Not a fan of GHIN new 9 hole scoring system

[bazinky]

My biggest issue with the current 9 hole method is that it's now too easy for guys to "flush" scores out of the system in a hurry.

 

Of course, I'm also one of those who miss the old T-score system. I feel like sandbagging is getting worse, primarily because the handicap system keeps making it easier ...

[betarhoalphadelta]

On 5/27/2024 at 8:56 AM, nsxguy said:

 

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 ?

 

 

IMHO, pairing two 9-hole rounds together is better for everybody. 

 

If, as you say, they're "months apart" and possibly in very different conditions, then the player in question obviously doesn't play 9 hole rounds very often, so it really doesn't matter for them. It would be unlikely that a combined round would be more than 1 or 2 of their 20 scored rounds for calculating their index, so it's unlikely to materially affect the outcome much either way. 

 

If, as in @JooLee's case, she's playing 9 hole rounds several times per week, then it's unlikely that we're ever talking about pairing together rounds that are "month's apart." Combining them IMHO is better because her index is based upon holes of golf actually played, not an extrapolation of what her score "would probably be" on holes of golf not actually played. With the current system, her index will be based on significantly fewer holes of golf actually played than the old system. And as we know of most statistical things, larger sample size tends to improve accuracy, so cutting her sample size nearly in half will be likely to make her index less accurate. 

 

To me, I just don't understand what was wrong with the combined rounds. If you rarely play 9 hole rounds, it doesn't matter much. If you frequently play 9 hole rounds, I'd say your index accurate will be more accurate if based entirely on holes of golf played than based on half of your holes of golf calculated to have been played at an average performance level of players of your index. 

[nsxguy]

11 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

IMHO, pairing two 9-hole rounds together is better for everybody. 

 

If, as you say, they're "months apart" and possibly in very different conditions, then the player in question obviously doesn't play 9 hole rounds very often, so it really doesn't matter for them. It would be unlikely that a combined round would be more than 1 or 2 of their 20 scored rounds for calculating their index, so it's unlikely to materially affect the outcome much either way. 

 

If, as in @JooLee's case, she's playing 9 hole rounds several times per week, then it's unlikely that we're ever talking about pairing together rounds that are "month's apart." Combining them IMHO is better because her index is based upon holes of golf actually played, not an extrapolation of what her score "would probably be" on holes of golf not actually played. With the current system, her index will be based on significantly fewer holes of golf actually played than the old system. And as we know of most statistical things, larger sample size tends to improve accuracy, so cutting her sample size nearly in half will be likely to make her index less accurate. 

 

To me, I just don't understand what was wrong with the combined rounds. If you rarely play 9 hole rounds, it doesn't matter much. If you frequently play 9 hole rounds, I'd say your index accurate will be more accurate if based entirely on holes of golf played than based on half of your holes of golf calculated to have been played at an average performance level of players of your index. 

 

Well, that's a very fair recap.

 

My only rebuttal to that would be how often I've gone 76-86 (or vice versa) a day or 2 apart in the same or very different conditions.

 

But that's what makes a horse race - a difference of opinion. 👍

[iacas]

6 hours ago, bazinky said:

Of course, I'm also one of those who miss the old T-score system. I feel like sandbagging is getting worse, primarily because the handicap system keeps making it easier ...

 

I feel like sandbagging is getting better, and vanity capping continues to be a MUCH bigger problem than sandbagging.

 

I think, and have for years (or decades), that there is much less actual sandbagging going on than people think.

 

Edited May 29, 2024 by iacas

[betarhoalphadelta]

9 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Well, that's a very fair recap.

 

My only rebuttal to that would be how often I've gone 76-86 (or vice versa) a day or 2 apart in the same or very different conditions.

