Not a fan of GHIN new 9 hole scoring system

[kiawah]

Disclaimer: this may be a minority opinion and maybe this rule change may work better for the majority of folks...

...but I am really disheartened by the new 9 hole handicapping rule and wanted to see if anyone else is having a similar experience.

The rule change I'm referring to is: 

"Prior to January 2024, one 9-hole score must be combined with another to create an 18-hole Score Differential™ before it could be counted for handicap purposes.

Now, when a player posts a 9-hole score, the WHS will automatically calculate an 18-hole Score Differential for the round, based on the player’s 9-hole Score Differential and expected Score Differential based on their current Handicap Index®, allowing the 9-hole round to be considered in the player’s Handicap Index calculation right away.

As part of this change, golfers are required to play all 9 holes with a valid 9-hole Course Rating™ and Slope Rating™ instead of the previous minimum of 7 holes."

 

My current index is 1.6 and went up over the winter due to playing with mats, cold weather, bad greens, etc., and I made the mistake of posting scores so I could track my stats. In my last two 9 hole rounds, I shot -1 34 twice, which is scored as a differential of 1.2 because the back 9 carries a rating of 37.0 from my tees while the front is a 35.0 rating. In layman's terms, I am now ineligible to qualify for the US Amateur and US Open because my handicap is too high, and since I can only get in 9 holes after work, I will need to shoot 2 or 3 under par in the majority of my rounds to get down to the 0.6 threshold. Also, teeing off on the 10th hole is not an option since there are already many groups on the golf course when I am trying to play.

 

I don't get what the problem was with posting 9 hole scores that didn't make up an imaginary differential for 9 holes I didn't play. As stated earlier, I might be in the minority since I know a lot of people would love their index going up no matter what they shoot. But I am pretty disheartened/frustrated. 

 

[Pepperturbo]

I was a 2, now a 4.  For the longest time, I wouldn't play 9 because I didn't like that it took forever to get in a second 9 hole score to post an 18 hole score.  Now, I no longer have to concern myself with that. 

 

Once a month, I play shorter executive -5900 yard courses for iron practice.  The only way executive 18 hole score affects my index is carding 2-3 under, which happens sometimes.

 

To the OP, you got the game, just means you have to work harder. 

[kiawah]

1 hour ago, Pepperturbo said:

I was a 2, now a 4.  For the longest time, I wouldn't play 9 because I didn't like that it took forever to get in a second 9 hole score to post an 18 hole score.  Now, I no longer have to concern myself with that. 

 

Once a month, I play shorter executive -5900 yard courses for iron practice.  The only way executive 18 hole score affects my index is carding 2-3 under, which happens sometimes.

 

To the OP, you got the game, just means you have to work harder. 

Guess so.

[mxskier]

I find it's really annoying too. Not for the same reasons you do - but what I really don't like is that, like you, as you're bringing your handicap down, you can play really well over 9 holes but it doesn't help "improve" your handicap as much as it can. Also, your season stats from the 9-hole rounds don't get counted in your "season stats" page.

 

I'm playing off 2.5, but that including shooting 0.0 yesterday, 1.9 last week. But the 2 times I've played the 9 holes, I shot 2 over, which was actually shooting exactly my handicap of 3.0 at the time on the front 9, but my differential was assigned 4.2 (rating is 36.5 on front, 36.8 on back) rather than giving me my handicap on the course.

 

I completely get that people would selectively post 9 hole scores to add up and would "game" the system to lower their handicap, so it would cause the combined 9 hole scores to be better than their 18 hole performance. It just seems there should be some way to "adjust" your performance of the unplayed 9 based on your performance on the played 9.

 

Either way, at this time, I'm just going to post 18 hole scores, even if I play a casual 9 after work with friends, I'll just play for fun.

Edited April 18 by mxskier

[bobfoster]

A few months ago I attended a couple hour long (virtual) rules seminar that my local golf association (NJSGA) presented. They went into some detail about the new rules. I do understand the reasoning behind this one in particular, but also have problems with it. 

 

I realize that a handicap index is, to some degree speculative by nature. It isn't even designed to be an "average", but rather to predict how well you’re likely to play on a course given its difficulty (and obviously is generous in it's predictions ... you're only expected to shoot to your actual handicap every four or five rounds). But building predictions into that prediction - by speculating what a golfer "would have" shot on the back nine and then counting it as an actual score for handicap purposes ... well, that just doesn't sit right in my gut. 

 

The USGA did have some reasons why they think this would improve the accuracy of the system. If two nine hole rounds are combined to be a single round, and both nines are played on what could be different courses and under what could be very different conditions (weather and etc.), they argue that it would less accurately reflect the score for a "round" of golf than extrapolating a back nine score from what is shot on the front nine on that course and day. Additionally, they believe the change will lead to the index being kept current in a more timely fashion (i.e., you post the score immediately instead of waiting for another nine hole score to combine). 

