Jump to content

reidsou

Established Member
  • Content Count

    50
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

6 Sandbagger

About reidsou

  • Rank
    Established Member

Your Golf Game

  • Handicap Index
    7.2
  • Handedness
    Righty

Recent Profile Visitors

620 profile views
  1. Yes something else is involved. Your handicap should not have increased when one of the used scores decreased.
  2. Thanks for this detailed reply, but my point about handicap allowance is unrelated to rounding. (Turned out I picked an unfortunate example where rounding happened to obscure my point - my bad.) BTW, I really appreciate your informative posts on rules topics..
  3. Yes, I'm aware that the playing handicap is rounded at the end of the calculation (Interpretation 6.1b/1). What you are pointing out is an accident of rounding in this particular example - 13.435 and 0.95 * 13.435 = 12.763 both round to 13. Whereas 9.527 rounds to 10, but 0.95 * 9.527 = 9.051 rounds to 9. However, when multiplying by 0.95 (i.e. subtracting 5%) a higher course handicap will be reduced more than a lower course handicap, as shown here. Rounding can obscure this or make it confusing, as in this example. But in general, the higher playing handicap is more likely to be reduced after rounding than the lower playing handicap. This is the handicap allowance advantage of the shorter tees that I mentioned. Thanks for the dialogue!
  4. Thanks for taking time to put together this detailed example. I agree the CR and slope mean a higher course handicap for longer tees. The higher the course handicap, the more it is affected by the handicap allowance when calculating the playing handicap. I think it is easier to see this effect before rounding. In your example sets of tees and two players with the same index - say 10.0. Player A plays from longer tees: course handicap 13.435 Player B from shorter tees: course handicap 9.527. A difference of 3.908. Playing handicaps with 95% handicap allowance. Player A: 12.763 Player B: 9.051 A difference of 3.212. Player B has gained 0.7 strokes in playing handicap by using the shorter tees.
  5. The reason not to use the 95% recommendation is that it reduces the relative playing handicap of those who play from the longer tees. Giving an advantage to players who play from shorter tees. I don't think the recommended Handicap Allowance contemplates this situation of players competing from different tees in the same competition.
  6. The PCC calculation is made once - the night of the date of play. That PCC is then applied to all scores played on that date, regardless of when posted.
  7. If we have players play from different tees in the same individual stroke play competition, should we use a handicap allowance of 100%? (Instead of the recommended 95%.) See Rules of Handicapping for the definition of handicap allowance.
  8. The impact of not posting the club scores the same day is that the PCC for that day will be less statistically accurate. My personal opinion is if it's a lot of work don't bother. PCC is almost always 0 anyway. On the few days it is not, the other posted scores will likely reflect that. A little jealous: I would love to get an ESR! Would mean I played really well.
  9. Yes, my mind is made up. See my original post:
  10. Thanks for the thoughts. Even though off season for handicap posting, the rounds I'm referring to are still tournaments with money prizes. The reason I care about this is the precedent for upholding USGA rules. Handicap season or not. Also, in this case, we would be avoiding bad lies in bunkers. But bad lies are the reason bunkers exist! (IMO) So it seems completely unnecessary and counter to the spirit of the game. At our club we have a history of verbal rules where it depends on who you ask what the rule is, and accompanying debates about what the rule *should* be. We're trying to change that. An important tool is to adhere as closely as possible to the written rules and USGA guidance. Other examples: we have a temporary green "automatic two putt" rule. We allow preferred lies in the general area instead of just on fairways. We have off-the-cuff player decisions about what is GUR. Players skip penalty drops on abnormal course conditions and drop outside the relief area. Players take penalty area relief for balls that may be lost outside of a penalty area.
  11. I have a member who wants our club to adopt a local rule during off season events to allow "lift, rake, and place" in bunkers. Kind of "winter rules for bunkers". I'm against this because it is not an authorized local rule (Committee Procedures section 8). Violates rules 1.1 and 8.1. I would prefer to avoid precedents of disregarding USGA rules, even in the off season. Plus, I don't see why we should make it easier to play out of bunkers - they are a hazard. I would like to give the member an authoritative convincing answer. Already tried to get some help from the USGA - asked about their past experience with considering and rejecting this local rule request and/or to explain their perspective on why improving your lie in a bunker is fundamentally different than improving your lie in the fairway (allowed under model local rule E-3). They did not answer, just said it is not allowed. Thoughts on what I can say to this member?
  12. See the "Summary of Changes" PDF available here: https://wagolf.org/keep-score/handicap-information/whs/#section-169888
  13. There's special rules in 2019 for a ball in the teeing area. For example, if you swing and miss the ball is in play, but you can still'retee it. See rule 6.2.
  14. This is a big change for this year. The term "relief area" is new. Also, it is now much easier under the rules to drop twice and then get to place the ball.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...