Not a fan of GHIN new 9 hole scoring system

[betarhoalphadelta]

12 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

But pretty much anything they came up with would've been better than attaching 2 9-hole scores that may have been shot days/weeks/months/years(?) apart under who knows how many different conditions and  or courses.

 

 

I don't know that this is a big issue. There are really only two scenarios here:

 

1. You play 9-hole rounds very infrequently. This gives you the issue you describe above, where rounds may be VERY separated in time and conditions played, and possibly even the skill of the golfer depending on how many 18-hole rounds occur between the 9-hole rounds. However, this ALSO means that because of the infrequency of 9-hole play, combined 9-hole round(s) is/are unlikely to be more than 1 of the player's 20-round posting history. Yes, in this case combining 9-hole rounds might be a little bit of a problem, but it won't really have an impact. So if it's barely an impact, is it really a problem? 
2. You play 9-hole rounds very frequently. In this case you have rounds that may be in different conditions or on different courses, both of which already have provisions to be handled with PCC (different conditions) and rating/slope (different courses). But in this case combining 9-hole rounds has the advantage of calculating a player's impact based on holes played. I.e. if 100% of a golfer's rounds are 9-hole rounds, their index will be based on 180 real holes of golf played and 180 phantom holes not played. Compared to a golfer who plays only 18-hole rounds, who has an index based on 360 real holes of golf played. Given that sample size matters, which one do you think is more likely to have an index accurately reflective of their demonstrated ability on the golf course? 

In the first case, a golfer's index is based on 360 holes of golf, with the potential problem that 18 of those holes might be suspect because they were from two 9-hole rounds separated by a long difference in time. In the second case, you have some golfers who have their index based on 360 holes of golf played, while others could have their index based on 200 or fewer holes of golf played, with the rest to grow the sample size of 360 based on a calculation of what the USGA thinks other similar golfers would have scored on other similar holes to get to 360. 

 

 

[DaveLeeNC]

10 hours ago, nsxguy said:

So now that you're convinced you are right and they are wrong you're going to manipulate your handicap so it gives you an edge when you want one ?

 

WOW! You mis-stated me on two different things in one sentence. Quite an accomplishment. 

 

I did not say that I was right. I said the opposite - that I might agree with the USGA if I knew everything that they know AND I explicitly stated that I did not feel that the USGA needed to tell me this. FURTHER I did not say that I was going to manipulate my index - I said that I could as a way to make a point. I don't see any circumstances where doing this would be important enough to me to make me actually act on the opportunity (which I don't think should be baked into the system). 

 

And yes I was an engineering manager in my working life. If someone were to come to me with this proposal and did not discuss the obvious downside, they were be excused and asked to come back when their presentation was complete. 

 

BTW, I have not taken a position on how this should be solved. I just have issues (based on what I know) of the current solution. And as I said before I might even support the current method if I knew everything the USGA knows. 

 

dave

Edited June 22, 2024 by DaveLeeNC

[nsxguy]

51 minutes ago, bazinky said:

My issue is that the new 9 hole posting system is only equivalent to a full 18 over a narrow expected range of scores and doesn't handle outliers well. You can easily get two completely different results based on how scores are posted.

 

Well, it certainly sounds like you have a lot more experience in the field than I do (that would be zero ) but it's funny you mention getting "2 completely different results based on how scores are posted" as that very thing is discussed in that video I linked above telling us why they went to the new 9-hole posting system.

 

I would also note that the handicap system isn't designed to be perfect. Perfection would result in a tie every time, no ? And the very fact that only the best 8 of 20 are counted assures us perfection is not the target.

 

I expect your calculations are meant to be far closer with respect to predicting future outcomes, yes ? 

[nsxguy]

57 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

WOW! You mis-stated me on two different things in one sentence. Quite an accomplishment. 

 

I did not say that I was right. I said the opposite - that I might agree with the USGA if I knew everything that they know AND I explicitly stated that I did not feel that the USGA needed to tell me this. FURTHER I did not say that I was going to manipulate my index - I said that I could as a way to make a point. I don't see any circumstances where doing this would be important enough to me to make me actually act on the opportunity (which I don't think should be baked into the system). 

