9 Hole cards

[pendodave]

I've been a bit lax about getting cards in recently, as we don't often play 18 holes (our course makes it easy to do any number from 8 up to 15).
So I decided to do a card for the 1st 9 on our course to get something up-to-date on the records.
Now, our front 9 is easier than our back 9, and the slope/handicap reflects that (it's 1 shot lower with a slope that is 4 lower). However, this doesn't really match my own reality, which is that over the years of HDID I've actually played the front 9 2.5 shots lower than the back 9.
The upshot of playing only 9 holes, there (finally) being a bit of run, and a couple of long putts meant that I recorded a very decent score and was cut accordingly. Which wasn't really in the plan, but hey-ho.

I have a couple of questions :

Should 9 hole cards have a couple of shots tagged on for just being a lot easier to play in general - ie. 2 hours instead of 4 hours?
Does the lower number of holes increase variance and therefore (given that the handicap is calculated from the best 8 from 20) lead to a lower handicap?
Given that most people will have a preferred 9, do 9 hole cards make it easier to legally manipulate your 'cap? I could make my handicap 1.5 shots lower or higher (which is not to be sniffed at) without any misbehaviour.

 

[Orikoru]

I'm sure you get less than half your handicap just playing nine holes due to the fact that it's easier to play well for nine holes than for eighteen. For example at my course I'm 14 CH off the whites, but for front nine only I get 6 shots. The back nine is still 7 shots though.

I'm sure there are people manipulating that way - i.e. playing 18 holes but just putting in a 9-hole card, whether it be the better nine or the worse nine depending on which way they want their handicap to go. But WHS and My England Golf allows you to manipulate a vast multitude of ways anyway, that's one of them.

 

[Swango1980]

I've been a bit lax about getting cards in recently, as we don't often play 18 holes (our course makes it easy to do any number from 8 up to 15).
So I decided to do a card for the 1st 9 on our course to get something up-to-date on the records.
Now, our front 9 is easier than our back 9, and the slope/handicap reflects that (it's 1 shot lower with a slope that is 4 lower). However, this doesn't really match my own reality, which is that over the years of HDID I've actually played the front 9 2.5 shots lower than the back 9.
The upshot of playing only 9 holes, there (finally) being a bit of run, and a couple of long putts meant that I recorded a very decent score and was cut accordingly. Which wasn't really in the plan, but hey-ho.

I have a couple of questions :

Should 9 hole cards have a couple of shots tagged on for just being a lot easier to play in general - ie. 2 hours instead of 4 hours?
Does the lower number of holes increase variance and therefore (given that the handicap is calculated from the best 8 from 20) lead to a lower handicap?
Given that most people will have a preferred 9, do 9 hole cards make it easier to legally manipulate your 'cap? I could make my handicap 1.5 shots lower or higher (which is not to be sniffed at) without any misbehaviour.

Is it your perception that you should get around 2.5 shots lower for the front 9, rather than just the 1 shot? If so, are you measuring the fact you are 2.5 shots lower on the front 9 based on all scores played on front and back, or just your best 40% of scores on each 9?

 

[rulefan]

I've been a bit lax about getting cards in recently, as we don't often play 18 holes (our course makes it easy to do any number from 8 up to 15).
So I decided to do a card for the 1st 9 on our course to get something up-to-date on the records.
Now, our front 9 is easier than our back 9, and the slope/handicap reflects that (it's 1 shot lower with a slope that is 4 lower). However, this doesn't really match my own reality, which is that over the years of HDID I've actually played the front 9 2.5 shots lower than the back 9.
The upshot of playing only 9 holes, there (finally) being a bit of run, and a couple of long putts meant that I recorded a very decent score and was cut accordingly. Which wasn't really in the plan, but hey-ho.

I have a couple of questions :

Should 9 hole cards have a couple of shots tagged on for just being a lot easier to play in general - ie. 2 hours instead of 4 hours?
Does the lower number of holes increase variance and therefore (given that the handicap is calculated from the best 8 from 20) lead to a lower handicap?
Given that most people will have a preferred 9, do 9 hole cards make it easier to legally manipulate your 'cap? I could make my handicap 1.5 shots lower or higher (which is not to be sniffed at) without any misbehaviour.

Remember, that if you are only playing 9 holes, there is a new algorithm which calculates an expected score for the unplayed 9 which will go towards your theoretical 18 hole score and potentially your Index.
The formula has not been made public but anecdotally suggest that the other 9 could be a couple of shots better than you might expect.

 

[D-S]

Beforehand they basically added 17 points to your first 9 score to get your 18 hole differential. I believe that the new algorithm adds effectively less than this so 9 hole score now achieve higher differentials than before the change.

 

[pendodave]

Is it your perception that you should get around 2.5 shots lower for the front 9, rather than just the 1 shot? If so, are you measuring the fact you are 2.5 shots lower on the front 9 based on all scores played on front and back, or just your best 40% of scores on each 9?

Good question.
That's just my stroke average over all my recorded rounds.
When I get the chance, I'll look at the best 40%. My guess is that it's even more skewed.

