Not a fan of GHIN new 9 hole scoring system

[rogolf]

12 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

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

We're only talking handicap system results here.  Successful results would be handicaps that represent a player's ability from day to day. 

Imo, some handicap bureaucracies are pushing their systems (and its participants) for the bureaucracy's idea of perfection, often to the detriment of results and participants. 

[nsxguy]

22 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

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

 

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

 

I didn't mean to go down a rabbit hole with front/back scores but I think it very clear that higher cappers WILL be much more likely to have wild swings, not only in 18 hole scores but also within front and back scoring.

 

The example I threw out there was for roughly an 8 'cap.

 

I would guess, that if you only tracked the front/back of your 8 best it'd come out at least a bit less erratic.

 

You're the guy that low handicappers "hate". And fear.

 

The "funny" thing is I record my scores in GHIN as front and back, but as I looked back at my scoring record, for just this scenario, I cannot find a way to review my front and back, just my totals.

 

 

[Mr. Bean]

54 minutes ago, rogolf said:

We're only talking handicap system results here.  Successful results would be handicaps that represent a player's ability from day to day. 

 

 

You are living in a fantasy, my friend 😂

 

No club player is consistent but scores vary depending on the handicap from 10 to 30 strokes during the season and even on two consecutive days. So how can you say that only those scores are successful that represent the HI ?? A person's ability could be 78 strokes (HI 5-6) but could easily play 92 when their drive is off and putting terrible.

[rogolf]

22 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

You are living in a fantasy, my friend 😂

 

No club player is consistent but scores vary depending on the handicap from 10 to 30 strokes during the season and even on two consecutive days. So how can you say that only those scores are successful that represent the HI ?? A person's ability could be 78 strokes (HI 5-6) but could easily play 92 when their drive is off and putting terrible.

Your quoted post just illustrates what I've been espousing about some groups chasing "perfection" in their handicap system(s).  I have no interest in discussing this further.

 

 

Edited April 21, 2024 by rogolf

[Mr. Bean]

2 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Your quoted post just illustrates what I've been espousing about some groups chasing "perfection" in their handicap system(s).  I have no interest in discussing this further.

 

 

 

Have it your way.

 

I am simply confused how you say that only some scores are successful from WHS standpoint while in effect all scores played by the Rules and WHS requirements are eligible for handicap calculation. I also find extremely odd your idea of breaking the Rules believing you are entitled to it as the WHS is not perfect, or good enough for your purposes. IMHO that is not suitable action for any person respecting the WHS, let alone for a referee.

[Maine Golfer]

I've yet to post anything (just practice rounds / rain golf) as my course just opened but I like the idea. I play a 9 hole course.  I didn't like having a meh round followed by a great one and combine them, or the other way around. It sucks to walk off from a great 9 and know it doesn't count until another 9. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

44 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

I didn't mean to go down a rabbit hole with front/back scores but I think it very clear that higher cappers WILL be much more likely to have wild swings, not only in 18 hole scores but also within front and back scoring.

 

The example I threw out there was for roughly an 8 'cap.

 

I would guess, that if you only tracked the front/back of your 8 best it'd come out at least a bit less erratic.

 

You're the guy that low handicappers "hate". And fear.

 

 

Good idea... See below. Note that some of these scores are that par-60 course, so I'm including course par, and if there were adjustments for holes exceeding NDB:

• Par 60: 40/45/85 (adjusted 82)
• Par 60: 38/35/73 (no adj)
• Par 60: 46/37/83 (adj 82)
• Par 71: 49/46/95 (adj 94)
• Par 60: 41/37/78 (no adj)
• Par 71: 48/45/93 (no adj)
• Par 71: 46/54/100 (adj 99)
• Par 70: 48/44/92 (adj 91)

So even on my counting rounds I had two wildly disparate rounds. The 46/37 I was 15 over on the front and 8 over on the back. And the 46/54 I was 10 over on the front and 19 over on the back. 

 

I'd argue that if taken as individual 9 hole rounds, the 37 on the back of the par 60 and the 46 on the front of the par 71 would obviously reduce my handicap even more than they actually affected it with the new system, and yet the 46 and 54 wouldn't balance that at all, because those wouldn't be in my top 8. And thus it wouldn't be as accurate at reflecting my demonstrated ability to play 18 holes. The only way that it would IMHO be "accurate" is if the 37 and the 46 were consecutive 9-hole rounds which were combined. 

 

How much it would affect it? Probably not by a huge enough amount to matter much. So for me it's more an academic discussion as anything. 

[rogolf]

54 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Have it your way.

 

I am simply confused how you say that only some scores are successful from WHS standpoint while in effect all scores played by the Rules and WHS requirements are eligible for handicap calculation. I also find extremely odd your idea of breaking the Rules believing you are entitled to it as the WHS is not perfect, or good enough for your purposes. IMHO that is not suitable action for any person respecting the WHS, let alone for a referee.

