Question regarding handicap

Nedser101

Hi just a quick question re handicap allocation in new club
Recently joined elmgreen golf club and submitted my 3 cards. 86 91 91 .
Checked golfnet today and confirmed handicap 16 so I was wondering how this is calculated where winter rules apply as handicap seems a bit low.
Any opinions !

Goldenjohn

Why do you think 16 is too low?
What par is it?

PARlance

Nedser101 wrote: »

Hi just a quick question re handicap allocation in new club
Recently joined elmgreen golf club and submitted my 3 cards. 86 91 91 .
Checked golfnet today and confirmed handicap 16 so I was wondering how this is calculated where winter rules apply as handicap seems a bit low.
Any opinions !

Why does it seem low if one of your rounds was +16 (Par 70)
You could have gotten a 13-15 with an 86 handed in.
Your initial 3 cards are reviewed and HC is determined by the HC Sec.

Nedser101

Winter rules placing everywhere ,bunkers out of play etc.

Nedser101

My playing partner got 13 hi cards where 84 86 80

sawdoubters

http://www.elmgreengolfclub.ie/index.php?option=com_content&id=409:handicaps-how-they-work&Itemid=168

PARlance

Nedser101 wrote: »

My playing partner got 13 hi cards where 84 86 80

Good luck representing the club this year! They must have ye earmarked for a team

I could just about see why the gave you 16... IF you were playing off forward tees and in winter rules!? (Still too high though)

Giving someone that handed in a +10 card a HC of 13 is beyond ridiculous

PARlance

Nedser101 wrote: »

Winter rules placing everywhere ,bunkers out of play etc.

The CSS in our club is usually 36 or Par 72 throughout the year.
I know it can't be simplified like that, but for mid-high HC'ers....What you gain with rules you lose with the conditions IMO.

Nedser101

PARlance wrote: »

Good luck representing the club this year! They must have ye earmarked for a team

I could just about see why the gave you 16... IF you were playing off forward tees and in winter rules!? (Still too high though)

Giving someone that handed in a +10 card a HC of 13 is beyond ridiculous

I don't think it's too high I think it's fair I was asking how its calculated in winter it's a fairly short coarse .
I was a member in corrstown in 2012 and had a handicap of 23

PARlance

Nedser101 wrote: »

I don't think it's too high I think it's fair I was asking how its calculated in winter it's a fairly short coarse .
I was a member in corrstown in 2012 and had a handicap of 23

Initial HC's are calculated the same all year round. They're calculated by the HC Sec looking at the 3 cards and using his judgement.

There is no set formula to calculate it no matter what time of year it is.
The HC Sec should be taking the fact that it was under winter rules into consideration but not the fact that it's a short course.

If you were a member of a club before you should know that someone shooting +10 (even in winter rules) should not be getting an initial HC of 13.

The course is short, but it's short all year round.
Most peoples handicaps are based on the ability to play on your home course (unless your distance, or not playing your home course often) and the standard of players in the club (to a lesser extent...CSS)

Nedser101

Yeah 10 over is good shooting but with an 84 and 86 13 would probably be about right

PARlance

Nedser101 wrote: »

Yeah 10 over is good shooting but with an 84 and 86 13 would probably be about right

It would be if a Handicap was meant to represent your average score... Which it is absolutely not meant to represent.

edit:
To add to this, our HC Sec told me he only wanted to see my best card as that was the closest he could get to me on a "good day". As long as the other cards are not miles off the best one, then I'd say its common practice to look at just one.

Felexicon

Nedser101 wrote: »

Hi just a quick question re handicap allocation in new club
Recently joined elmgreen golf club and submitted my 3 cards. 86 91 91 .
Checked golfnet today and confirmed handicap 16 so I was wondering how this is calculated where winter rules apply as handicap seems a bit low.
Any opinions !

Go away on out of that our lad. If you're throwing them scores in straight away how could you expect a higher handicap. Sure the course is only going to get easier for you the more you get to know it. Handicaps should be played to on your best rounds not your average ones

BoardsMember

I would have thought that any honest & informed HC secretary could not give you a handicap that is higher than any of your submitted cards, regardless of winter rules etc.

