9 Hole Stablefords

Colin L

Tour Winner
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
5,538
Location
Edinburgh
Visit site
I'm trying to understand the nett differentials showing up in the Clubv1 record of 9 hole stablefords and would appreciate the help of anyone familiar with the system.

For example, the nett differential of a player who scores 20 points over the 9 holes is shown as 15 when you would expect it to be a minus figure depending on the par and SSS. It looks to me from this example and several other players as if the nett differential is not taking into account the neutral 18 points.

Seems unhelpful if that is the case. But is it?
 
Our 9-hole QRs run without problem. I would suspect that 9-hole comps have not been set up correctly in the software.

As an example from a recent 9-hole Ladies QR. The 18-hole course is Par 70 SSS 71. The 9 holes being played is SSS 70, Par 72 (2 x 36). The winning lady scored 21 points which gave a nett differential of -3.

We use Handicapmaster software.
 
Last edited:
Thanks. That's exactly what I expected to find and should have found. I'm concerned of course that wrong differentials could be triggering wrong adjustments. I don't know if it would have because the competition ended up Reductions Only. That of course could in itself be as a result of wrong differentials.

It all came out in what should have been the simple matter of this month's Continuous Review. Simple? Aye, right.
 
It looks to me from this example and several other players as if the nett differential is not taking into account the neutral 18 points.
Colin

Does this make a difference?

Qualifying nine-hole score recording:
Playing better than or to the buffer zone still requires 18 points to be added to achieve a similar 18-hole outcome and for players within their buffer zones or better this points total continues to be recorded on the handicap record.
For handicap purposes only, however, players returning a score outside the buffer zone have their points total doubled on their handicap record to avoid the occurrence of anomalies within the Annual Review process.
 
Top