Minimum Holes

[AlanD]

Hi Yandabrown, my reply to your point is the table above from England Golfs Guidance notes "Terms of Competitions"

 

[YandaB]

View attachment 49015
This is an extract from England Golfs Guidance Document on Setting out the Terms of Competitions. This is page 7, referring to a round as 18 or fewer holes played in the order set by committee. why would it say that if you could only play rounds of 9 or 18 holes ??

There is a difference between competitions that you can play and competitions that you can play AND are acceptable for handicap purposes. There are a number of competitions that are defined which cannot currently be used for handicapping purposes, e.g. matchplay (in Congu regions), Texas Scramble, Foursomes, Greensomes ...

 

[rulefan]

13 holes is scaled up to a full round in US's version of WHS. 12 holes only qualifies as a 9 hole round.

The difference between GB&I and the US is that in GB&I a 9 hole score is scaled up to 18 producing an immediate update to WHS. In the US a 9 hole score is held pending, until another 9 hole score is returned and only then causes WHS to be updated as an 18 hole composite score. This could be some time later but I believe an unmatched score is deleted after a certain time.
In the US, if a player submits a 9-hole score, an 18-hole Score Differential must be created by combining two 9-hole Score Differentials.

 

[AlanD]

The difference between GB&I and the US is that in GB&I a 9 hole score is scaled up to 18 producing an immediate update to WHS. In the US a 9 hole score is held pending until another 9 hole score is returned and only then causes WHS to be updated as an 18 hole composite score. This could be some time later but I believe an unmatched score is deleted after a certain time.
A meaningful differential presumably cannot be determined from a single 9. I didn't bother trying it.

I have submitted several 9 hole scores and they are immediately scaled up to 18 holes. I don't feel it is is the correct way as I always get the same score for the back 9. i.e net par +1. My course handicap is 17, and I scored 7 over par for the 9 holes played. My card was scaled up and i was given a score differential of 15.8, so 7 for the front 9 any 8.8 for the back 9

 

[rulefan]

I have submitted several 9 hole scores and they are immediately scaled up to 18 holes. I don't feel it is is the correct way as I always get the same score for the back 9. i.e net par +1. My course handicap is 17, and I scored 7 over par for the 9 holes played. My card was scaled up and i was given a score differential of 15.8, so 7 for the front 9 any 8.8 for the back 9

NB. I altered the final sentence in post #23

What you wrote is exactly as the GB&I system works.

 

[Budds]

The difference between GB&I and the US is that in GB&I a 9 hole score is scaled up to 18 producing an immediate update to WHS. In the US a 9 hole score is held pending, until another 9 hole score is returned and only then causes WHS to be updated as an 18 hole composite score. This could be some time later but I believe an unmatched score is deleted after a certain time.
A meaningful differential presumably cannot be determined from a single 9. I didn't bother trying it.

More and more indication that it's a WSS, for Worlld Slope System, as opposed to a WHS. And there even seems to be differences between countries in that area too.

 

[Colin L]

....This is an extract from England Golfs Guidance Document on Setting out the Terms of Competitions. This is page 7, referring to a round as 18 or fewer holes played in the order set by committee. why would it say that if you could only play rounds of 9 or 18 holes ??

As mentioned already the Definition of a round is 18 or fewer holes played in the order set by the Committee. The same wording is used in Rule 5.1. If, as it seems, you are referring to an organised competition of 13 holes, that complies with the Rules of Golf, and being more than 10 holes complies with the Rules of handicapping applied by CONGU as an acceptable score.

 

[AlanD]

As mentioned already the Definition of a round is 18 or fewer holes played in the order set by the Committee. The same wording is used in Rule 5.1. If, as it seems, you are referring to an organised competition of 13 holes, that complies with the Rules of Golf, and being more than 10 holes complies with the Rules of handicapping applied by CONGU as an acceptable score.

Thats exactly the case, thanks for that

 

[AlanD]

NB. I altered the final sentence in post #23

What you wrote is exactly as the GB&I system works.

Yes but our argument is that scaling up over the last 5 holes will be more representative of a golfers current form than if you scale up the last 9 holes

 

[Backsticks]

We have looked at that, but we feel that 13 real scores and 5 scaled up scores is more representative of a players form than 9 real scores and 9 scaled up scores.

Do you have anything to support this beyond that you feel it ?