 

IMO however, the main issue (apart from the really glaring one that I fundamentally don't like the idea of real scores being posted for "ghost" holes) is that it is likely to affect different golfers in somewhat bizarre and random ways. Not everyone will be affected equally. My suspicion is that scratch and low cap golfers are going to post fewer nine hole scores (especially those that need to hit a certain level for tourney/competition entry purposes - the exact problem the OP is having).

 

Another issue is that different people (at every level) work golf into their lives differently. One of the purposes of a handicap index is to be able to compare "apples to apples" between players of different skills levels playing different courses (and even tee boxes). I have a friend (at one extreme as a for instance) that pretty much always just plays nine - due to some responsibilities and a health issue. My local season just opened (NJ isn't "active" until April). When I enter my first five rounds of 18 holes, and he enters his first five rounds of nine, our indexes will be calculated as though we've both played 90 holes (even though he will have only actually played 45). 

 

Point is, golfers are all over the board. I virtually always play 18 (I think I may have played nine twice last year). My friend is at the other extreme. And there's everything in between. So not only do I question whether the new rule will result in more accurate results (i.e., more clarity about the actual skill level of a golfer), I think for some it could well lead to considerably less accuracy. The idea that anyone could even come close to almost half of their index being calculated by using "imaginary" holes is just really flippin' bizarre.

 

My $0.02

Edited April 18 by bobfoster

[Brooks_Cupcake]

3 hours ago, kiawah said:

Disclaimer: this may be a minority opinion and maybe this rule change may work better for the majority of folks...

...but I am really disheartened by the new 9 hole handicapping rule and wanted to see if anyone else is having a similar experience.

The rule change I'm referring to is: 

"Prior to January 2024, one 9-hole score must be combined with another to create an 18-hole Score Differential™ before it could be counted for handicap purposes.

Now, when a player posts a 9-hole score, the WHS will automatically calculate an 18-hole Score Differential for the round, based on the player’s 9-hole Score Differential and expected Score Differential based on their current Handicap Index®, allowing the 9-hole round to be considered in the player’s Handicap Index calculation right away.

As part of this change, golfers are required to play all 9 holes with a valid 9-hole Course Rating™ and Slope Rating™ instead of the previous minimum of 7 holes."

 

My current index is 1.6 and went up over the winter due to playing with mats, cold weather, bad greens, etc., and I made the mistake of posting scores so I could track my stats. In my last two 9 hole rounds, I shot -1 34 twice, which is scored as a differential of 1.2 because the back 9 carries a rating of 37.0 from my tees while the front is a 35.0 rating. In layman's terms, I am now ineligible to qualify for the US Amateur and US Open because my handicap is too high, and since I can only get in 9 holes after work, I will need to shoot 2 or 3 under par in the majority of my rounds to get down to the 0.6 threshold. Also, teeing off on the 10th hole is not an option since there are already many groups on the golf course when I am trying to play.

 

I don't get what the problem was with posting 9 hole scores that didn't make up an imaginary differential for 9 holes I didn't play. As stated earlier, I might be in the minority since I know a lot of people would love their index going up no matter what they shoot. But I am pretty disheartened/frustrated. 

 

Maybe don’t waste your time in qualifiers as a 1.6 regardless? 😉

[bobfoster]

And another thing! 🤣

 

When I reflect on my rounds, they are quite often not consistent. Sure, there are some days when (in general) I'm on, or off. Outliers where either everything is magically working (you live for those), or when nothing seems to be (you just grit your teeth and suffer through those).

 

But most days run in phases. A few holes stretch of good-to-great (for me), then a bad one, then a recovery. Or weather conditions will change over the course of four hours (as they can do somewhat dramatically especially in the spring and fall). One local public course I play every now and then (a friend likes it, I don't) doesn't even have a driving range. I can swing an orange stick for a few minutes, but really the first two or three holes are warm up. Point is, the difference between my front nine and back nine can vary quite a bit (randomly, in either direction). Not just by one or two, but sometimes by four or even five. 

 

The difficulty is that the mechanism the new system uses to predict the back nine from the front is, to me, extremely problematic. It does not calculate a score for the ghost holes that is based on the person's current handicap index (which to me would actually make more sense), rather, it calculates a differential based on how the first nine holes were played. In other words, if you are having a good (or bad) front nine, it simply takes that and amplifies it, effectively doubling it's impact. It assumes the what you'll play the back nine as well (or poorly) as you played the front nine. And in practice (at least for me) that rarely happens. It doesn't even happen that often with the pros (who are generally far more consistent than we are). 

