Not a fan of GHIN new 9 hole scoring system

[Pnwpingi210]

6 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I personally would love to know the actual data behind this. (I'm an engineer, so wanting to see data before forming opinions is a dangerous character fault of mine.)

 

I.e., they say it was "common" that the combined score was a lower differential than any other score in a player's scoring record. 

 

How common is "common"? By simple logic, it should be expected to occur 5% (1 out of every 20) of the time. Because one of your rounds must be your lowest differential, so unless there is some advantage to combining 9-hole rounds, it should be expected to happen that often. 

 

Then there's the exceptional score chart. I'd love to see the data whether combined 9-hole rounds that would result in "exceptional" scores occurred more frequently than the odds for 18-hole rounds would suggest. 

 

If the data shows that players were posting 9-hole combined rounds that were their lowest differential >5% of the time, or if they were posting exceptional scores at a higher rate than the 18-hole round odds would suggest, that makes sense. 

 

But "it was also common" doesn't give us that. 

Can’t answer that.

 

Their contact info is published on the USGA website.    They might have an answer for you.

[dekez]

18 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I personally would love to know the actual data behind this. (I'm an engineer, so wanting to see data before forming opinions is a dangerous character fault of mine.)

 

I.e., they say it was "common" that the combined score was a lower differential than any other score in a player's scoring record. 

 

How common is "common"? By simple logic, it should be expected to occur 5% (1 out of every 20) of the time. Because one of your rounds must be your lowest differential, so unless there is some advantage to combining 9-hole rounds, it should be expected to happen that often. 

 

Then there's the exceptional score chart. I'd love to see the data whether combined 9-hole rounds that would result in "exceptional" scores occurred more frequently than the odds for 18-hole rounds would suggest. 

 

If the data shows that players were posting 9-hole combined rounds that were their lowest differential >5% of the time, or if they were posting exceptional scores at a higher rate than the 18-hole round odds would suggest, that makes sense. 

 

But "it was also common" doesn't give us that. 

 

If the prior posted formula is accurate, it seems to imply that the mean score that someone is expected to post on a given day for 18 holes is: (Course Handicap * 1.04) + 2.4.

[rogolf]

20 minutes ago, dekez said:

 

If the prior posted formula is accurate, it seems to imply that the mean score that someone is expected to post on a given day for 18 holes is: (Course Handicap * 1.04) + 2.4.

That can't be correct.  For a 10 CH, that works out to a "score" of 13.  That's even lower than Kim Jung Un's world record low score!

Edited July 16, 2024 by rogolf

[dekez]

22 minutes ago, rogolf said:

That can't be correct.  For a 10 CH, that works out to a "score" of 13.  That's even lower than Kim Jung Un's world record low score!

13 over, not 13.

[nsxguy]

57 minutes ago, dekez said:

 

If the prior posted formula is accurate, it seems to imply that the mean score that someone is expected to post on a given day for 18 holes is: (Course Handicap * 1.04) + 2.4.

 

COURSE handicap has nothing to do with calculating a handicap index.

 

[edited to add "calculating a"]

Edited July 16, 2024 by nsxguy

[dekez]

Just now, nsxguy said:

 

COURSE handicap has nothing to do with handicap index.

You're playing handicap. Of course it does.

[iacas]

12 minutes ago, dekez said:

You're playing handicap. Of course it does.

 

The point he's making is that it's index * 1.04 (+2.4), not your "playing" or "course handicap."

 

And the differential ≠ "over par" or under par. I can shoot under par and have a differential that's above the course rating… plenty of 66.8/par 72 tees out there.

 

Edited July 16, 2024 by iacas
under/over

[nsxguy]

5 minutes ago, dekez said:

You're playing handicap. Of course it does.

 

No, playing handicap doesn't matter either.

 

Until you learn how handicaps are calculated there's really no sense in discussing this.

 

Just keep putting your separate 9s together before entering them as a single 18 and have your own <cough> "real" <cough> handicap. 

[DaveLeeNC]

15 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

COURSE handicap has nothing to do with handicap index.

 

You said this - you need to explain exactly how your CH is unrelated to your HI. You know this isn't correct. Of all the things that go into calculating your CH, HI is easily the dominant parameter.   I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

dave

Edited July 16, 2024 by DaveLeeNC

[dekez]

6 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

No, playing handicap doesn't matter either.

 

Until you learn how handicaps are calculated there's really no sense in discussing this.

 

Just keep putting your separate 9s together before entering them as a single 18 and have your own <cough> "real" <cough> handicap. 

Please enlighten us.

 

Let's use an example of two identical 18 handicap golfers.  They are playing two different courses.

 

One course has a rating of 72 and a slope of 147

The other course has a rating of 72 and 112

What should the formula calculate for the back 9 for each golfer? 

[nsxguy]

1 minute ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

You said this - you need to explain exactly how your CH is unrelated to your HI. You know this isn't correct. Of all the things that go into calculating your CH, HI is easily the parameter.   I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

 

dave

 

I wasn't suggesting CH is unrelated to HI.

