Not a fan of GHIN new 9 hole scoring system

[davep043]

18 minutes ago, larrybud said:

But take your example, shooting 3 strokes lower than your average differential for 9 holes would be a 1.65 differential for 9 (6.3 - 3 =3.3, divided by 2 = 1.65 differential).  Equivalent of a 3.3 differential for 18 holes.

 

Now, I don't think the USGA ever published a new "exceptional score" table, but with the old table, a 6 index shooting 3.3 strokes under their index is 51:1. So yes, in the 51 to 1 chance you shoot that, your index will go down (note 2 strokes better is 22:1) when combined with what the usga calls the "scaled up differential" (at least, that's what they call it in the raw data the GHIN site returns).

The complaint I've read the most in this thread is that really good 9 isn't somehow counted twice to make the 18-hole score.  People hate that they've lost the chance to combine 2 really good 9s from different days, without considering that they're really unlikely to shoot a second really good 9 to combine with the first.  I'd bet that lots and lots of really good 9s used to get combined with those "other" scores, resulting in combined scores too high to be counted in the Index calculation.  

 

[davep043]

25 minutes ago, Newby said:

What do you mean by "My average differential"? Given that your Index is the average of your best 8 from the last 20, how many scores are used for your 'average' and over what time frame?

In both cases I mentioned, I used the 20 scores in the current handicap record.  I was comparing the average of the best 8 against the average of all 20.

[ChaosTheory]

28 minutes ago, davep043 said:

The complaint I've read the most in this thread is that really good 9 isn't somehow counted twice to make the 18-hole score.  People hate that they've lost the chance to combine 2 really good 9s from different days, without considering that they're really unlikely to shoot a second really good 9 to combine with the first.  I'd bet that lots and lots of really good 9s used to get combined with those "other" scores, resulting in combined scores too high to be counted in the Index calculation.  

 

I read it differently.  Every bad nine effectively gets discarded by being outside the 8 of 20, but every good one gets watered down.   We can’t know how they would have combined but, in the end, every good nine gets watered down.

[iacas]

1 hour ago, larrybud said:

My proposition is simple: Revert the 9 hole combination

 

Yeah, so that's a non-starter. They moved to this; they're not just gonna go back for the reasons they've stated.

 

1 hour ago, larrybud said:

and also include a Competition Index in a player's calculation, which only includes competition rounds.

 

They're almost surely not doing that either, and that has nothing to do with the nine-hole thing we're talking about here.

 

1 hour ago, larrybud said:

Your index, however, over time, will go up posting primarily 9 hole scores, even with the same set of 9 hole scores posted over and over, since it's being combined with an "average" differential. 

 

Again… I've landed on this: if you play predominantly 9 hole rounds, you can't really claim to have a very valid 18-hole handicap index anyway. It's easier to score lower (and higher) away from your average the fewer holes you play. The way they do the calculation now, it "normalizes" that a little bit while offering other advantages like taking effect the next day.

 

57 minutes ago, larrybud said:

I think everybody should keep a separate spreadsheet of their handicap with the old combining method and see the difference as they post 9 hole scores this year. I'm currently +0.2 using the new method over the old method, with just 8 9-hole scores posted in 6 weeks, and 9 18-hole rounds. So about a 50% split.

 

Unless you get a few thousand people doing that, you're gonna have a pretty small sample size… and to what end?

 

43 minutes ago, davep043 said:

The complaint I've read the most in this thread is that really good 9 isn't somehow counted twice to make the 18-hole score. People hate that they've lost the chance to combine 2 really good 9s from different days, without considering that they're really unlikely to shoot a second really good 9 to combine with the first.  I'd bet that lots and lots of really good 9s used to get combined with those "other" scores, resulting in combined scores too high to be counted in the Index calculation.

 

Yep.

[Pfish]

What I don’t like about the method is the way scores fall out of the top 20 faster with 9 holes counting as 18. This year I have played 25 times but only 351 holes.  

[North Butte]

Didn't they use to have separate 9-hole handicaps for people who only played 9-hole rounds? When did that stop being a thing?

[Schulzmc]

No one seems to be addressing this: In the new system some of my scores have estimated/extrapolated holes that affect my index. In the old system I shot the score, for better or for worse. Why wouldn’t that be better?

