New GHIN website and app

[DaveLeeNC]

See the last paragraph on #173.

dave

[Halebopp]

I can tell you that changing the par numbers has nothing to do with the WHS.

[Sawgrass]

I can't imagine why you'd say that. Playing normal stroke or match play last year, if you were a 10 or over, you didn't need to know par to determine your handicap or for ESC. This year you need par to figure your handicap and for NDB.

As an aside, when I saw the hole distance/par recommendations last year, I wrote to my local golf association to see whether a short, up-hill par five would remain a par five. I was told that the association was reviewing rating data in its files and applying that stuff to the par analysis, and this hole would remain a par 5 due to the elevation change and layup demands of the design. Now I see that this has not been followed through upon (or has been reconsidered) and to me the par impact on the WHS is major. (I've written to GHIN and subsequently to the association at GHIN's request to resolve the issue, so far no changes online, and no response.)

[HatsForBats]

@DaveLeeNC said: The middle tees (white) on the Foxfire Red course are 6340 and the next set up (Gold) is around 750 yard less than that (a big jump). They also have a set of hybrid White/Gold tees. Par the whites is 72, par on the hybrids is 71, and par on the Golds is 70.... There is only one par noted on the card, so I am not sure how a 'I go off the card' type golfer is going to know what par is by hole.

My guess is that particular course has not yet contacted their association to have the pars changed in GHIN so that all tees are Par 72.

[DaveLeeNC]

@nsxguy said "Posting with Stableford points. I looked on GHIN again just now but can't seem to see any way to post Stableford points. Do you see how ? If so, please inform."
All I know about this is what I read in the USGA Handicap Manual for 2020 (4.1a-ii). I wish that they would support Stableford points HbH. That is a smaller range of #'s to deal with (mostly just 0,1,2) in most cases so the typing is a bit simpler. And when I am keeping my own card, that is pretty much how I record scores. With the new system I would probably start posting HbH with that change. I really cannot accurately touch type #'s on a keyboard, and I found bouncing my eyes back/forth between card and keyboard slightly error prone. I would rather eat boiled carrots than type on a touch screen (but sometimes there is no alternative).
dave
ps. There is nobody any more who can make me eat boiled carrots.

[Halebopp]

My comment was solely about the par numbers changing within the software you, or some of you, use. I don't know whether it's a mistake in that system or an actual change for the affected courses but it isn't a mandatory part of the WHS.

 

[Sawgrass]

Like you, I don’t know if the numbers in the software are correct or not. And I don’t know if the single par number, 72, on the card is correct or not. So what I’m left with is confusion and an inability to accurately use the WHS for now.

I don’t know what you mean by “a mandatory part of the system” but for me, the system mandates are unachievable.

(This is for a course that’s out of season, so NDB is irrelevant for now, but if you’re nevertheless looking to handicap an out of season match, you are stuck with guessing.)

[Halebopp]

Mandatory in that not all associations were required to adjust their par numbers to match hole lengths because of the WHS. Assuming that is what the USGA is doing as opposed to it simply being a glitch in the program. But USGA, and other associations, could've made that change at any time regardless of the WHS.

[DaveLeeNC]

From the 2008-11 USGA Handicap Manual regarding mis-allocated par on a hole(s)...

If notified in writing the USGA will request the authorized golf association to contact the club regarding par. If the association is unwilling or unable to initiate the change, the USGA will contact the club directly.

And it says no more about that (section 16). So I assume that they USGA would not force a change. I am guessing that it is no different now. What has changed with the WHS is the importance of par and the fact that there is now much more uncertainty regarding 'what is par'. as par was defined on the score card in 2019. At least that is how golfers in the US played it. Now in 2020 'playing to the scorecard' is a potential issue.

dave

[Sawgrass]

You seem to be defending the WHS, and that's fine. I have no quarrel with the system itself either, but note that without its adoption I would not be facing problems. And I'm disappointed that the necessary coordination with my local Allied Golf Association seems to have been lacking.

[rogolf]

Have you communicated with your "local Allied Golf Association" regarding your issues? I would have no problem picking up the phone and calling my "local Allied Golf Association".

 

[DaveLeeNC]

Rogolf, see post 183 in this thread.

