Not a fan of GHIN new 9 hole scoring system

[Augster]

7 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

What a strange thought!

 

Whenever players participating in a competition play practice rounds day or two before the competition they always play in groups, simply because courses tend to be crowded. Also professionals play practice rounds before each competition. On all those rounds players PRACTICE, that is, they try to find things to help them in the actual competition.

You’re talking about practice rounds before a tourney on a course that isn’t played by the players either not very often, or not at all. Yes. Those are practice rounds. 
 

But guys that go out on their own course they’ve played a thousand times have zero reason to play a “practice round” with others. 
 

In other words, if a player wants to play a “practice round”, they should play by themselves. 

[klebs01]

9 hours ago, Augster said:

You’re talking about practice rounds before a tourney on a course that isn’t played by the players either not very often, or not at all. Yes. Those are practice rounds. 
 

But guys that go out on their own course they’ve played a thousand times have zero reason to play a “practice round” with others. 
 

In other words, if a player wants to play a “practice round”, they should play by themselves. 

or they could practice with others and have a good time. 

[Mr. Bean]

11 hours ago, Augster said:

But guys that go out on their own course they’ve played a thousand times have zero reason to play a “practice round” with others. 
 

In other words, if a player wants to play a “practice round”, they should play by themselves. 

 

It seems to me that you are either totally lost or trolling.

 

1) How do you think a player who wants to test certain shots or clubs on a practice round could have their own slot to play that round? Welcome to start before 5:30 am. Or alternatively pay for the entire tee time, i.e. 4 x green fee. Yeah, sure, a valid option to everyone.

 

2) Why do you think it is not possible (or allowed...) to make a few practice shots during a round in order to test new / alternative ways to perform a shot? This is what ALL our pros and top amateurs do when they go out with their coach. Sometimes coach plays with the pupil or pupils, sometimes only the pupil(s) play.

 

You seem to have a strong prejudice against people playing a practice round with others who may or may not also play a practice round.

[rogolf]

Gosh, so many "rules" for playing a round of golf?

When we play, outside of competitions (which is 98% of rounds), there are many "practice shots or replays" without impacting scores, and we still continue with the original ball.  Nobody minds as long as we keep pace with the group in front.  It's ok to have fun during the round.  And yes, we still post the score(s).

Edited April 20, 2024 by rogolf

[betarhoalphadelta]

12 hours ago, st1800e said:

I’ve heard the game is 90% mental…..

I've heard the same...

 

...also, that the remaining 10% is mental. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

On 4/18/2024 at 7:58 PM, nsxguy said:

 

In any case, my experiences are anecdotal, as yours appear to be. But *I* would guess that my fronts and backs, in my 8 best, are pretty close to each other and seldom very different. i.e. I'll more often shoot 39/41/80, or maybe 42/38/80 than say 36/44/80, as you seem to be suggesting.

 

And no, I don't have any statistics to back up my anecdotal opinion either.

 

 

Purely anecdotal as well, but I'm the golfer that's could quite easily throw together a round of 40/58/98 (or 58/40/98; I don't know that I've seen front or back make a difference as to where I might be "good"). If I look at my score history in GHIN, more than half my scores are assigned the exceptional score adjustment, and some of them are a -2 exceptional score adjustment rather than the -1. 

 

I'm an inconsistent golfer. My best round to par (+9 on a par-60 course) I had a 12-hole stretch at even par, in between the first three holes (+4) and the last three holes (+5). I've played that course another time and shot even on the front and +14 on the back. 

 

For me, my score is rarely determined by how my good holes go. It's determined by how bad my bad holes are and how many of them there are. Which means that statistically, I'm going to have those stretches were I just don't have any bad holes. It's unlikely to happen over a stretch of 18 holes--I'm going to screw up somewhere. But over a 9 hole stretch? Much more statistically likely. 