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, Schulzmc said:

No one seems to be addressing this: In the new system some of my scores have estimated/extrapolated holes that affect my index. In the old system I shot the score, for better or for worse. Why wouldn’t that be better?

I assume that you are suggesting changing back to holding 9 hole scores until they are paired with another 9 hole score. FWIW, the old system did use estimated scores for (a limited # of) unplayed/unfinished holes. 

 

I have read the USGA explanation for why this is better. Quite frankly I don't agree with (maybe because I don't understand it) their reasoning. 

 

dave

[North Butte]

6 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I assume that you are suggesting changing back to holding 9 hole scores until they are paired with another 9 hole score. FWIW, the old system did use estimated scores for (a limited # of) unplayed/unfinished holes. 

 

I have read the USGA explanation for why this is better. Quite frankly I don't agree with (maybe because I don't understand it) their reasoning. 

 

dave

In the end, you (we) have to evaluate a system based on the result it produces. Not the stated intentions of the people who implemented it. 

[larrybud]

14 hours ago, davep043 said:

The complaint I've read the most in this thread is that really good 9 isn't somehow counted twice to make the 18-hole score.  People hate that they've lost the chance to combine 2 really good 9s from different days, without considering that they're really unlikely to shoot a second really good 9 to combine with the first.  I'd bet that lots and lots of really good 9s used to get combined with those "other" scores, resulting in combined scores too high to be counted in the Index calculation.  

 

 

Sometimes that happens, but not as often as when the nine is combined with a fake differential.

[larrybud]

13 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Yeah, so that's a non-starter. They moved to this; they're not just gonna go back for the reasons they've stated.

 

 

They're almost surely not doing that either, and that has nothing to do with the nine-hole thing we're talking about here.

 

 

Again… I've landed on this: if you play predominantly 9 hole rounds, you can't really claim to have a very valid 18-hole handicap index anyway. It's easier to score lower (and higher) away from your average the fewer holes you play. The way they do the calculation now, it "normalizes" that a little bit while offering other advantages like taking effect the next day.

 

 

Unless you get a few thousand people doing that, you're gonna have a pretty small sample size… and to what end?

 

 

Yep.

 

You asked me for propositions, not my prediction on what the USGA will or will not do. By the way, the Competition Index I propose (no, it has nothing to do specifically with 9 hole score postings) is a simple calculation, and those organizations who wish to use it or ignore it can do so. But it's a great way to weed out sandbaggers.

For your 3rd point, as far as the USGA is concerned, your index IS a valid 18-hole index.

 

[larrybud]

9 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I assume that you are suggesting changing back to holding 9 hole scores until they are paired with another 9 hole score. FWIW, the old system did use estimated scores for (a limited # of) unplayed/unfinished holes. 

 

I have read the USGA explanation for why this is better. Quite frankly I don't agree with (maybe because I don't understand it) their reasoning. 

 

Not sure about you, but for me, the previous system of entering scores for a limited number of unplayed holes rarely was required. I can remember one round in all of last year that I was rained out and had to use that procedure, and that was just for a couple of holes.

 

What's really weird about this new rule is that those who play primarily 9 hole rounds will have their handicap move much faster than previously (because it only takes 9 holes to be played for a score to roll off). They have their handicap based on FEWER ACTUAL HOLES PLAYED. How that is "more accurate" than using actual holes played, I couldn't tell you.

[larrybud]

11 hours ago, North Butte said:

Didn't they use to have separate 9-hole handicaps for people who only played 9-hole rounds? When did that stop being a thing?

If you play 9 holes there's still a course handicap calculation for that round based on half your index, and the rating/slope of the nine you're playing. EVERY course has a separate rating for each side, even though many/most scorecards only post the full 18 hole rating/slope. But there was never a "9 hole index"

[North Butte]

2 minutes ago, larrybud said:

If you play 9 holes there's still a course handicap calculation for that round based on half your index, and the rating/slope of the nine you're playing. EVERY course has a separate rating for each side, even though many/most scorecards only post the full 18 hole rating/slope. But there was never a "9 hole index"

Yeah but I'm talking about literally a separate Handicap Index. It was based on 9-hole scores and was intended to be applied as a 9-hole Course Handicap. I am almost positive that existed 10-15 years ago.