 

But that's what makes a horse race - a difference of opinion. 👍

 

Yeah, and I've gone even par on the front nine to +14 on the back nine in a single round, on the same day, in the same conditions. As I posted upthread my comparison of my 8 of 20 counting rounds for my index, two of the 8 had wild disparities between front nine and back nine scores. In one case the front was good and the back bad, in the other the front was bad and the back good, so it's not like there was a consistent trend of fatigue on the back nine leading to worse performance or something like that. 

 

I think in the end, I'd still rather have indexes be based on holes played rather than holes not played. 

[klebs01]

For arguments sake, let’s say 2 golfers play a lot of 9 hole rounds and are somewhat inconsistent. They shoot two good rounds followed by two bad rounds and the pattern continues on for the whole year. Let’s say the 9 hole differential is 1 for the good rounds an 7 for the bad rounds. If one players scores are the two good rounds combined and the two bad rounds combined they will have a 2 index. If the other has a good and a bad round combined for every round they will have an 8 index. This difference is due solely to the luck of which scores are combined even though they have the exact same score history. This luck element seems to be much more distorting than assuming a regression to the mean for the back 9 to create an 18 hole differential. 

[Imp]

1 hour ago, klebs01 said:

For arguments sake, let’s say 2 golfers play a lot of 9 hole rounds and are somewhat inconsistent. They shoot two good rounds followed by two bad rounds and the pattern continues on for the whole year. Let’s say the 9 hole differential is 1 for the good rounds an 7 for the bad rounds. If one players scores are the two good rounds combined and the two bad rounds combined they will have a 2 index. If the other has a good and a bad round combined for every round they will have an 8 index. This difference is due solely to the luck of which scores are combined even though they have the exact same score history. This luck element seems to be much more distorting than assuming a regression to the mean for the back 9 to create an 18 hole differential. 

 

As someone that plays 2 9 hole rounds a week at different courses, and an 18 hole am tournament 1-2x a week, the differential applied for holes not played goes against everything a golf handicap is.

 

Your index is filled with mathematically made-up/fake scores. 

 

That as much as I try, I'm not getting any kind of lowering of my index playing these 9 hole scores, just a differential that's close to my existing one for the excellent rounds, and higher if 1-2 strokes off from excellent, my index has gone up a few points. Now, I've been close or over 40 stableford points with "exceptional scores" when playing a full 18, and people are starting to look at me (and a couple others I know) sideways. The past couple weeks, I've been near the top of the leaderboard for these 18 hole rounds.

 

Looking at my differentials, the 18s are in the single digits now. The 9 holes are still in the doubles (some in the 12s, 13s). Yet, if they were combined using the old method, they'd be in the singles also (8 or 9). So, when I shoot low in the tournaments, yet "average" when playing 9s, putting the same verve into it, I cannot get the 9s in single digits to match the 18s. 

 

It's non-sensical and I'd consider someone that I didn't know doing the same thing as a sandbagger on those 9s. ANd I know others are looking at me the same way now. THis needs to be fixed. I didn't play those holes that the differential is making up. THat's the whole crux of the issue to me.

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 hours ago, klebs01 said:

For arguments sake, let’s say 2 golfers play a lot of 9 hole rounds and are somewhat inconsistent. They shoot two good rounds followed by two bad rounds and the pattern continues on for the whole year. Let’s say the 9 hole differential is 1 for the good rounds an 7 for the bad rounds. If one players scores are the two good rounds combined and the two bad rounds combined they will have a 2 index. If the other has a good and a bad round combined for every round they will have an 8 index. This difference is due solely to the luck of which scores are combined even though they have the exact same score history. This luck element seems to be much more distorting than assuming a regression to the mean for the back 9 to create an 18 hole differential. 

 

Your hypothetical, while it mathematically would create a very disparate outcome, is purely hypothetical. I don't think it is statistically likely to actually happen. At the very least, I think it would be less likely to happen than some of the downsides of this system, such as a player knowing they are, say, 3 scores away from a low round rolling off and deliberately playing 3 9-hole rounds in advance of an important net event in order to manipulate their index by getting it off their 8 of 20 calculation. 

