Posting 9 hole scores . Opinions?

[J2putts]

My opinion on posting 9 hole scores for handicap purposes. I feel like most players will have a thin handicap as a result of posting combined /9 hole scores.  Have a buddy who is playing off an index that is glaringly too low for him.  He posts a bunch of combined scores around 76 to 78 . However when we play matches he comes nowhere close to putting up those scores over 18 holes.  Just don't think that combined 9 hole scores are an accurate reflection of a players ability. I play off a 4 index ..I can put up 36's pretty often ..but I haven't shot lower than 76 all year. If I played 9 holes often ( which I don't, and when I do I'm by myself anyway ) I could put up combined scores around 74 and my index would be lower than what I can shoot over 18 consecutive holes. Am I alone in this opinion ?

[Hawkeye77]

Pretty much covered here.  You can go round and round, but there is no general answer that is the same for everyone, the system is the same for all so it will be relatively fine and not necessarily "thin".

[eastriver]

I do agree that it's easier to play a solid 9 than a full 18.  So much of it is maintaining focus which is easier for 2 hours than for 4.  And if you're walking and/or carrying, it's even harder to make a decent swing when your legs/shoulders/back are getting tired.

[Hawkeye77]

41 minutes ago, eastriver said:

I do agree that it's easier to play a solid 9 than a full 18.  So much of it is maintaining focus which is easier for 2 hours than for 4.  And if you're walking and/or carrying, it's even harder to make a decent swing when your legs/shoulders/back are getting tired.

 

I often play early morning, little or no warmup, first 9 is pretty much a warmup, back 9 usually better.  In fact, looking over stats, my back 9s are more often relatively better than my front 9s (not a nickel's worth of difference in the difficulty of either).  Plenty of folks carrying are in plenty good shape to finish strong. It is so individual.  9 holes scores have been posted forever and USGA isn't changing it so people need to make sure their 9 hole scores are getting posted, which is probably the only real takeaway?

 

It's just not one size fits all.

[DrDon]

Of course there will be more variability (e.g., more below-handicap scores) in a 9-hole round vice an 18-hole round.   

[davep043]

1 hour ago, DrDon said:

Of course there will be more variability (e.g., more below-handicap scores) in a 9-hole round vice an 18-hole round.   

More variability will also mean more "high" scores too, absent any other factors.  Other posters have mentioned the fatigue factor, as well as the "warm-up" factor.  @Hawkeye77 hit the nail on the head when he said it the effect of combining 9-hole scores is likely to be different for different players.  What is NOT different is the requirement for every player to post those 9-hole scores.  My opinion is that we should all post scores as the rules require.

[Halebopp]

12 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

Pretty much covered here.  You can go round and round, but there is no general answer that is the same for everyone, the system is the same for all so it will be relatively fine and not necessarily "thin".

 

The system isn't the same for everyone thought. Our 9-hole qualifying scores are turned into 18-hole scores. The tenth hole is a net bogey and the rest are net pars.

[davep043]

1 minute ago, Halebopp said:

 

The system isn't the same for everyone thought. Our 9-hole qualifying scores are turned into 18-hole scores. The tenth hole is a net bogey and the rest are net pars.

Have you begun using the WHS yet?  As I read those rules, 9-hole scores will be combined, subject to some limitations.  The subject of what scores are"qualifying" has not been unified yet, but I believe treatment of 9-hole scores will be same everywhere.

[Hawkeye77]

2 hours ago, DrDon said:

Of course there will be more variability (e.g., more below-handicap scores) in a 9-hole round vice an 18-hole round.   

Totally disagree that is an “of course”.

[Halebopp]

21 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Have you begun using the WHS yet?  As I read those rules, 9-hole scores will be combined, subject to some limitations.  The subject of what scores are"qualifying" has not been unified yet, but I believe treatment of 9-hole scores will be same everywhere.

 

Well, I can tell you it isn't. ? We've been using the WHS for over six months now.

 

This is the differential formula for 9-hole scores (first extrapolated to 18-hole scores as mentioned earlier on). It's not in English but you should be able to figure it out. ?