 

And yes I was an engineering manager in my working life. If someone were to come to me with this proposal and did not discuss the obvious downside, they were be excused and asked to come back when their presentation was complete. 

 

BTW, I have not taken a position on how this should be solved. I just have issues (based on what I know) of the current solution. And as I said before I might even support the current method if I knew everything the USGA knows. 

 

dave

 

Statements such as "This solution basically guarantees that over time almost any 9 hole golfer will have a higher index vs. what he/she would have playing 18 holes" seems to make it obvious (to me anyway) that you disagree with the new system despite you admitting you don't have the data.

 

So if I came to an incorrect conclusion, my bad.

 

However, you did say "And if I ever cared to enter a serious handicapped competition where legitimately raising my index would be helpful, I would go play a bunch of 9 hole rounds".

 

Now I admit the "if" is a future circumstance, and I thought I saw you say somewhere that you never enter such competitions, but people change their minds all the time.

 

And the "if" doesn't negate what you would do,,,,,,, "if".

 

I should end this with though. Personally, I don't think for one second you would actually follow through with that. I prefer to think you said it as just an off-handed comment about how "someone" could manipulate their handicap.

 

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

Statements such as "This solution basically guarantees that over time almost any 9 hole golfer will have a higher index vs. what he/she would have playing 18 holes" seems to make it obvious (to me anyway) that you disagree with the new system despite you admitting you don't have the data.

 

So if I came to an incorrect conclusion, my bad.

 

Just to be clear I don't view that statement above as an opinion. I view it as a mathematical fact (for golfers who don't 'fade away' on the back side or the "I cannot imagine how this could be" case of golfers whose front and back sides are consistently negatively correlated). 

 

dave

[nsxguy]

5 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Just to be clear I don't view that statement above as an opinion. I view it as a mathematical fact (for golfers who don't 'fade away' on the back side or the "I cannot imagine how this could be" case of golfers whose front and back sides are consistently negatively correlated). 

 

dave

 

So it's a mathematical FACT,,,,, under certain conditions.

 

OK.

[Pnwpingi210]

1 hour ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Just to be clear I don't view that statement above as an opinion. I view it as a mathematical fact (for golfers who don't 'fade away' on the back side or the "I cannot imagine how this could be" case of golfers whose front and back sides are consistently negatively correlated). 

 

dave

It is not a mathematical fact.  

If it was you could simply play a small number of holes, let’s say 3, and then extrapolate that score over the remaining holes.  3 under through 3 holes is rare but it does occur.  I’ve yet to see any professional in the world shoot a 54 (which would be the best extrapolation of 3 under through 3 applied to the remaining 15 holes)

Real world example is the Canada tour pro that shot 25 on the front 9 and ended up with as 61.

Edited June 22, 2024 by Pnwpingi210

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

It is not a mathematical fact.  

If it was you could simply play a small number of holes, let’s say 3, and then extrapolate that score over the remaining holes.  3 under through 3 holes is rare but it does occur.  I’ve yet to see any professional in the world shoot a 54 (which would be the best extrapolation of 3 under through 3 applied to the remaining 15 holes)

Real world example is the Canada tour pro that shot 25 on the front 9 and ended up with as 61.

What  you said has no relationship to what I said - "over time" is not a round of golf. 

 

dave

[Pnwpingi210]

1 hour ago, DaveLeeNC said:

What  you said has no relationship to what I said - "over time" is not a round of golf. 

 

dave

Ok.  Carry on with your version of facts 

[betarhoalphadelta]

FYI I just realized that this is going to become an increasingly relevant situation to me. I play a 9-hole pitch & putt (1115 yards, par 29) somewhat frequently as practice. Up until 2024, the course was unrated and not allowed for posting scores due to the length. I just became aware of the rule change allowing these scores to be posted. I was chatting with the starter yesterday and apparently the course is now rated (26.1/80). 