[iacas]

19 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

Your hypothetical, while it mathematically would create a very disparate outcome, is purely hypothetical. I don't think it is statistically likely to actually happen. At the very least, I think it would be less likely to happen than some of the downsides of this system, such as a player knowing they are, say, 3 scores away from a low round rolling off and deliberately playing 3 9-hole rounds in advance of an important net event in order to manipulate their index by getting it off their 8 of 20 calculation. 

 

Manipulators are gonna manipulate. The guy could also sandbag, or just literally post scores that he makes up to bump those off, too.

 

Look, everyone… the handicapping system is pretty good, but at the end of the day, at every level, it's making some assumptions for simplicity. The very fact that we boil down the way a course plays into a bogey and scratch rating — courses from Arizona desert to northeastern woodlands — across long wild players and short hitting accurate players and great putters and horrible putters and everything in between, in all phases of the game… is a bunch of simplification that's still "pretty good."

 

You can concoct scenarios and situations at almost any point in the whole handicapping system, but overall, I think it's important to bear in mind that the whole system, despite all of these types of things that we can all complain about endlessly, is both relatively effective and relatively simple.

[klebs01]

Seems like the only solution is to disallow 9 hole scores. 

[DaveLeeNC]

24 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

Seems like the only solution is to disallow 9 hole scores. 

 

You could ONLY allow 9 hole scores (where an 18 hole round would be posted as two scores). I am not recommending this. I am just pointing it out as it is the only way that I can think of to put 9 and 18 hole golfers on an equal handicap footing. 

 

dave

[Schulzmc]

What if you allowed 9 hole scores to count towards a nine hole handicap, and 18 hole scores to count towards a separate 18 hole handicap? 

 

For many (most?) of us we would not get enough 9 hole scores to have an official 9 hole cap. But for those who play mostly 9 holes they would have a legit cap that reflected actual scores. 

 

And if you want to play in 18 hole events, then you need to play enough 18 hole rounds to qualify. Simple

[Imp]

On 5/29/2024 at 9:26 PM, Schulzmc said:

What if you allowed 9 hole scores to count towards a nine hole handicap, and 18 hole scores to count towards a separate 18 hole handicap? 

 

For many (most?) of us we would not get enough 9 hole scores to have an official 9 hole cap. But for those who play mostly 9 holes they would have a legit cap that reflected actual scores. 

 

And if you want to play in 18 hole events, then you need to play enough 18 hole rounds to qualify. Simple

I think you underestimate how many 9 hole players/work leagues exist, never mind 9 hole courses with USGA/GHIN membership.

 

Beyond membership, work leagues on public and some private courses are a huge profit center for the course with a steady block of time and players every week. Example, one work league I help run has 72 players every Thursday. 1/4 go into the bar for food and drink/pitchers afterwards. Every Thursday like clockwork.  All the course has to do is collect green/cart fees. The league does all the matches, cards, scoring, etc... Rain = playing, where the public would shy away.

[Pnwpingi210]

This is an interesting thread.  Those of you that are calculation separately in a spreadsheet it would be interesting to see how the following number hc number compare

 

*HC with only full 18 hole rounds used as calculation (no 9 hole rounds used in calculation)

*HC with pre 2024 9 hole rounds calculation

*HC with post 2024 9 hole round calculation

 

my hypothesis is…

18 hole rounds only will result in the highest calculated hc

18 hole + 9 hole post 2024 change round calculation will result in 2nd highest hc

18 hole + 9 hole pre 2024 change round calculation will result in the lowest handicap.

Edited June 2, 2024 by Pnwpingi210

[Schulzmc]

On 5/31/2024 at 6:26 AM, Imp said:

I think you underestimate how many 9 hole players/work leagues exist, never mind 9 hole courses with USGA/GHIN membership.

That’s kind of why I made my suggestion. For a number of years I played in one of those leagues. The league actually kept the scores of all the players and assigned a handicap based only on their league play. I had two handicaps - my official GHIN one and my league handicap. Worked just fine.