Just to put your mind at ease - when I'm playing, I am not a referee.  I don't wear a different coloured shirt and carry a whistle!  The groups that I play with know that I referee, and will ask for advice, which I will freely provide when asked.

Edited April 21, 2024 by rogolf

[Mr. Bean]

13 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Just to put your mind at ease - when I'm playing, I am not a referee.  I don't wear a different coloured shirt and carry a whistle!  The groups that I play with know that I referee, and will ask for advice, which I will freely provide when asked.

 

Our referees are always expected to act like a referee and it certainly includes playing by the Rules on a handicap round or in a competition.

 

Another cultural difference, I see.

 

Edited April 21, 2024 by Mr. Bean

[rogolf]

54 minutes ago, Mr. Bean said:

 

Our referees are always expected to act like a referee and it certainly includes playing by the Rules on a handicap round or in a competition.

 

Another cultural difference, I see.

 

Where did I indicate that I did not play by the Rules in a competition?  Or otherwise, personally?

You are painting with a broad brush and making things personal.

I'm glad that things are perfect on your turf. 🫤

Edited April 21, 2024 by rogolf

[Mr. Bean]

26 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Where did I indicate that I did not play by the Rules in a competition?  Or otherwise, personally?

 

 

I believe you wrote you practice on a handicap round and that was my reference. No need to get upset, I am merely pointing out the differences.

[Schulzmc]

16 hours ago, bobfoster said:

Now, I did play 18 holes, and it was a Ghin course (i.e., had a rating and slope, and scores could be recorded - some Executive courses are too short to qualify - I think you have to be at least 4,000 or longer - but this one did qualify)

I’m getting caught up in this thread and did not want this to just slip by. As of 2024 an 18 hole course only needs to be 1500 yds. to qualify for course and slope ratings, and as a result allow for postable rounds.

Edited April 21, 2024 by Schulzmc

[bobfoster]

1 hour ago, Schulzmc said:

I’m getting caught up in this thread and did not want this to just slip by. As of 2024 an 18 hole course only needs to be 1500 yds. to qualify for course and slope ratings, and as a result allow for postable rounds.

Wowser. Hadn't realized. (In truth, I almost never play executive courses, so I flat out never paid much attention.) Thought it was around 4,000. Apparently it had been lowered to 3,000, and then as of the new 2024 rules, now is, in fact, 1,500 for 18. You are spot on correct.

 

Still, 1,500 seems really, really short. Like, insanely short. I mean, all 18 holes could be 85 yard par 3s and a course could still qualify. That's just nutso-cuckoo. Sort of wondering what the reasoning is here. 

 

[Note: I've learned a great deal from this thread. Was wrong about a couple of different things - and am totally happy to be corrected when I am.]

[Mr. Bean]

1 hour ago, bobfoster said:

Still, 1,500 seems really, really short. Like, insanely short. I mean, all 18 holes could be 85 yard par 3s and a course could still qualify. That's just nutso-cuckoo. Sort of wondering what the reasoning is here. 

 

 

1) Beginners can have a Handicap Index right from the beginning without having to play long courses.

 

2) Par3 courses and other very short courses will become more lucrative if one can play handicap rounds on them.

[ae1985]

This is my first season using GHIN as I just joined a CC. I think the 9 hole scoring will help me because I have to post a bunch of scores to get an HC before league starts next month.

 

Bad part is that April is still terrible weather here and I can hardly get out there to play.

[davep043]

4 hours ago, ae1985 said:

. I think the 9 hole scoring will help me because I have to post a bunch of scores to get an HC before league starts next month

I'm pretty sure you'll need to post 54 holes of actual play to get your first Handicap Index, 6 9-hole scores, or 3 18s, or some combination.  

[Maine Golfer]

On 4/22/2024 at 1:02 PM, davep043 said:

I'm pretty sure you'll need to post 54 holes of actual play to get your first Handicap Index, 6 9-hole scores, or 3 18s, or some combination.  

Yeah last year was my first year with a handicap I used/entered. You got to get up to 54 I think 

[Newby]

On 4/22/2024 at 6:02 PM, davep043 said:

I'm pretty sure you'll need to post 54 holes of actual play to get your first Handicap Index, 6 9-hole scores, or 3 18s, or some combination.  

4.5 Number of Scores Required for Initial Handicap Index
To obtain an initial Handicap Index, a player must submit acceptable scores from a minimum of 54 holes.

[DaveLeeNC]

This new 9 hole method can be irritating. Recently I have started to regularly play a local 9 hole course with a relative in somewhat poor health (he cannot comfortably play 18 holes). So I am now posting a 9 hole score 3 or 4 times a month. 