 

Sometimes that will be helpful, and sometimes it will be damaging. But that's the point - it fictitiously magnifies. The more I think about it ... the less sense this makes. I can't see any way where scores, assigned to imaginary holes using a somewhat arbitrary calculation, could ever produce a more accurate representation of someone's game than 18 holes of actual golf - even if the two nines (under the old rule) are played on different days under different conditions.

 

In addressing what they saw as an issue (trying to make the handicap index more accurate), I'm pretty certain that on balance they simply replaced one issue with another one (it is now going to be inaccurate in a different way). 

[kiawah]

9 minutes ago, Brooks_Cupcake said:

Maybe don’t waste your time in qualifiers as a 1.6 regardless? 😉

Lol. Fair enough. I’m not burnt up about the US Open all that much. I know that’s a pipe dream. I am bummed about the US Am though. I’ve put a lot of work in to get my game back into shape after 4 years of college golf and having to get a “real job,” which has taken some getting used to. At worst it would have been a good opportunity to prep for other tournaments. There’s always next year though 😉

[kiawah]

1 hour ago, bobfoster said:

A few months ago I attended a couple hour long (virtual) rules seminar that my local golf association (NJSGA) presented. They went into some detail about the new rules. I do understand the reasoning behind this one in particular, but also have problems with it. 

 

I realize that a handicap index is, to some degree speculative by nature. It isn't even designed to be an "average", but rather to predict how well you’re likely to play on a course given its difficulty (and obviously is generous in it's predictions ... you're only expected to shoot to your actual handicap every four or five rounds). But building predictions into that prediction - by speculating what a golfer "would have" shot on the back nine and then counting it as an actual score for handicap purposes ... well, that just doesn't sit right in my gut. 

 

The USGA did have some reasons why they think this would improve the accuracy of the system. If two nine hole rounds are combined to be a single round, and both nines are played on what could be different courses and under what could be very different conditions (weather and etc.), they argue that it would less accurately reflect the score for a "round" of golf than extrapolating a back nine score from what is shot on the front nine on that course and day. Additionally, they believe the change will lead to the index being kept current in a more timely fashion (i.e., you post the score immediately instead of waiting for another nine hole score to combine). 

 

IMO however, the main issue (apart from the really glaring one that I fundamentally don't like the idea of real scores being posted for "ghost" holes) is that it is likely to affect different golfers in somewhat bizarre and random ways. Not everyone will be affected equally. My suspicion is that scratch and low cap golfers are going to post fewer nine hole scores (especially those that need to hit a certain level for tourney/competition entry purposes - the exact problem the OP is having).

 

Another issue is that different people (at every level) work golf into their lives differently. One of the purposes of a handicap index is to be able to compare "apples to apples" between players of different skills levels playing different courses (and even tee boxes). I have a friend (at one extreme as a for instance) that pretty much always just plays nine - due to some responsibilities and a health issue. My local season just opened (NJ isn't "active" until April). When I enter my first five rounds of 18 holes, and he enters his first five rounds of nine, our indexes will be calculated as though we've both played 90 holes (even though he will have only actually played 45). 

 

Point is, golfers are all over the board. I virtually always play 18 (I think I may have played nine twice last year). My friend is at the other extreme. And there's everything in between. So not only do I question whether the new rule will result in more accurate results (i.e., more clarity about the actual skill level of a golfer), I think for some it could well lead to considerably less accuracy. The idea that anyone could even come close to almost half of their index being calculated by using "imaginary" holes is just really flippin' bizarre.

 

My $0.02

100%. My issue is primarily with the “ghost scores.” I know life ain’t fair but it bothers me that I’m being “graded” on holes that I didn’t play. Another problem for me is that our handicap committee forces players to post scores (which isn’t necessarily a bad thing) and will render you ineligible for club tournaments if you are on the tee sheet and fail to post scores more than 2 times without an appeal/reason for not posting. Not having my handicap straightened out to be eligible in time is certainly on me, but the “ghost scores” issue really bugs me. 
 

[kiawah]

27 minutes ago, bobfoster said:

And another thing! 🤣

 

When I reflect on my rounds, they are quite often not consistent. Sure, there are some days when (in general) I'm on, or off. Outliers where either everything is magically working (you live for those), or when nothing seems to be (you just grit your teeth and suffer through those).

 

But most days run in phases. A few holes stretch of good-to-great (for me), then a bad one, then a recovery. Or weather conditions will change over the course of four hours (as they can do somewhat dramatically especially in the spring and fall). One local public course I play every now and then (a friend likes it, I don't) doesn't even have a driving range. I can swing an orange stick for a few minutes, but really the first two or three holes are warm up. Point is, the difference between my front nine and back nine can vary quite a bit (randomly, in either direction). Not just by one or two, but sometimes by four or even five. 