Edited September 1, 2020 by Halebopp

[davep043]

28 minutes ago, Halebopp said:

 

Well, I can tell you it isn't. ? We've been using the WHS for over six months now.

 

This is the differential formula for 9-hole scores (first extrapolated to 18-hole scores as mentioned earlier on). It's not in English but you should be able to figure it out. ?

Here is what I'm seeing in 5.1b for 9-hole scores:

Quote

If a player submits a 9-hole score, an 18-hole Score Differential must be created by combining two 9-hole Score Differentials. A 9-hole Score Differential is calculated as follows using 50% of the playing conditions calculation (PCC) adjustment for the day:

Score Differential = (113 ÷ 9-hole Slope Rating) x (9-hole adjusted gross score – 9-hole Course Rating – (0.5 x PCC adjustment)) Notes: A 9-hole Score Differential remains unrounded until after it has been combined with a second 9-hole Score Differential and an 18-hole Score Differential is calculated. For the calculation of a 9-hole Course Handicap, see Rule 6.1b For a 9-hole Round. An 18-hole PCC adjustment ranges from -1.0 to +3.0 (see Rule 5.6 Playing Conditions Calculation).

An 18-hole Score Differential is then created by either:

• Combining a 9-hole Score Differential with an existing 9-hole Score Differential, or
• Combining a 9-hole Score Differential with the next 9-hole Score Differential that is calculated.

Note: An uncombined 9-hole score will be discarded when it becomes older than the twentieth Score Differential in the scoring record.

I've underlined the parts that discuss combining two 9-hole scores.  I had assumed that those requirements were present in all versions of the WHS, ours says nothing about "filling in" the second 9 to create an 18-hole differential from a single 9-hole score posted.

[Kossuvissy]

As Halebopp said, WHS is not uniform everywhere, not even close.

[davep043]

Just now, Kossuvissy said:

As Halebopp said, WHS is not uniform everywhere, not even close.

Of that I have no doubt, yet I had thought this one was common to all areas.  I wasn't trying to deny that, merely to let you folks understand the requirements we have in the US. Live and learn.

[SNIPERBBB]

Some people it's too low, some it's too high, in my case. I post higher on 9 hole scores than on 18-hole as I can usually play the back on our course much better and I'm more in tuned with my swing by then.

[ChipNRun]

2 hours ago, davep043 said:

Have you begun using the WHS yet?  As I read those rules, 9-hole scores will be combined, subject to some limitations.  The subject of what scores are"qualifying" has not been unified yet, but I believe treatment of 9-hole scores will be same everywhere.

 

One factor on fairness depends on how often a course updates its ratings. Stonewolf is semi-private, and is among a dozen area courses run by a management group that keeps the rating/slope up-to-date. Our course has tweaked its tee boxes and yardages several times in the three years, but has always made a timely adjustment of the course ratings. All of our tee boxes have have split ratings, as shown below:

 

 

If you play a course which is not in the GHIN-related computer system, you go to the Manually Input area (red box)  and keyboard in Rating/Slope. (I have no idea on status of computer-system coordination for new WHS.)

 

This can be problematic, however, if the course hasn't been rated in awhile, and major hole changes have taken place. Further, some mom-and-pop nine-hole courses have no rating/slope figures listed on the scorecard or web site.

 

One area 18-hole public course hosts our Seniors group once a year. It is popular for scrambles and lower-level amateur events. The course scorecard offers five tee boxes, but only has ratings for three. The rating/slope for the 18 holes of the Combo tees (Regular and Senior mix ) are scrawled on a 3 X 5 index card pinned to the bulletin board. A quick eyeball shows it is the average of the Regular and Senior ratings/slope, even though it draws more holes from the Senior than from the Regular.

 

5 hours ago, eastriver said:

I do agree that it's easier to play a solid 9 than a full 18.  So much of it is maintaining focus which is easier for 2 hours than for 4.  And if you're walking and/or carrying, it's even harder to make a decent swing when your legs/shoulders/back are getting tired.