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

@DaveLeeNC said: "But I noticed something that I find really awkward. The middle tees (white) on the Foxfire Red course are 6340 and the next set up (Gold) is around 750 yard less than that (a big jump). They also have a set of hybrid White/Gold tees. Par the whites is 72, par on the hybrids is 71, and par on the Golds is 70.
There is only one par noted on the card, so I am not sure how a 'I go off the card' type golfer is going to know what par is by hole. I don't even see how they are going to figure that out on the Ghin website, but maybe hole par's are out there in some form that I cannot find. At this point I am not sure what the 'card golfer' is to do here."
==================================================================================================
Just for grins I called the course today with the question of 'what was and what is par' from those tees. I was told that the Gold and longer tees were all the same par last year. He knew of discussions regarding par changes in the context of the WHS, but did not know what came of that. The guy that would know was not at the club when I called. This is just an FYI follow-up in the context of this thread.
The Foxfire card is interesting in that it is a very 'rich card' and actually has hole handicap allocations for the 3 longest men's tee sets (that are not the same for each tee set) for the men. There is only one par listed on the card that covers all holes from all tees for both genders (I think that in golf we still have only 2 of those). And get this @ThinkingPlus, EVERY TEE up to/including 6336 yards has a ladies' rating! It also has men's ratings down to the shortest tees.
Interestingly this card only has room for 3 player scores and it is still missing some hole stroke allocation information and some par changes (at least for the men) that you would need if your intent is to be able to play, score and post your round without HbH (in all cases) . So it would appear that they already felt pressed for scorecard real estate. But Kudo's to Foxfire for having actually done separate hole stroke allocations.
dave

[Hawkeye77]

I got a response to my questions to the Iowa Golf Association that I sent over the weekend before 9 a.m. this morning!

 

They are understandably busy with the work of updating all the golf course info (par and stroke index info) now that it has switched over and for the new season they may have the work done for hole by hole posting done very quickly. But yes, even when they get that done, you can't post a score from our courses because we are inactive (I think nxs may have referenced that as what may seem like an obvious answer, and is!). Sounds like they may be getting many of the same questions.

 

They are really good so wasn't worried, mostly just interested in the process.

 

I think we are lucky in the sense that we are inactive where maybe in areas where folks are eligible to post there is probably more of a sense of urgency and/or "bugs" become apparent.

 

 

 

[ThinkingPlus]

Well that's better than alot of courses. Certainly a tee I would enjoy playing.

[rogolf]

Missed it earlier, thanks.

[Newby]

It sounds from here as if a lot of good folks in the clubs and associations are trying to get things sorted. I wonder if the USGA were rather dilatory in warning everyone of the implications of not getting par and stroke allocations sorted out in anticipation.

[Hawkeye77]

I didn’t pursue it, but the impression I got was they had to wait for the changeover to start transferring data. So maybe USGA announced a changeover that really wasn’t a fully realized changeover. Or maybe the few days involved wasn’t enough time. Sounds like a lot of work and if it’s an online fillable form for each course after the fact that’s a lot to have to do.

[duffer987]

We had our first comp of the year Sunday and were told for our region, the NCGA is being a bit being a bit tardy in making sure the committee/handicap chairs have the required admin level logins that they had under the previous system and that while the announcement/information/etc... behind the changeover was good... surprise surprise the implementation a bit less so.

I guess it's also trickier for those States that are still in season, vs those who aren't active at the moment. At least posting is sorted, even if it's at its most basic levels currently.

[DaveLeeNC]

Regarding the question of how to post Stableford points in the new Ghin interface (total score only), something occurred to me recently.

I recall the old interface 'inferring' 9 holes from the # that you posted. For example if you posted '40' it would come back with a statement of assuming it was a 9 hole score and presenting a dialog directing you to select which 9. At least it worked that way at one point in time.

I wondered if the Stableford thing is the same. So if you entered (for example) 18 as a 9 hole Stableford score, would it assume that this was a Stableford score. I happen to have a 9 hole score from the before 1/6 timeframe that I forgot to post. Alas', an input of 17 was not allowed (below my mininum).

Who are they to assume that I am not capable of shooting 2-2-1-2-2-2-2-2-2 on that course

dave

 

[nsxguy]

@Hats4Bats
Ahhhhh, now I see where you were going with that older quote. GHIN has different ratings/slopes AND PAR for every tee set but the scorecard only has only 1 line across with the same par for EACH of the 18 holes. Just for giggles, what is the total on the card ?