 

The difficulty is that the mechanism the new system uses to predict the back nine from the front is, to me, extremely problematic. It does not calculate a score for the ghost holes that is based on the person's current handicap index (which to me would actually make more sense), rather, it calculates a differential based on how the first nine holes were played. In other words, if you are having a good (or bad) front nine, it simply takes that and amplifies it, effectively doubling it's impact. It assumes the what you'll play the back nine as well (or poorly) as you played the front nine. And in practice (at least for me) that rarely happens. It doesn't even happen that often with the pros (who are generally far more consistent than we are). 

 

Sometimes that will be helpful, and sometimes it will be damaging. But that's the point - it fictitiously magnifies. The more I think about it ... the less sense this makes. I can't see any way where scores, assigned to imaginary holes using a somewhat arbitrary calculation, could ever produce a more accurate representation of someone's game than 18 holes of actual golf - even if the two nines (under the old rule) are played on different days under different conditions.

 

In addressing what they saw as an issue (trying to make the handicap index more accurate), I'm pretty certain that on balance they simply replaced one issue with another one (it is now going to be inaccurate in a different way). 

I wish my GHIN doubled my front nine differential, lol. Instead it took my -1 differential front nine (34 on a par 35 rated 35.0) and gave me an 18 hole differential of 1.2, meaning it must have given me a 2.2 differential on the back 9. The back 9 is a 37.0 rating. Did it assume I shot 39 on the back? My scoring average on GHIN is 75.6, why would it give me an assumed 39 on the back? Over the last 20 rounds I’ve played my scoring average on that back nine (which I played in 8 of those rounds) on GHIN is 38.25. I don’t get it. But clearly their equation thinks I’m a choker 😂

[Jon Gee]

4 hours ago, kiawah said:

 

 

My current index is 1.6 and went up over the winter due to playing with mats, cold weather, bad greens, etc.,

 

I thought there was a "posting season" for official handicaps....What state are you in?

[ANimz]

4 hours ago, kiawah said:

Disclaimer: this may be a minority opinion and maybe this rule change may work better for the majority of folks...

...but I am really disheartened by the new 9 hole handicapping rule and wanted to see if anyone else is having a similar experience.

The rule change I'm referring to is: 

"Prior to January 2024, one 9-hole score must be combined with another to create an 18-hole Score Differential™ before it could be counted for handicap purposes.

Now, when a player posts a 9-hole score, the WHS will automatically calculate an 18-hole Score Differential for the round, based on the player’s 9-hole Score Differential and expected Score Differential based on their current Handicap Index®, allowing the 9-hole round to be considered in the player’s Handicap Index calculation right away.

As part of this change, golfers are required to play all 9 holes with a valid 9-hole Course Rating™ and Slope Rating™ instead of the previous minimum of 7 holes."

 

My current index is 1.6 and went up over the winter due to playing with mats, cold weather, bad greens, etc., and I made the mistake of posting scores so I could track my stats. In my last two 9 hole rounds, I shot -1 34 twice, which is scored as a differential of 1.2 because the back 9 carries a rating of 37.0 from my tees while the front is a 35.0 rating. In layman's terms, I am now ineligible to qualify for the US Amateur and US Open because my handicap is too high, and since I can only get in 9 holes after work, I will need to shoot 2 or 3 under par in the majority of my rounds to get down to the 0.6 threshold. Also, teeing off on the 10th hole is not an option since there are already many groups on the golf course when I am trying to play.

 

I don't get what the problem was with posting 9 hole scores that didn't make up an imaginary differential for 9 holes I didn't play. As stated earlier, I might be in the minority since I know a lot of people would love their index going up no matter what they shoot. But I am pretty disheartened/frustrated. 

 

I thought the winter season did not affect the handicap?  I use Grint, or is that just app specific?  

[bobfoster]

43 minutes ago, Jon Gee said:

I thought there was a "posting season" for official handicaps....What state are you in?

Everyone (that has a formal handicap index) belongs to a local golf association that sets standards. In the northern states many have active and inactive seasons. (I'm in NJ, governed by the NJSGA, and my "active" season is April 1 - Nov. 14th). Understandable - there are a few courses here that (try) to stay open at least when it isn't snowing, but they don't get a lot of play, and conditions are often less than ideal. Greens in poor shape, some construction often going on, minimal maintenance crew, etc., etc. (would be a sandbagger's paradise - you are almost guaranteed to shoot worse than you ordinarily would). But a lot of southern states don't ever go inactive - not much reason to when golf can easily be played year round on well maintained courses.

 

Since his username is actually "kiawah" I sort of assume (perhaps wrongly) he's in SC - which probably doesn't have an inactive season. 