 

Now, it may still be a course where I might not post *every* round, as not every round is played according to ROG. If I go out there and it's empty, I'll play two balls and think nothing of doing things like taking a second attempt at chipping a ball if I flub one, etc. So if it's a true practice round and not played to ROG, then so be it. But I played yesterday morning and was paired up, so played it down and according to ROG, so I posted it this morning. 

 

I posted through The Grint which immediately got it wrong (they erroneously have the course rated at 28.3/94), and GHIN apparently recognizes that rating/slope, although maybe it'll update in GHIN to the accurate rating/slope that GHIN has on record overnight. I've submitted a correction to The Grint to hopefully rectify that. 

 

But it will really be interesting to see whether I find a significant difference in posted differentials between 9 hole rounds and my 18 hole rounds. 

[Schulzmc]

14 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I posted through The Grint which immediately got it wrong (they erroneously have the course rated at 28.3/94), and GHIN apparently recognizes that rating/slope, although maybe it'll update in GHIN to the accurate rating/slope that GHIN has on record overnight. I've submitted a correction to The Grint to hopefully rectify that. 

What differential did it give you for that round?

[betarhoalphadelta]

9 minutes ago, Schulzmc said:

What differential did it give you for that round?

As mentioned I believe it's calculated based on incorrect assumptions (course rating and slope). I scored 35 on par of 29.

 

It gave me an 18-hole differential of 21.6. 

 

If I look at a calculated 9-hole differential that 35 would be 8.05 (rounded to 8.1).

 

My expected differential for generating a course handicap is 9.9. Added together with 8.1 that only gets me to 18. I assume it should add roughly 1.5 to that, but it seems the 18-hole differential assigned is adding 3.6 strokes to that? 

 

Not sure if this makes sense... I'd think it would be lower than that. 

 

-------------

 

And then if I look at it calculated based on real rating and slope my 9-hole differential from the round should be 12.6. And my expected differential for 9 holes used in determining course handicap would be 8.4. Which now makes sense, because 12.6 + 8.4 + 1.6 = 21.6...

 

Maybe The Grint is reporting 28.3/94 but when they push the calculation over to GHIN it automatically calculates based on the correct rating/slope?

[Newby]

17 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

As mentioned I believe it's calculated based on incorrect assumptions (course rating and slope). I scored 35 on par of 29.

 

 

Score Differential is based on CR not Par.

[betarhoalphadelta]

7 minutes ago, Newby said:

Score Differential is based on CR not Par.

 

I'm aware.

[sui generis]

3 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

As mentioned I believe it's calculated based on incorrect assumptions (course rating and slope). I scored 35 on par of 29.

 

It gave me an 18-hole differential of 21.6. 

 

If I look at a calculated 9-hole differential that 35 would be 8.05 (rounded to 8.1).

 

My expected differential for generating a course handicap is 9.9. Added together with 8.1 that only gets me to 18. I assume it should add roughly 1.5 to that, but it seems the 18-hole differential assigned is adding 3.6 strokes to that? 

 

Not sure if this makes sense... I'd think it would be lower than that. 

 

-------------

 

And then if I look at it calculated based on real rating and slope my 9-hole differential from the round should be 12.6. And my expected differential for 9 holes used in determining course handicap would be 8.4. Which now makes sense, because 12.6 + 8.4 + 1.6 = 21.6...

 

Maybe The Grint is reporting 28.3/94 but when they push the calculation over to GHIN it automatically calculates based on the correct rating/slope?

 

What did the USGA say to you when you called them and told them that Grinch and GHIN gave you different results and your feelings are hurt? 😉

[betarhoalphadelta]

3 minutes ago, sui generis said:

 

What did the USGA say to you when you called them and told them that Grinch and GHIN gave you different results and your feelings are hurt? 😉

 

The Grint and GHIN both give me the same 21.6 differential. I *think* both are somehow arriving at the same differential based on the correct rating/slope, despite the fact that The Grint had the wrong rating/slope. 

[nsxguy]

40 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

The Grint and GHIN both give me the same 21.6 differential. I *think* both are somehow arriving at the same differential based on the correct rating/slope, despite the fact that The Grint had the wrong rating/slope. 

