Not a fan of GHIN new 9 hole scoring system

[sui generis]

1 hour ago, Dewdman42 said:

 

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.

 

You're engaged in the humanity's oldest pastime . . . no, not whoring. Mankind's oldest pastime is self-deception. 😉

[Dewdman42]

care to explain that accusation?

 

Edited May 7, 2024 by Dewdman42

[sui generis]

1 minute ago, Dewdman42 said:

care to explain that comment?

 

I will. Professing to to play only gross events in which the players are assigned to flights based on bogus handicaps is nonsense. But, have at it; it's a free world. 😉

[Dewdman42]

first...what is wrong with having tiered levels of gross competition based on different general skill levels?  Many sports have different levels of competition, all of which are gross non-handicapped competition within each level.  For example, baseball minor leagues, major leagues, AA, AAA, etc..  What's wrong with doing such a thing in golf?  The point of it all is competition, not winning trophies.

 

this is completely different then handicapped events.  if you fail to understand that distinction i'm not sure we are going to get anywhere with this discussion, but I think your accusations towards me have been inappropriate and incorrect.

 

the best way to make some kind of determination for whether someone belongs in the minor leagues or the major leagues has to be based on some kind of statistics or reasonably objective criteria such as performance in the minor league can advance to the majors, etc..  And generally that is what most competitors actually WANT to do, they want to advance.  

 

I don't understand your beef with this form of competition nor do I understand your beef with me apparantly for wanting to participate in it.  I find this form of competition to be much much truer competition then normal ridiculous handicapped events, which are a complete farce.  I am personally quite happy to see this kind of league established and plan to sign up next season for sure.  I definitely look forward to it.

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, Dewdman42 said:

first...what is wrong with having tiered levels of gross competition based on different general skill levels?  Many sports have different levels of competition, all of which are gross non-handicapped competition within each level.  For example, baseball minor leagues, major leagues, AA, AAA, etc..  What's wrong with doing such a thing in golf?  The point of it all is competition, not winning trophies.

 

this is completely different then handicapped events.  if you fail to understand that distinction i'm not sure we are going to get anywhere with this discussion, but I think your accusations towards me have been inappropriate and incorrect.

 

the best way to make some kind of determination for whether someone belongs in the minor leagues or the major leagues has to be based on some kind of statistics or reasonably objective criteria such as performance in the minor league can advance to the majors, etc..  And generally that is what most competitors actually WANT to do, they want to advance.  

 

I don't understand your beef with this form of competition nor do I understand your beef with me apparantly for wanting to participate in it.  I find this form of competition to be much much truer competition then normal ridiculous handicapped events, which are a complete farce.  I am personally quite happy to see this kind of league established and plan to sign up next season for sure.  I definitely look forward to it.

 

Welllll, he did say "Have at it".

 

Compete, not winning trophies ? If you're not trying to win "trophies" (or whatever) are you really competing ?

 

Anyway, if you "find this form of competition to be much much truer competition then normal ridiculous handicapped events" you really need to get out more.

 

Take a 5-9 handicap flight. There is no chance the 9 will win this flight more times playing the other straight up (w/o strokes) than he will if he was getting his strokes.

 

But despite that silly take, if you enjoy it that's all that really counts.

 

Anywho, if there is a roughly equal number of each 'cap in each flight, in the higher handicap flights the highest 'cap in the flight probably has a chance over a single round.

 

In the lower 'caps flights the highest guy in the flight has almost no chance (given the same spread in 'caps, roughly 4 strokes).

 

 

[Dewdman42]

14 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Welllll, he did say "Have at it".

 

Compete, not winning trophies ? If you're not trying to win "trophies" (or whatever) are you really competing ?

 

yes of course.  My retort to you would be do you only care about trophies?  

 

I find you and the other person attacking me to be rather unpleasant, so I am going to drop out of the conversation here.  

 

[nsxguy]

17 minutes ago, Dewdman42 said:

 

yes of course.  My retort to you would be do you only care about trophies?  

 

I find you and the other person attacking me to be rather unpleasant, so I am going to drop out of the conversation here.  

 

 

No, I don't "only" care about trophies.

 

But when I compete I play to WIN.

 

And if *I* was the 9, in the 5-9 flight, I'd simply not play (gross). I try to avoid rigged games. But If I was the 5 in the 5-9 flight you bet I'd play if the 6s through 8s were foolish enough to play.

 

But yes, when you can't back up your assertions, it's probably smart to just withdraw. 👍

 

 

[Dewdman42]

I did back up my assertions, read them again if you still don't understand.  I'm unfollowing this thread now.  