Edited April 18 by bobfoster

[bobfoster]

51 minutes ago, kiawah said:

I wish my GHIN doubled my front nine differential, lol. Instead it took my -1 differential front nine (34 on a par 35 rated 35.0) and gave me an 18 hole differential of 1.2, meaning it must have given me a 2.2 differential on the back 9. The back 9 is a 37.0 rating. Did it assume I shot 39 on the back? My scoring average on GHIN is 75.6, why would it give me an assumed 39 on the back? Over the last 20 rounds I’ve played my scoring average on that back nine (which I played in 8 of those rounds) on GHIN is 38.25. I don’t get it. But clearly their equation thinks I’m a choker 😂

That's just weird. In truth, and don't yet know what the specific math is. It is a new rule I've read about and sort of understand conceptually, but I've actually only posted three scores since the 2024 rules took effect, and they were all 18 hole rounds. The back nine on your course is clearly slightly tougher than the front, but that result doesn't make sense (or maybe it does and I'm just not seeing it). 

 

The rule (as you quoted above) says "Now, when a player posts a 9-hole score, the WHS will automatically calculate an 18-hole Score Differential for the round, based on the player’s 9-hole Score Differential and expected Score Differential based on their current Handicap Index® ...".

 

I assumed that meant that if you played a (relatively) good front nine, they'd assume you would play an equally good back nine. Not necessarily completely equal in terms of raw strokes - i.e., being -1 on the front wouldn't automatically give you -1 on the back (as the rating would have to be taken into account) - but still. You were clearly having a good day. One better than the front nine rating and around four better than your average. I don't get how that translates into the assumption that you'll then shoot one worse than your average, and two worse than the rating on the back. 

 

There's got to be an actual formula they are using. Think I'll try to find it (just out of intellectual curiosity).

[Augster]

Just post a couple of bogus low rounds. Your cap will plummet instantly and you’ll be able to try to qualify. 
 

Your future opponents could care less if your cap is artificially low, and encourage it. Also, getting past the qualifier is all gross, merit-based scores. You’ll either shoot it or you won’t. 
 

In all honestly, you’ll be the only one hurt by the doctored scores. And they’ll fall off quickly as you post more 9-hole scores. 
 

That’s what I’d do anyway. 

Edited April 18 by Augster

[bobfoster]

22 minutes ago, Augster said:

Just post a couple of bogus low rounds. Your cap will plummet instantly and you’ll be able to try to qualify. 
 

Your future opponents could care less if your cap is artificially low, and encourage it. Also, getting past the qualifier is all gross, merit-based scores. You’ll either shoot it or you won’t. 
 

In all honestly, you’ll be the only one hurt by the doctored scores. And they’ll fall off quickly as you post more 9-hole scores. 
 

That’s what I’d do anyway. 

Um, so far as I can tell, @kiawah is someone that does play by the strict RoG, and is committed to posting legitimately. Actual question here (that I have questions about also) is the way a new rule is being implemented, and the somewhat puzzling results the implementation is producing. Don't really think bogus rounds are on the table here. 

[rogolf]

This is from another golf site:

Hi Y'all - Thanks for the chat above.
I made this table of "expected scores" just by using that cool OKRASA link above (http://golf.okrasa.eu/language/en/handicap-en/whs-en/score-differential/#Calc).
Odd that it is not published, since it is easily extracted like below. I guess my initial gut reaction that my 14 index got "punished" with an expected score DIFF of 17 (for 18h) or 8.5 (for 9h) was stupid of me... I was forgetting that the index is the best 8 of my last 20, and the the "expected" score is the average of all scores of players of my index (not my best ones). Not sure I love the new rule for making 9 holes scores immediately into 18 hole scores (think i liked the old system better), but at least I understand it now.
Very much appreciated.

PLAYER INDEX	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
EXPECTED 9-HOLE DIFF	1.2	1.7	2.2	2.8	3.3	3.8	4.3	4.8	5.4	5.9	6.4	6.9	7.4	8	8.5	9	9.5	10	10.6
EXPECTED 18-HOLE DIFF	2.4	3.4	4.4	5.6	6.6	7.6	8.6	9.6	10.8	11.8	12.8	13.8	14.8	16	17	18	19	20	21.2
(EXPECTED 18-HOLE DIFF) - INDEX	2.4	2.4	2.4	2.6	2.6	2.6	2.6	2.6	2.8	2.8	2.8	2.8	2.8	3	3	3	3	3	3.2

 

[nsxguy]

2 hours ago, Augster said:

Just post a couple of bogus low rounds. Your cap will plummet instantly and you’ll be able to try to qualify.

 

In all honestly, you’ll be the only one hurt by the doctored scores. And they’ll fall off quickly as you post more 9-hole scores. 
 

That’s what I’d do anyway. 

 

Is that really true ?

 

And why didn't you just explain the (1/2 your index +1.5 strokes ?) for the back 9 to these gentlemen ?

 

 

Edited April 19 by nsxguy

[rogolf]

2 hours ago, Augster said:

Just post a couple of bogus low rounds. Your cap will plummet instantly and you’ll be able to try to qualify. 
 