[Pnwpingi210]

1 hour ago, Schulzmc said:

That’s kind of why I made my suggestion. For a number of years I played in one of those leagues. The league actually kept the scores of all the players and assigned a handicap based only on their league play. I had two handicaps - my official GHIN one and my league handicap. Worked just fine.

Was there a difference between the two?  If so which one was higher?  

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Was there a difference between the two?  If so which one was higher?  

 

GHIN almost HAD to be higher.

 

I had this exact same problem when I played in my club. We kept a home handicap separately, but everything went into GHIN.

 

"Home" handicap was always lower. GHIN had "away" rounds that seldom got into the top 10 of 20.

 

I got down to a 1.8 at home. I didn't keep an "away" (only) cap separately but I guarantee you it was at least an 8, likely higher.

 

Of course, as I gained experience playing away courses, the difference narrowed, but my best-ever away ' cap was 3.9 (after I stopped playing that home course altogether).

 

To this day, MANY years later, if someone asks me, as a guy did yesterday, I say "Well, I was as low as 1.8, but that was a home handicap, a course I played 90% of my rounds on. Lowest was really a 3.9 "everywhere"."

 

 

 

 

 

Edited June 3, 2024 by nsxguy

[Schulzmc]

3 hours ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

Was there a difference between the two?  If so which one was higher?  

They were pretty much the same. Remember this was when they were still combining separate 9 hole scores. Even though the league did not post the scores to GHIN I did.

 

I suspect the GHIN cap would be much higher now that they do their magic and make each 9 hole score an 18 hole round.

[Pnwpingi210]

7 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

They were pretty much the same. Remember this was when they were still combining separate 9 hole scores. Even though the league did not post the scores to GHIN I did.

 

I suspect the GHIN cap would be much higher now that they do their magic and make each 9 hole score an 18 hole round.

Got it.

 

i think the thought is the more consecutive holes a golfer plays, the closer the golfer gets to their average.  I agree it’s probably 1-2 point higher in the new calculation. 

 

my anecdotal experiences is I’ve shot under par for 9 holes multiple times.  I’ve yet to shoot under par for a full 18.  
 

I’ve also been 3 under through 3 holes, 6 under through 7 holes, but never finished the full 18 under par.  This would mirror the experience of most the golfers in the groups I play that are within the handicap range that pars within striking distance.

[Pnwpingi210]

30 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

GHIN almost HAD to be higher.

 

I had this exact same problem when I played in my club. We kept a home handicap separately, but everything went into GHIN.

 

"Home" handicap was always lower. GHIN had "away" rounds that seldom got into the top 10 of 20.

 

I got down to a 1.8 at home. I didn't keep an "away" (only) cap separately but I guarantee you it was at least an 8, likely higher.

 

Of course, as I gained experience playing away courses, the difference narrowed, but my best-ever away ' cap was 3.9 (after I stopped playing that home course altogether).

 

To this day, MANY years later, if someone asks me, as a guy did yesterday, I say "Well, I was as low as 1.8, but that was a home handicap, a course I played 90% of my rounds on. Lowest was really a 3.9 "everywhere"."

 

 

 

 

 

This is inline with my experience as well.

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, Schulzmc said:

That’s kind of why I made my suggestion. For a number of years I played in one of those leagues. The league actually kept the scores of all the players and assigned a handicap based only on their league play. I had two handicaps - my official GHIN one and my league handicap. Worked just fine.

 

10 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

They were pretty much the same. Remember this was when they were still combining separate 9 hole scores. Even though the league did not post the scores to GHIN I did.

 

I suspect the GHIN cap would be much higher now that they do their magic and make each 9 hole score an 18 hole round.

 

Maybe I misread your first post.

 

You were talking about 9-hole "league" scores being combined, presumably with 18-hole scores, yes ?

 

So for "those years", the 9-hole scores were combined, yes ? And you compared the (9-hole) league handicap vs. your GHIN, including ALL scores and they were close.

