Opinions on posting "combined " 9 hole scores ?

[Bye]

2 hours ago, Hawkeye77 said:

The OP's talk about 9 holes being a "true measure" of skill was just part of the litany of excuses for maintaining a higher handicap, doing what he wants, ignoring pretty easy rules to follow - that's where the "hogwash" comment came from.

 

My personal feelings I suppose represent my life experience. I grew up until HS playing a 9 hole course, my grandparents played a country 9 holer, most golf events until I got older were 9 holes except for "higher up" events (not saying I played "elevated events", lol).  You can't have a handicap system that requires you play an 18 hole round for posting purposes for a lot of reasons.  I've played 9 holes under conditions that tested me more and was more challenging than three 18 hole rounds, that's all a matter of the situation.  Plenty of courses with 18 or more holes can only have 9 hole leagues or they wouldn't have the time slots, participation, etc. to have them - those rounds at my course count for the majority of rounds posted by those who don't play as often. If I was playing a competition, I agree that 18, maybe even 36, is a better test to weed out a champion. Having said that, if the competition is designated 9 holes, show up and play your best under the situation, it's still real, for some maybe even more pressure.  For the average am posting scores and playing golf, the system is the system and 9 hole rounds absolutely need to be posted for it to be representative.  

 

As I said, if you don't want to maintain a real handicap (by the way, do whatever makes you happy) then don't.  If you profess to have one, follow the rules of golf and that includes rules applicable to reporting scores.  It's intellectually and just plain honest (not a matter of sleeping at night, haha, you've got to have a conscience for there to be dissonance).

You make some fair points, I had not considered the 9 hole course aspect, it must be considered. Like you, I started on a 9 hole course, as juniors we weren’t allowed to play the main 18 until we had an 18 handicap and had been approved by one of the committee members to be of sufficient standard. We were lucky that the 10 minute walk to the first tee meant that we could just keep looping round as the adults weren’t interested in going over.

 

I can kind of see where the op is coming from, people can and are working the system (at least some I know of are anyway) the other way by throwing in some 9 hole scores. 
 

I am sure you can appreciate for example, when entering certain tournaments, there might be a ballot on handicap if it’s over subscribed.

 

We have our county club knockout coming up, some of the people who have done this are now expecting to get picked due to their handicap, when in reality they are nowhere near the team. 

 

I fully agree with you though that people should follow the rules and spirt of the game. Sandbaggers should be called out at every opportunity and anyone manipulating their handicap down is just a fool.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[davep043]

3 minutes ago, Bye said:

I can kind of see where the op is coming from, people can and are working the system (at least some I know of are anyway) the other way by throwing in some 9 hole scores. 

If I understand you correctly, these people aren't posting ALL of their 9-hole scores, just SOME of them, and thus working the "system."  To me, that's just as wrong as not posting any 9-hole scores.  I agree with your final sentiment, folks should just follow the Rules in effect. 

[Bye]

3 minutes ago, davep043 said:

If I understand you correctly, these people aren't posting ALL of their 9-hole scores, just SOME of them, and thus working the "system."  To me, that's just as wrong as not posting any 9-hole scores.  I agree with your final sentiment, folks should just follow the Rules in effect. 

I’m in the UK, we don’t have to post every score, but we do have to book in either via the national website prior to starting a round to be able to submit the score. 
 

It seems to just be a few of the lower handicaps submitting 9 hole scores. The person I spoke to about it is a member of another local club, he said it’s the same demographic. 
 

As someone else mentioned, if it automatically gives you a net par for every hole +1 stroke, so for a scratch golfer shooting 2 under for 9 holes, the back 9 is guaranteed and they have a sub par round logged. We all know how hard it is to keep a good score going, they only have to be able to concentrate for 9 holes. 
 

Just an observation. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

What about a 9 hole round that you consider "practicing" but is actually played within the ROG? 

 

I have a 9 hole, par 29, 1115 yard exec course near me. I essentially view that course as merely wedge / short game practice. I take 6 clubs in a Sunday bag, which means that I'm deliberately not bringing a club that would let me go at the short par 4 (210y) and that there might be potential that for the longest par 3 I might be between clubs, which wouldn't occur if I was taking all 14 clubs and treating it as a serious round. It's more about practicing "real world" situations that I won't get on the driving range or putting green. 