[larrybud]

14 hours ago, ChaosTheory said:

I read it differently.  Every bad nine effectively gets discarded by being outside the 8 of 20, but every good one gets watered down.   We can’t know how they would have combined but, in the end, every good nine gets watered down.

That's exactly right. I think a better method (if they insist on combining it with a fake 9 hole differential) is to compute that differential relative to the nine you entered.  Does it really matter if nobody understands it? I don't think so, they're already obfuscating the calculation now, along with PCC adjustment.

[larrybud]

1 minute ago, North Butte said:

Yeah but I'm talking about literally a separate Handicap Index. It was based on 9-hole scores and was intended to be applied as a 9-hole Course Handicap. I am almost positive that existed 10-15 years ago.

 

No, that wasn't a thing. I've got USGA reference material before the WHS system and there's nothing like that in there.

[ChaosTheory]

@larrybud @North Butte

 

My recollection is the same as North Butte.  Here is something that I found.

 

https://www.scga.org/pdfs/Treatment of Nine-hole Scores.pdf

 

Quote

USGA Handicap System (pre-2020): To submit a nine-hole score, a player must play 7 to 12 holes under the Rules of Golf. When 13 or more holes are played, the score submitted qualifies as an 18-hole score.
A player can have a Handicap Index and/or a nine-hole Handicap Index (N).
 For players with a Handicap Index, nine-hole scores are combined in the order that they are received and used to produce an 18-hole Handicap Differential.
 For players with a nine-hole Handicap Index (N), the most recent 20 nine-hole Handicap Differentials are used in the calculation of their nine-hole Handicap Index (N).

 

[North Butte]

32 minutes ago, ChaosTheory said:

@larrybud @North Butte

 

My recollection is the same as North Butte.  Here is something that I found.

 

https://www.scga.org/pdfs/Treatment of Nine-hole Scores.pdf

 

 

Yes, that's what I was remembering. I'd thought it had been gone longer than 4 years the N index only went away quite recently.

 

Thanks for digging that up, I'd not been able to find it.

 

P.S. Sounds like the 9-hole Handicap Index was a casualty of WHS political compromise. 

Edited May 18, 2024 by North Butte

[DaveLeeNC]

29 minutes ago, ChaosTheory said:

@larrybud @North Butte

 

My recollection is the same as North Butte.  Here is something that I found.

 

https://www.scga.org/pdfs/Treatment of Nine-hole Scores.pdf

 

 

 

There are a couple of (OLD) references out there on the web. I get the feeling that 15+ years ago the USGA allowed clubs to use 9 hole scores to calculate 9 hole handicaps for use in 9 hole competitions. I can see that being useful in some 9 hole clubs. 

 

FWIW, I learned golf from my Dad (back in the early 60's) and he always played on 9 hole courses back home in IttyBittyTown, Mo. To him golf was a 9 hole game. Later in life I would talk to my Dad on the phone and the conversation would go something like 

 

Me: Hi, Dad. I shot a 78 today on a tough course 

 

Dad: That's great. But what were your scores? 

 

dave

[North Butte]

2 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

There are a couple of (OLD) references out there on the web. I get the feeling that 15+ years ago the USGA allowed clubs to use 9 hole scores to calculate 9 hole handicaps for use in 9 hole competitions. I can see that being useful in some 9 hole clubs.

I knew for sure in the OLD days (like the 1990's) the N index was a thing. I was pretty sure it had made it into this century but based on @ChaosTheory's link I see it stayed around long enough to have made it into the GHIN era. 

 

Not to mention the unmentionable but it's funny how many things seem like the vague, distant past when they actually happened as recently as 2018, 2019 or (in the case of the N index going away) January 2020.

[DaveLeeNC]

9 minutes ago, North Butte said:

I knew for sure in the OLD days (like the 1990's) the N index was a thing. I was pretty sure it had made it into this century but based on @ChaosTheory's link I see it stayed around long enough to have made it into the GHIN era. 

 

Not to mention the unmentionable but it's funny how many things seem like the vague, distant past when they actually happened as recently as 2018, 2019 or (in the case of the N index going away) January 2020.