Edited May 7, 2024 by Dewdman42

[bobfoster]

Things seem to have gotten a bit weird here. May I attempt to reify this into the most basic of levels, from a very personal point of view?

 

I've started again to keep a formal cap this year. Been a couple decades. Don't really have any reason to (no longer pay competitive golf with anything on the line), just for fun. No longer have anything to prove other than to myself. (A very happy place to be.)

 

And here is how I'm approaching my rounds. Strict RoG. No Mulligans, or foot wedges, or improving lies, or three foot gimmies. Play every ball as it lies, and putt every ball into the hole ... even two feet is not a gimme - a "hole" is the number of strokes from the tee box to the bottom of the cup. Period. I want my score to be my real score.

 

This is the bottom line of what golf is: Tee off (once). Hit it from where it lies. Then if necessary chip it from where in lies. Then putt until it is in the hole. The number of strokes it takes to do that is your legitimate score. 

 

My goal is to hit single digit this year. I'm pretty close, just need to get rid of the single blow up hole that seems to happen every round.

 

[The difference between the 100s and 90s, or 90s and 80s is mostly about reps and getting a consistent swing - but the difference between 80s and 70s is almost entirely about course management ... taking your medicine and shooting for bogey due to an errant tee shot, instead of trying to do something amazing to save par, with the risk of a triple.]

 

At the end of the day, unless you are a PGAT pro, you really only compete with yourself. Is this round better than the last round. Is why I never bend the rules. Shooting in the 70s (always my goal) means nothing if I cheat - I would only be cheating myself. Don't care if anyone else knows it - I'd know it. 

 

I'm not nearly as good as some of the WRXers here. I'm certainly not scratch. I still go home with immense satisfaction and pleasure when I manage to break 80. But that pleasure would not be there if I fudged the RoG. 

 

Just random thoughts. 

 

Edited May 7, 2024 by bobfoster

[bobfoster]

26 minutes ago, Dewdman42 said:

 

yes of course.  My retort to you would be do you only care about trophies?  

 

I find you and the other person attacking me to be rather unpleasant, so I am going to drop out of the conversation here.  

 

Hope you'll listen? I like to talk about golf, and rarely attack anyone (other then if they attack me first - then all bets are off). My perception? I didn't see @nsxguy attacking you. Suspect you may have misread that. (This is not a criticism, the internet is a totally weird place - can't read body language or intentions.)

 

In fact, just watching from a distance, I have a feeling that you and he could play 18 together and have a really fun round.

 

Maybe not my place to say this, but I'd encourage you to consider an alternative perspective. 

[nsxguy]

10 hours ago, Dewdman42 said:

I did back up my assertions, read them again if you still don't understand.  I'm unfollowing this thread now.  

 

You didn't (truly) back up anything.

 

What you've shown is a basic misunderstanding of how handicaps work and why they're necessary - something sui "poked" you about and I expanded on; including noting/asking about how the tournament(s) you're thinking of joining works.

 

And when someone disagrees with you or your points they are not attacking you.

 

Good luck on your tourneys......... 👍

[Imp]

Played 2 more 9 hole rounds this week in 2 different leagues.

 

My ponderances...

 

1) How is someones handicap supposed to go down when the "other 9" appears to "round" to what your index currently "is" or higher? Both cases, I posted a 9 hole round that were both below my CH for the 9s. In both cases, my differential was not lower than my current index when posting. If you play below your CH, I would think the differential should reflect that. 

 

2) Understanding the above, if I were to use the old method of combining 9s, the differential would have been 1.7 index points lower. 

 

3) Using stableford as a metric, would I have posted an exceptional 39 points, a much ridiculed topic of recent (20 and 19 respectively).

 

It seems this new method...

- to those that only play 9s, is doing nothing other than maintaining your current index and 

- will calculate a more accurate differential only if you play a full 18 hole round and shoot over 36 stableford points (as I did last Saturday). 

 

I think I need to insist there is a flaw in the algorithm calculations for 9 hole rounds. 

Edited May 11, 2024 by Imp

[North Butte]

5 minutes ago, Imp said:

Played 2 more 9 hole rounds this week in 2 different leagues.

 

My ponderances...

 

1) How is someones handicap supposed to go down when the "other 9" appears to "round" to what your index currently "is" or higher? Both cases, I posted a 9 hole round that were both below my CH for the 9s. In both cases, my differential was not lower than my current index when posting. If you play below your CH, I would think the differential should reflect that. 

 

2) Understanding the above, if I were to use the old method of combining 9s, the differential would have been 1.7 index points lower. 

