Not a fan of GHIN new 9 hole scoring system

[5yddraw]

Just came to post that I also don’t like the change.  My post winter handicap is between 2-3 and I posted a 10 hole score of 40 after work yesterday which is even par through 10 (course 71.5/133) and my index went up because it posted as a differential of 3.  I guess that’s good if you like to sandbag but I don’t think that makes sense

[klebs01]

23 minutes ago, 5yddraw said:

Just came to post that I also don’t like the change.  My post winter handicap is between 2-3 and I posted a 10 hole score of 40 after work yesterday which is even par through 10 (course 71.5/133) and my index went up because it posted as a differential of 3.  I guess that’s good if you like to sandbag but I don’t think that makes sense

Or it just knocked out a low score. A differential of 3 seems reasonable in your situation. 

[5yddraw]

I see your point but I still prefer the old method of combining 9 hole scores.  I don’t like the assumed scores, I’d rather have it use what I actually shot.

[klebs01]

9 minutes ago, 5yddraw said:

I see your point but I still prefer the old method of combining 9 hole scores.  I don’t like the assumed scores, I’d rather have it use what I actually shot.

I don’t think it’s more accurate to post a combined score with 9s posted more than a year apart. That’s the old system. The new one is an improvement to that. The other option is no 9 hole scores. 

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, North Butte said:

I think there are better analytics tools available (especially to you) than anything resembling a handicap, for purposes of tracking "progress". 

That is true. But until now the system as it existed felt 'good enough'. Not so sure at this point. dave

[DaveLeeNC]

26 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

I don’t think it’s more accurate to post a combined score with 9s posted more than a year apart. That’s the old system. The new one is an improvement to that. The other option is no 9 hole scores. 

That is a pretty extreme example that is going to be pretty rare (most folks will have seen that old 9 hole roll off a long time ago). Plus, by definition, it has a very limited effect on a person's index as it is only 1 score of 20. When I brought this up I was/am facing the case of it being half my posted scores (even though it will be only a quarter of my holes played). And not posting those 9 hole scores feels even more wrong to me. 

 

dave

Edited May 2, 2024 by DaveLeeNC

[davep043]

1 hour ago, DaveLeeNC said:

That is a pretty extreme example that is going to be pretty rare (most folks will have seen that old 9 hole roll off a long time ago). Plus, by definition, it has a very limited effect on a person's index as it is only 1 score of 20. When I brought this up I was/am facing the case of it being half my posted scores (even though it will be only a quarter of my holes played). And not posting those 9 hole scores feels even more wrong to me. 

 

dave

I'd suggest that the change to your playing, many more 9-hole scores as compared to previous years, has as big an impact as the change in the handicapping rules.  If you had continued playing most 18-hole rounds, you wouldn't have noticed it.  Like any change, its going to impact different players differently, and the "mystery" surrounding "expected differential" only makes it seem worse.  For folks who play a lot of 9-hole rounds, and who have a hot stretch where most scores are good, perhaps the change in handicap will be slower.  I'm not convinced without doing the calculations, you could have a single "really good" combined score as compared to TWO "pretty good" scores if the 9's are entered with the current (new) system.  And again, we'd have to assume that most of the player's 9-holers are "good", for a typical player he'd often have combined a good 9 with an average 9 (much like the current system) or even a good 9 combined with a "bad" 9.  

 

[sui generis]

3 hours ago, 5yddraw said:

Just came to post that I also don’t like the change.  My post winter handicap is between 2-3 and I posted a 10 hole score of 40 after work yesterday which is even par through 10 (course 71.5/133) and my index went up because it posted as a differential of 3.  I guess that’s good if you like to sandbag but I don’t think that makes sense

 

Here we go again, yet another near-scratch player whining about the handicap system. 😉

[iacas]

2 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

That is true. But until now the system as it existed felt 'good enough'. Not so sure at this point. dave

 

I mean… they gave their reasons for the change, and they have a lot more actual data on this than you do.

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

 

I mean… they gave their reasons for the change, and they have a lot more actual data on this than you do.

 

Two comments

 

1) Their problem and my immediate concern/question are not the same thing. The right answer for the population as a whole might well be different than the 'right answer' in my case. 

 

2) They do NOT have more actual data on my problem than I have. 

