Handicap and Solo Rounds/Rounds with kids

[DaveLeeNC]

14 hours ago, Augster said:

I’m with you. Only I’d like them to change it to a double bogey or triple bogey. 

 

Well it has to be more than a double bogey as that is kind of the average score for many high handicap golfers on many of the holes that they play. IMO, we should not be further dumbing down the system. I have not encountered a broad misunderstanding of NDB (not the same as zero misunderstanding) but maybe that is because most of my golf is played with guys used to using Stableford scoring. 

 

dave 

[larrybud]

3 hours ago, Imp said:

I've never seen this with people of the same sex playing different tees on the same hole where the HH is based off tee played... got an example? It would mean that some other hole(s) would have to also be different. 

It's understandable, to me, why the holes are rated different between the sexes though. It's not that they are playing different tees in this case, though. 

It's not common, but it does happen. e.g. hole handicaps for yellow/red are different from blue.  Yellow is rated for men, red is rated for women.

[nsxguy]

36 minutes ago, davep043 said:

A great portion of the world has played Stableford formats for decades, and they've managed to understand the concept just fine.  And for those of us who have a problem, the best solution is to post scores hole-by-hole, which is really easy with the handicap Posting system in use in the USGA areas.  It does take an extra 5 or6 seconds, but nobody has to even think about correcting their hole scores.

 

And I'm sure that in a few(?) decades we in USGA world will all get used to NDB.

 

But seriously, most(?) games here in the States are net games and all one needs to know is (gross-handicap=net). NDB for handicap purposes isn't well understood - as ESC wasn't.

 

Match play needs to know stroke holes but that's only for the match scoring. NDB knowledge not generally needed there either.

[ThinkingPlus]

To do NDB correctly requires a handicap hole designation for each tee and each gender for which the tee was rated.  For example, if you had 4 sets of tees rated for men and 3 rated for women, then you would need 7 handicap hole designations.

 

You could even go further and double that number since handicap hole designations for match play could be different than for stroke play.  Now most of the time the handicap hole designations don't change much if any between tees rated for the same gender (e.g., the #1 hole for men from any tee will typically be the same, #2 as well, and so on, ...), but it doesn't have to be that way.

 

Getting all that info on a card would be mostly impossible so no one bothers.  Putting all that info into a database is trivial. I presume GHIN is constructed to include the info if available.

[DaveLeeNC]

12 minutes ago, ThinkingPlus said:

To do NDB correctly requires a handicap hole designation for each tee and each gender for which the tee was rated.  For example, if you had 4 sets of tees rated for men and 3 rated for women, then you would need 7 handicap hole designations.

 

You could even go further and double that number since handicap hole designations for match play could be different than for stroke play.  Now most of the time the handicap hole designations don't change much if any between tees rated for the same gender (e.g., the #1 hole for men from any tee will typically be the same, #2 as well, and so on, ...), but it doesn't have to be that way.

 

Getting all that info on a card would be mostly impossible so no one bothers.  Putting all that info into a database is trivial. I presume GHIN is constructed to include the info if available.

 

Given that hole handicaps are now something that affect posted scores, I believe that the rating organizations should be doing the hole handicaps (they have the required analytical information) rather than leaving it up to the clubs. But they have not yet asked me 🙂

 

dave

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Given that hole handicaps are now something that affect posted scores, I believe that the rating organizations should be doing the hole handicaps (they have the required analytical information) rather than leaving it up to the clubs. But they have not yet asked me 🙂

 

dave

Agree.  Simple to do the stroke play designations if you have a statistically sufficient database of hole scores.  Match play hole designations are much squishier with all the subjectivity. 

[Imp]

2 hours ago, larrybud said:

It's not common, but it does happen. e.g. hole handicaps for yellow/red are different from blue.  Yellow is rated for men, red is rated for women.

Ok, so, how does that factor for or against my statement of "It's understandable, to me, why the holes are rated different between the sexes though."

 

I was looking for an example where a male playing another male, from different tees, would have a different HH from the blues vs the golds/reds (using your card as an example) as I quoted. I have *never* seen that before.  What you supplied still doesn't support that.

 

Top HH are to be used for all mens HH, regardless of tees. Bottom HH are to be used for all womens HH, regardless of tees.  Would be nice to have that labeled on the card... M Handicap and W Handicap.

FYI: Juniper Hill has had all three tees rated for men, and all three for women. So men can submit a score from Reds, Women from Blues... should they so desire to play those tees. The course isn't just rated for reds for women. 😉 But using the 2nd hole, a male playing from the golds/reds would still have it as a 6, not a 14, and vice versa for women (14 from blues/golds not a 6).

