Handicap alteration.

[Ssshank]

I previously had an issue with one of my scores being incorrect.

The club sec messaged me today regarding changing the adjusted gross to 75 instead of 70 so that it doesn't impact my current index.

Is this not forging handicaps, and does this occur often?

 

[rulefan]

I previously had an issue with one of my scores being incorrect.

The club sec messaged me today regarding changing the adjusted gross to 75 instead of 70 so that it doesn't impact my current index.

Is this not forging handicaps, and does this occur often?

It shouldn't but why did your score need to be 'adjusted'?

 

[Ssshank]

It shouldn't but why did your score need to be 'adjusted'?

It was a 9 hole comp, adjusted gross for 18 would have been 70.

He said he did not want it to immediately impact my HI so changed it to 75.

 

[DanFST]

9 holes is satisfactory right? Why did he need to extrapolate up to 18?

 

[SammmeBee]

And you wonder why England Golf have issues........

 

[rulefan]

Wow . What was his justification ?

 

[rulefan]

9 holes is satisfactory right? Why did he need to extrapolate up to 18?

If it was played before 2 Nov CONGU automatically converted to an 18 hole score.

 

[Ssshank]

Wow . What was his justification ?

In the email, he just says that in order for it to not immediately impact the HI given by WHS he has adjusted the gross, followed by I hope you are okay with that.

tbh I'm glad as a further reduction would've been a real struggle.

 

[SammmeBee]

How many scores have you got? Less than 20 at a guess?

 

[Ssshank]

 

[Ssshank]

How many scores have you got? Less than 20 at a guess?

Yeah, 16 with two 9's.

 

[SammmeBee]

Just accept what the computer says and when you add more scores it will even itself out....

 

[Ssshank]

Just accept what the computer says and when you add more scores it will even itself out....

yeah. I'm not fussed just don't think it's good practice manipulating scores.

 

[SammmeBee]

Sorry that's not necessarily right.

I have 19 scores in, they should use 7 but have only used 6, some of the differentials are wrong and the average hasn't even been de-sloped, all resulting in a stupidly incorrect Index.

I'm not "just accepting it", it's garbage.

Tough luck matey.....

 

[Ssshank]

Sorry that's not necessarily right.

I have 19 scores in, they should use 7 but have only used 6, some of the differentials are wrong and the average hasn't even been de-sloped, all resulting in a stupidly incorrect Index.

I'm not "just accepting it", it's garbage.

Agree, there are some strange things going on.

One guy at my course has only put 3 cards in. His score differentials are 12,10.9 and 5.2.

He's been given a 2.6 index.

oh well, it is what it is. hopefully, over time it'll fix itself out.

 

[jim8flog]

Agree, there are some strange things going on.

One guy at my course has only put 3 cards in. His score differentials are 12,10.9 and 5.2.

He's been given a 2.6 index.

oh well, it is what it is. hopefully, over time it'll fix itself out.

Sounds about right best score , desloped then minus 2.

If those were his scores for an initial handicap the 5.2 is the only score that would be used.

 

[Ssshank]

Sounds about right best score , desloped then minus 2.

If those were his scores for an initial handicap the 5.2 is the only score that would be used.

That's odd. I always thought handicap was your potential, so why would you deduct 2 shots?

 

[rulefan]

That's odd. I always thought handicap was your potential, so why would you deduct 2 shots?

That is no longer the criterion. The intention is to measure the player's demonstrated ability.
Rule 5.2 seems to suggest 2.6 is right.

If his 4th score is worse than 5.2 he will go up by 1.0
If his 5th score is worse than 5.2 he will go up by another 1.0

 

[jim8flog]

That's odd. I always thought handicap was your potential, so why would you deduct 2 shots?

Because that is how the WHS works.

There are different calculations according to how many scores are in a players's record . It is only best of 8 when there are 20 scores in the record. (see rulefan's post)

It is your potential and was your potential under the UHS so even then the player would not have been given 5.2 but approximately 4.6 (from memory).

 

[Ssshank]

That is no longer the criterion. The intention is to measure the player's demonstrated ability.
Rule 5.2 seems to suggest 2.6 is right.

If his 4th score is worse than 5.2 he will go up by 1.0
If his 5th score is worse than 5.2 he will go up by another 1.0

So with WHS, it would seem that it values consistency over volatile scores as the old 0.1 system favoured.

Until you reach the 20 scores your handicap doesn't really say much about your standard is what I'm gauging from the above.