 

dave

 

[davep043]

48 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

1) Their problem and my immediate concern/question are not the same thing. The right answer for the population as a whole might well be different than the 'right answer' in my case.

Amen, and this is the case for every change to a rule.  And you've been consistent in your posts, that you speak for yourself and your own situation, rather than trying to speak for the golf world at large.  There are plenty of folks in the world that won't ever realize the distinction you make here.

50 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

2) They do NOT have more actual data on my problem than I have. 

They probably have pretty much the same data as you have, but almost certainly haven't given it the same level of attention as you have.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, davep043 said:

Amen, and this is the case for every change to a rule.  And you've been consistent in your posts, that you speak for yourself and your own situation, rather than trying to speak for the golf world at large.  There are plenty of folks in the world that won't ever realize the distinction you make here.

 

And as everyone here knows and realizes, they have to make the rules apply to the general. I appreciate that @DaveLeeNC is talking only about him, and I assume he realizes that he may be in the minority and thus they can't make the rules based on him.

 

4 hours ago, davep043 said:

They probably have pretty much the same data as you have, but almost certainly haven't given it the same level of attention as you have.

 

Indeed. 😄 Ha ha.

[Phayd]

On 4/29/2024 at 6:42 AM, North Butte said:

From a statistical perspective, that's probably the desired behavior. I think a good argument could be made that 9-hole scores each provide much less information about the golfer's ability than 18-hole scores and therefore each 9-hole score should have a smaller impact on the estimate (handicap index) of that ability. 

 

Imagine a golfer with an index of 12.0 who posts an 18-hole score with a differential of 6.0. That's pretty strong evidence on which to lower his or her index and the system will almost always update to a lower index (usually 11.something).

 

Now imagine the same golfer plays 9 holes and the equivalent nine-hole differential would be 3.0. It would be upweighting that result too much to simply double that 3.0 to 6.0 and treat it like the round in the 18-hole scenario, above. What the golfer did was play nine holes and score around three strokes better than expected. That's not much information at all. Most double-digit handicappers routinely have one nine or another of a round that's a few strokes better than usual, as often as not the other nine was much closer to their expected scoring.

 

So it seems to me the imputation procedure USGA/WHS/whoever has come up with this time around is trying to impute a score for the "missing" 9 holes that waters down the effect of each unusually good or bad 9-hole score. Not sure they have it right (at first glance the thing they're doing now doesn't feel right to me). 

I haven’t seen it mentioned in this thread yet, but wasn’t a major component of this initiative to get more golfers to carry a handicap?

OP’s example of having 9 hole scores affect his ability to qualify for elite amateur competition is an outlier and will never be an issue for 99.5% of golfers who carry an index. 
 

 

if we look in the rearview mirror 20 years, I don’t think we’d be having this discussion if everyone was still entering scores into the computer in the proshop instead of on our phones.

 

[Dewdman42]

I think in theory this 9 hole allowance just basically causes any given 9 hole score to be doubly effective.  If you play 9 holes better then average then the 18 hole calculated score will be extra good.  If you play worse then average then it counts twice that way.  If you play and post enough rounds honestly it should even out in the long run.  I leans it’s quite possible for me at an 11-12 index to shoot 9 holes under 40.  Would I have shot 18 holes under 80?  Occasionally yes but the odds of me doing that are much slimmer then  an occasional 9 hole sub-40.  But on the other hand sometimes I will shoot 9 holes at 45 and maybe on the back nine I would have made up for it and ended up under 90 but with this system I have to post a 90.  It goes both ways.  Play enough rounds it should even out.

 

ideally everyone would play enough 18 hole rounds to maintain a legit current index but a lot of casual golfers can’t do that.  I think this 9 hole rule is a reasonable compromise to get more people indexed.  But yes only a couple of slightly bad or slightly good 9 hole rounds will be multiplied by two and could affect index in either direction until enough rounds are played that way to even it out.

[DaveLeeNC]

8 minutes ago, Dewdman42 said:

I think in theory this 9 hole allowance just basically causes any given 9 hole score to be doubly effective.  If you play 9 holes better then average then the 18 hole calculated score will be extra good.  If you play worse then average then it counts twice that way.

 

But that is not how the new system works. You do NOT get any doubling effect (like you would if you just doubled your 9 hole score and used the equivalent 18 hole CR/Slope). The unplayed 9 is basically a 'typical score' for any given player, so a good score on 9 holes is diluted with an average score (as is a bad score on 9 holes). 