If you doubt this, go to GHIN, click on submit a hole-by-hole score, playing from the reds. Tell me what the HH are for you... 😉 

 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Imp

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Agree.  Simple to do the stroke play designations if you have a statistically sufficient database of hole scores.  Match play hole designations are much squishier with all the subjectivity. 

I was actually proposing that they use the by hole rating information that is the basis of calculating slope and CR. dave

[larrybud]

23 minutes ago, Imp said:

Ok, so, how does that factor for or against my statement of "It's understandable, to me, why the holes are rated different between the sexes though."

 

I was looking for an example where a male playing another male, from different tees, would have a different HH from the blues vs the golds/reds (using your card as an example) as I quoted. I have *never* seen that before.  What you supplied still doesn't support that.

 

Top HH are to be used for all mens HH, regardless of tees. Bottom HH are to be used for all womens HH, regardless of tees.  Would be nice to have that labeled on the card... M Handicap and W Handicap. 

 

Your interpretation of the scorecard is not correct. The hole handicaps on the bottom apply to the yellow and red tee boxes. The hole handicaps on the top apply to the blue tee boxes.

 

If a man is playing the blue tees against another man playing the yellow tees, they have two different hole handicaps.

EDIT:  I do see that the GHIN has the top handicap rating for both blue and yellow tees. I'll find another one for you 😉 
 

Edited June 29, 2022 by larrybud

[Imp]

9 minutes ago, larrybud said:

Your interpretation of the scorecard is not correct. The hole handicaps on the bottom apply to the yellow and red tee boxes. The hole handicaps on the top apply to the blue tee boxes.

 

If a man is playing the blue tees against another man playing the yellow tees, they have two different hole handicaps.

 

As much as it looks that way (a design choice on the card with improper labeling) you have it incorrect. As I said, go to GHIN as if you're going to enter a score. select the course on the card. Select Hole-by-hole. Select Red Tees. Compare the stroke indexes.  

*If* hole handicaps differ between the sexes, then the top is almost always men, the bottom, women. I wish they would label it as such to avoid this exact confusion. 

Edited June 29, 2022 by Imp

[larrybud]

14 minutes ago, Imp said:

As much as it looks that way (a design choice on the card with improper labeling) you have it incorrect. As I said, go to GHIN as if you're going to enter a score. select the course on the card. Select Hole-by-hole. Select Red Tees. Compare the stroke indexes.  

*If* hole handicaps differ between the sexes, then the top is almost always men, the bottom, women. I wish they would label it as such to avoid this exact confusion. 

Here you go, look up Serenoa Golf Club in Florida. From GHIN

Blue Tees for men:

 

Red tees, for MEN:


 

[Imp]

27 minutes ago, larrybud said:

Here you go, look up Serenoa Golf Club in Florida. From GHIN

Blue Tees for men:

 

Red tees, for MEN:


 

Ok, great. What I was looking for. I've sent a request to see how their cards are printed, and I know they're doing heavy renovations. But doesn't change the fact they are indeed different. To reiterate, never seen that before in about 200 different courses played. So, cool! Thanks!

But can you also please resolve the earlier discussion about the course you provided earlier, Juniper Hills? Do you agree with me on THAT card and cards like them? I find it hard to believe you've believed it was that way, for as long as you've played golf. We are here to clear up misconceptions here in the rules forum, no?

Edited June 29, 2022 by Imp

[ThinkingPlus]

1 hour ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I was actually proposing that they use the by hole rating information that is the basis of calculating slope and CR. dave

That's certainly where to start, but actual scores from folks playing the course is the closest to truth you can get.

[larrybud]

1 hour ago, Imp said:

Ok, great. What I was looking for. I've sent a request to see how their cards are printed, and I know they're doing heavy renovations. But doesn't change the fact they are indeed different. To reiterate, never seen that before in about 200 different courses played. So, cool! Thanks!

But can you also please resolve the earlier discussion about the course you provided earlier, Juniper Hills? Do you agree with me on THAT card and cards like them? I find it hard to believe you've believed it was that way, for as long as you've played golf. We are here to clear up misconceptions here in the rules forum, no?

Why wouldn't I believe those would be the handicap values for each of those tees? The card for Juniper is certainly poorly designed, wouldn't you agree?  If I'm posting a total score with NBD and played the yellow tees, I sure as heck would use the handicap values printed right below them. Why WOULDN'T I?

Here's a picture of the Serenoa scorecard.  Now tell me, looking at this card, what's the hole handicap for the yellow tees?? lol

Clearly there's no standard for designing a scorecard, and since hole handicaps CAN be different for holes (even for the same sex), it's probably wise to design them correctly.