 

[Swango1980]

Good question.
That's just my stroke average over all my recorded rounds.
When I get the chance, I'll look at the best 40%. My guess is that it's even more skewed.

Your scores should be more skewed when you take all scores into account. Because it includes the very bad scores, which tend to become much worse than your scoring potential. So, they become a lot worse on a "harder" course
only
Once you take the top 40%, they should be tighter. Because, front or back 9, they were rounds you actually played pretty well, or very well. So, if there was a 2.5 shot difference for the average of all scores, it could well be a 1 shot difference (ish) with your best rounds only

 

[Ye Olde Boomer]

I'm pretty sure that if golf had been invented in America, it would have been a nine hole game.
There are nine innings in baseball.
Nine holes take about two hours like almost any other recreational sports activity.

It would be easy to split a parkland course into two with their "front and back" layout.
A links course with an "out and in" layout might be a bit trickier, at least without "buggies,"
which is your cool word for golf carts, apparently.

Do your pro shops sell staff bags, carry bags, stand bags and BUGGY bags?
Is my Titleist Cart 15 bag sold as the Buggy 15 bag in the UK?

 

[rosecott]

I'm sure you get less than half your handicap just playing nine holes due to the fact that it's easier to play well for nine holes than for eighteen. For example at my course I'm 14 CH off the whites, but for front nine only I get 6 shots. The back nine is still 7 shots though.

I'm sure there are people manipulating that way - i.e. playing 18 holes but just putting in a 9-hole card, whether it be the better nine or the worse nine depending on which way they want their handicap to go. But WHS and My England Golf allows you to manipulate a vast multitude of ways anyway, that's one of them.

Surely when you pre-register a GP round you must specify either 18 holes, front 9 or back 9. You can't decide afterwards.

 

[Orikoru]

Surely when you pre-register a GP round you must specify either 18 holes, front 9 or back 9. You can't decide afterwards.

We were talking about people manipulating - they just put the card in after the round.

 

[jim8flog]

I'm pretty sure that if golf had been invented in America, it would have been a nine hole game.
There are nine innings in baseball.
Nine holes take about two hours like almost any other recreational sports activity.

It would be easy to split a parkland course into two with their "front and back" layout.
A links course with an "out and in" layout might be a bit trickier, at least without "buggies,"
which is your cool word for golf carts, apparently.

Do your pro shops sell staff bags, carry bags, stand bags and BUGGY bags?
Is my Titleist Cart 15 bag sold as the Buggy 15 bag in the UK?

we, effectively, have an out and back for the holes so do not allow 9 holes cards for handicap purposes (we have a 9 hole course as well)

We sell all manner of golf bags.

Personally these days I wish a round of golf was 15 holes (convenient place to walk in and avoids a big up hill on the 17th hole).

 

[rosecott]

We were talking about people manipulating - they just put the card in after the round.

Then your committee are not doing their job - the tools exist to do the job properly.

 

[Orikoru]

Then your committee are not doing their job - the tools exist to do the job properly.

This is what I'm saying - with the England Golf app you enter a card and a mate signs it off. Not sure the committee has anything to do with it. How would they know if you pre-registered or not when you do it through the app?

 

[wjemather]

This is what I'm saying - with the England Golf app you enter a card and a mate signs it off. Not sure the committee has anything to do with it. How would they know if you pre-registered or not when you do it through the app?

The handicap committee has access to a report that lists registration time, score entry time, attester, method (ISV/MyEG), etc.

 

[Orikoru]

The handicap committee has access to a report that lists registration time, score entry time, attester, method (ISV/MyEG), etc.

I don't think anyone is looking at these are they??

 

[wjemather]

I don't think anyone is looking at these are they??

Yes. All handicap committees that are doing their job properly (which is most of them) are checking reports regularly.

 

[rosecott]

I don't think anyone is looking at these are they??

I do.

 

[rulefan]

I don't think anyone is looking at these are they??

Our committee chairs (M & W) do.

 

[D-S]

I do.

So you cross refer every GP card with the start sheet to ensure it is downloaded prior to play? Also do you cross refer the presence of every attester? I assume you have a start sheet every day? Not sure how this can be done with clubs who don’t use start sheets every day.
At anywhere around 20 or more GP cards per day at a typical sized club, this is pretty onerous if it is done completely/thoroughly on a daily basis.

 

[Orikoru]

So you cross refer every GP card with the start sheet to ensure it is downloaded prior to play? Also do you cross refer the presence of every attester? I assume you have a start sheet every day? Not sure how this can be done with clubs who don’t use start sheets every day.
At anywhere around 20 or more GP cards per day at a typical sized club, this is pretty onerous if it is done completely/thoroughly on a daily basis.

Yeah, I find it hard to believe that very many committees have the time, the inclination, or the tools/ability to actually verify every general play card put in on the app. How the hell would they know if it was pre-registered or not? At my club the 'start sheet' is simply a bit of paper that you write your name in the box - but typically only one name goes in, it's just 'Dave +3' for example for Dave's group going off that particular tee. So there is no evidence when most players teed off. The only purpose is to reserve your place in the queue for a tee.