 

My index has recently jumped up a couple of strokes to 12.1 (mostly a putting issue). I would like to get it back down to around 10 where it was not that long ago. Today I shot a 9 HOLE differential of 2.9. Note that this is solidly in sandbagger country (for a 12.1) if I continued this level of play and shot another 2.9 over the next 9 for a 18 hole diff of 5.8. 

 

When the system got done with my score for today it came up with a differential of 10.4. What is irritating here is that I now have 7 rounds across these 9 holes and my worst differential (so far) for 9 holes on this 9 hole course is 7.6 which when added to the 2.9 yields an 18 hole diff of about the same as the 10.4 that the system calculated. It feels like they just took my worst 9 hole score and added it to my score today (I know that this is not what happened).

 

I understand what is being done here, but it surely does seem to make big index movements (in either direction) a lot less likely than would happen with 18 hole rounds. 

 

dave

Edited April 25, 2024 by DaveLeeNC

[kiawah]

15 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

This new 9 hole method can be irritating. Recently I have started to regularly play a local 9 hole course with a relative in somewhat poor health (he cannot comfortably play 18 holes). So I am now posting a 9 hole score 3 or 4 times a month. 

 

My index has recently jumped up a couple of strokes to 12.1 (mostly a putting issue). I would like to get it back down to around 10 where it was not that long ago. Today I shot a 9 HOLE differential of 2.9. Note that this is solidly in sandbagger country (for a 12.1) if I continued this level of play and shot another 2.9 over the next 9 for a 18 hole diff of 5.8. 

 

When the system got done with my score for today it came up with a differential of 10.4. What is irritating here is that I now have 7 rounds across these 9 holes and my worst differential (so far) for 9 holes on this 9 hole course is 7.6 which when added to the 2.9 yields an 18 hole diff of about the same as the 10.4 that the system calculated. It feels like they just took my worst 9 hole score and added it to my score today (I know that this is not what happened).

 

I understand what is being done here, but it surely does seem to make big index movements (in either direction) a lot less likely than would happen with 18 hole rounds. 

 

dave

This is pretty much my complaint. I understand how the rule is meant to work, but at the same time, I shouldn't have to shoot -3 or -4 on the front nine every time just to get from 1.4 to scratch. That to me is a bit preposterous. Back when I played at a Tour venue regularly, I could shoot something like 76 and be within 1 of the course rating. Now I am playing a course that's only rated 3 shots "easier" and my 1.4 index is stagnant despite playing my last 72 holes or so in 5 over par. I simply don't know how to square that. I would love to figure out what I'd have to shoot on the front 9 over x number of rounds just to get back to scratch. It would probably be something crazy. 

[nsxguy]

15 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I understand what is being done here, but it surely does seem to make big index movements (in either direction) a lot less likely than would happen with 18 hole rounds.

 

Aren't "big" index movements a rarity anyway ?

 

How much would your 'cap have gone down if that round was a 5.8 vs. the 10.4 ?

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

Aren't "big" index movements a rarity anyway ?

 

How much would your 'cap have gone down if that round was a 5.8 vs. the 10.4 ?

 

A 5.8 differential (18 holes) would result in a new handicap index (assuming that this one counted) that is 0.6 strokes lower than posting a 10.4. I am not sure how big 'big' is, but that is almost 1/3 of my informally stated goal here. 

 

It would also be fair to point out that shooting another 2.9 differential (had I played another 9 holes) is somewhat unlikely given that I have played 7 rounds on that course and only shot that well once. 

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, kiawah said:

Now I am playing a course that's only rated 3 shots "easier" and my 1.4 index is stagnant despite playing my last 72 holes or so in 5 over par. I simply don't know how to square that. I would love to figure out what I'd have to shoot on the front 9 over x number of rounds just to get back to scratch. It would probably be something crazy. 

 

If you want to post a 9 hole score that will result in a posted differential of 0.0 (starting off a index of 1.4), you are going to have to post a 9 hole differential of around -2.2. 

 

dave

[nsxguy]

19 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I understand what is being done here, but it surely does seem to make big index movements (in either direction) a lot less likely than would happen with 18 hole rounds. 

 

dave

 

 

 

3 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Aren't "big" index movements a rarity anyway ?

 

How much would your 'cap have gone down if that round was a 5.8 vs. the 10.4 ?

 

2 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

A 5.8 differential (18 holes) would result in a new handicap index (assuming that this one counted) that is 0.6 strokes lower than posting a 10.4. I am not sure how big 'big' is, but that is almost 1/3 of my informally stated goal here. 

 

It would also be fair to point out that shooting another 2.9 differential (had I played another 9 holes) is somewhat unlikely given that I have played 7 rounds on that course and only shot that well once. 