 

Were all rounds played on the same course ?

[Schulzmc]

49 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

 

Maybe I misread your first post.

 

You were talking about 9-hole "league" scores being combined, presumably with 18-hole scores, yes ?

 

So for "those years", the 9-hole scores were combined, yes ? And you compared the (9-hole) league handicap vs. your GHIN, including ALL scores and they were close.

 

Were all rounds played on the same course ?

The league was keeping a nine-hole index for me. They were doing that independent of the GHIN system. A lot of guys in the league just left it at that. They had their index for the league and their normal GHIN 18 hole index. But I was trying to follow proper handicapping rules and submitted my nine hole scores to GHIN on my own. At that time these scores were combined (every two weeks) into an 18 hole score that contributed to my GHIN index. But these details aren't important. What I was trying to show was that it worked just fine to essentially have two handicaps - one for nine hole rounds and one for 18 hole rounds. 

[Pnwpingi210]

11 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

The league was keeping a nine-hole index for me. They were doing that independent of the GHIN system. A lot of guys in the league just left it at that. They had their index for the league and their normal GHIN 18 hole index. But I was trying to follow proper handicapping rules and submitted my nine hole scores to GHIN on my own. At that time these scores were combined (every two weeks) into an 18 hole score that contributed to my GHIN index. But these details aren't important. What I was trying to show was that it worked just fine to essentially have two handicaps - one for nine hole rounds and one for 18 hole rounds. 

The more I think about it the more the seperate 9 hole and 18 caps make sense.

[DaveLeeNC]

I have been playing fairly consistently this year with one 18 hole round and one 9 hole round weekly (weather and schedule permitting). Prior to this year I had no 9 hole rounds, BTW.  I calculated my index two ways. 

 

1) The current USGA way of treating 9 hole rounds AND I removed the exceptional score adjustment that my current index has because that is not a normal event for anyone and the difference between the old 9 hole and new 9 hole index calculations has a significant effect on this (i.e., how fast old rounds roll off your previous 20 list) 

 

2) The pre-2024 calculation methodology of holding and combining 9 hole rounds. 

 

If I look at my index calculations starting May 1 you see that my index using the current methodology is (on average) 1.0 strokes higher than using the old methodology.  I did have two exceptional and consecutive 9 hole rounds in the data. They were both 9 hole diffs of 2.9 and these naturally 'lined up'. If I swap one of those scores so these two exceptional scores were not combined with each other, that average of 1.0 drops to 0.8. 

 

I've only got 14 nine hole scores so a 9 hole index isn't particularly insightful at this point. 

 

dave

Edited June 4, 2024 by DaveLeeNC

[Pnwpingi210]

9 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I have been playing fairly consistently this year with one 18 hole round and one 9 hole round weekly (weather and schedule permitting). Prior to this year I had no 9 hole rounds, BTW.  I calculated my index two ways. 

 

1) The current USGA way of treating 9 hole rounds AND I removed the exceptional score adjustment that my current index has because that is not a normal event for anyone and the difference between the old 9 hole and new 9 hole index calculations has a significant effect on this (i.e., how fast old rounds roll off your previous 20 list) 

 

2) The pre-2024 calculation methodology of holding and combining 9 hole rounds. 

 

If I look at my index calculations starting May 1 you see that my index using the current methodology is (on average) 1.0 strokes higher than using the old methodology.  I did have two exceptional and consecutive 9 hole rounds in the data. They were both 9 hole diffs of 2.9 and these naturally 'lined up'. If I swap one of those scores so these two exceptional scores were not combined with each other, that average of 1.0 drops to 0.8. 

 

I've only got 14 nine hole scores so a 9 hole index isn't particularly insightful at this point. 

 

dave

This is interesting.  Thanks for doing the work and sharing.

 

what would you 18 hole round only index be for comparison to the the other two metrics (using the same data set, just removing the 9 hole rounds)

 

I hypothesize the 18 hole round only index will be higher than the either of the of the two calculations that use 9 round scores.