 

Aren't you able to look it up on GHIN ?

 

Or do you not have direct access ?

[iacas]

A guy elsewhere complained about his nine-hole rounds.

 

He had a decent nine holes, and was annoyed at the 18-hole differential. So, I ran his numbers for his nine-hole rounds:

 

(38−33.6)×110/113 = 4.3
(41−36.5)×113/140 = 3.6 = 7.9

 

(38−33.6)×113/110 = 4.5
(37−33.2)×113/117 = 3.7 = 8.2

 

(43−36.5)×113/140 = 5.2
(39−33.6)×113/110 = 5.5 = 10.7

 

(37−31.7)×113/96 = 6.2
(36−34.4)×113/121 = 1.5 = 7.7

 

Using the “old” method of combining nines, those rounds give him an 8.6 average. Using the "new" method, he was given 18-hole differentials of 9.3, 8.2, 9.1, 8.1, 9.5, 9.8, 10.2, and 5.5, which averages 8.7.

 

The three bold nine-hole scores counted toward your index. The average of those three (5.5, 8.1, 8.2) is 7.3. The other (18-hole) differentials that count toward your index: 7.6, 7.6, 4.8, 8.2, 8.7, which average 7.4.

 

His combined nines (i.e. the "old" way) from 2023 back to June 2023 were: 5.6, 9.4, 9.2, 9.5, 8.0, 9.2, 8.4, 10.2, 6.8, 9.5, 10.6, 7.4, and 8.1. Those average 8.6.

 

The USGA has over 300 million rounds since 2020 (i.e. under the new WHS, with net double bogey, etc.). Suffice to say they checked how the new method would affect the handicaps of golfers compared to the old way before putting it into effect.

[betarhoalphadelta]

14 hours ago, nsxguy said:

 

Aren't you able to look it up on GHIN ?

 

Or do you not have direct access ?

 

When The Grint posts to GHIN, it lists it as 28.3/94 on the posting.

 

 

However if I were to go onto the GHIN "post score" it would reflect 26.1/80.

 

However as far as I can tell, it's calculating the differential based on 26.1/80.

 

Very confusing. 

 

Re: Grint vs GHIN, it's complicated lol..

 

I wanted to post via The Grint b/c it is what we use for our group games. I know that The Grint can post to GHIN, but I don't recall if I gave the necessary permission that GHIN scores posted directly can flow down to The Grint... I think at the time I was planning to switch to Arccos for scoring and our group was scoring on 18Birdies (we switched back after one guy who preferred 18Birdies moved to Vegas).

 

Either way I've been in contact with The Grint and they're going to get their side updated. 

[st1800e]

On 6/27/2024 at 9:03 AM, betarhoalphadelta said:

However as far as I can tell, it's calculating the differential based on 26.1/80.

Would not Grint just send your raw score to GHIN without any calculations , and then GHIN does its own calculating?  

[haleew02]

I have read through this thread and just wanted to add my 2 cents as one of the minority of golfers that plays primarily 9 holes at a time and keeps a proper handicap.

 

i came into the 2024 season with a 9.5 index and shot 41 (equaling my course handicap for my index) on the back 9 of my “home” course (a local muni) 35.2/130, for my first posting of the year.  This generated a 11.2 differential which is consistent with what others have mentioned earlier in this thread.  
 

While I get peoples’ points being made about front 9 vs back 9 variance and an index supposed to be an 18 hole basis but the problem that needs to be addressed is a 9 hole golfer can hypothetically start the year as a 9.5 and then play 9 holes at the same course and post 20 straight 41’s ( equal to the course handicap of a 9.5 index) and his index would go up to an 11.2.  Based on the current calculation, this index would perpetually increase even while posting the exact same score each round because the differential for the 9 holes not played would keep going up as the index increases.  
 

While this is obviously an extreme example, there is something inherently wrong with a system where it is almost impossible to lower your handicap by posting 9 holes scores.  Just to maintain my start of the year index, I would have shoot 2 under my course handicap 50% of the time.  That seems a high bar to me.

