9 hole general play handicap
- Thread starter Kennysarmy
- Start date
In that illustration Par is 35, CR is 36.0 and SR for the nine holes played is 126. The player's HI is 14.2.
Any HI from 14.0 to 14.7 produces 9h-CH of 9 and 18h-CH of 18.
But HI from 13.5 to 13.9 produces 9h-CH of 9 and 18h-CH of 17.
If the example had chosen an HI in this range the scaled-up nine holes would be one shot less.
The formula for the scaling-up nine holes is an attempt to produce a "typical" score for players according to their HI.
Players in the range 13.5 to 13.9 are thus given a one-shot-lower score than players in the 14.0 to 14.7 range.
This way, the scaled-up scores and resulting differentials increase up the HI ranges in a reasonable way.
Giving everyone the same CH for the scaling-up nine as their played 9 produces less reasonable steps across the HI ranges.
In the OP's case,
HI from 5.4 to 5.8 produces 9h-CH of 4 and 18h-CH of 9.
HI from 5.9 to 6.2 produces 9h-CH of 5 and 18h-CH of 9. (The OP is in this range)
HI from 6.3 to 7.1 produces 9h-CH of 5 and 18h-CH of 10. (The OP is NOT in this range)
I will repeat myself.
Sometimes the 18h-CH is double the 9h-CH.
Sometimes it is one shot more than double.
Sometimes it is one shot less than double.
Any HI from 14.0 to 14.7 produces 9h-CH of 9 and 18h-CH of 18.
But HI from 13.5 to 13.9 produces 9h-CH of 9 and 18h-CH of 17.
If the example had chosen an HI in this range the scaled-up nine holes would be one shot less.
The formula for the scaling-up nine holes is an attempt to produce a "typical" score for players according to their HI.
Players in the range 13.5 to 13.9 are thus given a one-shot-lower score than players in the 14.0 to 14.7 range.
This way, the scaled-up scores and resulting differentials increase up the HI ranges in a reasonable way.
Giving everyone the same CH for the scaling-up nine as their played 9 produces less reasonable steps across the HI ranges.
In the OP's case,
HI from 5.4 to 5.8 produces 9h-CH of 4 and 18h-CH of 9.
HI from 5.9 to 6.2 produces 9h-CH of 5 and 18h-CH of 9. (The OP is in this range)
HI from 6.3 to 7.1 produces 9h-CH of 5 and 18h-CH of 10. (The OP is NOT in this range)
I will repeat myself.
Sometimes the 18h-CH is double the 9h-CH.
Sometimes it is one shot more than double.
Sometimes it is one shot less than double.
Last edited:
Are they wrong, then?
The on-line calculators I have seen and used agree with me. I would think they have been created by people who read the rules and the formulas and abided by the wording.
If I am wrong and everyone's scaled-up-nine CH is simply the same as their played-nine CH, then the wording "based on the 18-hole handicap" is being contravened.
As I said before, it would be a simple matter to have the wording "same as the CH for the nine holes played" but this is not the wording in the rules.
If it were a simple match then, in the OP's case, everyone in the HI range 5.9 to 7.5 would be given the same scaled-up-nine score. I do not think this produces reasonable results.
In the OP's case his 18-hole handicap is 9 and he's been given 5 for the 9-holes played.
Giving him 5 (again) for the scaled-up-nine, gives him an 18-hole handicap of 10. This contravenes the wording, "based on 18-hole handicap".
The on-line calculators I have seen and used agree with me. I would think they have been created by people who read the rules and the formulas and abided by the wording.
If I am wrong and everyone's scaled-up-nine CH is simply the same as their played-nine CH, then the wording "based on the 18-hole handicap" is being contravened.
As I said before, it would be a simple matter to have the wording "same as the CH for the nine holes played" but this is not the wording in the rules.
If it were a simple match then, in the OP's case, everyone in the HI range 5.9 to 7.5 would be given the same scaled-up-nine score. I do not think this produces reasonable results.
In the OP's case his 18-hole handicap is 9 and he's been given 5 for the 9-holes played.
Giving him 5 (again) for the scaled-up-nine, gives him an 18-hole handicap of 10. This contravenes the wording, "based on 18-hole handicap".
Last edited:
Or dotgolf is correct, and you are wrong. Which seems most likely?
I have explained and provided an example of how this could work (#31) - with CHs calculated as per the rules (and not always being equal), and producing differentials consistent with those produced by dotgolf.
As to the highlighted part, using your methodology and the OP as an example (and assuming the values you posted in #42 are correct):
I have explained and provided an example of how this could work (#31) - with CHs calculated as per the rules (and not always being equal), and producing differentials consistent with those produced by dotgolf.
As to the highlighted part, using your methodology and the OP as an example (and assuming the values you posted in #42 are correct):
those in the HI range 5.4 to 6.8 (9hCH = 4, 18hCH = 9) would be allocated 5 strokes on the second 9, for an adjusted gross of 41
those in the HI range 5.9 to 6.2 (9hCH = 5, 18hCH = 9) would be allocated 4 strokes on the second 9, for an adjusted gross of 40
i.e. the "neutral" second 9 score for lower handicappers would be a stroke greater than for higher handicappers, so the lower handicapper needs to record a stroke fewer on the 9 holes played in order to achieve the same differential. Does that seem reasonable?