 

dave

 

Point is, big movements aren't really supposed to happen in a single round.

 

So shooting just as well on the back would've dropped your index by .6. And that would've been a "sandbagger" type differential, close to a once-in-a-liftime differential.

 

Yet your 'cap would've dropped "only" .6. <-- That is, IME, a large drop for a single round.

 

And you admit, given your usual game that it'd be "somewhat unlikely" for you to duplicate it on the back.

 

Big/large movements in someone's cap for a single round aren't supposed to move a lot.

 

 

As an aside, that's a reason why I don't really like all these "made-up" points/quota games. One I play in pays all points over quota. Positive points and your quota goes up 1 for next week; i.e. a FULL stroke.

 

Don't make positive points and your quota goes DOWN 1 for next week; again a move of a FULL stroke.

 

If one believes the WHS is the best of an imperfect system, those quota game movements are highly unlikely yet the game does it every week - which likely wreaks havoc with the "low capper vs. a field of high handicappers" dynamic.

 

But when it's the only game in town,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[DaveLeeNC]

3 hours ago, nsxguy said:

Point is, big movements aren't really supposed to happen in a single round.

 

So shooting just as well on the back would've dropped your index by .6. And that would've been a "sandbagger" type differential, close to a once-in-a-liftime differential.

 

Yet your 'cap would've dropped "only" .6. <-- That is, IME, a large drop for a single round.

 

That 0.6 was not an absolute drop in index. It was the difference between the drop when posting a 5.8 vs. a 10.4 differential. For the case of a 12.1 index golfer posting a 5.8 differential round, assuming that the 5.8 replaced something like a round with a differential of 14, if a low score did not roll off the most recent 20 list then the drop would be 1.0 strokes, FWIW. 

 

I always viewed the handicap system as responding pretty quickly to improving play and tending to lag when your scores are going up. My only point is that if you only post 9 hole scores your index is going to move more slowly (in either direction) than it would if you were playing/posting 18 hole scores. 

 

dave

Edited April 26, 2024 by DaveLeeNC

[st1800e]

This is all somewhat interesting. However, I’ll just post my scores as directed by the instructions.  Then go play the next day, with whatever my handicap is. 

I'm also wondering why this is a debate, to what end? 

[North Butte]

On 4/25/2024 at 9:50 PM, DaveLeeNC said:

I always viewed the handicap system as responding pretty quickly to improving play and tending to lag when your scores are going up. My only point is that if you only post 9 hole scores your index is going to move more slowly (in either direction) than it would if you were playing/posting 18 hole scores. 

 

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). 

[DaveLeeNC]

This is a somewhat extreme example but it is a real example (from my scoring record). My index has recently gone up a couple strokes (10'ish to 12'ish) and I am working to return it 'back to normal'. 

 

These days I find myself playing once a week on a 9 hole course (with relatives who cannot or prefer not to play 18). So my scoring record is now a roughly even mix of 9 hole (extrapolated) differentials and 'normal' 18 hole differentials. My last two rounds on the 9 hole course (one week apart) have been exceptional (by my standards) being identical score differentials of 2.9. 

 

In the 'old days' that would have resulted in single posted score differential of 5.8. In 'these days' it resulted in two differentials of 10.4 and 10.1. It is interesting to observe this (and I have to play some really good golf, by my standards, to get back to around 10 on that 9 hole course). 

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

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

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). 

 

My purpose in having a handicap is twofold. First is an equity thing to allow me to compete fairly in my regular (low stakes) Friday game with friends. The other is a measure of progress (or age related degradation) of my golf game. 

 

Regarding the first, obviously 'just follow the rules' is the answer here. Related to the second part, I am strongly inclined (right now) to come up with my own personal handicap (for purposes of measuring the status of my game). And for those 9 hole rounds my thought is to treat the unplayed 9 holes as the average of whatever I shot on the first 9 plus whatever the USGA would have imputed on my behalf for the unplayed 9. I think that there is some serial correlation here (at least in my case). 

 

Or maybe I won't bother. 

 

dave

[North Butte]

2 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

My purpose in having a handicap is twofold. First is an equity thing to allow me to compete fairly in my regular (low stakes) Friday game with friends. The other is a measure of progress (or age related degradation) of my golf game. 

 

Regarding the first, obviously 'just follow the rules' is the answer here. Related to the second part, I am strongly inclined (right now) to come up with my own personal handicap (for purposes of measuring the status of my game). And for those 9 hole rounds my thought is to treat the unplayed 9 holes as the average of whatever I shot on the first 9 plus whatever the USGA would have imputed on my behalf for the unplayed 9. I think that there is some serial correlation here (at least in my case). 

 

Or maybe I won't bother. 

 

dave

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