroke index distribution. “If we were using scoring data, it would vary from month to month and produce completely different results depending on the group of players involved. Using Course Rating data is the biggest goal because it’s measurable. It’s not affected by a player’s ability to play a particular hole; we just evaluate the hole by difficulty.”

Although the WHS has worked hard to revise the stroke-index assignment process for more consistency, each subject ultimately makes their own call on the stroke-index values.

Derek McKenzie, USGA manager of Course Rating Administration and Handicapping Research, “One of the main points of emphasis is that the USGA gives recommendations based on rating data. However, the acceptance of the actual allocation of strokes is the decision of the course or the club. For example, many clubs have a committee, and it is their right to give those who think that the stroke is the best.”

This is why Course Rating and hole handicap distribution is more of a science than ever but still involves some art and local knowledge.

“We offer that recommendation,” added McKenzie. “A lot of times, the local committee just takes it or makes small changes. It’s not the USGA or the AGA that gives the stroke-index values. We come up with recommendations for the club to consider, and then they decide what they want the allocations to be.”

To help rate courses as accurately as possible, Koch relies on course staff to gain insight into whether things he notices during his fieldwork and round of golf are faults or features of the course. “We try to meet with the superintendent on site, because they know the golf course better than anyone else. For example, green speed and firm elevation are two constants that are baked into the grading process,” he said. Unfortunately, these are two variables that can vary greatly depending on when the course is played.

“If we try to balance the golf course at the end of April, the greens won’t be as fast,” Koch said. “The giants may not have grown yet. Maybe we have a dry or wet summertime. The study as you estimate it will not be a perfect representation of the average situation over 10 years. In that regard, we rely on local knowledge and experience.”

The difference between how to arrive at a Course Rating and an individual hole rating is a major source of confusion for recreational golfers. Both for the entire course and for each hole, there are several additional features that apply.

“We’re looking at all kinds of things that work for height such as height changes, doglegs or layups, height when the course is high,” Hovde said. “Those are looked at every hole, creating a cumulative 9-hole and 18-hole rating. We look at golfers’ handicaps and bogeys on those holes and create what’s called a scratch rate and a bogey rate.”

Those numbers are then compared to the par for each hole, which is a fixed number. Finally, holes that show the largest gap in expected score compared to par may produce the lowest stroke index recommendations; in other words, to identify the holes where the golfer may need the most handicap.

Other factors go into these recommendations. “We look at things like odds and evens,” said Hovde, about the decision about which nine will be given a rating of 1-3-5 etc. and which gets 2-4-6 and so on, so that the holes in the game are evenly distributed.

“Typically it’s hard on the front nine and the vens on the back nine. We have some guidelines about avoiding back-to-back low stroke holes. You don’t want the No. 1 and No. 3 stroke holes to be next to each other if possible, and we also recommend avoiding those at the beginning or end of the nine.”

This creates an interesting challenge for courses that boast difficult finishing holes. Apart from the drama it is intended to create, it can be dangerous in playing situations, as many games do not reach the 18th hole. Says Hovde, “You get to that 16th or 17th hole and you lose, and you don’t even get a chance to use that ailment that might help keep the game going.”

While the world of stroke indicators can be intimidating and has been known to cause an argument or two on the course, it’s helpful to remember that clubs have the option of using a reliable formula to target each hole.

“The measurement and evaluation data that the measurement team looks at on a hole-by-hole basis is fed into a formula that scores the projects,” McKenzie said. Therefore, the Course Rating is simply a reflection of a golfer’s expected score when measuring length and other data collected on the site. “Instead of producing those 9- or 18-holes, which are Course ratings, we break that down on a hole-by-hole basis to give a hole rating, based on difficulty,” he adds.

The next time you’re at your local course and wondering why a hole that gives you a par is rated as easy, while a hole that you have no trouble winning is listed as one of the hardest, remember that stroke index depends on club discretion. If you comply with the AGA recommendations, these numbers are informed by the data. In some clubs, however, local committees work on their own agenda and the outcome can be unpredictable.

In this sense, stroke targeting reflects the game of golf itself.