You're probably aware that every golf course has unique Course and Slope Ratings that measure a course's difficulty for golfers of all skill levels, but did you know that each individual hole on the course is also ranked based on their difficulty? It's a process known as Stroke Index Allocation, and the purpose is to designate which specific holes on which to apply stroke indexes. You may recognize these as the string of numbers running horizontally along the scorecard, usually in the row labeled "Handicap". This is particularly crucial in formats like match play where your score on a specific hole could determine the outcome of the competition.
As is natural with any discussion of ratings or rankings, there will always be debate about how someone else evaluates the difficulty of a hole. That said, having some clarity on how the process works could provide some answers on why your opinion might not always match the scorecard. Let's play a game of "fact or fiction" with some comments that we often receive about Stroke Index Allocation:
#1: The SCGA/USGA are directly responsible for Stroke Index Allocation
First things first: who gets to decide which holes are the most difficult? Many golfers assume either the USGA or regional golf associations like the SCGA, who are responsible for Course Ratings, also set the Stroke Index Allocation. However, while golf associations generally play a role in providing data and insights based on historical rounds, the ultimate decision comes down to the Handicap Committee of the golf club(s) that call the course home.
Depending on the course, this final determination can either be from a single club or a consensus of multiple clubs that come together to discuss their extensive experience with the course. Since these clubs are made up of the golfers that play the course most frequently, they are best suited to use data and first-hand knowledge of the course to come to a determination.
Verdict: Fiction
#2: The process of allocating strokes is completely subjective.
There's always going to be some level of subjectivity when it comes to what each individual golfer considers "difficult". Whether it's long carries, narrow fairways or tight greens, everyone has different aspects of the game where they excel or struggle. So how is each hazard or challenge quantified?
Instead of looking at each hole from a subjective standpoint, the process generally begins with a holistic look at historical data. In addition to the Course Rating information, the Handicap Committee will generally look at a minimum of 400 rounds to determine which holes have the highest scores relative to par as a starting point for discussing which holes play the most difficult across the board. There can also be an additional focus on golfers that post multiple rounds at a course to see which holes routinely cause problems versus those that can be attacked strategically.
Verdict: Fiction
#3: There's a hierarchy for which type of holes rank as most difficult.
Is it true that some hole archetypes play more difficult than others? Obviously longer holes produce higher scores than shorter holes with the same par, but what about a long par 5 compared to a long par 3? In the world of Stroke Index Allocation, there is a clear hierarchy for which holes tend to play harder.
With the obvious caveat for holes with particularly challenging layouts or hazards, the order of holes broadly follows the pattern of longest to shortest. This means that par 5s tend to be among the lowest indexed holes (most difficult), whereas par 3s largely end up among the highest indexed and par 4s generally fall in the middle.
To avid golfers and followers of professional golf, this may seem counterintuitive to conventional scoring wisdom. Par 5s are generally seen as scoring opportunities while on a par 3, you're generally happy to walk away with par. Though when we consider the Stroke Index Allocation not as "which hole is a golfer most or least likely to make par" but instead as "which holes will high handicappers most need an extra stroke against a lower handicapper", it makes more sense. It's the same reasoning behind an 18 handicap getting their 3 extra strokes against a 15 handicap in match play on holes indexed 1-3 (the three hardest holes) instead of 16-18 (the three easiest holes).
On a long par 5, a skilled golfer often has the skill set to rebound from one poor shot and still have a good opportunity to reach the green in three. A more inexperienced golfer is instead relying on the unlikely occurrence of three consecutive good shots, with any one of those shots opening the opportunity for scores to skyrocket. On the flip side, a long par 3 requires a single solid shot with a long iron or wood, which is far from a guarantee for even the best golfers but also something high handicappers can still pull off from time to time. Par 3s will typically see higher scores relative to par across the board and par 5s will show a greater variance between low and high handicaps.
Verdict: Fact
#4: The allocation of each hole directly correlates to it's difficulty in relation to the rest of the holes.
If we follow the logic from the previous point, it becomes evident that Stroke Index Allocation is not necessarily designed to provide concrete ranking of holes from hardest to easiest. Instead, it aims to find the fairest throughout the round to apply stroke indexes and create a fair competition between golfers with different handicaps.
For this reason, there are specific guidelines from the USGA on how strokes should be allocated across 18 holes. To keep strokes evenly spread throughout the round, the rule of thumb is that all odd-numbered holes be placed on the front 9 and all even-numbered holes on the back 9. In special scenarios where the back 9 is significantly more difficult than the front, odds and evens can be flipped.
Furthermore, the front and back can also be divided into "triads" to divvy up the most difficult odds and evens throughout each set of 9 holes. The most difficult holes (1 & 2) start in the middle triad, with the following holes alternating between the three triads.
It may seem odd in theory, but in practice it ensures that strokes given throughout the round aren't disproportionately affected by particularly strong or poor runs of play. If the player gaining strokes comes out of the gates hot and gains all of their additional strokes during that stretch , it creates an unbalanced competition. Likewise, if the same player fades on the back 9 with no strokes to gain, the competition flames out. So even when you come across the infamous Green Mile at Quail Hollow, don't expect to get all of your strokes in one place.
Verdict: Fiction
#5: The hole ranking is universal for all handicaps and sets of tees.
Part of the beauty of the Course Rating system is that it's not only adaptable to the unique challenges each golf course presents, but it also varies based on which set of tees you decide to play. When it comes to Stroke Index Allocation, though, the number given to a hole is typically constant regardless of which set of tees you play. This is up to the discretion of the Handicap Committee, and some courses do opt to alter the allocation for separate tees or offer different allocations for men and women based on the tees they most often play, but generally the relative difficulty of a hole remains universal across tees.
When determining how to allocated strokes, the Handicap Committee will generally examine scores from the most commonly played tees for men and for women at the course with the understanding that this data will cover the largest range of handicaps. From there, it's reasonable to assume the difficulty will remain constant provided that both high and low handicap golfers will move to the tees commensurate with their skill level.
Verdict: Fact
#6: The Stroke Index Allocation should change over time
Just as courses need to be re-rated as changes are made to the course, strokes can and will be reallocated based on shifting course layouts. Whenever major alterations are made (bunkers added, trees removed, tee boxes moved forward or back, etc.), it's recommended that the Handicap Committee reevaluate the Stroke Index Allocation and adjust accordingly. Even when no changes are made to the course, the Committee will often reconvene once every five or so years to reexamine the data and determine whether outside forces (a new set of golfers playing the course, changes in equipment eliminating certain challenges, etc.) have caused their evaluation of the course to evolve.
Verdict: Fact