 

That said, I do generally play the ball down and follow ROG on that course. 

 

So, what actually defines a "practice round"? Is it the mere mentality (decided before the round) that I'm there for practice and not planning to post, no matter what the number?

[davep043]

8 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

What about a 9 hole round that you consider "practicing" but is actually played within the ROG? 

 

I have a 9 hole, par 29, 1115 yard exec course near me. I essentially view that course as merely wedge / short game practice. I take 6 clubs in a Sunday bag, which means that I'm deliberately not bringing a club that would let me go at the short par 4 (210y) and that there might be potential that for the longest par 3 I might be between clubs, which wouldn't occur if I was taking all 14 clubs and treating it as a serious round. It's more about practicing "real world" situations that I won't get on the driving range or putting green. 

 

That said, I do generally play the ball down and follow ROG on that course. 

 

So, what actually defines a "practice round"? Is it the mere mentality (decided before the round) that I'm there for practice and not planning to post, no matter what the number?

For your specific course, you can't post for handicap, a course must be at least 1500 yards long (9 holes) to have a valid course rating.  As for posting of "practice rounds" in general, there's no specific guidance within the USGA areas.  If you're specifically limiting the number of clubs, I'd say you shouldn't post that score, referring to Interpretation 2.1a/1  in the Handicap Rules.  I'd love to see the USGA move towards the model used elsewhere, where non-competition rounds are posted only if they are pre-registered, and they must be attested by another player.  This would formalize the choice to play a practice round.

[Newby]

3 hours ago, davep043 said:

 

https://static.whsplatform.englandgolf.org/clubs/1000-1/uploads/downloads/whs/congu_advice_170223.pdf

The section heading G5.6/1 (2)

"In contrast to the CSS calculation, 9-hole scores are included in the PCC calculation; the 9-hole
scores being doubled (not scaled up) to get equivalent values for 18 holes. "

Thanks. I never thought to look in the Guidance. I was reading the Manual which seemingly is way out of date now.

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

For your specific course, you can't post for handicap, a course must be at least 1500 yards long (9 holes) to have a valid course rating.  As for posting of "practice rounds" in general, there's no specific guidance within the USGA areas.  If you're specifically limiting the number of clubs, I'd say you shouldn't post that score, referring to Interpretation 2.1a/1  in the Handicap Rules.  I'd love to see the USGA move towards the model used elsewhere, where non-competition rounds are posted only if they are pre-registered, and they must be attested by another player.  This would formalize the choice to play a practice round.

 

Interesting... I didn't know the 1500 yard requirement. It's interesting that if I look at the printed scorecard for the course online, it has no rating or slope, but The Grint has it listed as 28.40 / 94. 

 

Appreciate your thoughts on the rest as well. I would normally post 9 hole rounds at full courses. But I see this one as an outlier on multiple fronts. 

[Is Golf Fun or Work]

I thought, and do, post every score 9 or 18 holes played on a rated course.

 

Each to their own, choose the rules you like I guess

[davep043]

40 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Interesting... I didn't know the 1500 yard requirement. It's interesting that if I look at the printed scorecard for the course online, it has no rating or slope, but The Grint has it listed as 28.40 / 94. 

 

Appreciate your thoughts on the rest as well. I would normally post 9 hole rounds at full courses. But I see this one as an outlier on multiple fronts. 

I know the Grint claims to offer official USGA Handicap services.  If so, they shouldn't accept scores on a course that short.

 

30 minutes ago, Is Golf Fun or Work said:

Each to their own, choose the rules you like I guess

Oy, that way lies chaos.  Next thing, people will stop playing stroke and distance for a lost ball, just drop one where they think it was lost, one stroke penalty.  Or god forbid, start taking the ball out of divot holes!

[Is Golf Fun or Work]

24 minutes ago, davep043 said:

I know the Grint claims to offer official USGA Handicap services.  If so, they shouldn't accept scores on a course that short.

 

Oy, that way lies chaos.  Next thing, people will stop playing stroke and distance for a lost ball, just drop one where they think it was lost, one stroke penalty.  Or god forbid, start taking the ball out of divot holes!