 

Like you, I don't really play 9 hole rounds, but if I played a decent number of them and had a few strong rounds I think it would be a demonstration of an ability to string together a good 9 holes that would not be reflective of my ability to do that over 18. And as it would only be my good scores (since it's 8 of 20) that affect my handicap, I think it would be a handicap that is artificially low as a predictive tool for 18-hole rounds. 

 

To me, I think the area that I don't like about the new system is that it is extrapolating an index based on a smaller sample size, which I think would make it inherently less accurate. Especially for an inconsistent golfer like me who has a better likelihood of throwing down a good 9 holes and screwing it up with another 9. Right now that's potentially "front 9 / back 9" and in the old system it was "9 holes one day / 9 holes other day". But in the new system it's "9 holes and prediction on what the other 9 would be based on how well I was playing". 

 

Personally it doesn't affect me, though, because I don't play 9 hole rounds. (Or, I do, but they're at a pitch & putt that is unrated so not postable anyway.) But if I were playing them, I think it would give me a less accurate handicap than the old system. 

[rogolf]

4 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

To me, I think the area that I don't like about the new system is that it is extrapolating an index based on a smaller sample size, which I think would make it inherently less accurate. Especially for an inconsistent golfer like me who has a better likelihood of throwing down a good 9 holes and screwing it up with another 9. Right now that's potentially "front 9 / back 9" and in the old system it was "9 holes one day / 9 holes other day". But in the new system it's "9 holes and prediction on what the other 9 would be based on how well I was playing".

I don't think that the "new system" uses how well or poorly you were playing on the nine holes you played when it is predicting your differential for the other nine holes.

[betarhoalphadelta]

27 minutes ago, rogolf said:

I don't think that the "new system" uses how well or poorly you were playing on the nine holes you played when it is predicting your differential for the other nine holes.

 

That's probably true. I see various things in here suggesting it adds what your expected score would be based on players of your index and the slope (or standard slope). But the R&A (per Newby) says it's personal to each player while the USGA (your quoted text upthread) says it's not specific to each player. I'm not sure how the sausage is made.

 

So I don't know how they do it. I do feel that for a player like myself, where my scores can fluctuate wildly, it might end up artificially lowering my handicap in a way that the previous system would be unlikely to do so. IMHO if I played purely 9 hole rounds I think it would be accurate as a 9 hole handicap index, even if lower than I'd be expected to shoot over 18, but it would still be "demonstrated ability" for the rounds I play--and "good" rounds would age out twice as quickly re: number of holes played so those low rounds would affect me for a shorter period of time. And purely 18 hole is obviously accurate. But I think mixing the two would be better served by the old system combining them than this new system. 

 

Either way, it's moot for me because I don't play postable 9 hole rounds pretty much ever. I was just highlighting that inconsistent golfers like myself might be an example of opposite situation nsxguy posits. He says he's unlikely to see wild disparities between two 9 hole stretches. I'm the type of golfer that IS likely to see wild disparities between two 9 hole stretches. Combining 9 hole rounds increases the sample size, which (in most statistical models) is generally IMHO positively correlated with improving accuracy. 

 

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

Gosh, so many "rules" for playing a round of golf?

When we play, outside of competitions (which is 98% of rounds), there are many "practice shots or replays" without impacting scores, and we still continue with the original ball.  Nobody minds as long as we keep pace with the group in front.  It's ok to have fun during the round.  And yes, we still post the score(s).

 

Really??

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

But in the new system it's "9 holes and prediction on what the other 9 would be based on how well I was playing". 

 

 

No, it is not. You should read posts from other posters in order to learn as some posters attach real text from manuals. I suppose you are here to learn like many of us.

 

Edited April 20, 2024 by Mr. Bean

[Mr. Bean]

Before one puts such a huge effort in order to criticize this new system it should be acknowledged that any handicap system is primarily constructed to support 18-hole rounds. These partial rounds are there mainly because in the US area it has traditionally been compulsory to post all scores, even rounds with less than 18 holes. Thus it is inevitable that trying to squeeze those 9-hole rounds into an 18-hole handicap system major compromises has to be made.