PARlance

BoardsMember wrote: »

I would have thought that any honest & informed HC secretary could not give you a handicap that is lower than any of your submitted cards, regardless of winter rules etc.

You meant to say higher surely BM?

Neil Andblomee

BoardsMember wrote: »

I would have thought that any honest & informed HC secretary could not give you a handicap that is lower than any of your submitted cards, regardless of winter rules etc.

You would have thought wrong, the cards are only one of many criteria used in the allocating of a handicap.

I always thought the object of the game is to get the lowest handicap possible, and not to complain when you get one that is lower than what you think you should have.

BoardsMember

PARlance wrote: »

You meant to say higher surely BM?

Yeah, thanks, I corrected that!

BoardsMember

Neil Andblomee wrote: »

You would have thought wrong, the cards are only one of many criteria used in the allocating of a handicap.

I always thought the object of the game is to get the lowest handicap possible, and not to complain when you get one that is lower than what you think you should have.

Agreed, I made a mistake in my post.

What are the many other criteria used - I would have assumed that the 3 cards is one of the few, and certainly the most often used to the exception of anything else.

PARlance

Neil Andblomee wrote: »

I always thought the object of the game is to get the lowest handicap possible, and not to complain when you get one that is lower than what you think you should have.

Maybe that is the OP's goal, I certainly thought "bandit" straight away when Iseen the thread, but on reflection, a bandit is going to know how the Handicap system works and isn't going to come onto a public forum to expose his banditry... (generally)

Nedser, I was a bit abrupt yesterday, fair play on the jump and I should have given you the benefit of the doubt (others may think that's naive, but sure..)

I would have thought that someone who has been a member elsewhere previously would have had a good understanding of how an initial HC allocation worked, but that said, I think it's a case of an honest lack of knowledge in that area as supposed to someone complaining about getting a low HC for banditry reasons.

You never complained, so prove me right, are you happy with the 16?

I still think the HC Sec in your place has given your mate a HC of at least 3 shots higher than it should be. I'd have said he should have given you a 15 at most too. But that's his fault imo.

Neil Andblomee

BoardsMember wrote: »

Agreed, I made a mistake in my post.

What are the many other criteria used - I would have assumed that the 3 cards is one of the few, and certainly the most often used to the exception of anything else.

Yes the 3 cards is one of the main criteria, with a little research the criteria can be found on congu.com or the from the booklet produced by CONGU.

markie4

BoardsMember wrote: »

I would have thought that any honest & informed HC secretary could not give you a handicap that is higher than any of your submitted cards, regardless of winter rules etc.

As per CONGU, scores recorded for handicaps are supposed to be assessed on SSS, so for Elmgreen, think it's 68, not (the par of) 70 that was previously quoted.

I don't think the 13 h'cap is too far off the mark, with rounds of +12, +16 and +18 relative to SSS. I'd even guess that he's been given an exact of 12.5, so any bit of form/result and he's immediately cut to 12 (or even lower). Similar thing happened to my brother when he joined.

If we're going to throw comments about honesty or ignorance around casually, might as well try and be accurate about it, eh?

PARlance

markie4 wrote: »

As per CONGU, scores recorded for handicaps are supposed to be assessed on SSS, so for Elmgreen, think it's 68, not (the par of) 70 that was previously quoted.

I don't think the 13 h'cap is too far off the mark, with rounds of +12, +16 and +18 relative to SSS. I'd even guess that he's been given an exact of 12.5, so any bit of form/result and he's immediately cut to 12 (or even lower). Similar thing happened to my brother when he joined.

If we're going to throw comments about honesty or ignorance around casually, might as well try and be accurate about it, eh?

I mentioned 70, I was aware it was lower than 72 and a quick search produced this scorecard showing 70...
http://elmgreen.golfdublin.com/UploadImages/scorecard.pdf

I've played it a few times recently and 68 does sound right, maybe they've changed it around since that card... no scorecard on their website from what I can see, which is bad form.