I know enough people who already do most of what you said...

[betarhoalphadelta]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

I know the Grint claims to offer official USGA Handicap services.  If so, they shouldn't accept scores on a course that short.

 

Oy, that way lies chaos.  Next thing, people will stop playing stroke and distance for a lost ball, just drop one where they think it was lost, one stroke penalty.  Or god forbid, start taking the ball out of divot holes!

 

Yeah, I'm going to transition away from The Grint for other reasons (mostly that I got Arccos and we can use 18Birdies for betting games so the cost of The Grint doesn't make sense). But I don't know if they actually post those scores to GHIN because I don't track them on The Grint. 

 

Regarding the second bit, what is the protocol on using MLR E-5 on a course that hasn't expressly declared it as a local rule? I mostly play public and muni courses who don't actually declare ANY local rules or regularly even mark GUR, but sometimes after I pump on OOB, out of disgust I drop one in the fairway, assess two penalty strokes, and I'm hitting 4. I suppose I should just keep teeing off S&D (and hope I manage to put one in play), but I take advantage of MLR E-5 even when it's not expressly declared...

[davep043]

Just now, betarhoalphadelta said:

Regarding the second bit, what is the protocol on using MLR E-5 on a course that hasn't expressly declared it as a local rule? I mostly play public and muni courses who don't actually declare ANY local rules or regularly even mark GUR, but sometimes after I pump on OOB, out of disgust I drop one in the fairway, assess two penalty strokes, and I'm hitting 4. I suppose I should just keep teeing off S&D (and hope I manage to put one in play), but I take advantage of MLR E-5 even when it's not expressly declared...

First, scores played using Model Local Rules, even if those MLRs aren't formally in effect, may be acceptable to post, depending on a decision by the Handicap Committee.  In a situation where you don't have a formal committee, I think you should post those scores.  At some point you run into the maximum hole score (net double bogey), and whether you're playing 3 from the tee, or 4 from the fairway, you're going to be close to or over that limit most of the time.

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 minutes ago, davep043 said:

First, scores played using Model Local Rules, even if those MLRs aren't formally in effect, may be acceptable to post, depending on a decision by the Handicap Committee.  In a situation where you don't have a formal committee, I think you should post those scores.  At some point you run into the maximum hole score (net double bogey), and whether you're playing 3 from the tee, or 4 from the fairway, you're going to be close to or over that limit most of the time.

 

That is true. The only hole in my round yesterday where my score eclipsed NDB was that one. 

[Augster]

12 hours ago, J2putts said:

So when you're playing a leisure round of golf with your buddies,  and you can't find your tee shot . You're the guy that goes back to the tee. .and re tee's EVERY time? Unless you are , unless you putt out every putt , every time ... you are cheating as well . But based off your previous comments ..you seem to be the beacon of golf integrity.  So I'm assuming you've NEVER done any of that , ever . 

?

 

PLEASE read the WHS posting rules. It takes like 20 minutes, tops. Once you’ve read them, you’ll realize how silly a response this was. 

https://www.usga.org/handicapping/roh/2020-rules-of-handicapping.html

 

[straightshot7]

On 3/19/2023 at 12:13 PM, J2putts said:

Just curious as to how other people feel about it ? To me .. posting 9 hole/combined rounds, really isn't an accurate gauge on someone's true skill level.  Playing great for 9 holes is a lot easier , than putting 18 holes together.  Also ...you're playing in different green/weather conditions , from one 9 hole round , to the next ..that could be days/weeks later.  I've never shot under par for 18 holes .. but I've shot as low as 4 under,  for 9 holes.  I could be posting "combined " scores that would get me probably close to scratch. The lowest I've been is 1.9 last year . I get that if EVERYONE posted combined 9 hole scores.. it wouldn't matter,  but I feel like majority of people don't,  myself included ...unless I'm playing 9 hole matches in tournament play 

 

Your mistake is looking at handicap golf as actual golf. There are a whole bunch of handicap rules (e.g. having a maximum score on a hole) that have nothing to do with real golf.

 

Just keep your handicap and your actual scores separate. Two different things. 