 

You're taking my response out of context as I was responding to someone who said "If the prior posted formula is accurate, it seems to imply that the mean score that someone is expected to post on a given day for 18 holes is: (Course Handicap * 1.04) + 2.4."

 

So I fixed it. Just for you.

[nsxguy]

Just now, dekez said:

Please enlighten us.

 

Let's use an example of two identical 18 handicap golfers.  They are playing two different courses.

 

One course has a rating of 72 and a slope of 147

The other course has a rating of 72 and 112

What should the formula calculate for the back 9 for each golfer? 

 

Like Dave, at least this time, you're not paying attention to what YOU said and what *I* responded with.

 

I am not referring to the formula for turning a 9-hole "round" into an 18 hole differential.

 

One does NOT use one's COURSE handicap NOR one's PLAYING handicap to calculate a round's differential.

[dekez]

18 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Like Dave, at least this time, you're not paying attention to what YOU said and what *I* responded with.

 

I am not referring to the formula for turning a 9-hole "round" into an 18 hole differential.

 

One does NOT use one's COURSE handicap NOR one's PLAYING handicap to calculate a round's differential.

 

What does one use?

[DaveLeeNC]

31 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

I wasn't suggesting CH is unrelated to HI.

 

You're taking my response out of context as I was responding to someone who said "If the prior posted formula is accurate, it seems to imply that the mean score that someone is expected to post on a given day for 18 holes is: (Course Handicap * 1.04) + 2.4."

 

So I fixed it. Just for you.

 

I am not sure if you are agreeing with the referenced formula or not. But if you assume that 'score' means 'Score-Par', and you do the kind of messy algebra, it is pretty close. 

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

9 minutes ago, dekez said:

 

What does one use?

 

Adjusted Gross Score, Slope, Course Rating, and PCC.  FAQs - What is a Score Differential (usga.org)

 

dave

[nsxguy]

41 minutes ago, dekez said:

 

What does one use?

 

Below you have your answer.

 

30 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Adjusted Gross Score, Slope, Course Rating, and PCC.  FAQs - What is a Score Differential (usga.org)

 

dave

 

I trust we're now on the same page, yes ? 

[dekez]

1 hour ago, nsxguy said:

 

Below you have your answer.

 

 

I trust we're now on the same page, yes ? 

I understand now, thanks. I'm not sure if I like it.  Need to think about it.

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Adjusted Gross Score, Slope, Course Rating, and PCC.  FAQs - What is a Score Differential (usga.org)

 

dave

 

Admittedly your course handicap could impact your adjusted gross score. That's how it goes from being your gross score to your adjusted gross score as I understand it.

 

I.e. If I'm playing (currently a HI that I don't want to admit, but is >20) and a scratch golfer are playing a round together, every / nearly every triple bogey that I mark on my card will be used as a triple bogey in calculating my differential. My triple will usually be net double, so it counts. Zero / nearly zero triple bogeys that the scratch golfer marks will be a triple bogey when calculating their differential; it'll most likely be adjusted down to double bogey in their differential calculation, as scores higher than net double are reduced to net double in the calc. 

 

I think that's right? 

[DaveLeeNC]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Admittedly your course handicap could impact your adjusted gross score. That's how it goes from being your gross score to your adjusted gross score as I understand it.

 

I.e. If I'm playing (currently a HI that I don't want to admit, but is >20) and a scratch golfer are playing a round together, every / nearly every triple bogey that I mark on my card will be used as a triple bogey in calculating my differential. My triple will usually be net double, so it counts. Zero / nearly zero triple bogeys that the scratch golfer marks will be a triple bogey when calculating their differential; it'll most likely be adjusted down to double bogey in their differential calculation, as scores higher than net double are reduced to net double in the calc. 

 

I think that's right? 

 

Yes - that is basically how it works. dave

[Augster]

After 4 months, I love the new way they use 9-hole scores. It makes dropping off old scores happen much faster and makes my index closer to how I’m playing NOW. Not a month ago. 
 

This last weekend, we played 36 Friday, 36 Saturday. That’s 4 rounds. Sunday’s tournament “round” was 27 holes. So I posted the first 18 as a round. Then the last 9 as it’s own 9- hole score. It’s own “round”. On our drive home, we saw a small par 32 course I’ve always wanted to play. We had time, and now it has a rating. Before the new rules it was too short to have a rating. So I got to post another “round”. 
 

7 “rounds” posted in 3 days is over 1/3 of my scoring record. Because it’s pushing off my old scores, from mid-June, my index is climbing crazy high to reflect exactly how bad I’m playing right now. 
 

I may have to find a few more small nine hole courses to play to get the rest of my good scores off my record. 

[rogolf]

3 hours ago, Augster said:

After 4 months, I love the new way they use 9-hole scores. It makes dropping off old scores happen much faster and makes my index closer to how I’m playing NOW. Not a month ago. 
 