 

dave

[Dewdman42]

If it’s just adding nine holes basically at some neutral level according to your index only then in would view that as even better as those nine calculated phantom holes should theoretically not raise or lower your index at all they would be inert.  What am I missing?

[DaveLeeNC]

6 minutes ago, Dewdman42 said:

If it’s just adding nine holes basically at some neutral level according to your index only then in would view that as even better as those nine calculated phantom holes should theoretically not raise or lower your index at all they would be inert.  What am I missing?

What will happen is that it will be pretty much impossible to post the best that you can play (which would almost certainly be two good sides) and impossible to post the worst that you can play (which would be two bad sides). You will ALWAYS post at least one average side. 

 

Of course just doubling the 9 hole score presents a different set of issues.  There is no solution where you can accurately predict an 18 hole score from a single 9 hole score. 

 

dave

[davep043]

7 minutes ago, Dewdman42 said:

If it’s just adding nine holes basically at some neutral level according to your index only then in would view that as even better as those nine calculated phantom holes should theoretically not raise or lower your index at all they would be inert.  What am I missing?

The "expected differential" that is used as the second 9 is something near the average differential for all players with the same Handicap Index.  So if you shoot a really good 9, adding in an average 9 still makes a pretty good 18, but not as good as if you had a really good second 9.  Same if you play poorly for 9, the resulting 18 is still poor, just not as bad as.combining two bad 9s.  

[Dewdman42]

Yes I hear you that you will not be able to post the best or worst end of the spectrum.  I will have to wrap my head around the math more deeply before I can say any more.

 

i personally almost never play 9 hole rounds and don’t consider a 9 hole score as legit.  It’s like playing a 4 inning baseball game.  But I think the previous work arounds of combining two scores is not legit either as people could pick and choose which two nine hole rounds to combine, which is not honest.  The new way just attempts some way for people either limited time to obtain a reasonable index, which yea I could see now could not be accurate because super low potential scores would never be realized and super high potential scores aren’t either but they are usually out if the 8 lowest scores anyway.  I have to wrap my head around the math more 

[kiawah]

 

13 hours ago, Phayd said:

I haven’t seen it mentioned in this thread yet, but wasn’t a major component of this initiative to get more golfers to carry a handicap?

OP’s example of having 9 hole scores affect his ability to qualify for elite amateur competition is an outlier and will never be an issue for 99.5% of golfers who carry an index. 
 

 

if we look in the rearview mirror 20 years, I don’t think we’d be having this discussion if everyone was still entering scores into the computer in the proshop instead of on our phones.

 

I acknowledged the fact that this is probably a non-issue for the vast majority of players. But I still think it's a worse system if it disadvantages anyone who follows the rules and goes about posting their scores properly. I can't see who was disadvantaged when the system simply combined two nine-hole rounds. 

 

If my handicap keeps going up even when I am shooting within a shot of par on nine holes, then won't the system use my "new" handicap to assign me an even higher score for the back nine that time constraints prevent me from playing? I get that the solution is to just play better, but it's not like I'm not putting in the work and bringing it to the course. 

 

In the grand scheme of things, I am very lucky to consider this a problem. Far worse things happen to people on a daily basis. I am lucky just to be able to play golf. But this doesn't seem to accurately reward good rounds even when they are only nine holes. 

[Dewdman42]

This is part of why I have no interest in handicapped tournaments any more.  

[kiawah]

1 hour ago, Dewdman42 said:

This is part of why I have no interest in handicapped tournaments any more.  

I understand the merits of handicaps and handicapped tournaments. But I am totally with you. I play pretty much exclusively in gross events, really only play matches straight up against my buddies, and find the whole forced handicap policy at my club to be a bit of a nuisance. I would never sandbag or deliberately make myself out to be a worse player than I am. I honestly think that the only thing keeping me from being a +1 is that I actually post all of my scores, lol. But it will feel better when I achieve it justly.

[Dewdman42]

2 hours ago, kiawah said:

I understand the merits of handicaps and handicapped tournaments. But I am totally with you. I play pretty much exclusively in gross events, really only play matches straight up against my buddies, and find the whole forced handicap policy at my club to be a bit of a nuisance. I would never sandbag or deliberately make myself out to be a worse player than I am. I honestly think that the only thing keeping me from being a +1 is that I actually post all of my scores, lol. But it will feel better when I achieve it justly.