 

True, warm-up/fatigue can come into play. Also, the idea of focusing "easier for 2 hours than for 4."

 

Age can be a factor also. Before I turned 50, I usually scored better on the back nine because I was warmed up. Now, as I approach 70 (unfortunately age, not score ?), it's the flip side. As the back muscles tighten, my downswing is more abrupt, and back nine scores tend to be higher.

 

Overall, I suggest we build a system that is reasonably fair. I doubt we can build a perfect system, as we have differing visions of such perfection.

Edited September 1, 2020 by ChipNRun

[HatsForBats]

15 hours ago, J2putts said:

My opinion on posting 9 hole scores for handicap purposes. I feel like most players will have a thin handicap as a result of posting combined /9 hole scores.  Have a buddy who is playing off an index that is glaringly too low for him.  He posts a bunch of combined scores around 76 to 78 . However when we play matches he comes nowhere close to putting up those scores over 18 holes.  Just don't think that combined 9 hole scores are an accurate reflection of a players ability. I play off a 4 index ..I can put up 36's pretty often ..but I haven't shot lower than 76 all year. If I played 9 holes often ( which I don't, and when I do I'm by myself anyway ) I could put up combined scores around 74 and my index would be lower than what I can shoot over 18 consecutive holes. Am I alone in this opinion ?

 

My 2019 stats. Pulled the first 40 rounds of each posting type (40x 9 holes combined and 40x18 hole rounds).

 

 

[Newby]

15 hours ago, davep043 said:

Here is what I'm seeing in 5.1b for 9-hole scores:

I've underlined the parts that discuss combining two 9-hole scores.  I had assumed that those requirements were present in all versions of the WHS, ours says nothing about "filling in" the second 9 to create an 18-hole differential from a single 9-hole score posted.

The CONGU Version

 

[Halebopp]

1 hour ago, Newby said:

The CONGU Version

 

 

That's interesting, even the scaling up works differently. We use the holes not played to get to an 18-hole score.

[North Butte]

So just what is the "World" part of the "World Handicap System"? 

 

Almost everything meaningful about posting scores and computing handicaps is different except for the two basics of using Course and Slope ratings and using 8 of the last 20 scores.

 

The whole WHS thing came down to the Rest of World adopting Course/Slope rating, wasn't it? No real intention to make handicaps the same across jurisdictions.

 

Of course given that one jurisdiction uses attested competition scores and the other uses whatever numbers each golfer wants to type into GHIN, the minor details of combining 9-hole scores and similar minutia are a drop in the bucket...

[davep043]

5 hours ago, Newby said:

The CONGU Version

 

Thanks, I don't remember reading any discussion about this particular difference in the various versions of the WHS.  Understanding that consecutive 9-hole rounds might be separated by days or even weeks, I can understand a reasoning behind this method, get the scores into the record in a timely manner.  I can see the other side of the discussion, trying to minimize the amount of "phantom holes" included in the scoring record, and the USGA method of combining scores does better in that.  It will be interesting to see whether this changes in future adaptations of the WHS.

[Kossuvissy]

16 hours ago, North Butte said:

So just what is the "World" part of the "World Handicap System"? 

 

Almost everything meaningful about posting scores and computing handicaps is different except for the two basics of using Course and Slope ratings and using 8 of the last 20 scores.

 

The whole WHS thing came down to the Rest of World adopting Course/Slope rating, wasn't it? No real intention to make handicaps the same across jurisdictions.

 

What do you mean by 'Rest of World' ? To my knowledge CR/ Slope has been used in Continental Europe for years before WHS.

[North Butte]

4 hours ago, Kossuvissy said:

 

What do you mean by 'Rest of World' ? To my knowledge CR/ Slope has been used in Continental Europe for years before WHS.

By "Rest of World" I meant any place that was not using Course/Slope ratings until the advent of the so-called "WHS".

[Newby]

1 hour ago, North Butte said:

By "Rest of World" I meant any place that was not using Course/Slope ratings until the advent of the so-called "WHS".

GB & Ireland (including other countries using the CONGU system).

Argentina & South Africa

Edited September 3, 2020 by Newby