 

3) Using stableford as a metric, would I have posted an exceptional 39 points, a much ridiculed topic of recent (20 and 19 respectively).

 

It seems this new method...

- to those that only play 9s, is doing nothing other than maintaining your current index and 

- will calculate a more accurate differential only if you play a full 18 hole round and shoot over 36 stableford points (as I did last Saturday). 

 

I think I need to insist there is a flaw in the algorithm calculations for 9 hole rounds. 

Without studying it closely, my first impression of this method is they (USGA) are massively downweighting the effect of 9-hole rounds on your handicap by watering them down with their imputation method. It's almost like they're saying, "Hey, you want to post 9 hole scores? Go ahead, we'll just ignore 'em". 

 

I have a bit of sympathy for that as I feel an 18-hole handicap index being computed for people who only play 9-hole rounds (or nearly so) is a kind of odd duck anyway. Not sure why that's not simply done as a 9-hole handicap index to be converted to a 9-hole course handicap.

[davep043]

41 minutes ago, Imp said:

1) How is someones handicap supposed to go down when the "other 9" appears to "round" to what your index currently "is" or higher? Both cases, I posted a 9 hole round that were both below my CH for the 9s. In both cases, my differential was not lower than my current index when posting. If you play below your CH, I would think the differential should reflect that. 

When you post a differential that is right at your Index, that is a better-than-average score.  If you were to play a good 9 and then an "average" 9, you'd end up with exactly what you have.  Your average differential will typically be 2 to 4 strokes higher than your index, since your "worst 60%" of scores are discarded when computing your index.  So "playing to your handicap" is a GOOD score!  If that score replaced any of those "high 60%" of scores in your history, your index WILL GO DOWN.  

 

35 minutes ago, North Butte said:

they (USGA)

USGA, CONGU, European Golf Union, Golf Australia, Golf Argentina, and every single other handicapping authority in the world.

[Imp]

17 minutes ago, davep043 said:

When you post a differential that is right at your Index, that is a better-than-average score.  If you were to play a good 9 and then an "average" 9, you'd end up with exactly what you have.  Your average differential will typically be 2 to 4 strokes higher than your index, since your "worst 60%" of scores are discarded when computing your index.  So "playing to your handicap" is a GOOD score!  If that score replaced any of those "high 60%" of scores in your history, your index WILL GO DOWN.  

If I were to play a good 9 and then another good 9 on the back, I'd end up with ... a lower index. And that's my beef with the system. It takes my "good 9" and assumes my trend of a 'good round continuing to the back 9' can never happen, and adjusts accordingly. Only way to lower your index it appears is to "prove it" and play 18 which as a working stiff we run out of daylight. Because I would argue shooting an abnormal 9, the "other 9" will still adjust to your index, keeping it "the same" but never better.

Note... I played BETTER than my CH, both rounds. And an "average" back should still end up with a better than average differential. Instead, it calculated a "worse than average" back 9 to bring me back to center at my index both times.

Edited May 11, 2024 by Imp

[Newby]

36 minutes ago, Imp said:

And an "average" back should still end up with a better than average differential. Instead, it calculated a "worse than average" back 9 to bring me back to center at my index both times.

Whose average are you referring to?

Yours or other players with the same index played on a neutral course (or whatever the words are in the book)?

[sui generis]

Is it human nature to dislike the "new" but only until it is no longer new and another "new" thing comes along in its place to dislike? 😉

[iacas]

10 hours ago, Imp said:

Instead, it calculated a "worse than average" back 9 to bring me back to center at my index both times.

 

What are the specific numbers here?

 

A 10.0 index is going to average around a 13.0 differential. 12 of the 20 scores go into the average that don't go into the differential handicap index.

 

So that's 5.0 in the rounds that count, and 6.5 in the average of all rounds.

 

So if you play golf and get a 4.5 differential on the front ("below" your index), and get a 6.5 assigned to you for the back… that's an 11.0 differential: better than your average, but slightly worse than your index.

 

Edited May 12, 2024 by iacas
struck-through part edited

[North Butte]

2 hours ago, sui generis said:

Is it human nature to dislike the "new" but only until it is no longer new and another "new" thing comes along in its place to dislike? 😉

It’s the rule geek nature to insist that the current rule is absolutely perfect right up until it is changed and then insist the new rule is absolutely perfect. Even when the new rule is pretty much exactly the opposite of the old rule.

[sui generis]

19 minutes ago, North Butte said:

It’s the rule geek nature to insist that the current rule is absolutely perfect right up until it is changed and then insist the new rule is absolutely perfect. Even when the new rule is pretty much exactly the opposite of the old rule.