Edited June 4, 2024 by Pnwpingi210

[nsxguy]

29 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I have been playing fairly consistently this year with one 18 hole round and one 9 hole round weekly (weather and schedule permitting). Prior to this year I had no 9 hole rounds, BTW.  I calculated my index two ways. 

 

1) The current USGA way of treating 9 hole rounds AND I removed the exceptional score adjustment that my current index has because that is not a normal event for anyone and the difference between the old 9 hole and new 9 hole index calculations has a significant effect on this (i.e., how fast old rounds roll off your previous 20 list) 

 

2) The pre-2024 calculation methodology of holding and combining 9 hole rounds. 

 

If I look at my index calculations starting May 1 you see that my index using the current methodology is (on average) 1.0 strokes higher than using the old methodology.  I did have two exceptional and consecutive 9 hole rounds in the data. They were both 9 hole diffs of 2.9 and these naturally 'lined up'. If I swap one of those scores so these two exceptional scores were not combined with each other, that average of 1.0 drops to 0.8. 

 

I've only got 14 nine hole scores so a 9 hole index isn't particularly insightful at this point. 

 

dave

 

The old way of pairing 9-hole scores vs. the new way of extending 9-hole scores to an 18-hole scores, results in 5 fewer rounds within your last 20. So there are 5 rounds that would have been within your last 20 that now are not.

 

I would think those 5 rounds could result in almost anything between an index 1-2 shots lower to 1-2 strokes higher - depending on what they are of course.

 

Plus, as mentioned a number of times already, pairing 2 9-holes rounds is a carpshoot. There's no telling whether it would end up being your best differential or your worst.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 4, 2024 by nsxguy

[DaveLeeNC]

25 minutes ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

This is interesting.  Thanks for doing the work and sharing.

 

what would you 18 hole round only index be for comparison to the the other two metrics (using the same data set, just removing the 9 hole rounds)

 

I hypothesize the 18 hole round only index will be higher than the either of the of the two calculations that use 9 round scores.

Just taking a quick look the 18 hole index is roughly midway between the two calculations (skewed toward the higher one). 

 

dave

[Pnwpingi210]

3 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

Just taking a quick look the 18 hole index is roughly midway between the two calculations (skewed toward the higher one). 

 

dave

Thanks, Dave!

 

 

 

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

9 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

The old way of pairing 9-hole scores vs. the new way of extending 9-hole scores to an 18-hole scores, results in 5 fewer rounds within your last 20. So there are 5 rounds that would have been within your last 20 that now are not.

 

I would think those 5 rounds could result in almost anything between an index 1-2 shots lower to 1-2 strokes higher - depending on what they are of course.

 

Plus, as mentioned a number of times already, pairing 2 9-holes rounds is a carpshoot. There's no telling whether it would end up being your best differential or your worst.

 

 

 

 

There is a lot going on here. 

 

First these are all supposedly samples of the same process (my golf game against the CR/Slope of various golf courses). So just because one number has samples that are missing in the other sampling, does not make them meaningless. You just have to know what you are looking at when coming to conclusions. 

 

Treating 9 hole rounds the way the USGA now does takes outcomes that are perfectly logical and achieveable (and quite frankly will happen) and makes them IMPOSSIBLE. 

 

dave

[Pnwpingi210]

13 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

The old way of pairing 9-hole scores vs. the new way of extending 9-hole scores to an 18-hole scores, results in 5 fewer rounds within your last 20. So there are 5 rounds that would have been within your last 20 that now are not.

 

I would think those 5 rounds could result in almost anything between an index 1-2 shots lower to 1-2 strokes higher - depending on what they are of course.

 

Plus, as mentioned a number of times already, pairing 2 9-holes rounds is a carpshoot. There's no telling whether it would end up being your best differential or your worst.

 

 

 

 

Thats a good way to look at it.  Maybe a good solution is to stretch it out to include beat 8 of last 25 rounds?