 

[Backsticks]

Yes but our argument is that scaling up over the last 5 holes will be more representative of a golfers current form than if you scale up the last 9 holes

Thats a contention rather than an argument. What is its basis ?

 

[rulefan]

More and more indication that it's a WSS, for Worlld Slope System, as opposed to a WHS. And there even seems to be differences between countries in that area too.

It was already a WSS. Only the EGU (ie men) were the odd ones out.

 

[wjemather]

Do you have anything to support this beyond that you feel it ?

Thats a contention rather than an argument. What is its basis ?

Basic mathematics.

 

[wjemather]

More and more indication that it's a WSS, for Worlld Slope System, as opposed to a WHS. And there even seems to be differences between countries in that area too.

With WHS, for the first time, handicaps are comparable/portable across jurisdictions. This is what makes it a world handicap system.

Differences in options taken by the various jurisdictional authorities (to suit how golf is played in those jurisdictions) don't have a mathematically significant effect on what actually matters - the handicap index.

 

[AlanD]

Basic mathematics.

If you can submit an acceptable 9 hole score and have it made up with an imaginary 9 hole score, it makes no sense not to allow scores of between 10 to 18 hole scores to be submitted and have those made up to 18 with imaginary scores. We have also found many other clubs doing the same. The golf software allows competitions to be set up as qualifiers over 13 holes, if that was against the rules, would the software not forbid you to do this, remember the software is licenced to England Golf, so surely it must have been audited and deemed fit for purpose. eg if you try and start a competition over 8 holes, it will not allow you to run it as a qualifier, as it is against the rules.
Also there are many sections of the rules that are ambiguous, all we wish for is to be given a definitive answer, backed up with the relevant ruling that supports the decision. rather than a directive backed up with expulsion from our golf union if we do not comply.

 

[Swango1980]

Thats a contention rather than an argument. What is its basis ?

Take an imaginary example (assuming the below was permitted), where 2 players submit scores for handicap. Player A only plays one hole, and the score differential is made up of that hole score +17 imaginary hole scores. Player B plays 17 holes, and the score differential is made up of his 17 scores +1 imaginary hole score. My logic tells me that the score differential for Player B is likely to be more reflective?

So, if that's the case, then if I extend that to Player A playing 9 holes (+9 imaginary scores) and Player B playing 13 holes (+5 imaginary scores), then I still think the Score Diff is more likely to be reflective for Player B

 

[Swango1980]

As a summary, is it OK to have a 13 hole competition and submit those 13 hole scores for handicap (i.e. is the fact the other 5 holes not part of the competition an acceptable reason not to play those holes for an acceptable round for handicap?)

 

[AlanD]

Take an imaginary example (assuming the below was permitted), where 2 players submit scores for handicap. Player A only plays one hole, and the score differential is made up of that hole score +17 imaginary hole scores. Player B plays 17 holes, and the score differential is made up of his 17 scores +1 imaginary hole score. My logic tells me that the score differential for Player B is likely to be more reflective?

So, if that's the case, then if I extend that to Player A playing 9 holes (+9 imaginary scores) and Player B playing 13 holes (+5 imaginary scores), then I still think the Score Diff is more likely to be reflective for Player B

Thanks for that explanation

 

[AlanD]

As a summary, is it OK to have a 13 hole competition and submit those 13 hole scores for handicap (i.e. is the fact the other 5 holes not part of the competition an acceptable reason not to play those holes for an acceptable round for handicap?)

We believe that to be the case

 

[Swango1980]

We believe that to be the case

Yeah, I understand your argument, and as I've read other comments I think I read that they generally agreed (with a few exceptions). I was just wondering if the well educated in here were pretty confident the 13 hole scores could be used.

I suppose the reason I ask is that I find it unusual a representative from the County Union disagreed they could. I can understand it coming from a small number Club Committees, who are not always 100% accurate in their interpretations, as they may just be in the job as no one else wants it, for example. But I'd have thought someone in the County Union would either be fully up to speed, or if they were not, then have the contacts to find out definitively.

If they have a solid basis to disagree, and it is all about interpretation of what an 18 hole round is (for handicap), and what acceptable reasons are not to play all the holes, then would that point towards beefing up the clarifications for this particular case. I cannot imagine it is uncommon for clubs to have competitions between 10-17 holes, and if there was wording such as "acceptable reason not to play all 18 holes - they were not part of an organised competition authorised by Committee"