Having played recently in a Better-Ball inter-club competition, I am wondering how the shots are determined between the pairs. Our opponnets had both the lowest (17) and highest (22) handicaps compared to my partner (19) and I (20). The rules of the competition state that the lowest plays off scratch, so his partner got 3 shots, I received 2 and my partner received 1 (3/4 diff). All of this makes sense to me, however when we played the index 3 hole and both I and my opponent (the higher handicapper) recorded gross 5, he claimed the hole as he received a shot here and I did not - now I understand this however question whether it is really air, given in a singles competition he would onnly receive 1 shot over me and that would obviously be the index 1 hole, so to claim a hole on me where he and I would usually be playing teh same seems a little unjust to me - am I wrong?
|
 |
 I cannot see why you think anything is unfair.  You still only gave 1 shot to this particular opponent. The fact is that you gave the shot on the SI 3 hole rather than the SI 1 hole.
|
|
Nick, just take your shots where you get them. Think of them as playing your joker.....good pairs team's generally use their shots extremely well. If you think he should only get one shot over you and should use it on index 1 then what about your mate who is getting 1 shot? - it's much simpler and fairer to say he gets 3 shots, you 2 and your mate 1. It's up to the players then to use their shots well.
|
|
 If you were playing off 3/4 then you and your partner should have both had 2 shots, to be used on SI 1 and 2, and the 22 handicapper should have had 4 shots, to be used on SI 1-4. It is fair as in singles you would not have received any shots so he would have claimed his shots on the appropriate holes.
|
|
I believe the calculations were based on 3/4 of the handicaps, so 22 = 17, 20 = 15, 19 = 14 and 17=13, with the holes then calculated based on the lowest playing off scratch, hence shots being 4,2,1,0 - well that's the way it was set-up for this comp anyway. My "issue", more of a gripe really, was that in singles I would have given him 1 shot on index 1, but in this set-up he received the shot on me on index 3 - in singles it would have been on index 1
|
|
Nick it's not about you giving him shots it's about you all receiving from the person with the lowest handicap.
|
|
 I believe the calculations were based on 3/4 of the handicaps, so 22 = 17, 20 = 15, 19 = 14 and 17=13, with the holes then calculated based on the lowest playing off scratch, hence shots being 4,2,1,0 - well that's the way it was set-up for this comp anyway. My "issue", more of a gripe really, was that in singles I would have given him 1 shot on index 1, but in this set-up he received the shot on me on index 3 - in singles it would have been on index 1
One of the usual gripes with singles matchplay is that if you are giving shots it is on the toughest holes, theoretically, where a lower handicapper would normally get shots in Stableford.
In reality the hole indexes are not always in order of difficulty but are spread over the course according to EGU recommendation. Our toughest hole by a long way is the first (I know this by looking at the eclectic scores) but it is index 10 on the card. So as the other guys have said - you get yer shots where you get yer shots and in pairs matchplay the higher handicapper gets extra shots at higher indexes - 'cos that's the way it works  .......... and you should have known he had a shot on the tee - you were playing matchplay - cruel format
|
|
 In reality the hole indexes are not always in order of difficulty but are spread over the course according to EGU recommendation.
I get the impression that they may be having second thoughts about this. In relation to how it works with stableford comps.
|
|
In reality the hole indexes are not always in order of difficulty but are spread over the course according to EGU recommendation.
I get the impression that they may be having second thoughts about this. In relation to how it works with stableford comps.
Maybe bring it up in another thread DH - would be interesting
Alan
|
|
