Curious to get some opinions on something. I played an irons-only 9 today at a handicap qualifying course. Played straight golf besides that though, but still I wasn’t planning on posting the round since it was played in a non-traditional manner. Score was fine, probably no impact either way, but what do you all think? Post or no post?
I’m going no post on that one
Don’t post. At our club, you can send a note to the handicap committee saying that you played a practice round and won’t be recording the score. If you don’t do that, the committee will record a 72 for any round for which you don’t post.
4 Likes
Wish our club had a committee to handle that. Great idea.
We had a lot of members who didn’t turn in their scores. It was amazing how the reporting improved when the committee started posting 72s. 
3 Likes
As long as you played by the rules I golf, I say post it. When I want to carry my bag instead of push a cart, I often go out with 7 or 8 clubs and my scoring ends up about the same as when I have a full compliment of clubs in the bag. There are rules governing the maximum number of clubs in the bag but not the minimum or what you set in a given round consists of.
1 Like
I changed my mind and went ahead and posted it. The score wasn’t ridiculous and I had a lonely 9 waiting to be combined. I hate having those just sit there.
3 Likes
You can look at Rule 2 in the Handicap Rules. For a voluntary decision not to use all your clubs, I’d be inclined not to post. Its analogous to a competition which restricts the number of clubs you’re allowed to use.
For @Wasa, the previous USGA Handicap Rules gave guidance as to what the Penalty Score should be. I can’t remember for certain, I believe the recommended number was the players lowest score over the past 12 months. A hard number like 72 would be excessively punitive for a 20-handicap, but have little or no effect on a 3. The WHS rules don’t suggest a specific score for Penalty Score, but to me the old guidelines are still reasonable.
5 Likes
I don’t disagree with you Dave. But I guess the purpose was to create a strong incentive to get people to post their scores. It has worked.
At my club it is either play in the daily comp for an extra $7 and your round counts towards handicap. Get a hole in one and get a medal and a mention in dispatches. Don’t play comp = no handicap and nothing if you get a hole in one. They have a policy of not recognising social rounds for handicap except when you are new and need to put rounds in for an initial handicap. I figure I pay enough to be a member without an extra $7 a round and just calculate my handicap at home
Yeah, this is a difference that remains in the WHS among the various regions, what is required (or allowed) to be posted for handicap. In the USGA areas, we’re basically required to post every round, including what is termed “social” golf elsewhere. My guess is that future revisions to the WHS will bring us all closer to the same procedures and requirements.
1 Like
My club has some guys who don’t report rounds if they can avoid it… I think it’s weird to sandbag, but some people will take any edge they can get in a competition.
My generic feeling is report the score… in this case, I’d say report it because it isn’t much of an outlier.
2 Likes
if you played by the rules and carded the minimum number of holes no reason not to post as general play. you restricted the number of clubs in your vs. having a competition restrict.
1 Like
It’s a no from me. I’m a bit worried about the new handicap system allowing this. Too much room for people ignoring the odd missed 2-footer or breakfast ball. I guess it all levels out though, maybe it’s not such a big deal.
I don’t know what the restrictions on handicap posting in Norway, but for those of us in the USGA areas, that didn’t change with the introduction of the WHS. Are more “casual” rounds to be posted for you than they were under the old system, or more types of competitive rounds (i.e. match play)? Was Norway in the EGA?
You mean i could qualify for usga events at your place? Thats interesting. 