Your future opponents could care less if your cap is artificially low, and encourage it. Also, getting past the qualifier is all gross, merit-based scores. You’ll either shoot it or you won’t. 
 

In all honestly, you’ll be the only one hurt by the doctored scores. And they’ll fall off quickly as you post more 9-hole scores. 
 

That’s what I’d do anyway. 

This doesn't sound like compliance with Rule 1.2, Conduct Expected of All Players

• Acting with Integrity

Some people call it manipulating (sandbagging)your handicap - not recommended.  If you intended it to be funny or sarcastic, at least include an emoji. Such posts reflect on your reputation!

[nsxguy]

4 hours ago, bobfoster said:

And another thing! 🤣

 

When I reflect on my rounds, they are quite often not consistent. Sure, there are some days when (in general) I'm on, or off. Outliers where either everything is magically working (you live for those), or when nothing seems to be (you just grit your teeth and suffer through those).

 

But most days run in phases. A few holes stretch of good-to-great (for me), then a bad one, then a recovery. Or weather conditions will change over the course of four hours (as they can do somewhat dramatically especially in the spring and fall). One local public course I play every now and then (a friend likes it, I don't) doesn't even have a driving range. I can swing an orange stick for a few minutes, but really the first two or three holes are warm up. Point is, the difference between my front nine and back nine can vary quite a bit (randomly, in either direction). Not just by one or two, but sometimes by four or even five. 

 

The difficulty is that the mechanism the new system uses to predict the back nine from the front is, to me, extremely problematic. It does not calculate a score for the ghost holes that is based on the person's current handicap index (which to me would actually make more sense), rather, it calculates a differential based on how the first nine holes were played. In other words, if you are having a good (or bad) front nine, it simply takes that and amplifies it, effectively doubling it's impact. It assumes the what you'll play the back nine as well (or poorly) as you played the front nine. And in practice (at least for me) that rarely happens. It doesn't even happen that often with the pros (who are generally far more consistent than we are). 

 

Sometimes that will be helpful, and sometimes it will be damaging. But that's the point - it fictitiously magnifies. The more I think about it ... the less sense this makes. I can't see any way where scores, assigned to imaginary holes using a somewhat arbitrary calculation, could ever produce a more accurate representation of someone's game than 18 holes of actual golf - even if the two nines (under the old rule) are played on different days under different conditions.

 

In addressing what they saw as an issue (trying to make the handicap index more accurate), I'm pretty certain that on balance they simply replaced one issue with another one (it is now going to be inaccurate in a different way). 

 

Sorry my friend but my opinion is 180 degrees from yours.

 

It's not "your rounds" that count for your handicap. It's the best 8 of your last 20, which I'm quite positive you know.

 

So the real question is, of THOSE 8 rounds are you more or less consistent between your front and back ?

 

Frankly, I'm just like you; almost never play only 9 holes. All the games I play in are 18. I wouldn't even go out for a 9-holer. Also have no driving range and struggle early.

 

Just today, not that this is my average start, but I was 5 over after 6 and ready to go home. But I birdied 8&9 for 39 on the front and 38 on the back and sadly this is a handicap round for me (best 8).

 

Anyway, I found little value in putting together 2 different 9-hole scores (as before). 2 9-holers on 2 different days, possibly many months apart, under completely different conditions. Pretty useless IMO.

 

In any case, my experiences are anecdotal, as yours appear to be. But *I* would guess that my fronts and backs, in my 8 best, are pretty close to each other and seldom very different. i.e. I'll more often shoot 39/41/80, or maybe 42/38/80 than say 36/44/80, as you seem to be suggesting.

 

And no, I don't have any statistics to back up my anecdotal opinion either. But again, this new method, IMO, is far better than the old one of putting together 2 different 9s/dates/courses/etc.

 

So, given the WHS (USGA ?) has crunched FAR more rounds than we could ever hope to, and have come up with a FAR better (IMO) system of posting a full score for a 9-hole round, I'm thinking I trust their numbers FAR more than our "best guesses".

 

 

[bobfoster]

41 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Sorry my friend but my opinion is 180 degrees from yours.

 

It's not "your rounds" that count for your handicap. It's the best 8 of your last 20, which I'm quite positive you know.

 

So the real question is, of THOSE 8 rounds are you more or less consistent between your front and back ?

 

Frankly, I'm just like you; almost never play only 9 holes. All the games I play in are 18. I wouldn't even go out for a 9-holer. Also have no driving range and struggle early.

 

Just today, not that this is my average start, but I was 5 over after 6 and ready to go home. But I birdied 8&9 for 39 on the front and 38 on the back and sadly this is a handicap round for me (best 8).

 

Anyway, I found little value in putting together 2 different 9-hole scores (as before). 2 9-holers on 2 different days, possibly many months apart, under completely different conditions. Pretty useless IMO.