 

SCGA Club Digest is a reference to "N" indicating a combined 18 hole score  consisting of two 9 hole scores. This would be a score designation. 

 

What the does the letters L, R, M, N, NL, WD mean after your Handicap? | Premier Golf Club (thepremiergolfclub.com) is a reference to N indicating a 9 hole handicap (a index designation). 

 

So it sounds like the use of N WRT indexes predates the use of N WRT scores. 

 

dave

 

 

[iacas]

12 hours ago, larrybud said:

You asked me for propositions

 

And then I pointed out that your proposition was basically "go back to what they were doing before." It's a non-starter: they've already explained why they moved away from that and what the problems they had with that were.

 

12 hours ago, larrybud said:

By the way, the Competition Index I propose

 

I don't care about that. As you say it has nothing to do with this topic.

 

12 hours ago, larrybud said:

For your 3rd point, as far as the USGA is concerned, your index IS a valid 18-hole index.

 

That misses my point: if you don't play 18 holes somewhat often, who are you to know what your true 18-hole index would be? Maybe you bomb out on the back and it's lower than it would be. Maybe you get in a groove and it's too high.

[King_Slender]

On 4/18/2024 at 5:35 PM, Brooks_Cupcake said:

Maybe don’t waste your time in qualifiers as a 1.6 regardless? 😉

 

For real. A 1.6 index is probably shooting in the upper 70's 1/2 the time.  

 

When was the last time anyone who didn't have a plus index came close to sniffing a US Open bid? 

[Imp]

"If you only play 9, the calculation is FINE!" - Most advocates of the scoring, of which I am not one.

 

I will keep driving this point home until I'm blue in the face that it's not valid due to having made up scores to fill up 18.  

 

Played 18 yesterday in a tournament, on a new course to me. Didn't know some "features" were hidden from view until after hitting and an FC would say "oh yeah, there's water on that side, or in front of the green, etc...". Out in 47, in 38. 

 

If I only was scored on the front 9... the differential would be a high throw away (or maybe eventually rolled in if I don't play the front 9 well in many other rounds). With the decent back, differential was brought back to 11.8. 

 

 

 

 

[JooLee]

I don't like it either - at all.  There are MANY golfers who play 9 holes a lot more often than they play 18.  If you shoot a low 9 you get hammered with a drop in your index when in fact, as would be likely with me, I'd stink up the back 9 if I kept playing.  The whole thing is unnecessary IMO and doesn't take into consideration the WIDE diversity of how people golf, how many holes they usually play and so on.  I am a female 15-16 handicapper who typically plays 9 holes most days of the week.  Maybe once or twice a week I will play 18.  To have all those 9s be essentially doubled (I often play a 9-hole course, so SAME holes are factored in, essentially doubling the score).  This can heavily skew my index in either direction.  If I play 2 nines at the same course on consecutive days, I just wait and pair the two days as an 18.  Unfortunately if you play 9s at different courses, you can't do that.

[nsxguy]

12 hours ago, JooLee said:

I don't like it either - at all.  There are MANY golfers who play 9 holes a lot more often than they play 18.  If you shoot a low 9 you get hammered with a drop in your index when in fact, as would be likely with me, I'd stink up the back 9 if I kept playing.  The whole thing is unnecessary IMO and doesn't take into consideration the WIDE diversity of how people golf, how many holes they usually play and so on.  I am a female 15-16 handicapper who typically plays 9 holes most days of the week.  Maybe once or twice a week I will play 18.  To have all those 9s be essentially doubled (I often play a 9-hole course, so SAME holes are factored in, essentially doubling the score).  This can heavily skew my index in either direction.  If I play 2 nines at the same course on consecutive days, I just wait and pair the two days as an 18.  Unfortunately if you play 9s at different courses, you can't do that.

 

Firstly, congrats on being able to play so much golf. 9 holes most days and 18 once or twice a week ?  That's a lot of golf. Good for you. 👍

 

Secondly, if you've read enough of the thread, a great OR poor 9-hole day will not "essentially be doubled". An average 9 would be pretty close though. And that's why you DON'T get "hammered" for a single low 9-hole game.