This last weekend, we played 36 Friday, 36 Saturday. That’s 4 rounds. Sunday’s tournament “round” was 27 holes. So I posted the first 18 as a round. Then the last 9 as it’s own 9- hole score. It’s own “round”. On our drive home, we saw a small par 32 course I’ve always wanted to play. We had time, and now it has a rating. Before the new rules it was too short to have a rating. So I got to post another “round”. 
 

7 “rounds” posted in 3 days is over 1/3 of my scoring record. Because it’s pushing off my old scores, from mid-June, my index is climbing crazy high to reflect exactly how bad I’m playing right now. 
 

I may have to find a few more small nine hole courses to play to get the rest of my good scores off my record. 

Someone will discover that you are manipulating your handicap.  Expect that approriate remedial actions will be taken.

[nsxguy]

12 minutes ago, rogolf said:

Someone will discover that you are manipulating your handicap.  Expect that approriate remedial actions will be taken.

 

Sorry ro, but what about Auggie's post makes you think he's manipulating his 'cap ?

[rogolf]

20 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Sorry ro, but what about Auggie's post makes you think he's manipulating his 'cap ?

This sounds like manipulating:

7 “rounds” posted in 3 days is over 1/3 of my scoring record. Because it’s pushing off my old scores, from mid-June, my index is climbing crazy high to reflect exactly how bad I’m playing right now.

I may have to find a few more small nine hole courses to play to get the rest of my good scores off my record. 

[Pnwpingi210]

7 hours ago, rogolf said:

This sounds like manipulating:

7 “rounds” posted in 3 days is over 1/3 of my scoring record. Because it’s pushing off my old scores, from mid-June, my index is climbing crazy high to reflect exactly how bad I’m playing right now.

I may have to find a few more small nine hole courses to play to get the rest of my good scores off my record. 

How is that manipulating the cap?  If he’s playing those 9 hole rounds to the best of his ability then there’s nothing manipulative unless I am missing something?

 

 

[nsxguy]

9 hours ago, rogolf said:

This sounds like manipulating:

7 “rounds” posted in 3 days is over 1/3 of my scoring record. Because it’s pushing off my old scores, from mid-June, my index is climbing crazy high to reflect exactly how bad I’m playing right now.

I may have to find a few more small nine hole courses to play to get the rest of my good scores off my record. 

 

Well,,,,,, the way I read it was more like "playing a lot of the sport I love even though playing poorly".

 

And, as maybe "glass half full", "looking on the bright(?) side, at least it's more quickly getting me to a handicap that is more representative of how I'm playing lately".

 

But I can certainly understand your (possible) take.

[Pnwpingi210]

6 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Well,,,,,, the way I read it was more like "playing a lot of the sport I love even though playing poorly".

 

And, as maybe "glass half full", "looking on the bright(?) side, at least it's more quickly getting me to a handicap that is more representative of how I'm playing lately".

 

But I can certainly understand your (possible) take.

This aligns with my take.

 

Its the same concept of golfers going to play “handi helper” rounds when their good scores are about to roll off to maintain a certain handicap.

[Augster]

You guys read it how I meant it. As our handicap chair, I’ve never manipulated my cap in my life. It’s not illegal to play 9-hole courses, as said above, as long as you try your best on every shot, on every hole. 
 

Just because it’s wiping better, older, scores off quicker is simply a bonus. 

[Oswinner]

I shot 45pts (-9 net) the other day. Brought my handicap down by 2.0 (including exceptional score calculations).

 

if used as two 9-hole scores my handicap would have lowered 1.5 (no exceptional score would have been used)

 

It’s not perfect but I don’t think it can be.

 

Maybe there should be a seperate 9-hole handicap to 18-hole? Or maybe people should stop trying to expect perfect? The handicap system will never be perfect it’s just trying to get it as close as possible without opening the door for manipulation.

[st1800e]

3 hours ago, Oswinner said:

Or maybe people should stop trying to expect perfect?

✅

[gavinski91]

19 hours ago, Oswinner said:

I shot 45pts (-9 net) the other day. Brought my handicap down by 2.0 (including exceptional score calculations).

 

if used as two 9-hole scores my handicap would have lowered 1.5 (no exceptional score would have been used)

 

It’s not perfect but I don’t think it can be.

 

Maybe there should be a seperate 9-hole handicap to 18-hole? Or maybe people should stop trying to expect perfect? The handicap system will never be perfect it’s just trying to get it as close as possible without opening the door for manipulation.

Saw a post on Reddit the other day where someone's buddy splits his 18-hole rounds into two 9-hole rounds whenever he plays below his handicap in an attempt to keep his handicap up.

 

Obvious handicap manipulation aside, for mid-handicappers that could be remarkably effective. I played a round at +2 at my local 9-hole course recently. If I had played a full 18 at +4, it would post as a 6.8 differential, but because it was only 9 holes and I'm ~12 HI it posted as an 11.4 differential.