Was the 12.5 suggestion an attempt to justify it?
Giving someone 12.5 or 13 isn't really on imo if they hand handed in a +12 card. Hopefully that was a scratch free round too.

If someone comes on asking about how something works, then they are asking people to help them with their ignorance... we are all ignorant.
I already addressed my posts from last night as I wasn't happy about them on review...

I think HC Sec's (Clubs) should err on the side of caution with initial HC's (without be ridiculously harsh as I've heard of some being).
But in this instance, I still think it's crazy that 13 was given.
You mention he might get an immediate cut, that's likely, and likely to p*ss of existing members.

BoardsMember

markie4 wrote: »

As per CONGU, scores recorded for handicaps are supposed to be assessed on SSS, so for Elmgreen, think it's 68, not (the par of) 70 that was previously quoted.

I don't think the 13 h'cap is too far off the mark, with rounds of +12, +16 and +18 relative to SSS. I'd even guess that he's been given an exact of 12.5, so any bit of form/result and he's immediately cut to 12 (or even lower). Similar thing happened to my brother when he joined.

If we're going to throw comments about honesty or ignorance around casually, might as well try and be accurate about it, eh?

I was only offering my thoughts on the matter, I still stand by my belief that 13 is not a proper handicap to give someone who has a card in with +12.

Having seen what happens in my place, i.e. that the HC secretary errs on the side of extreme caution, such that the expected direction of handicap of a newly hadicapped person in our place is almost 100% of the time upwards. This seems to be at odds with any chance of being cut in the near future with any bit of form. Maybe ours is ridiculously harsh, now that I think of it.

Nedser101

PARlance wrote: »

Maybe that is the OP's goal, I certainly thought "bandit" straight away when Iseen the thread, but on reflection, a bandit is going to know how the Handicap system works and isn't going to come onto a public forum to expose his banditry... (generally)

Nedser, I was a bit abrupt yesterday, fair play on the jump and I should have given you the benefit of the doubt (others may think that's naive, but sure..)

I would have thought that someone who has been a member elsewhere previously would have had a good understanding of how an initial HC allocation worked, but that said, I think it's a case of an honest lack of knowledge in that area as supposed to someone complaining about getting a low HC for banditry reasons.

You never complained, so prove me right, are you happy with the 16?

I still think the HC Sec in your place has given your mate a HC of at least 3 shots higher than it should be. I'd have said he should have given you a 15 at most too. But that's his fault imo.

I was a member in corrstown and by all accounts it would be a much tougher coarse ,they gave me 23 hc an my best round all year was 90 and could never put around together in a comp so by no means a bandit I'm also a member of two society's and play off 21 in one and 18 in other

Maybe it's the new driver but I'm certainly better off with a lower handcp.

Eaglebridie 32

Am currently handicap secretary myself. Would think that based on the 3 cards submitted and assuming that there are no huge individual scores on given holes, that handicap of 16 is fairly on the button. I alway's calculate the initial handicap allocation on the best of the 3 cards submitted and always qualify the allocation by stating that it's based on the information provided ( 3 cards) and that it's subject to review.

PARlance

Nedser101 wrote: »

I was a member in corrstown and by all accounts it would be a much tougher coarse ,they gave me 23 hc an my best round all year was 90 and could never put around together in a comp so by no means a bandit I'm also a member of two society's and play off 21 in one and 18 in other

Maybe it's the new driver but I'm certainly better off with a lower handcp.

Didn't mean to suggest you were Nedser, and my post earlier was to clear that up.

Could be the new driver, your improvement generally in the meantime or it could be that the new course just suits your game better (or all of the above plus some).

If you shot an 86 around there already you'll only improve as you get to know the course better. That 86 would have got you 34 points off 16.
I wouldn't be worried about being off 23 in the past or in a different club.
The present says you can score in the buffer already at your new club.

Going back to your previous question, I really don't notice a significant difference in scoring between winter rules or not so you're 86 is good in my view. What you gain in placing (you don't generally need to clean in summer) you lose in carry, miserable conditions etc.

3putt

Elmgreen is a par 70. Only 2 par 5's.