 

This may affect those golfers who play mainly 9-hole rounds but whether it is up or down is impossible to say. I would postulate that majority of golfers tend to play better 9-hole rounds on the average than 18-hole rounds, at least when one is walking as one gets tired during last holes. It certainly is that way for me, although I remember once having played a round of 44+34, but that is a necessary exception.

 

So let us content ourselves with this system and just use it, after all, there is very little else we can do...

 

Edited April 20, 2024 by Mr. Bean

[rogolf]

19 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Really??

Yes, really.  Been that way for 50 years.

We don't feel that we are jeopardizing the system or our handicaps.

Edited April 20, 2024 by rogolf

[Mr. Bean]

11 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Yes, really.  Been that way for 50 years.

We don't feel that we are jeopardizing the system or our handicaps.

 

Yet for some reason practicing during rounds is a breach of the Rules...

[rogolf]

8 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Yet for some reason practicing during rounds is a breach of the Rules...

Depends on whether your opponent ignores it or not.  The majority of our games are fourball match play.

[Pfish]

I don’t know what any of the following figures will tell anyone, but I found 5 combined scores played on the same 9 holes (our front nine) in 2023, and I have 3 9 holes played on the on the same front nine which have been given an 18 hole differential in 2024. 

 

2023.  70.2/119

46. 48. Combined = 94. Differential 22.6

46. 46. Combined = 92 differential 20.7

46. 44. Combined =  90 differential 18.8

49. 47. Combined = 96 differential 24.5

47. 50 combined = 97 differential 25.4

 

2024. 35.1/119

51.  Differential 26.1

47. Differential 22.3

45. Differential 20.4

 

[Mr. Bean]

28 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Depends on whether your opponent ignores it or not.  The majority of our games are fourball match play.

 

Are those accepted for handicap purposes in your country?

[Mr. Bean]

16 minutes ago, Pfish said:

I don’t know what any of the following figures will tell anyone, but I found 5 combined scores played on the same 9 holes (our front nine) in 2023, and I have 3 9 holes played on the on the same front nine which have been given an 18 hole differential in 2024. 

 

2023.  70.2/119

46. 48. Combined = 94. Differential 22.6

46. 46. Combined = 92 differential 20.7

46. 44. Combined =  90 differential 18.8

49. 47. Combined = 96 differential 24.5

47. 50 combined = 97 differential 25.4

 

2024. 35.1/119

51.  Differential 26.1

47. Differential 22.3

45. Differential 20.4

 

 

IMO 2024 figures seem to make sense when compared to those of 2023.

[rogolf]

3 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Are those accepted for handicap purposes in your country?

Of course.  If not, I wouldn't have said anything about posting the scores!

[Mr. Bean]

33 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Of course.  If not, I wouldn't have said anything about posting the scores!

 

Interesting. We do not accept MP scores.

 

P.S. You could have referred to stroke play scores as you seem to play SP as well... 😉

 

P.P.S. Do you practice on stroke play rounds as well and post those scores?

[klebs01]

29 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Interesting. We do not accept MP scores.

 

P.S. You could have referred to stroke play scores as you seem to play SP as well... 😉

 

P.P.S. Do you practice on stroke play rounds as well and post those scores?

if four ball wasn’t acceptable the USGA would probably lose a third to a half of handicap users. It’s by far the most popular game at clubs, at least in my region. 
 

most people I know play less than 5 stroke play rounds a year. Not a format that is used in club events. 

Edited April 21, 2024 by klebs01

[North Butte]

7 hours ago, rogolf said:

I don't think that the "new system" uses how well or poorly you were playing on the nine holes you played when it is predicting your differential for the other nine holes.

I have only ever done extensive analytics on my own scores but many years ago I proved to my own satisfaction that there is no meaningful correlation between MY front nine and back nine scoring within a round. Or between scores to two consecutive 18-hole rounds. In the bigger picture, looking at longer series of scores, at least for my game it's remarkable how non-existent that presumed autocorrelation turns out to be.