 

i’m sure I’ll hear the just only post 18 hole rounds, yada yada but that’s not a viable option for some of us.  While I understand the issues with the old method of combining 9 hole rounds, at least that was based on holes actually played.

[nsxguy]

29 minutes ago, haleew02 said:

I have read through this thread and just wanted to add my 2 cents as one of the minority of golfers that plays primarily 9 holes at a time and keeps a proper handicap.

 

i came into the 2024 season with a 9.5 index and shot 41 (equaling my course handicap for my index) on the back 9 of my “home” course (a local muni) 35.2/130, for my first posting of the year.  This generated a 11.2 differential which is consistent with what others have mentioned earlier in this thread.  
 

While I get peoples’ points being made about front 9 vs back 9 variance and an index supposed to be an 18 hole basis but the problem that needs to be addressed is a 9 hole golfer can hypothetically start the year as a 9.5 and then play 9 holes at the same course and post 20 straight 41’s ( equal to the course handicap of a 9.5 index) and his index would go up to an 11.2.  Based on the current calculation, this index would perpetually increase even while posting the exact same score each round because the differential for the 9 holes not played would keep going up as the index increases.  
 

While this is obviously an extreme example, there is something inherently wrong with a system where it is almost impossible to lower your handicap by posting 9 holes scores.  Just to maintain my start of the year index, I would have shoot 2 under my course handicap 50% of the time.  That seems a high bar to me.

 

i’m sure I’ll hear the just only post 18 hole rounds, yada yada but that’s not a viable option for some of us.  While I understand the issues with the old method of combining 9 hole rounds, at least that was based on holes actually played.

 

If the articles about 9-hole scoring posting a full 18-hole differentials is not enough "proof" for you, you should email to the WHS/USGA and ask/tell them the very same things.

 

It's likely they can explain the situation a bit more thoroughly than posters here.

 

I've found them very accommodating. 

[DaveLeeNC]

42 minutes ago, haleew02 said:

 Based on the current calculation, this index would perpetually increase even while posting the exact same score each round because the differential for the 9 holes not played would keep going up as the index increases.  

 

Your index will not go up 'perpertually'. But if you shoot constant differentials as 9 hole rounds (and post them) vs. shooting constant 9 hole differentials as part of 18 hole rounds (and post them), your 9 hole index will ultimately be 3'ish strokes higher than your 18 hole index. IOW,  the series converges.

 

dave

 

ps. My best guess is that this won't make you feel better about the new 9 hole methodology 😄

[haleew02]

Email sent to USGA handicapping.  Will post their response once received.

[iacas]

24 minutes ago, haleew02 said:

Email sent to USGA handicapping.  Will post their response once received.

 

I think he was being somewhat facetious… (maybe not), because the only response you'll get back is something like "Yeah, that's how it's designed to work" maybe with a link to the several things they've put out about the change this year.

 

A handicap index is an 18-hole thing, so if you establish a handicap playing mostly nine hole rounds… who is to say if your 9.5 is truly all that accurate.

 

There's a reason some nine-hole after-work leagues keep their own handicap and disregard what you put in GHIN.

[haleew02]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

 

I think he was being somewhat facetious… (maybe not), because the only response you'll get back is something like "Yeah, that's how it's designed to work" maybe with a link to the several things they've put out about the change this year.

 

A handicap index is an 18-hole thing, so if you establish a handicap playing mostly nine hole rounds… who is to say if your 9.5 is truly all that accurate.

 

There's a reason some nine-hole after-work leagues keep their own handicap and disregard what you put in GHIN.

Not looking to start fights or anything and I totally understand that every golfers’ situation is different but at the end of the day, I really think this change is “fixing” a problem that didn’t really exist.  
 

Having someone who may have had an “artificially” low index under the old system would only benefit the 18 hole only handicap player in a match/tournament while also not irritating the 9 hole golfer because it was entirely based on holes actually played (unlike the new methodology).