[Hawkeye77]

18 minutes ago, straightshot7 said:

 

Just keep your handicap and your actual scores separate. Two different things. 

In what sense would they be kept separate?

[straightshot7]

11 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

In what sense would they be kept separate?

 

You keep your actual score on one scorecard or in one place, and you report your handicap score to the handicap system.

 

Not sure what you mean?

 

Look no further than the OP - - - the handicap system may accept two separate 9 hole scores. 

 

But for actual golf, you would never take two separate 9 hole scores and report that as an 18 hole score. 

 

For handicap reporting, you can take a "maximum score" on a hole.

But you would never take a "maximum score" and then claim that as your actual score for the day. That would be lying, if someone asked you what you shot. 

Edited March 21, 2023 by straightshot7

[st1800e]

3 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

In what sense would they be kept separate?

Your score for entering into your handicap record is one thing, what you actually shot to report to anyone who cares, or what is posted on the tournament scoring record is another.  Sometimes they’re the same, sometimes they’re not…….

[Hawkeye77]

6 minutes ago, st1800e said:

Your score for entering into your handicap record is one thing, what you actually shot to report to anyone who cares, or what is posted on the tournament scoring record is another.  Sometimes they’re the same, sometimes they’re not…….

No way! 

 

Not what all this is about.  

[st1800e]

2 minutes ago, Hawkeye77 said:

No way! 

 

Not what all this is about.  

Way….

[Pfish]

It might be interesting to do a study the end of the year.  Look at your scoring record for 2022.  Average your combined 9 hole scores. (You would have to use the index figures to be accurate because most front and back 9s are not the same degree of difficulty.  I know people at my course with only front  9 scores). Average your 18 hole scores.  See if there is a big difference.  I think I’ll do this.  I had 105 scores last year, majority were 18 but enough combined 9s.  I’m a rule follower and post every postable score.  I’ll report results.

[Pfish]

On second thought.  Looking at my last 20 scores there was 1 combined and it wasn’t in the top 8.  I had 8 combined scores out of the 105 last year.  Looking at those 8 scores compared to my most recent 20 none of them would have counted.  1 almost matched the highest of the 8 to count toward my handicap.  

[larrybud]

On 3/19/2023 at 3:13 PM, J2putts said:

Just curious as to how other people feel about it ? To me .. posting 9 hole/combined rounds, really isn't an accurate gauge on someone's true skill level.  Playing great for 9 holes is a lot easier , than putting 18 holes together.  Also ...you're playing in different green/weather conditions , from one 9 hole round , to the next ..that could be days/weeks later.  I've never shot under par for 18 holes .. but I've shot as low as 4 under,  for 9 holes.  I could be posting "combined " scores that would get me probably close to scratch. The lowest I've been is 1.9 last year . I get that if EVERYONE posted combined 9 hole scores.. it wouldn't matter,  but I feel like majority of people don't,  myself included ...unless I'm playing 9 hole matches in tournament play 

So you don't have a legit handicap. Well, that's fine, just don't pretend it's legit.

 

Fact of the matter is that statistically speaking, it doesn't matter one bit. Your same argument that you can get hot for 9 holes can be reversed, and play like garbage for 9 holes where there's no "time" to salvage the round.

[J2putts]

Hmmm....and here we are 8 months later after I posed the question , and was called a "cheater" . The World Handicap System announced it's CHANGING the way they factor 9 hole scores towards a handicap.  Oh ...and they literally used the example that I brought up , as one of the reasons for changing it! 

[Newby]

Well your new method has worked well over here since day 1.

[Augster]

2 hours ago, J2putts said:

Hmmm....and here we are 8 months later after I posed the question , and was called a "cheater" . The World Handicap System announced it's CHANGING the way they factor 9 hole scores towards a handicap.  Oh ...and they literally used the example that I brought up , as one of the reasons for changing it! 

?

 

You say you don’t post 9-hole scores, which is doctoring your cap. Cheating if you will. 
 

In 2024, if you don’t post 9-hole scores, you’ll ALSO be doctoring your cap. Cheating if you will. 
 