 

In any case, my experiences are anecdotal, as yours appear to be. But *I* would guess that my fronts and backs, in my 8 best, are pretty close to each other and seldom very different. i.e. I'll more often shoot 39/41/80, or maybe 42/38/80 than say 36/44/80, as you seem to be suggesting.

 

And no, I don't have any statistics to back up my anecdotal opinion either. But again, this new method, IMO, is far better than the old one of putting together 2 different 9s/dates/courses/etc.

 

So, given the WHS (USGA ?) has crunched FAR more rounds than we could ever hope to, and have come up with a FAR better (IMO) system of posting a full score for a 9-hole round, I'm thinking I trust their numbers FAR more than our "best guesses".

 

 

Thank you. Actually, I'm going to think about this. Do not yet have any firm opinions because the new rule, and the way it affects scores is so new. I do not think this is anything like a black and white. either/or, "one is clearly better and one is worse" situation. Huge gray areas here. IMO, may take a year before I can say the new system produces more accurate results, or less. and yeah, thanks for that, I obviously know it is your best 8 - your index is totally not your "average", not even intended to be). 

 

I will say that (unlike many on WRX) I usually give the USGA the benefit of the doubt. Am a proud (Patron level) member. I know a lot of these people, they do nothing without an insane amount of research and stats. But that does not mean I just buy what they say. Sometimes I think they get it wrong (never 100% wrong, but sometimes maybe 50% wrong). 

 

What I'm actually very interested to see here is the actual math they use to extrapolate 18 holes scores from nine that are actually played. 

 

And in truth, this really is merely an intellectual (though fascinating) puzzle for me. Probably played well over 100 rounds last year, maybe 2 - 4 nine hole rounds. I just play 18 when I play, so this rule is actually going to have zero effect on me personally. 

 

But it is fun to talk about, no?

 

PS. Bottom line for me, personally? Whatever they decide, I play by the USGA RoG. Whether I agree with them or have reservations about them. Which I do, but am still keeping quite an open mind about this.  

 

I'm at the age where I am perfectly comfortable saying "I'm not sure", let's see if it is actually better". 

Edited April 19 by bobfoster

[Newby]

7 hours ago, bobfoster said:

 

 

The rule (as you quoted above) says "Now, when a player posts a 9-hole score, the WHS will automatically calculate an 18-hole Score Differential for the round, based on the player’s 9-hole Score Differential and expected Score Differential based on their current Handicap Index® ...".

 

You omitted a crucial part in bold below. The 9 hole differential is based on all players with the same Index not the individual.

 

How is a golfer’s expected score determined to create an 18-hole Score Differential?

Once the player’s 9-hole Score Differential has been calculated, it is combined with an expected Score Differential based on the player’s current Handicap Index to create an 18-hole Score Differential. 

The expected score is based on the average Score Differential of a player with a given Handicap Index and a normal distribution of scores – so it is not specific to each player. 

An expected score can be thought of as a neutral value, meaning that a good 9-hole round (relative to the player’s ability) will result in a good 18-hole Score Differential. An average 9-hole round will result in an average 18-hole Score Differential, etc.

 

 

Edited April 19 by Newby

[Mr. Bean]

11 hours ago, bobfoster said:

The difficulty is that the mechanism the new system uses to predict the back nine from the front is, to me, extremely problematic. It does not calculate a score for the ghost holes that is based on the person's current handicap index (which to me would actually make more sense), rather, it calculates a differential based on how the first nine holes were played. In other words, if you are having a good (or bad) front nine, it simply takes that and amplifies it, effectively doubling it's impact. It assumes the what you'll play the back nine as well (or poorly) as you played the front nine. And in practice (at least for me) that rarely happens. It doesn't even happen that often with the pros (who are generally far more consistent than we are). 

 

 

That is not correct. I was explained (as rogolf and Newby already mentioned in their posts) that the missing 9 holes get expected scores from a group of same HI. So the calculation does not care how you played your 9 holes.

 

 

Edited April 19 by Mr. Bean

[kiawah]

3 hours ago, Newby said:

You omitted a crucial part in bold below. The 9 hole differential is based on all players with the same Index not the individual.

 

How is a golfer’s expected score determined to create an 18-hole Score Differential?

Once the player’s 9-hole Score Differential has been calculated, it is combined with an expected Score Differential based on the player’s current Handicap Index to create an 18-hole Score Differential. 

The expected score is based on the average Score Differential of a player with a given Handicap Index and a normal distribution of scores – so it is not specific to each player. 

An expected score can be thought of as a neutral value, meaning that a good 9-hole round (relative to the player’s ability) will result in a good 18-hole Score Differential. An average 9-hole round will result in an average 18-hole Score Differential, etc.

