In 2025, as Director of Golf, I introduced a Singles Handicap Matchplay event. The club already had a Matchplay event but it was only open to 8 seeded players based on results from the previous year.
So for this event it would seem logical that, as it was NOT a Stroke play event (SS – Slope System), but rather a Matchplay event we should use our Matchplay Index (MP). Seems sensible and logical on the surface doesn’t it?
But the reality is a little different.
First, some history. In January of 2014, Golf Australia introduced, and recommended (it has NEVER been mandatory), that all Golf Clubs use Golf Australia’s new MP index for any and all Matchplay events. They argued that their MP index is designed to ensure that if you are receiving strokes, they occur on holes that are likely to be reached before the match ends. Key features include:
- Balanced Distribution: It avoids placing “Index 1” on the first or last hole. Instead, the first stroke is typically allocated to the 8th hole.
- Even Spread: Strokes are spread across the front and back nines to prevent a player from receiving all their shots in a single stretch of holes.
- Neutralizing “The Turn”: By placing early strokes in the middle of the nines, it ensures matches don’t end prematurely just because a player received a cluster of shots early on.
This MP Index was considered especially helpful (instead of using the Stroke Index) if the course had a few of its hardest holes very early in the 18.
Interestingly though, Gin Gin’s hardest 6 of 18 holes are very evenly spread across the 18 with the following distribution:
Front Nine: Hole 2 = 2nd hardest; Hole 4 = 6 hardest; Hole 9 – 4 hardest
Back Nine: Hole 12 = 3rd hardest; Hole 15 = 1st hardest; Hole 18 = 5th hardest.
Thus, Gin Gin has always had an even balance of the hardest holes, so in terms of the reasons the Matchplay index was introduced, it was never necessary at Gin Gin and, to repeat, it was never mandatory either.
Also, in a close match where the difference is only 1 or 2 holes the MP Index could theoretically give a different result than using the Stroke Index. Where the winner is 3+ holes ahead it is unlikely to make any difference to the outcome.
So the more important question. it would seem is, which is fairer at Gin Gin specifically?
Also a relevant question is which is more manageable as well.
It may also be worth explaining how the shots are allocated as well:
If Player A is on a 6 handicap and Player B is on a 16 handicap, then the difference in 10 strokes. In a Stableford or Par/Bogey event for example, Player A gets his strokes on the 6 hardest holes and Player B gets his on the 16 hardest. Thus the only 2 holes player B does not get a stroke on are the 17th and 18th ranked holes. For the Stroke Index these are holes 13 and 3. For the MP Index it’s holes 17 and 1 respectively.
But in matchplay Player B only get 10 shots from Player A. Thus, they only get shots on the holes ranked 1 to 10 and NOT on holes 11-16 as they would in a Stableford Competition.
Fairness:
The MP index rates the 1st hole at 18 (i.e. the easiest). Any Gin Gin player up to a 16 handicap, if in a match against our +2 golfer is likely to lose this hole 8-9 times out of 10, as our +2 golfer very often drives this green and is putting for an eagle and it seems he almost always gets a birdie. At the same time few golfers on a 6-16 handicap birdie it very often.
So, they would most likely lose the first hole. Further, as the 15th (a very hard hole for almost all our golfers) has an MP of 13, any golfer on a 11 handicap or lower would not get a shot against our +2 golfer, who also regularly pars it whereas even some of our 6 handicappers normally bogey it at best.
But instead, when the Stroke Index is used the hardest holes are where our golfers are most in need of strokes in a matchplay event against a +2 or better golfer, and in turn it is where they get their shots.
So I would argue (and these are only two of many examples), that the Stroke Index is generally fairer.
Management:
But also it is operationally much easier to administer as well. Now that we use OneGolf for our competitions our printed cards only have the Stroke Index on them and not the Matchplay Index. Thus, the Stroke Index is much more convenient and also more economical for the club as we don’t have to purchase more of the old cards that still have the MP listed on them (or pay for a much more expensive version of OneGolf that includes the MP Index).
To repeat, the Case for Staying with the Stroke Index (SS):
In smaller clubs without full digital automation, “Simplicity is King.”
- Reduced Confusion: As our scorecards only have the SS printed, members—especially older members or those less tech-savvy—will naturally default to it. Asking them to refer to a separate sheet or a tiny table printed separately could lead to confusion and even more scoring disputes.
- Visual Alignment: Players can clearly see “Hole 4 is Index 6,” so they know exactly where the shot is given without doing mental gymnastics.
- Administrative Ease: The club does not need to print separate reference sheets or “Matchplay Index” stickers for the cards, or use up the last of our old cards which we use for visiting Green Fee players.
To further clarify that the MP is not mandatory, as the Rules of Golf state that handicap strokes are given at holes designated by the “match index specified by the Committee” (Rule 3.2c) and hence, If our club’s local “Conditions of Competition” specify that the Stroke Index is used for all handicapped events, then that is the rule for our club, and it has been for over 12 months now.
As it seems many are confused about this issue and perhaps would prefer using the MP Index, I hope this overview at least explains why we currently use the Stroke Index at the Gin Gin Golf Club
Paul Herring, Director of Golf (2024-2026), Gin Gin Golf Club
26th April 2026