 

As you've seen, the ruling bodies are committed to evolution and I suspect that most Rules geeks are too. 

[iacas]

5 hours ago, North Butte said:

It’s the rule geek nature to insist that the current rule is absolutely perfect right up until it is changed and then insist the new rule is absolutely perfect.

 

That's more insulting than you seem to think. And wrong, too.

[Imp]

21 hours ago, iacas said:

 

What are the specific numbers here?

 

A 10.0 index is going to average around a 13.0 differential. 12 of the 20 scores go into the average that don't go into the differential handicap index.

 

So that's 5.0 in the rounds that count, and 6.5 in the average of all rounds.

 

So if you play golf and get a 4.5 differential on the front ("below" your index), and get a 6.5 assigned to you for the back… that's an 11.0 differential: better than your average, but slightly worse than your index.

 

A good 9 hole score is being penalized by automatically assigning the back as always an/the average. I would think there should be more weight on the calc if having a good 9 on the front, the back 9 should reflect it. That one doesn't know how it would have turned out without having played it is my biggest issue. I see exactly what the math is; I disagree that the calculation should even exist for holes not played. I could have blown up, I could have had an average round. I could have also played better than average too. The automatic calc to average is bunk.

 

Think of it this way....  play a 18 hole tourney, only play the front 9, but card an 18 hole score using the average of the back. Think that should fly? That's exactly what's happening with the auto calc. (Yes, I understand in the real world I'd be DQd)

[North Butte]

2 minutes ago, Imp said:

A good 9 hole score is being penalized by automatically assigning the back as always an/the average. I would think there should be more weight on the calc if having a good 9 on the front, the back 9 should reflect it. That one doesn't know how it would have turned out without having played it is my biggest issue. I see exactly what the math is; I disagree that the calculation should even exist for holes not played. I could have blown up, I could have had an average round. I could have also played better than average too. The automatic calc to average is bunk.

 

Think of it this way....  play a 18 hole tourney, only play the front 9, but card an 18 hole score using the average of the back. Think that should fly? That's exactly what's happening with the auto calc. (Yes, I understand in the real world I'd be DQd)

I can't speak to what degree of autocorrelation there is between nine-hole scoring within an 18-hole round golfers in general experience. I know from my own data, in my game, it's virtually nil. 

 

What I do know (and I'm speaking from professional experience with this sort of statistics, although not in the sports world) is when you're doing crude imputation of an unobserved value in a series, you would need to be able to support a very, very strong assumption that (in this case) good first nine scores predict better than average back nine scores. If that correlation is anything less than very large, the imputation that produces less bias and error will clearly be assuming regression to the mean.

 

Trying to put it more clearly, if you assign another better than average 9-hole score to the second nine and that's not almost always the case, then that assumption will screw up the results. And probably screw them up big-time.

 

Most people's "common sense" probably tells them if they shoot 4 strokes better than their handicap on the first nine that means they are playing well and are very likely to be well under the handicap again on the second nine. I think if they tracked it in real 18-hole rounds they'd be surprised how UNtrue that turns out to be.

[Imp]

4 minutes ago, North Butte said:

I can't speak to what degree of autocorrelation there is between nine-hole scoring within an 18-hole round golfers in general experience. I know from my own data, in my game, it's virtually nil. 

 

What I do know (and I'm speaking from professional experience with this sort of statistics, although not in the sports world) is when you're doing crude imputation of an unobserved value in a series, you would need to be able to support a very, very strong assumption that (in this case) good first nine scores predict better than average back nine scores. If that correlation is anything less than very large, the imputation that produces less bias and error will clearly be assuming regression to the mean.

 

Trying to put it more clearly, if you assign another better than average 9-hole score to the second nine and that's not almost always the case, then that assumption will screw up the results. And probably screw them up big-time.

 

Most people's "common sense" probably tells them if they shoot 4 strokes better than their handicap on the first nine that means they are playing well and are very likely to be well under the handicap again on the second nine. I think if they tracked it in real 18-hole rounds they'd be surprised how UNtrue that turns out to be.

When compared to actually playing 18 hole rounds...

 

A bad 9 hole round on the front will not affect your index other than make it one of the higher in the 20 rounds used.

An average 9 hole round on the front will maintain your index in the 20 rounds (May or may not be a drop). 

A good 9 hole round on the front will ALSO maintain, not lower, your index in the 20 rounds (May or may not be a drop) unless it was an exceptional score, not just slightly lower.

Per my last post, I mentioned, the 18 hole score and just submitting 9, and using the "average" for the back... that I would be DQd if I did that should strengthen my point. Youd be DQed for making up a score for the back... why is it being used for 9 hole rounds?