 

In your specific case though, playing that much golf, pairing 9 holes 1 day and another 9 the next (or a little later) might have been a better/more reasonable way to go.

 

But, in general, which do you think would be better for "everybody" ? Pairing 2 9-hole rounds together which is often(?) weeks or months apart, and often in very different conditions (or golf courses), or extending a 9-hole round to an 18-hole differential ?

 

Or do you think the golfer should be given a choice which way to go ? 

 

Or do you think there should be separate ways of handling 9-hole rounds depending on how often a particular golfer plays ?

[DaveLeeNC]

33 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

In your specific case though, playing that much golf, pairing 9 holes 1 day and another 9 the next (or a little later) might have been a better/more reasonable way to go.

 

But, in general, which do you think would be better for "everybody" ? Pairing 2 9-hole rounds together which is often(?) weeks or months apart, and often in very different conditions (or golf courses), or extending a 9-hole round to an 18-hole differential ?

 

Or do you think the golfer should be given a choice which way to go ? 

 

Or do you think there should be separate ways of handling 9-hole rounds depending on how often a particular golfer plays ?

 

The question was not addressed to me, but ...

 

I feel like golfers with lots of 9 hole rounds no longer have a handicap in the sense that 18 hole golfers have a handicap. The calculation is just that much different (in my mind) - the 9 holer's handicap  it is simply a measure of something else that is correlated to 'real handicaps' but not the same thing. 

 

I don't know what the right answer is here, but this seems to me to be a huge step to take to fix a 9 hole problem that is a small portion of the calculations for golfers with the very occasional 9 hole score thown in. Pick one - pick the other - the result will change very little (because, by definition of this population, these don't happen often for them). But for those with lots of 9 hole scores - this is huge. 

 

dave

[nsxguy]

46 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

But for those with lots of 9 hole scores - this is huge. 

 

Everybody(?) is aware of your stance on this issue.

 

To me, it's either one method or the other. But I do not agree it's "huge" - either way. 

 

To my mind, extending 9 to 18 is a better solution than putting 2 totally different 9-hole differentials together to create an 18-hole diff.

 

But I could be wrong. 

[davep043]

3 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I feel like golfers with lots of 9 hole rounds no longer have a handicap in the sense that 18 hole golfers have a handicap. The calculation is just that much different (in my mind) - the 9 holer's handicap  it is simply a measure of something else that is correlated to 'real handicaps' but not the same thing. 

I don't disagree, but those same players would very rarely have to face the compounding fatigue that playing 18 holes requires, nor the opportunity to recover from a poort first 9.  Posting (and combining sequentially)  predominantly 9-hole scores was NEVER going to produce an "equivalent" 18-hole handicap, only playing and posting 18-hole rounds would do that.

 

3 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I don't know what the right answer is here, but this seems to me to be a huge step to take to fix a 9 hole problem that is a small portion of the calculations for golfers with the very occasional 9 hole score thown in. Pick one - pick the other - the result will change very little (because, by definition of this population, these don't happen often for them). But for those with lots of 9 hole scores - this is huge. 

Like you, I don't know the "right" answer, as different "9-hole" players will be impacted differently.  As for how big the impact will be, I hope the various handicapping authorities worldwide are reviewing the scores, perhaps the system will be tweaked in the future.

[DaveLeeNC]

7 hours ago, nsxguy said:

To me, it's either one method or the other. But I do not agree it's "huge" - either way. 

 

For the strictly 9 hole golfer vs. the 18 hole golfer ...

 

1) The index of the 9 hole golfer is based on half of the information vs. the 18 hole golfer

 

2) The 9 hole golfer's good scores roll off twice as fast as the 18 hole golfer's good scores

 

3) The exceptional score adjustment (Rule 5.9) doesn't exist for the 9 hole golfer (for all practical purposes). It he/she somehow pulls one out of the bag anyway, it will last half as long vs. the 18 hole golfer.

 

This will never happen (and probably should not happen) but the only way to really balance between the two (if it ever became a priority) would be to make all score calculations 9 hole calculations (an 18 hole round would be posted as 2 nine hole rounds) and apply the whatever adjustment that gets you to 18 holes to everyone.

 

dave

Edited May 28, 2024 by DaveLeeNC