 

It often feels like a there "ought to be" some connection between what you shoot on the back nine and how well or poorly you played the front. But I'm convinced that's an illusion, it's just our narrative-orientated habits of mind imposing patterns on randomness. 

 

Since, for whatever reason, the Powers That Be have decided they want to combine an imputed 9-hole score with every posted 9-hole score they are IMHO making the right decision not to base that on "how well you played" the 9-holes you posted. 

[rogolf]

1 hour ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Interesting. We do not accept MP scores.

 

P.S. You could have referred to stroke play scores as you seem to play SP as well... 😉

 

P.P.S. Do you practice on stroke play rounds as well and post those scores?

To your PPS: yes, periodically someone will do that, and nobody minds that either.  Further, no penalty strokes are added. 

Our goal is to improve.  Not all practice is on the driving range or with "coaches".  Several of us are "coaches" for each other since we play together a lot.  We also exchange advice regularly.  Hopefully you won't turn us in to the "handicap rules police" (not that they would worry about it).

[bobfoster]

12 hours ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

It seems to me that you are either totally lost or trolling.

 

1) How do you think a player who wants to test certain shots or clubs on a practice round could have their own slot to play that round? Welcome to start before 5:30 am. Or alternatively pay for the entire tee time, i.e. 4 x green fee. Yeah, sure, a valid option to everyone.

 

2) Why do you think it is not possible (or allowed...) to make a few practice shots during a round in order to test new / alternative ways to perform a shot? This is what ALL our pros and top amateurs do when they go out with their coach. Sometimes coach plays with the pupil or pupils, sometimes only the pupil(s) play.

 

You seem to have a strong prejudice against people playing a practice round with others who may or may not also play a practice round.

With you here on this @Mr. Bean. I do take the RoG (including handicap rules) seriously, but the line between a round and "practice" can get kinda blurry, especially in spring at the beginning of the season.

 

Case in point. This last week, a buddy invited me to play an Executive course. Something I ordinarily do not do, but I thought what the heck. Good to have fun and help shake the winter rust off (and I have a few new clubs I'm still getting used to). I brought a Sunday bag with six clubs and my putter. Now, I did play 18 holes, and it was a Ghin course (i.e., had a rating and slope, and scores could be recorded - some Executive courses are too short to qualify - I think you have to be at least 4,000 or longer - but this one did qualify). And I did play with someone (i.e., not alone). According to @Augster, I should have recorded the round (since I wasn't "alone"). But that is silliness. The overwhelming intent of the handicap rules is to make sure every serious round you play is recorded, whether you were shooting well or not. But there was never any intention to penalize people in any way for practicing.

 

No, I didn't enter it into Ghin. The round was completely a practice round. On some holes one or both of us might have hit several similar shots. (For instance, I was doing a lot of experimentation from 100 in - had both my PW and 52*, would hit one club, then drop another ball and hit the other club ... working out the different swing lengths and trajectories and spin for each club - it is exercises like this that produce a good short game.) The course was pretty wide open. Started with a foursome a couple holes behind us, and the distance only got greater even though my friend and I were kind of practicing. 

 

So, had perfect practice day conditions. I was looking at the day not as a serious round, but something much closer to a long session at the range, but on a course instead of off of mats. Whether I played alone or with another person is completely irrelevant. Not only did I not record my score, it would have been contrary to the RoG to do so (in fact, it would almost be the very definition of the concept of "sandbagging"). The folks that write the Rules aren't idiots. They know people play "round/range" practices. In fact, the better you get, the more likely you are to do those. 

 

Golf is a "gentleman's game". One of the few sports where "intent" (a fairly subjective thing) is actually written into some of the rules. I know (in my own head) when I'm playing my usual round of golf (every score of which will be entered), or when I'm going to be on a course with the mindset of working on several particular parts of my game. I don't record those, just as I don't record anything I do at a driving range. 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2024 by bobfoster

[Mr. Bean]

11 hours ago, rogolf said:

To your PPS: yes, periodically someone will do that, and nobody minds that either.  Further, no penalty strokes are added. 