Edited May 12, 2024 by Imp

[North Butte]

Don’t get me wrong. I am in no way in agreement with imputing 9-hole second nines to turn 9-hole scores into 18-hole differentials. It’s idiotic in the extreme.
 

i’m just saying if they are going to put a made up score in there it has to be some sort of average and not attempt to reflect whether the real first nine was better or worse than usual for the player.

 

The rational solution would be to compute a nine hole differential from the holes that were actually played, and then assign it a weight of 1/2 in the computation of the index. Actually in my dreamworld that weight could even be some empirical number other than 1/2 since I personally feel nine holes scores are more variable and therefore less predictive of future potential results.

[nsxguy]

1 hour ago, Imp said:

I disagree that the calculation should even exist for holes not played. I could have blown up, I could have had an average round. I could have also played better than average too. The automatic calc to average is bunk.

 

I touched on this earlier in the thread with a response to @bobfoster and it sorta got "lost" amongst other discussion points. Only @betarhoalphadelta later addressed it with some opinion & data.

 

I noted that fronts and backs were sometimes pretty different but, it really only mattered (IMO) for the 8 best of 20. I mean who hasn't shot 38 on the front and 48 on the back (or vice versa) ?

 

But in my 8 best the front and back were usually pretty close. As in not very often 34/44 ("great round nerves ?), but more likely 38/40, 36/35, etc.

 

I also noted, as others have that putting together 2 9s, especially those far apart (date-wise), was a poor method.

 

That, along with the @North Butte mention of "regression to the mean", says to *me*, this solution is more likely to be at least the better of the 2; the lesser of 2 evils if you will.

 

The OP didn't like it because it raised his 'cap. You don't seem to like it because it because it didn't lower the 'cap (bravo btw).

 

What can we expect via a compromise and an imperfect system ?

[DaveLeeNC]

I'm not sure that there are any particular conclusions to be drawn here, but I recorded an (18 hole) 'Exceptional Score' round the other day. I beat my handicap by a stroke on the front side and beat my handicap by an eye opening 6.2 strokes on the back side. Obviously the exceptional scoring was on the back where the front was a clearly 'better than average' score for me but far away from exceptional. Had this been posted as 9 hole rounds the exceptional one would have been posted as 4.8 better than my index at the time. So no exceptional score.

 

FWIW I can find 4 strokes in the exceptional round that were obviously pure luck. The first was a hole in one that was probably a (missed) 15' birdie putt without the cup. The second was a most fortuitous bounce that yielded a 1 foot birdie putt where the ball should have been in a bunker. The ball striking front and back was really not that different.

 

FWIW, and I am not sure what the point is here. I am in the camp where I believe that I am more likely to shoot a good back 9 after playing well on the front. But I don't really have data here - just my opinion based on personal experience with my own game. 

 

dave

 

ps. I guess that one point to be made here is that it is almost impossible to post a 'exceptional score' on a 9 hole round.

Edited May 12, 2024 by DaveLeeNC

[st1800e]

Interesting feature of the new system. Due to unavoidable circumstances I was unable to join my group until the 5th hole.  Our 16th hole is out of play due to construction.  We’re instructed to enter scores hole by hole and put a zero in for the 16th.  I also put zeroes in for holes 1-4.  The entire score was unacceptable because I didn’t play a complete first nine holes or second nine holes. Yet I did play a total of 13 holes. Rare situation of course, but a game I played and cannot enter.  

[DaveLeeNC]

4 minutes ago, st1800e said:

Interesting feature of the new system. Due to unavoidable circumstances I was unable to join my group until the 5th hole.  Our 16th hole is out of play due to construction.  We’re instructed to enter scores hole by hole and put a zero in for the 16th.  I also put zeroes in for holes 1-4.  The entire score was unacceptable because I didn’t play a complete first nine holes or second nine holes. Yet I did play a total of 13 holes. Rare situation of course, but a game I played and cannot enter.  

 

The official guidance here is to post "par plus strokes" on the unplayed holes.  See 

 

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

4 minutes ago, st1800e said:

Interesting feature of the new system. Due to unavoidable circumstances I was unable to join my group until the 5th hole.  Our 16th hole is out of play due to construction.  We’re instructed to enter scores hole by hole and put a zero in for the 16th.  I also put zeroes in for holes 1-4.  The entire score was unacceptable because I didn’t play a complete first nine holes or second nine holes. Yet I did play a total of 13 holes. Rare situation of course, but a game I played and cannot enter.  

 

The official guidance here is to post "par plus strokes" on the unplayed holes.  See 

 

 

dave