I think there’s a part in this you aren’t understanding. Choosing to post by SOME of the Rules is doctoring your cap. Instead of using the “WHS” to create a valid handicap, you’re using the “J2puttsHS” to create an invalid cap compared to WHS caps. 

What are the Rules when we aren’t playing/posting by the Rules?

Edited November 10, 2023 by Augster

[J2putts]

2 hours ago, Augster said:

?

 

You say you don’t post 9-hole scores, which is doctoring your cap. Cheating if you will. 
 

In 2024, if you don’t post 9-hole scores, you’ll ALSO be doctoring your cap. Cheating if you will. 
 

I think there’s a part in this you aren’t understanding. Choosing to post by SOME of the Rules is doctoring your cap. Instead of using the “WHS” to create a valid handicap, you’re using the “J2puttsHS” to create an invalid cap compared to WHS caps. 

What are the Rules when we aren’t playing/posting by the Rules?

My point all along was that combined 9's isn't an accurate gauge of someone's handicap the way the current system is set up . 

[sui generis]

Oh, the whine of the scratch player who enters net events and doesn't win 'em all. 😉

[betarhoalphadelta]

19 hours ago, J2putts said:

My point all along was that combined 9's isn't an accurate gauge of someone's handicap the way the current system is set up . 

TBH, I think combined rounds is likely to be more accurate than the new system, which (if I understand correctly) is just doubling your 9 hole result as if it was an 18 hole round. 

 

Combined rounds is a true sample size of 18 holes. Yes, you could have two low 9-hole rounds in a row. Yes, you could have two high 9-hole rounds in a row. You can have a good 9 followed by a bad 9. But that can happen in a single round as well. I had a round where I shot even par on the front and +14 on the back. My most recent round (which was terrible), I had a pretty weak front 9 for me, and was hoping it would improve, then shot 8 strokes worse on the back. 

 

Doubling a 9-hole round is worse, because it's magnifying the variance. A 9 hole sample size is less valid to gauge your capability as a golfer than 18 holes. I can string a number of good holes together. As mentioned, as a 21-cap I had a magical front 9 where I shot even. But the back? Not so much. If I'd only played 9 holes that day and you doubled that, it would be less accurate as to my index than if you had combined the next 9-hole round I would have played where I was statistically likely to come back to earth (as I did on the back 9 of the round I actually played). 

[Augster]

3 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

TBH, I think combined rounds is likely to be more accurate than the new system, which (if I understand correctly) is just doubling your 9 hole result as if it was an 18 hole round. 

 

Combined rounds is a true sample size of 18 holes. Yes, you could have two low 9-hole rounds in a row. Yes, you could have two high 9-hole rounds in a row. You can have a good 9 followed by a bad 9. But that can happen in a single round as well. I had a round where I shot even par on the front and +14 on the back. My most recent round (which was terrible), I had a pretty weak front 9 for me, and was hoping it would improve, then shot 8 strokes worse on the back. 

 

Doubling a 9-hole round is worse, because it's magnifying the variance. A 9 hole sample size is less valid to gauge your capability as a golfer than 18 holes. I can string a number of good holes together. As mentioned, as a 21-cap I had a magical front 9 where I shot even. But the back? Not so much. If I'd only played 9 holes that day and you doubled that, it would be less accurate as to my index than if you had combined the next 9-hole round I would have played where I was statistically likely to come back to earth (as I did on the back 9 of the round I actually played). 

It’s not doubling. 
 

If you play 9 holes, you get that 9-hole differential added to a “representative” differential based on what you shot during the 9 you played and what someone at your index should shoot for the day based on index, CR, slope, and standard deviations. 
 

Same goes for more than 9 holes. You post it hole by hole for the holes you played, then the algorithm looks at HOW you’re playing those holes, that day, and creates a total differential for that day based on all of the above criteria. 
 

So if you’re, say, an 8 PH, and you shoot -2 on the 9 you’re going to play, the differential added won’t just double it and have you shoot -4. It also won’t just give you +4 for the “back”, because you shot so well. I’d guess the algorithm would give the player +2 or +3 on the “back” to make his “round” about scratch then figure the differential off of that. 
 

Something along those lines is how I read it. The actual algorithm is lots of “inside football” math.