 

I might start attending some of these tournaments:

 

https://amateurplayerstour.com

 

What I like is that they are gross tournaments but with divisional flights that are grouped within a range of maybe 5 index strokes per flight.  For example, I would be competing in the D3 flight, which is for people indexed approx 8-13.  but the point is beyond determining which flight you will be competing in, the competition is gross, no BS.  the goal is to increase gross ranking little by little until you eventually win and eventually advance to the next higher division.  That is way more interesting to me then going to some handicapped thing where complete strangers with bogus handicaps have ridiculous net scores and walk out with the win..which to me is a meaningless win.  

 

I would love to play more gross events, but a lot of them are not divided up into sensible divisions or flights for those of us that are mid cappers and probably will never be scratch, I'll be lucky if I can get to single digit.  A lot of gross events are just way beyond my ability level and never will be within my ability if I have to compete against scratch golfers I will be lucky to qualify or avoid complete embarrassment for even being there.  I think it makes a lot of sense to have divisions, lots of sports work that way, you compete as gross in whatever division makes sense.  The group linked above is doing this and I'm on the lookout for more events in that format, but seems hard to find.

 

Edited May 6, 2024 by Dewdman42

[ahyiah]

i personally appreciate the new approach since i cant really spare alot of time to play a full 18 at times (new kid, new me apparently)

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, Dewdman42 said:

 

I might start attending some of these tournaments:

 

https://amateurplayerstour.com

 

What I like is that they are gross tournaments but with divisional flights that are grouped within a range of maybe 5 index strokes per flight.  For example, I would be competing in the D3 flight, which is for people indexed approx 8-13.  but the point is beyond determining which flight you will be competing in, the competition is gross, no BS.  the goal is to increase gross ranking little by little until you eventually win and eventually advance to the next higher division.  That is way more interesting to me then going to some handicapped thing where complete strangers with bogus handicaps have ridiculous net scores and walk out with the win..which to me is a meaningless win.  

 

I would love to play more gross events, but a lot of them are not divided up into sensible divisions or flights for those of us that are mid cappers and probably will never be scratch, I'll be lucky if I can get to single digit.  A lot of gross events are just way beyond my ability level and never will be within my ability if I have to compete against scratch golfers I will be lucky to qualify or avoid complete embarrassment for even being there.  I think it makes a lot of sense to have divisions, lots of sports work that way, you compete as gross in whatever division makes sense.  The group linked above is doing this and I'm on the lookout for more events in that format, but seems hard to find.

 

 

 

I took a quick look and couldn't see where "gross" was specified. Nor did I see how many rounds each event was.

 

I did however, see that "APT Tournament Handicap Index" was included in your membership.

 

If it truly is gross, a 5-shot difference in handicap would be a pretty big mountain to climb for those with indices in the higher end of the flight's range.

 

And the more rounds in a tournament the harder it would be for the higher 'cap guys to win their flight.

 

 

[Dewdman42]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

I took a quick look and couldn't see where "gross" was specified. Nor did I see how many rounds each event was.

 

From their member manual:

 

 

Regarding how many events, they do events all year across the country, there are local chapters and national final events, etc. over the course of the year, the group for my area has a few dozen events, and they are trying to make points over the season, etc.  So it's probably more than one event and there are different formatted events, some are 18 holes and some are more.  

 

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

I did however, see that "APT Tournament Handicap Index" was included in your membership.

 

They use APT index to determine which division you will be playing in.  They will start with your USGA index to get started, but they will be using their own index based on your actual tournament performance after that.  Makes sense to me.

 

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

If it truly is gross, a 5-shot difference in handicap would be a pretty big mountain to climb for those with indices in the higher end of the flight's range.

 

I think this would be far superior to typical and normal handicapped play for a number of reasons.  First, it's gross play.  if I play really badly in some division and come in last place every time, maybe i will try to get to the next division down.  If I win easily then I would move to the next higher division and probably be last place haha..  whatever.  Doesn't matter.  the point is to compete without every-kid-gets-a-trophy bs handicapping of the events.  

