Handicap question

[SteveW86]

Apologies for the likely simple question, but handicaps have never been my strong point as played so little formal golf.

Playing off 12, today I shot a gross 81 on a par 69 (SSS 66) for 37 points. I had one blow up hole, scoring a 7 on a par 3....my understanding is this would drop to a Double bogey for handicap purposes. Would this be a gross double, or nett double as it was a shot hole (SI 8).

My question in short, is would I have been cut after that round?

 

[Imurg]

Nett double.
"Par" in points is 39 due to the SSS being -3 so you'd need 40 to get cut...CSS notwithstanding....

 

[SteveW86]

Nett double.
"Par" in points is 39 due to the SSS being -3 so you'd need 40 to get cut...CSS notwithstanding....

Thanks

 

[mikejohnchapman]

Apologies for the likely simple question, but handicaps have never been my strong point as played so little formal golf.

Playing off 12, today I shot a gross 81 on a par 69 (SSS 66) for 37 points. I had one blow up hole, scoring a 7 on a par 3....my understanding is this would drop to a Double bogey for handicap purposes. Would this be a gross double, or nett double as it was a shot hole (SI 8).

My question in short, is would I have been cut after that round?

Your 7 would change to a 6 for handicap purposes so your score goes to 80. Less SSS of 66 equals 14 therefore likely to be buffer zone assuming CSS isn't radicallt different.

 

[jim8flog]

Apologies for the likely simple question, but handicaps have never been my strong point as played so little formal golf.

Playing off 12, today I shot a gross 81 on a par 69 (SSS 66) for 37 points. I had one blow up hole, scoring a 7 on a par 3....my understanding is this would drop to a Double bogey for handicap purposes. Would this be a gross double, or nett double as it was a shot hole (SI 8).

My question in short, is would I have been cut after that round?

The hole is adjusted to nett double bogey not double bogey i.e zero points using stableford scoring (all handicaps being based on stableford points).

 

[rulefan]

The hole is adjusted to nett double bogey not double bogey i.e zero points using stableford scoring (all handicaps being based on stableford points).

Not quite. Handicaps are based on the net differential vs CSS. The 'nominal' strokes score for a hole is simply based on the stableford score that would produce net double bogey or better.

 

[Swango1980]

Not quite. Handicaps are based on the net differential vs CSS. The 'nominal' strokes score for a hole is simply based on the stableford score that would produce net double bogey or better.

Is jim8flog's post not just the simple way of saying what you did?

 

[rulefan]

Is jim8flog's post not just the simple way of saying what you did?

Not really. This could be misleading "all handicaps being based on stableford points"

 

[Swango1980]

Not really. This could be misleading "all handicaps being based on stableford points"

But, Stableford effectively rounds every high score down to a maximum of nett double bogey. That is what also occurs when getting your adjusted gross score. So, is there a problem with using Stableford score as a way of looking at it, rather than adjusted gross score? Both get you to the same finishing point. Stableford is just easier for some to visualise what is going on.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

But, Stableford effectively rounds every high score down to a maximum of nett double bogey. That is what also occurs when getting your adjusted gross score. So, is there a problem with using Stableford score as a way of looking at it, rather than adjusted gross score? Both get you to the same finishing point. Stableford is just easier for some to visualise what is going on.

Stableford doesn't take into account the CSS - and handicap adjustment does?

 

[Swango1980]

Stableford doesn't take into account the CSS - and handicap adjustment does?

Nor does the adjusted gross score.

 

[rulefan]

Stableford is just easier for some to visualise what is going on.

Not always. The myth that 36 points is (always) playing to handicap makes people forget the effect of par when it is not the same as SSS.

 

[rosecott]

Not always. The myth that 36 points is (always) playing to handicap makes people forget the effect of par when it is not the same as SSS.

Please, let's not open that can of worms again.

 

[Swango1980]

Not always. The myth that 36 points is (always) playing to handicap makes people forget the effect of par when it is not the same as SSS.

But, jim never suggested 36 points was the target. The Stableford target simply depends on CSS, just like the adjusted gross target does.

 

[rulefan]

But, jim never suggested 36 points was the target. The Stableford target simply depends on CSS, just like the adjusted gross target does.

Agreed. But many players think of it that way.