Last edited:
Yes.
Last edited:
What a convoluted and unnecessary wording is the "9 nett pars plus one shot"?
All that needs to said is "Par + CH + 1", if everyone's scaling-up 9hCH is the same as the 9-holes-played CH.
I believe the "9 nett pars plus one shot" wording IS necessary because not everyone's scaling-up 9hCH is the same as the 9-holes-played CH, if you apply the wording and formulas correctly.
All that needs to said is "Par + CH + 1", if everyone's scaling-up 9hCH is the same as the 9-holes-played CH.
I believe the "9 nett pars plus one shot" wording IS necessary because not everyone's scaling-up 9hCH is the same as the 9-holes-played CH, if you apply the wording and formulas correctly.
Last edited:
To summarise,
The OP played nine holes in 2.8 shots over the CR and he has a HI of 6.0.
The "stand alone" differential for this score is 2.5.
To me, he has clearly played below his HI, albeit for nine holes only.
A differential of 5.8 is below his HI and is reasonable.
A differential of 6.7 is above his HI and is unreasonable.
The OP played nine holes in 2.8 shots over the CR and he has a HI of 6.0.
The "stand alone" differential for this score is 2.5.
To me, he has clearly played below his HI, albeit for nine holes only.
A differential of 5.8 is below his HI and is reasonable.
A differential of 6.7 is above his HI and is unreasonable.
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2018
- Messages
- 910
Intelligent GOlf have just announced that DotGolf have changed the way that they have calculated some 9 hole scores. I wonder if the OP's score has changed as a result?
We were made aware by a number of customers that some players had a handicap index change applied in the overnight process yesterday, despite having not played golf for some time.
We immediately contacted DotGolf to ask for an explanation, please see below;
In the last 24-48 hours, some golfers who have played 9 hole rounds and have scores recorded within WHS may have seen a slight change in their handicap index.
This is a result of a challenge to the interpretation of the technical specification of WHS regarding the 9 hole score differential, and after discussion and agreement with the Unions, and to ensure that players’ handicap index are correctly calculated, any affected 9 hole score differentials have been re-calculated and changes applied to players’ scoring records.
Note not all golfers are affected, not all golfers with 9H scores in their latest 20 scores will have a change to HI, and the change for most golfers will be minimal.
We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused and for the lack of advance notice.
If you have any further queries regarding this, please contact your Union support team who may be able to look at individual cases.
intelligentgolf
We were made aware by a number of customers that some players had a handicap index change applied in the overnight process yesterday, despite having not played golf for some time.
We immediately contacted DotGolf to ask for an explanation, please see below;
In the last 24-48 hours, some golfers who have played 9 hole rounds and have scores recorded within WHS may have seen a slight change in their handicap index.
This is a result of a challenge to the interpretation of the technical specification of WHS regarding the 9 hole score differential, and after discussion and agreement with the Unions, and to ensure that players’ handicap index are correctly calculated, any affected 9 hole score differentials have been re-calculated and changes applied to players’ scoring records.
Note not all golfers are affected, not all golfers with 9H scores in their latest 20 scores will have a change to HI, and the change for most golfers will be minimal.
We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused and for the lack of advance notice.
If you have any further queries regarding this, please contact your Union support team who may be able to look at individual cases.
intelligentgolf
This is a result of a challenge to the interpretation of the technical specification of WHS regarding the 9 hole score differential
Very interesting.
More details of exactly what that challenge was, and exactly what the changes were, would be even more interesting.
Very interesting.
More details of exactly what that challenge was, and exactly what the changes were, would be even more interesting.
Thread starter
#52
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
- Messages
- 673
EG have edited my score differential to 5.8 !!!!!!!
Maybe they've found a bug in their software?
Maybe they've found a bug in their software?
Thread starter
#53
- Joined
- May 2, 2011
- Messages
- 673
Hi Jeff,
In the last 48 hours, some golfers who have played 9 hole rounds within WHS may have seen a slight change in their handicap index. This is a result of a challenge to the interpretation of the technical specification of WHS regarding the 9 hole score differential. To ensure that players handicap index are correctly calculated all 9 hole score differentials have been re-calculated and changes applied to players scoring records.
The change for most golfers will be minimal and once applied will be correctly calculated moving forward.
We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused and for the lack of advanced notice.
Paul Deacon
In the last 48 hours, some golfers who have played 9 hole rounds within WHS may have seen a slight change in their handicap index. This is a result of a challenge to the interpretation of the technical specification of WHS regarding the 9 hole score differential. To ensure that players handicap index are correctly calculated all 9 hole score differentials have been re-calculated and changes applied to players scoring records.
The change for most golfers will be minimal and once applied will be correctly calculated moving forward.
We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused and for the lack of advanced notice.
