Points for nine hole comp

[PAULIEG]

Hi there,

I've asked this before but seemingly not made it too clear so here goes again:

The standard scratch at my local club is 2 less than par, meaning that although I play off 8 I only have 6 shots in effect. During the winter when there are far less comps I like to keep a general record online. I often play nine holes and understand that you can now create a 'dummy' back 9 for handicap purposes. So, for the dummy nine, should I add 4 shots on to par, i.e. par + my handicap for half the course, or should it be 3 i.e. SSS of one less than par + my 4 shots? I'm beginning to think I'm again making this as clear as mud so, in short, do I add my 4 shots for nine holes to the par or to the SSS?

Hope this makes sense.

 

[pbrown7582]

Handicap is off SSS, so all scores should be relative to this, does your handicap tracker not have a 9 hole facility? Otherwise i would suggest you just half the SSS/par or use 2 sets of 9 holes to make your round rather than fictiously logging handicap for 9 holes.

 

[duncan mackie]

I'm beginning to think I'm again making this as clear as mud ......

yes

setting up a dumy 9 makes no sense in the context of a general record - better to just duplicate the scores for the 9 holes you played to provide 'a general record of your play that day' or at a glance performance.

38 points stableford, or the SSS score if recording medal scores, represent playing to your handicap using the 18 hole approach but, as already suggested, just leaving it at the 9 holes played makes a lot more sense with 19 or SSS/2 being the benchmarks.

 

[AmandaJR]

The CONGU guidelines for 9 hole qualifiers are:

The format for Nine-Hole Qualifying Competitions is Stableford with a 'neutral' 18 points for the nine unplayed holes being added to the Nine-Hole Stableford score.

So perhaps just assume 18 points for the 9 not played.

 

[PAULIEG]

Thanks people, particularly you Amanda. I had a strong suspicion that, whether it seems fair or not, I should be accepting a dummy score of 18 rather than 19 points for the unplayed nine. Seems to me to be harsh but the rules are the rules. Really think the R&A should reconsider this as, although at more courses than not it would seem harsh, it would equally seem unnecessarily lenient for any course where SSS exceeded par.

 

[duncan mackie]

Thanks people, particularly you Amanda. I had a strong suspicion that, whether it seems fair or not, I should be accepting a dummy score of 18 rather than 19 points for the unplayed nine. Seems to me to be harsh but the rules are the rules. Really think the R&A should reconsider this as, although at more courses than not it would seem harsh, it would equally seem unnecessarily lenient for any course where SSS exceeded par.

nothing to do with the R&A

it's only been in place less than a year and is accepted as inherently flawed (however it's done) and Cat 1 handicap adjustments are not permitted to this formulae for that reason. in your case the relative harshness is compensated for by effectively increasing the buffer zone (nominally you would get 1 for the 9 holes but you get 2 under clause 22.9.
18 hole Q comps remain 'recommended'.

 

[PAULIEG]

Duncan,

Many thanks for that.

On the basis of what you've just pointed out, it seems that quite a few time last winter/spring I may have increased myself by 0.1 when I didn't need to but, as I said before, it's only a little thing I like to do as an online record and doesn't actually count towards anything.

 

[rosecott]

it's only been in place less than a year and is accepted as inherently flawed (however it's done)

You may not realise how flawed it really is unless you had our experience on our last Annual Review. Our ladies latched onto 9-hole qualifiers immediately as only a handful wanted to play 18-hole qualifiers - the course is quite long and physically demanding and the average age is not low. Despite CONGU's warning that 9-hole qualifiers were not meant to replace 18-hole qualifiers, merely to supplement them, our ladies sailed right in and scheduled considerably more 9-hole qualifiers than 18-hole ones. Come the Annual Review and we were faced with a large number of recommended handicap decreases which took us completely by surprise when we saw the names involved. After a quick consultation with Handicapmaster and EGU, it was realised that handicaps based predominantly on 9-hole qualifiers had a huge skewing effect on calculations leading up to the AR recommendations.

Here's the problem:

Par 74/SSS 76 - Cat 5 player has to score 29 points to buffer. If the player scores 11 points on a 9-hole qualifier, that becomes 29 points (with the neutral 18 added) - player is into buffer. If, however, the player continued to score at the same performance level for the second nine - end result would be 22 points and no buffer.

 

[duncan mackie]

Here's the problem:

Par 74/SSS 76 - Cat 5 player has to score 29 points to buffer. If the player scores 11 points on a 9-hole qualifier, that becomes 29 points (with the neutral 18 added) - player is into buffer. If, however, the player continued to score at the same performance level for the second nine - end result would be 22 points and no buffer.

are you sure they are applying the 9 hole 'rules' properly?

I ask because the buffer for a cat 5 player under this system is 34-36 points; the playing handicap being calculated for the 9 holes from exact handicap, par and SSS. In the example you give the difference is surely significant?

 

[rosecott]

are you sure they are applying the 9 hole 'rules' properly?

I ask because the buffer for a cat 5 player under this system is 34-36 points; the playing handicap being calculated for the 9 holes from exact handicap, par and SSS. In the example you give the difference is surely significant?

I'm sure Handicapmaster is applying things correctly. My figures probably weren't thought through properly but the principle still applies. We know that the list of ladies recommended for AR reductions was completely out of kilter with what the Handicap Committee knows about the players. EGU (as they were at the time) did acknowledge that the AR data would be massively skewed if qualifiers were predominantly 9-hole.

 

[duncan mackie]

I'm sure Handicapmaster is applying things correctly. My figures probably weren't thought through properly but the principle still applies. We know that the list of ladies recommended for AR reductions was completely out of kilter with what the Handicap Committee knows about the players. EGU (as they were at the time) did acknowledge that the AR data would be massively skewed if qualifiers were predominantly 9-hole.

OK

I agree that players hitting buffer will generally be the biggest weakness - and if they only play these I can see how the AR hitting buffer factor will spit out 'questionable recomendations'

 

[chrisd]

I had a "dummy " 9 holes the other day and only scored 7 points!