IanMcC
Well-known member
Perfect. Thanks.
WHS & ISV Issues (Please post only if you are a handicap secretary or involved in admin at your club)
- Thread starter Old Skier
- Start date
IanMcC
Well-known member
We are having a torrid time with Club Systems at the moment. We set up some shortened courses for the winter on CV1, and had 15 hole and 10 hole cards printed to suit. It soon became obvious running the first comp that something was dreadfully amiss with Club Systems when a shortened course was used. Greatly increased Course and Playing Handicaps were allocated. See attached screenshot. We have contacted Club Systems (Josh), who can find nothing wrong with the course or competition set ups, and has 'elevated the ticket to his superiors'. We have had to change the comps to use the full 18 hole card and Indexes. Has anyone else on the forum experienced anything similar?
Attachments
2blue
Journeyman Pro
Oh dear.... will follow this with interest as we are hoping to have 9 or 13 hole Comps this Winter.
IanMcC
Well-known member
Could you set up a dummy comp with a shortened course to check if you have a problem?
IanMcC
Well-known member
This is still the case. Could someone with access to CV1 admin please set up a shortened course then a comp using that course, and then check if the Course and Playing Handicaps are sensible?
I would love to find out if its just us, or if it is every course on Club Systems at fault.
Golfie
New member
We had one set up last week and experienced the same. Everyone getting many shots more CH - I was given 11. We managed the scores manually. Haven’t checked it out with general manager yet.
IanMcC
Well-known member
Ours is still the same also. Having to use 18 hole courses on CV1, even though we are playing shortened courses. We had rationalised 10 and 15 hole cards printed, which are completely useless now. Shoddy service from Club Systems. They have just had a software upgrade, but no change to our position.
rulefan
Tour Winner
I thought rounds had to be run on 18 (and 9) hole courses. How are these 10 & 15 courses set for the missing holes? What are the CR, Slope & Par set to?
IanMcC
Well-known member
We dont run qualifiers in the winter, so dont get too excited.
D-S
Well-known member
Expected score does all the background legwork using the proprietary algorithm - you don’t need to enter new CR or slope. So if it is at least 10 holes then you’re good to go (however if there are missing holes on each of the 9’s on an 18 hole course, then nett pars need to be manually entered for the missed holes on one of the 9s).
rulefan
Tour Winner
IanMcC said "We set up some shortened courses for the winter on CV1, and had 15 hole and 10 hole cards printed to suit."
I understood that to mean different to the ones in use in the summer.
D-S
Well-known member
I thought he meant shortened as there were only 15 holes on one and 10 on the other, not that the holes were different from the rated ones.
Golfie
New member
Our competition was set up using a rationalised card. The course rating was the normal current one for 18 so 10 shots more than the 15 hole par. Hence the increased playing handicaps because of the CR-par calculation. Having set up a test competition using the normal 18 and taking holes out of play for the competition to give 15 holes gives the normal 18 hole handicaps.
IanMcC
Well-known member
Yes. I did not consider the CR-Par element. That may explain it. The par is obviously lower, but the CR is fixed. Why did Club Systems not think of that? Club Systems need to introduce a facility for removing that function for non qualifying courses like our shortened 10 hole one.
Last edited:
YandaB
Newbie
I've been doing a little analysis on our competition rounds from this summer. I would like some feedback if it's valid and if you would agree with the conclusions:
Method: Extracted all of the scores from the summer individual competitions. I "converted" medal scores to stableford by PAR - NETT SCORE + 36 to give an equivalent score. Not 100% correct but close enough I thought. Yellow and White tees were Men and Red tees were Women (very traditional, slowly changing but too hard to include the multi-tee results that we are now beginning to get).
Results: I then looked at the scores for each of the tees for 3 groups, handicaps 10 or less, 11-20, and over 20. I then took an average of the scores for those groups. Ideally these would all be very close. In most cases it was:
Observations: To me there are 2 outliers that appear. 1 is that better players off the Yellow tees seem to score better than other rows. 2 is that the higher handicaps off the Reds were scoring worse than other rows.
Conclusions: 1. The CR for the Yellow tee should be lower by 1.2 ish, and the slope increased to maintain the higher handicap numbers. 2. The slope for Red needs to be increased.
Is this fair? I don't think that it will end up with any changes but I just thought that it's an interesting exercise.
Method: Extracted all of the scores from the summer individual competitions. I "converted" medal scores to stableford by PAR - NETT SCORE + 36 to give an equivalent score. Not 100% correct but close enough I thought. Yellow and White tees were Men and Red tees were Women (very traditional, slowly changing but too hard to include the multi-tee results that we are now beginning to get).
Results: I then looked at the scores for each of the tees for 3 groups, handicaps 10 or less, 11-20, and over 20. I then took an average of the scores for those groups. Ideally these would all be very close. In most cases it was:
| Tee Colour | Handicap Range | Number of Rounds | Average Stableford Points |
| White | <10 | 105 | 30.0 |
| White | 11-20 | 223 | 29.3 |
| White | >21 | 88 | 29.4 |
| Yellow | <10 | 572 | 31.2 |
| Yellow | 11-20 | 1266 | 29.9 |
| Yellow | >21 | 714 | 29.0 |
| Red | <10 | 48 | 30.1 |
| Red | 11-20 | 425 | 29.3 |
| Red | >21 | 462 | 27.5 |
Observations: To me there are 2 outliers that appear. 1 is that better players off the Yellow tees seem to score better than other rows. 2 is that the higher handicaps off the Reds were scoring worse than other rows.
Conclusions: 1. The CR for the Yellow tee should be lower by 1.2 ish, and the slope increased to maintain the higher handicap numbers. 2. The slope for Red needs to be increased.
Is this fair? I don't think that it will end up with any changes but I just thought that it's an interesting exercise.
rulie
Head Pro
Given that you have all the individual data points in each group for each tee, it would be interesting to see the standard deviation of each group (in addition to the average of each group you've shown).
YandaB
Newbie
Like so?
| Tee Colour | Handicap Range | Number of Rounds | Average Stableford Points | Standard Deviation |
| White | <10 | 105 | 30.0 | 5.0 |
| White | 11-20 | 223 | 29.3 | 5.3 |
| White | >21 | 88 | 29.4 | 5.3 |
| Yellow | <10 | 572 | 31.2 | 5.2 |
| Yellow | 11-20 | 1266 | 29.9 | 5.4 |
| Yellow | >21 | 714 | 29.0 | 6.2 |
| Red | <10 | 48 | 30.1 | 6.0 |
| Red | 11-20 | 425 | 29.3 | 5.4 |
| Red | >21 | 462 | 27.5 | 6.4 |
YandaB
Newbie
No comments from anyone? Should I post it elsewhere?
I guess that the Standard Deviation being so high simply shows that it's a very low bell curve, more of a cymbal than a bell!
I guess that the Standard Deviation being so high simply shows that it's a very low bell curve, more of a cymbal than a bell!
wjemather
Well-known member
I'd say there really isn't enough data, particularly for the white tees and lower handicappers from the reds, to draw any substantial conclusions about ratings; and you'd need to factor PCC in.
rulie
Head Pro
I thought that PCC would already be "factored in", and it's so minor that it wouldn't impact the results to any great extent. What I find interesting is that that sd between the three handicap groups doesn't appear to be significantly different. From all the postings on "winners", I would have expected that the sd for the higher handicap group would have been larger than the lower handicap group, accounting for the "outlier" reported winners.