Who knows who's at fault here but it appears the scorecard is a problem and the stroke/handicap holes on GHIN are a problem. A little study on the GHIN site shows that for BLUE, HYBRID, & GOLD tees all have the SAME stroke holes BUT show different yardages and par for the 4th and 12th holes.
Does the scorecard show the yardages on every hole for every tee ? If it does you probably could have seen where the par should be different.
The scorecard has different stroke holes but the same PAR for each hole. Sounds like with all that "real estate" on the scorecard there still ain't enough. LOL
Boiled carrots !!! LOL Me too. Raw ? Fine. Cooked ? No thank you (except in vegetable soup I guess) !!!
FOXFIRE GOLD
[img]https://s3.amazonaws.com/golfwrxforums/uploads/508/V7V1V0332U9Z.png[/img]FOXFIRE WHITE-GOLD HYBRID
[img]https://s3.amazonaws.com/golfwrxforums/uploads/169/ZVAJYV8GZNW2.png[/img]FOXFIRE BLUE
[img]https://s3.amazonaws.com/golfwrxforums/uploads/053/N7R5BDF1PN4N.png[/img]

[ThinkingPlus]

Here is another HbH update for TX. I can now post HbH at a couple of courses here in south TX. My guess at this time is that it is slowly coming online as the database information is being updated from uploaded course data. Courses with par issues, or failed to provide data (maybe late?), or possibly temp course configurations seem to still be without the HbH option. No updated emails from TGA however. Also the nearby course detection within the mobile app on android does not work, but that is a minor nit.

[Halebopp]

Well, yes because to me these two seem to be completely separate issues with nothing to do with each other except they're both parts of the handicapping system. Maybe the USGA has been planning on changing the pars for each set of tees and gender for several years now and simply decided to implement the changes now, alongside with the changes to the WHS. People would be confused by the WHS anyway.

 

But they could've done the change even if there was no move to a WHS. It is similar to me suggesting to our club's rules committee that we change the status of a certain immovable obstruction to an integral object for 2019. The Rules of Golf did change for 2019 but the Rules regarding IOs and IOs (yeah, I'll leave it like that :) didn't. Thus the only influence the new set of rules brought to the table was the fact I needed to rewrite all the local rules anyway so it was slightly more convenient to introduce new LRs at the same time.

 

Edit: Unless of course the change is required by the WHS but I have not heard of such a thing (we're still waiting for our version of the WHS rules).

[Newby]

Isn't this the version for the whole of the USA?https://msga.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Rules-of-Handicapping_USGA_Final.pdf

CONGU has variations (like CR-Par) but they have not yet officially published.

 

[DaveLeeNC]

@nsxguy and post 201
Here is the scorecard. This is from play some time (not sure when) which is just a competition free round with 3 friends/relatives who are not members of my home club. We all played the Gold Tees and each cart kept their own scores. That oddball scoring line is just my own scorekeeping habits where I keep a running tally against par (a '-' means no change - par on the hole). It is mathematically equivalent to a running, gross Stableford score (assuming that I manually include proper max hole scores)
And the Ghin database does not completely match the card, I believe that the card was correct (whatever that means) in 2019.
dave
[img]https://s3.amazonaws.com/golfwrxforums/uploads/273/9SDW59JTUIB8.jpg[/img]

[HatsForBats]

Your question about the actual scorecard should be directed at Dave not me.

 

I am still guessing this is just a matter of the Pars needing to be updated in the GHIN system. Many courses are not matching up right but they corrected my course quickly. Guessing the course needs to contact their local association.

[bladehunter]

What alternate universe have we entered guys and gal?

 

Where I am ok with the changes and you guys are having issues ? Surely that isn’t humorous only to me ? ?

 

sorry you're having issues. Just struck me as fun to be on this end for once.

[nsxguy]

I "got your attention" because you wrote this on your reply to dave - "My guess is that particular course has not yet contacted their association to have the pars changed in GHIN so that all tees are Par 72."

The scorecard that Dave was kind enough to upload shows the discrepancies. Thank you dave.

Based on the yardages and the par for each hole, it is pretty clear that the 4th and 12th, for the GOLD tees are both incorrect. At 377 yards they should be par 4s. Hence total par s/b 70.

For the White/Gold hybrid, the 4th hole is 490 yards, an acceptable length for a par 5 but the 12th, no doubt from the GOLD tees is 377, a par 4, not 5. Hence total par of 71

And for the Blue, both the 4th and 12th are correctly listed as par 5s. Hence total par is 72

So it would appear that in this case, GHIN is correct and the scorecard is what needs updating.

 

[DaveLeeNC]

Just to be fair here to the Foxfire folks, while I don't like the fact that they took 100+ yards off a couple of par 5's on the gold tees, I don't want to leave an incorrect impression here. Foxfire (near Pinehurst) courses (Grey and Red) are fine courses that are worth playing.

dave

 

 

[rogolf]

I'm somewhat surprised by the slight difference in course rating between red and red/silver combo. There's nearly 700 yards difference but the course rating only changes by 0.6. That seems odd or did I miss something.