Not to mention, courses often have old scorecard stock which they use up after a course rating change, so hole handicaps can change there as well.
 

Edited June 29, 2022 by larrybud

[davep043]

3 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

That's certainly where to start, but actual scores from folks playing the course is the closest to truth you can get.

Yet the WHS strongly suggests using the Scratch and Bogey golfer ratings for each hole as a significant factor in determining Stroke Allocations.

[ThinkingPlus]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

Yet the WHS strongly suggests using the Scratch and Bogey golfer ratings for each hole as a significant factor in determining Stroke Allocations.

I'm sure it does.  Theoreticians always claim their theories are perfect.  Experimentalists trust and verify with data. 

[Augster]

8 hours ago, larrybud said:

Why wouldn't I believe those would be the handicap values for each of those tees? The card for Juniper is certainly poorly designed, wouldn't you agree?  If I'm posting a total score with NBD and played the yellow tees, I sure as heck would use the handicap values printed right below them. Why WOULDN'T I?

Here's a picture of the Serenoa scorecard.  Now tell me, looking at this card, what's the hole handicap for the yellow tees?? lol

Clearly there's no standard for designing a scorecard, and since hole handicaps CAN be different for holes (even for the same sex), it's probably wise to design them correctly.

Not to mention, courses often have old scorecard stock which they use up after a course rating change, so hole handicaps can change there as well.
 

It is a mess. Our new cards didn’t bother putting the other handicap values on the card. And I play with a guy, most of the time, that plays the combo tees, and refuses to play stroke play, so I have to write in all the caps for his tees every time we play. They just gave us a sheet of the hole caps in an email and I took a screen cap of it. 
 

Blue and Black have the same caps. But combo is different and white is also different. And the only caps on the card are men from blue or black and women from white. 

NDB is a mess. I even screwed it up today for my first time. I had one triple, on the 9-cap hole, and I was getting 8 in the game. So I subtracted one when I posted. BUT, I was actually a 10 cap today, but we subtracted out my friend who was a 2. So I should have posted the triple. It’s not a keeper round anyway. 
 

Using “triple bogey max” instead of NDB would make posting much easier. 

 

[Imp]

17 hours ago, larrybud said:

Why wouldn't I believe those would be the handicap values for each of those tees? The card for Juniper is certainly poorly designed, wouldn't you agree? 

From my earlier posts just above...

Imp: "Would be nice to have that labeled on the card... M Handicap and W Handicap."
Imp: "As much as it looks that way (a design choice on the card with improper labeling) you have it incorrect"

I agree, the design needs to be fixed, and have said that in a few places... thing is, the UNDERSTANDING of having 2 different handicaps, listed separately top and bottom has always meant Men/Top, Women/bottom. One other way to check? Call the club pro there. (I live nearby and have played there). They're nice people. 😉 This is the most frequent use of it for most, not all courses, that have rated hole handicaps between women and men. Again, pick any random course in the US, and then go to GHIN like you did and see. 🙂  Some do put M/W on there, many do not (because it's an understood concept by most). But in this day and age, maybe they should put M/W on there to clear things up for people. 

The card you posted for the place in florida? They use slashes all in the same box. Means something completely different than M/W, and that it is, indeed, different tees. I had never seen it before, but also never denied it's existence... which is why I wanted to see an example. Thank you for that, again. 🙂 (along with Augustas recent data) Also, that iSerenoa card s not an up to date card, wherever you got it from. Example, hole 1, today, is 13/15... as you listed in GHIN, not 15/15. I have an email to the club pro there to ask for a current card if they could send it. 

I pulled out a random card from my stack, Harbour Town Golf Links. They also have the top/bottom approach to listing HDCP. They have 3 sets of tees at the top, one at the bottom (Palmetto) with a handicap line just over it. (Attached). Palmetto is rated for both women and men to play from. Again, going to GHIN, selecting enter score, hole by hole, selecting harbourtown, and then "Palmetto", 1st hole for men is still "13". It would be cool if ThinkingPlus could tell us what the 1st hole for Heritage tees says for her... 

Yes, the design sucks. It can be made better no doubt, maybe a word from GHIN/USGA in card design recommendations. But make no mistake about it, "just because it's on the bottom doesn't make those BOTTOM tees THAT hole HDCP." Men top, women bottom is the common nomenclature. 


 

Edited June 30, 2022 by Imp

[larrybud]

Seems to me if you list a handicap value next to (right above or below) a particular tee box, that handicap value would apply to that tee box.