As for whether my 9.5 was accurate at the end of last year, that is debatable but here are some details for my last season for context.  For the 2023 season I posted 15 scores, 11 9 holes and 4 18’s.  Of the last 20 differentials at the end of 2023, 4 of the lowest 8 were on 18 hole rounds including the lowest 2.  The new method is now pushing those 18 hole rounds out of the calculation quicker and replacing them with differentials with more phantom holes included.

 

While my preference would obviously be to go back to the old calculation method, having a separate 9 hole index would be preferable to the current solution.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, haleew02 said:

Not looking to start fights or anything and I totally understand that every golfers’ situation is different but at the end of the day, I really think this change is “fixing” a problem that didn’t really exist.

I don’t care enough to fight about it, but the USGA disagrees with you.
 

This has been discussed a bunch already. So if you care what I think I’ve made a bunch of posts on it already. I don’t suspect you do. 😀

 

[Pnwpingi210]

3 hours ago, haleew02 said:

Not looking to start fights or anything and I totally understand that every golfers’ situation is different but at the end of the day, I really think this change is “fixing” a problem that didn’t really exist.  
 

Having someone who may have had an “artificially” low index under the old system would only benefit the 18 hole only handicap player in a match/tournament while also not irritating the 9 hole golfer because it was entirely based on holes actually played (unlike the new methodology).

As for whether my 9.5 was accurate at the end of last year, that is debatable but here are some details for my last season for context.  For the 2023 season I posted 15 scores, 11 9 holes and 4 18’s.  Of the last 20 differentials at the end of 2023, 4 of the lowest 8 were on 18 hole rounds including the lowest 2.  The new method is now pushing those 18 hole rounds out of the calculation quicker and replacing them with differentials with more phantom holes included.

 

While my preference would obviously be to go back to the old calculation method, having a separate 9 hole index would be preferable to the current solution.

9 holes and 18 makes sense. 

 

I think one of the problems they were solving for after looking at millions of rounds was they frequently saw golfers have 9 hole rounds being for 18 scores that were lower than any 18 hole round they posted.  While this may not apply to you, it was mentioned as a problem they were solving for.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Pnwpingi210 said:

I think one of the problems they were solving for after looking at millions of rounds was they frequently saw golfers have 9 hole rounds being for 18 scores that were lower than any 18 hole round they posted. While this may not apply to you, it was mentioned as a problem they were solving for.

 

Yeah (see below).

 

To those who think this is a dumb thing, two points:

• If you ONLY or almost exclusively play nine-hole rounds, then, yeah, maybe this stinks for you. But you're in a pretty small minority.
• Also, as I've said before, the USGA has over 300 million rounds just from 2020-2023. They ran this new method and every other one they tested on all the handicaps of all the golfers in their system to see what it would change. After testing both methods, they decided this was a positive change and put it into effect.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/2024-revision/2024-treatment-of-9-hole-scores-FAQ.html

What are the benefits of this change?

The growing number of golfers who regularly play 9-hole rounds no longer have to wait for another 9-hole score for their Handicap Index to be updated.

 

In addition, it provides a better indicator of how a player will normally perform over 18 holes on a given day when compared to combining 9-hole scores from different days and under different playing conditions.

 

Finally, this new method produces a more consistent and comparable Handicap Index for golfers who post 9-hole scores. For example, under the previous method:

• Combining two independent 9-hole scores often resulted in more volatility and was highly dependent on the order in which scores are combined.
• It was also common for two good 9-hole scores to be combined that produce an 18-hole Score Differential that is better than any of the player’s 18-hole scores made over 18 consecutive holes. The impact was an artificially low Handicap Index.

[sui generis]

5 hours ago, haleew02 said:

I really think this change is “fixing” a problem that didn’t really exist.  

 

So, who really thinks that the ruling bodies allocate their time and resources to fixing non-existing problems? 😉 They have mountains of data unlike those of us chirping our anecdotes on here.

 

The Rules and Handicapping Rules are very, very evolutionary. The ruling bodies address real issues and promptly revist their changes and change the changes when needed. They listen.