2020 Handicap calculation issues

[Loki]

Anyone have a unexpected large increase in their index after the new handicap formula went into effect?

At the end of last year, I had a 7.7 index. Now my index is 9.2, which is impossible. The highest it could be is 8.0 due to the 0.96 multiplier being eliminated. My state golf association says it is correct at 9.2.

At the end of the day, my number is my number, but methinks something is amiss.

[davep043]

Do you have your score history? You should be able to access it and do the calculations manually, using both methods. I agree, the two numbers shouldn't be that far apart, assuming you haven't posted any scores since December 15.

[jvincent]

Yeah, that doesn't sound right if you haven't added any scores.

[KevCarter]

With the new computation taking 8 of the last 20 instead of 10, could it be the old 9th and 10th best scores sorted by date were two of your lowest?

[Sean2]

Mine remained the same.

[davep043]

Kev, unless there are new scores posted, no "old" scores were dropped. The scores that WERE dropped are the 9th and 10th scores sorted by score (differential, actually). Now if he did post scores between December 15 and now, he definitely could have bumped some old good scores from the calculation.

[KevCarter]

I appreciate the clarification. Thank you Dave!

[Loki]

It doesn't matter. On Dec. 31 my index was 7.7, on Jan. 1 it was 9.2. Haven't played since October, and probably won't until April. It's not possible that the index increases 1.5 strokes.

I have looked at a few things but I actually think they calculated the 7.7 incorrectly. I am going to look further but something is amiss.

[Loki]

They left out a bunch of 9 hole rounds. I play two leagues and record them.

I reached out to them again today, but they haven't responded yet, not unusual.

[larrybud]

 

That would lower the average differential, not raise it. There's no way someones index goes up with the new WHS calculation.

However, their "Playing handicap" may go up since that calculation is different.

[Sawgrass]

With the elimination of the old 96% factor, your newly computed index will go up (unless a zero index or rounding precludes it).

[davep043]

The use of the best 8, instead of best 10, will tend to make the HI go down, elimination of the 0.96 factor (in USGA areas) will tend to make the HI go up. The elimination of the 0.96 factor will have a greater impact on higher handicaps than on low ones. From what I've heard, more people had their HI go down slightly than have had it go up. The OP figured out that his issue was that some scores didn't get posted. I hope he's been able to have that stuff corrected.

[Sawgrass]

Yes, I should have added "with all other things being equal" such as the three highest scores of the best previous 10 of 20 being the same.

[Augster]

Totally possible if the OP used to have an “R” rating on his cap. Once they removed the “R” it would have to go up.

If he posted his differentials it’d be easy to figure out the index.

I guess I don’t understand the “left out a bunch of 9-hole Rounds” thing. At most you would have ONE 9-hole round. Once another 9-hole round was posted, it would have combined to a “C” 18-hole round. No more 9-holers waiting to be computed.

[Shilgy]

You meant they would form a “N” score for combined Nines. “C” is a competition score.

[Augster]

These are his scores from last year. Last year they would have been “C” combined scores. He doesn’t have any scores this year.

You are correct, though, any 2019 C scores (combined 9’s) have been changed to “N” scores on his scoring record.

[Shilgy]

You are correct. I misread the dates of play.

[nsxguy]

You WILL let us know when you find out why a number of 9 hole scores were left out of the conversions, yes ?

[larrybud]

 

Unless the average differential of scores 9 and 10 are within 4% of the average of differentials of scores 1-8, your cap is going down. I'd like to see an example of someone's who went up.

[Loki]

Hey guys! Just got notification that they found my missing scores. HI is now 7.4.

I didn't ask but I wonder how many others had this same issue.