 

i were a 2 index trying to compete in normal scratch gross tournaments, I would have a similar hurdle to get above other players that are scratch or even + handicap playing in the same tournament.  It's no different whatsoever other than providing a bracket of golfers within 5 strokes of each other that can compete at lower skill levels.  Sure, if I am 13 index playing the 8-13 division, I probably won't win.  But I will rank.  and I will work on improving my game and ranking in my division and trying to do better...just like any scratch gross competitor would be doing in the number 1 division, which are not all evenly handicapped either.  It's no different, just a different division to make things a little more competitive and interesting for those of us that are not scratch golfers...without being bloody handicapped tournament, which I find to be a useless waste of time.

 

 

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

And the more rounds in a tournament the harder it would be for the higher 'cap guys to win their flight.

 

and it should be harder for them.  its then on them to get better, not to rely on their handicap giving them a win some day because they play below their handicap that day.  That's the whole point of gross play.  If the division you're in is too hard, then ask to go to the easier division then, but if you win everything they will bump you back up.  That's it.  it's not designed to make anything "fair" so that everyone can potentially win sometimes.  The better golfer can and should win.  What it does do is provide some brackets for golfers that aren't scratch golfers in order to provide something closer to a real competitive situation for people of different levels.  

 

Also from what I could see, at each event there might be only 25 golfers in a particular flight...and even though as 10-11 index I might be competing against 8's...its not a given that they will always out score me.  They could have a bad day when I'm having a good day.  The 8's will win more often, and they should!

 

 

Edited May 6, 2024 by Dewdman42

[North Butte]

Being in flights based on your "APT" handicap instead of a USGA handicap is hardly the same as only playing in gross events. Why call it "gross events" when they are, in fact, handicapped competitions? 

 

It's a little solipsistic to complain that (USGA) handicapped tournaments are bogus, won only by sandbaggers, but then play in handicapped tournaments that use some proprietary handicapping system. If it's a handicapped comp, whether by giving strokes or playing in flights, it's going to be an incentive for sandbagging. Always. 

[Dewdman42]

because they are gross events.  its not handicapped.  They are only attempting to group people into flights that have reasonably close enough skills to compete with gross scores.  Also you don't get to jump from division to division, you start out in a division and unless there is a bad mismatch of talent, that is where you will stay unless you had a very large change in your index from improvement or otherwise.  And you are competing across numerous events in the same division.

 

I didn't' mention sandbagging by the way, that is not a topic that would likely go well here, but for me the whole notion of handicapped events is to statistically make it possible for every player to win about the same amount of times as everyone else does, which isn't often.  If someone wins often they are in fact cheating.  The handicapping system is by design, setup so that if everyone competing played the same number of times, they would all win the same number of times, over time.  Presuming accurate indexes and basically I don't think accurate indexes exist most of the time for a variety of reasons, its based on the honor system, and I watch all my friends play and score and not follow the rules exactly and post their scores, etc..  very few people competing in those tournaments have accurate index IMHO.  I'm not saying they intentionally are cheating or sandbagging intentionally...but still a huge number of indexes are not accurate and so the entire system of competition is IMHO flawed and pointless.  You're not even really competing against anyone else, you're only competition against your own index..accurate or not.

 

That is completely different then gross competition in flights as APT is doing.  I love the chance to compete against 8 index golfers that I know are bette then me and I probably won't beat them most of the time, but maybe eventually I will.  That is real competition.

 

Edited May 7, 2024 by Dewdman42

[nsxguy]

2 minutes ago, North Butte said:

Being in flights based on your "APT" handicap instead of a USGA handicap is hardly the same as only playing in gross events. Why call it "gross events" when they are, in fact, handicapped competitions? 

 

It's a little solipsistic to complain that (USGA) handicapped tournaments are bogus, won only by sandbaggers, but then play in handicapped tournaments that use some proprietary handicapping system. If it's a handicapped comp, whether by giving strokes or playing in flights, it's going to be an incentive for sandbagging. Always. 

 

I *think* what he is saying is they keep a "handicap" to determine the flights the players are placed in, not to use for a net score in the tourney itself.

[Dewdman42]

3 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

I *think* what he is saying is they keep a "handicap" to determine the flights the players are placed in, not to use for a net score in the tourney itself.

 

correct.  it is gross competition.  And that determination is made at the beginning of the season, you don't move around from division to division through the season other then extenuating circumstances that would require board review, etc.