Paul Deacon
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2018
- Messages
- 910
Perhaps they have been reading this thread?
Are you and @wjemather convinced by my explanation?
It would appear that the spreadsheet that I created over 18 months ago for this purpose is correct.
It would appear that the spreadsheet that I created over 18 months ago for this purpose is correct.
You appear to still be missing the point. The wording of the rule is imprecise and leaves the methodology open to interpretation, so there is more than one "correct" method (interestingly, it also is not the same methodology as other jurisdictions that scale up 9-hole scores use). From the explanation given by EG, the method that was being used by dotgolf (same 9hCH used for second 9) was clearly not in accordance with the rules. However by now using the same methodology as the example in CONGU's guidance (that you insist is the only correct method), a different anomaly has been created (as I touched on earlier in this thread).
Hi all, just joined this as was searching on Google for some text received from EG, and (lo and behold) it was replicated here.
Here is my email exchange:
Me (Weds 6th):
Hi there,
I note that my WHS index has changed overnight since yesterday and is due to a 'recalculated' differential in relation to a 9-hole round I played in Feb this year.
Looking at my entire history, I have five 9-hole rounds and three of them show different differentials than they did yesterday.
Why have these changed?
EG (today):
Hi Alex,
In the last 36 hours, some golfers who have played 9 hole rounds within WHS may have seen a slight change in their handicap index. This is a result of a challenge to the interpretation of the technical specification of WHS regarding the 9 hole score differential. To ensure that players handicap index are correctly calculated all 9 hole score differentials have been re-calculated and changes applied to players scoring records.
The change for most golfers will be minimal and once applied will be correctly calculated moving forward.
We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused and for the lack of advanced notice.
Carol Price
Me (today 2pm):
Hi Carol,
Many thanks for your reply, could you please let me know what the new calculation is?
Previously, I believe it was actual (adjusted) gross score for 9 holes played + net par for remaining 9 holes + 1 stroke.
Many thanks,
Alex
EG (3pm):
Hi Alex,
Unfortunately at the present time we have not been given the corrected calculation but can assure you it is now correct.
Regards,
Carol Price
So, my spreadsheet (that has been correct for 12 months) is no longer correct and the governing body can't even tell me what their new rules are!!
Here is my email exchange:
Me (Weds 6th):
Hi there,
I note that my WHS index has changed overnight since yesterday and is due to a 'recalculated' differential in relation to a 9-hole round I played in Feb this year.
Looking at my entire history, I have five 9-hole rounds and three of them show different differentials than they did yesterday.
Why have these changed?
EG (today):
Hi Alex,
In the last 36 hours, some golfers who have played 9 hole rounds within WHS may have seen a slight change in their handicap index. This is a result of a challenge to the interpretation of the technical specification of WHS regarding the 9 hole score differential. To ensure that players handicap index are correctly calculated all 9 hole score differentials have been re-calculated and changes applied to players scoring records.
The change for most golfers will be minimal and once applied will be correctly calculated moving forward.
We apologise for any inconvenience this may have caused and for the lack of advanced notice.
Carol Price
Me (today 2pm):
Hi Carol,
Many thanks for your reply, could you please let me know what the new calculation is?
Previously, I believe it was actual (adjusted) gross score for 9 holes played + net par for remaining 9 holes + 1 stroke.
Many thanks,
Alex
EG (3pm):
Hi Alex,
Unfortunately at the present time we have not been given the corrected calculation but can assure you it is now correct.
Regards,
Carol Price
So, my spreadsheet (that has been correct for 12 months) is no longer correct and the governing body can't even tell me what their new rules are!!
I do not believe I have missed any points.
I read the rules and formulas and followed them.
I did not "interpret" them, I simply did what it said. I was not wrong.
Criticisms of my methodology in following written instructions are unjustified.
The method for scaling-up is far from perfect and I actually do not like it. (existence of anomalies accepted, reason that I don't like it)
I will not be returning any nine holes scores any time soon.
Good thread and exchange of views.
Thank you to all contributors.
I read the rules and formulas and followed them.
I did not "interpret" them, I simply did what it said. I was not wrong.
Criticisms of my methodology in following written instructions are unjustified.
The method for scaling-up is far from perfect and I actually do not like it. (existence of anomalies accepted, reason that I don't like it)
I will not be returning any nine holes scores any time soon.
Good thread and exchange of views.
Thank you to all contributors.
The response:
Basically the 9 hole calculation using a 9 hole course handicap and a 18 hole course handicap (based on the same 9 being used).
We identified that DG had simply doubled the 9 hole CH, instead of calculating a separate 18 hole course handicap, this resulted in some players losing or gaining strokes incorrectly.
The Guidance and the Rules of handicapping are correct, it was simply an interpretation error.
Basically the 9 hole calculation using a 9 hole course handicap and a 18 hole course handicap (based on the same 9 being used).
We identified that DG had simply doubled the 9 hole CH, instead of calculating a separate 18 hole course handicap, this resulted in some players losing or gaining strokes incorrectly.
The Guidance and the Rules of handicapping are correct, it was simply an interpretation error.