[North Butte]

On 6/29/2022 at 10:27 AM, larrybud said:

There's a thing in the software industry that when writing software that is user facing, no matter how well you think it's designed, if the users don't use it as intended, then something has to change.

If NBD is going to remain, then they should remove the ability to post total scores and force everybody to enter hole by hole. Of course that still doesn't prevent MANY players from just picking up after a double and writing a double down.

The guys I play with would not post higher than gross double bogey on any hole no matter what hoops the app forced them through. They have been doing that for much longer than I've been playing with them (going on 20 years now) and they have internalized that as their actual score for all except (at most) two or three rounds a year they post from tournaments.

 

And most of them are old enough to have quit playing in tournaments at all. They just want GHIN to give them a handicap they can use in their 2, 3, 4 times a week games. And in those games, they count (gross) double bogey as the max score. 

 

[Imp]

4 hours ago, larrybud said:

Seems to me if you list a handicap value next to (right above or below) a particular tee box, that handicap value would apply to that tee box.

Seems that way. Sure. But only so much space on those cards. If you printed cards just for women, and just for men, what happens when they play each other, what do you use as a reference? Oh, I know, just look at their card! 🙂 But printing two sets of cards is an additional cost to the club.... so, just jam it all on one. Like I said, since the beginning of rating courses, and rating courses for women expressly, top has always been men, bottom always women. I don't disagree, though, they need to add M/W in front of handicap.

Edited June 30, 2022 by Imp

[larrybud]

2 hours ago, Imp said:

Seems that way. Sure. But only so much space on those cards. If you printed cards just for women, and just for men, what happens when they play each other, what do you use as a reference? Oh, I know, just look at their card! 🙂 But printing two sets of cards is an additional cost to the club.... so, just jam it all on one. Like I said, since the beginning of rating courses, and rating courses for women expressly, top has always been men, bottom always women. I don't disagree, though, they need to add M/W in front of handicap.

Where did you ever come up with that assumption, since there is no official way of printing cards?

[larrybud]

4 hours ago, North Butte said:

The guys I play with would not post higher than gross double bogey on any hole no matter what hoops the app forced them through. They have been doing that for much longer than I've been playing with them (going on 20 years now) and they have internalized that as their actual score for all except (at most) two or three rounds a year they post from tournaments.

 

And most of them are old enough to have quit playing in tournaments at all. They just want GHIN to give them a handicap they can use in their 2, 3, 4 times a week games. And in those games, they count (gross) double bogey as the max score. 

 

There's certainly no mechanism to insure players post the correct scores, that's for sure!

[North Butte]

3 minutes ago, larrybud said:

There's certainly no mechanism to insure players post the correct scores, that's for sure!

Peer Review!!!

 

Of course when all your "peers" (i.e. the guys you play with several days a week) keep score the same way, they're going to "review" accordingly. 

[Imp]

On 6/30/2022 at 4:24 PM, larrybud said:

Where did you ever come up with that assumption, since there is no official way of printing cards?

I emailed USGA, just in case I had it wrong. Just to be sure. You can do the same. I got the answer that with multiple hole handicaps, if it has two full, but separate listings they are gender based, not tee based (if the course has been rated for men/women - see USGA course database for listing of rated tees by sex.)

If they are tee based, they should be clearly labeled and are the exception, not the norm. If you have any questions, call the club pro and they'll tell you the same and/or the details. So, like Juniper Hill, and most others, Top is Male, Bottom is Female. They even went as far as saying rating by tee is the exception. So, I learned it is possible to do it in this thread, but it's rare. 

Hope this helps! Have a great fourth of july and remember... work on keeping all your fingers and toes attached. 🙂

 

 

Edited July 2, 2022 by Imp

[larrybud]

7 hours ago, Imp said:

I emailed USGA, just in case I had it wrong. Just to be sure. You can do the same. I got the answer that with multiple hole handicaps, if it has two full, but separate listings they are gender based, not tee based (if the course has been rated for men/women - see USGA course database for listing of rated tees by sex.)

If they are tee based, they should be clearly labeled and are the exception, not the norm. If you have any questions, call the club pro and they'll tell you the same and/or the details. So, like Juniper Hill, and most others, Top is Male, Bottom is Female. They even went as far as saying rating by tee is the exception. So, I learned it is possible to do it in this thread, but it's rare. 

Hope this helps! Have a great fourth of july and remember... work on keeping all your fingers and toes attached. 🙂

 

I'd love to see that response from them, can you copy/paste it? The USGA has no "jurisdiction" on how cards should be designed.

[Imp]

On 7/2/2022 at 5:57 AM, larrybud said:

I'd love to see that response from them, can you copy/paste it? The USGA has no "jurisdiction" on how cards should be designed.