Our goal is to improve.  Not all practice is on the driving range or with "coaches".  Several of us are "coaches" for each other since we play together a lot.  We also exchange advice regularly.  Hopefully you won't turn us in to the "handicap rules police" (not that they would worry about it).

 

I must say I am very surprised but most of all utterly disappointed. You of all people, a long term referee? I say...

 

So what you are essentially saying is that you are of the opinion that you as a player are allowed to decide which Rules you may break with no penalty during a handicap round you have decided have no effect to your overall score (or skills, as someone wrote) to be posted. I say there are many such Rules but handicap rounds are to be played by the Rules. There is absolutely no other option in my eyes.

 

I have seen this already before over the years that in the US handicap system people are much too bound to mandatory posting and IMO it seems to f**k up everything. We have always had the idea that you declare a handicap round before you commence any round. If you do not declare that in time, the round is NOT to be posted. Yes, I know, people misuse this a lot and only post the score after they have realized the round was very good. But just like you, rogolf, they are misbehaving and only cheating themselves. In essence, they have an incorrect handicap.

 

So what you need to include in the US WHS is the concept of Casual Round. This is the Definition:

- a round that is played just to have fun

- score of such round is not eligible for handicap purposes (unless specifically announced before the round is started and the round is played stricly by the Rules of Golf).

[rogolf]

I understand there are differences in requirements, opinions and performance around the globe for what you call "handicap rounds".  No system is perfect, and the more effort made to make a system perfect leads to it being less functional.

Our handicaps are just as valid and correct as yours, even though they may be arrived at using different "rules" set by different "bureaucracies".

Golf is a game and is meant to be fun and enjoyable every day.

 

Edited April 21, 2024 by rogolf

[North Butte]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

Golf is a game and is meant to be fun and enjoyable every day.

 

Some people seem to lose track of the fact that we have handicaps in order to play golf. We don't play golf in order to have handicaps...or at least I don't. Maybe some people do.

 

Play golf. Have fun. Maintain a handicap if it helps you enjoy games against other people of various skill levels. That's it, unless you're earning a living at the game. 

[Mr. Bean]

Handicap rounds should be dealt with equally with competition rounds. In both occasions players try their best and play by the Rules. That is why it is important to distinquish casual and handicap/competitive rounds. Both can be fun but casual rounds with multiple breaches of Rules do not reflect the true ability of a player, not to mention the true Handicap Index.

 

A couple of years ago in my country players with HI 4,4 or lower were not allowed to post any other scores but competitive scores. I thought that was rather good as golfers with such low HI tend to be competitive golfers and thus always play their handicap rounds according to the Rules. It was also difficult to sandbag.

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, rogolf said:

I understand there are differences in requirements, opinions and performance around the globe for what you call "handicap rounds".  No system is perfect, and the more effort made to make a system perfect leads to it being less functional.

Our handicaps are just as valid and correct as yours, even though they may be arrived at using different "rules" set by different "bureaucracies".

Golf is a game and is meant to be fun and enjoyable every day.

 

 

Isn't it written in your WHS Manual that handicap rounds must be played by the Rules of Golf? If not, then I buy your postulate your handicaps being valid.

[rogolf]

Different bureaucracies are apparent.

Yes, it says that in our handicap manual, and, by and large, we comply.  Trying to be "perfect" is overdone, and often prohibits successful results.

Edited April 21, 2024 by rogolf

[Mr. Bean]

17 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Different bureaucracies are apparent.

Yes, it says that in our handicap manual, and, by and large, we comply.  Trying to be "perfect" is overdone, and often prohibits successful results.

 

Now I am curious! Can you give some examples how playing by the Rules prohibits successful results? And what are, in fact, successful results in this concept?