Sure...

Thank you for providing your comments on the stroke Index allocations. The allocations are done by gender and should be the same for each gender from all tees that have been rated for that gender. There may be an exceptional circumstance that might warrant a separate allocation for a gender from a certain tee, but that should be an exception.
 
In regard to the score card, while we agree the allocations for each gender should be clearly identifiable on a score card, the Rules of Handicapping do not address how information is displayed on a score card. We appreciate some cards may be confusing with their current display, but it is ultimately up to the golfer to know where their strokes are given or received and more and more folks are getting away from a physical score card as well.
 
Once again, thank you for your suggestions and we encourage you to reach out to any club that is redoing their score cards to see if they can be edited for clarity.

--------------

Now as I said, the card you posted, Juniper Hill, that's the NORM if you have holes rated differently for men/women. GHIN backs this exact point up when you go to enter your scores...  that all tees rated for men, use the top hdcp. All hole ratings for women, use the bottom hole handicaps, unless explicitly different, like the few we've seen that you posted (Serenoa, Columbia). But even USGA says, that's the exception. 

 

And, as I've said a few other times, that since you have completely doubted this one fact, you can always call the course, or do like I did and email USGA for an answer. Since I started golfiing 40 years ago, it has always been known this way (unless, again, they were the same for women/men). Also, to reiterate, I had never seen them by tee, but they are fairly labled to help identify they clearly are BY TEE, vs almost all other courses that are by SEX, even the card from harbour town. 

Edited July 3, 2022 by Imp

[larrybud]

14 hours ago, Imp said:

Sure...

Thank you for providing your comments on the stroke Index allocations. The allocations are done by gender and should be the same for each gender from all tees that have been rated for that gender. There may be an exceptional circumstance that might warrant a separate allocation for a gender from a certain tee, but that should be an exception.
 
In regard to the score card, while we agree the allocations for each gender should be clearly identifiable on a score card, the Rules of Handicapping do not address how information is displayed on a score card. We appreciate some cards may be confusing with their current display, but it is ultimately up to the golfer to know where their strokes are given or received and more and more folks are getting away from a physical score card as well.
 
Once again, thank you for your suggestions and we encourage you to reach out to any club that is redoing their score cards to see if they can be edited for clarity.

--------------

Now as I said, the card you posted, Juniper Hill, that's the NORM if you have holes rated differently for men/women. GHIN backs this exact point up when you go to enter your scores...  that all tees rated for men, use the top hdcp. All hole ratings for women, use the bottom hole handicaps, unless explicitly different, like the few we've seen that you posted (Serenoa, Columbia). But even USGA says, that's the exception. 

 

And, as I've said a few other times, that since you have completely doubted this one fact, you can always call the course, or do like I did and email USGA for an answer. Since I started golfiing 40 years ago, it has always been known this way (unless, again, they were the same for women/men). Also, to reiterate, I had never seen them by tee, but they are fairly labled to help identify they clearly are BY TEE, vs almost all other courses that are by SEX, even the card from harbour town. 

We read this completely different. They even state "Rules of Handicapping do not address how information is displayed on a score card". In other words, there is no "norm" as to how scorecards are displayed, and clearly it's confusing to even the most ardent golfers. You've just assumed men handicaps are on top and women are on the bottom.
 

"it has always been known this way" just isn't true. 

I also find it disappointing that one cannot look up detailed course info on the GHIN site without going through a score posting exercise

[Imp]

1 hour ago, larrybud said:

I also find it disappointing that one cannot look up detailed course info on the GHIN site without going through a score posting exercise

Holy heck. Ok, I get you're obstinate. Loud and clear. I have invited you many times to a) email USGA, (and post what they say) and b) call the course, ask the proshop, and I'll throw in a 3rd one, find their "notices/club info" bulletin board while you're there. You're going to find that my "it's always been this way unless otherwise explicitly stated" is 100% accurate, that "just having the hcdp on the lower part of the card along with the forward tees is simply a CARD DESIGN choice, if not EXPLICITLY STATED that they apply to those tees and not sex"  (as USGA alluded to).  

 

It's been days. Have you called Juniper Hills and asked yet? Or are you simply refusing to because you are afraid of what the answer would be, that all your life you've been living a lie.  😉  

If we ever meet, I hope we can have beers (or some nice whiskey of choice). No animosity here, good discussion. Words on a page sometimes don't display the right tone. 🙂

 

Edited July 4, 2022 by Imp

[larrybud]

If you "have to call" or "write to the usga" or "talk to the pro" it's not clear at all. Have a great Independence Day!