 

 

Thanks, that makes more sense. Didn’t omit it deliberately just didn’t read that part. Maybe that would have helped 😂

[kiawah]

10 hours ago, bobfoster said:

Um, so far as I can tell, @kiawah is someone that does play by the strict RoG, and is committed to posting legitimately. Actual question here (that I have questions about also) is the way a new rule is being implemented, and the somewhat puzzling results the implementation is producing. Don't really think bogus rounds are on the table here. 

Yes I post legit scores. I didn’t even know you could post match play/preferred lies/non USGA tournament compliant rounds until this month. I’ve been posting my exact scores and haven’t been picking and choosing when to post. I will occasionally play with people I don’t know who are more casual players and will sometimes hit my ball back to me if I hit a lag to 2 feet but otherwise I am playing by the letter of the rules. I feel that I would just be cheating myself otherwise. I also don’t play in any net tournaments so my handicap isn’t all that relevant for me anyway but still stinks to know that there are definitely people out there who are eligible to qualify who have omitted rounds or fudged some scores. I’m just gonna worry about myself though

[kiawah]

11 hours ago, Augster said:

Just post a couple of bogus low rounds. Your cap will plummet instantly and you’ll be able to try to qualify. 
 

Your future opponents could care less if your cap is artificially low, and encourage it. Also, getting past the qualifier is all gross, merit-based scores. You’ll either shoot it or you won’t. 
 

In all honestly, you’ll be the only one hurt by the doctored scores. And they’ll fall off quickly as you post more 9-hole scores. 
 

That’s what I’d do anyway. 

I know people who have done something similar but I would rather just earn it the hard way. If I were to play really well and somehow make it to the next stage of qualifying, I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if I posted fake scores. My group once played the wrong tee box at a qualifier (we thought it was back tees all day but they were a box up on a par 3) and I would have made it but I WD myself even though the other two guys didn’t. So it’s not a stretch to say I’ve removed myself from a tournament for less. It will just be sweeter and more satisfying to do it the right way.  

[kiawah]

12 hours ago, bobfoster said:

Everyone (that has a formal handicap index) belongs to a local golf association that sets standards. In the northern states many have active and inactive seasons. (I'm in NJ, governed by the NJSGA, and my "active" season is April 1 - Nov. 14th). Understandable - there are a few courses here that (try) to stay open at least when it isn't snowing, but they don't get a lot of play, and conditions are often less than ideal. Greens in poor shape, some construction often going on, minimal maintenance crew, etc., etc. (would be a sandbagger's paradise - you are almost guaranteed to shoot worse than you ordinarily would). But a lot of southern states don't ever go inactive - not much reason to when golf can easily be played year round on well maintained courses.

 

Since his username is actually "kiawah" I sort of assume (perhaps wrongly) he's in SC - which probably doesn't have an inactive season. 

Lol I’m based in VA but parents live in Kiawah. A few of my rounds are from SC where the courses are still active in winter but so damn hard when it’s below 50 and 30 mph wind in the wintertime. I think my VA course’s season begins April 1 so I was mistaken in posting scores prior to that but I kind of assumed they wouldn’t be scored if they were posted out of season. Probably a dumb assumption. As a gross tournament player I never really use my handicap and only really play straight up so I disadvantaged myself by not understanding the rules. I know better for next year though and learned an important lesson 👍

[kiawah]

14 hours ago, ANimz said:

I thought the winter season did not affect the handicap?  I use Grint, or is that just app specific?  

The rounds I posted were counted but I use the official GHIN app. Might be the difference 

[davep043]

2 hours ago, kiawah said:

Lol I’m based in VA but parents live in Kiawah. A few of my rounds are from SC where the courses are still active in winter but so damn hard when it’s below 50 and 30 mph wind in the wintertime. I think my VA course’s season begins April 1 so I was mistaken in posting scores prior to that but I kind of assumed they wouldn’t be scored if they were posted out of season. Probably a dumb assumption. As a gross tournament player I never really use my handicap and only really play straight up so I disadvantaged myself by not understanding the rules. I know better for next year though and learned an important lesson 👍

In Virginia, the posting season is year-round, you did the right thing in posting scores all year round.  The GHIN system will not allow you to post an out-of-season score, it knows the posting season for every jurisdiction.  Yes, you COULD post manually, but as long as you reference the correct course and date, you can only post in-season scores.  And your course's open season may not matter, unless they specifically chose to close off handicap posting

15 hours ago, bobfoster said:

The difficulty is that the mechanism the new system uses to predict the back nine from the front is, to me, extremely problematic. It does not calculate a score for the ghost holes that is based on the person's current handicap index (which to me would actually make more sense), rather, it calculates a differential based on how the first nine holes were played. In other words, if you are having a good (or bad) front nine, it simply takes that and amplifies it, effectively doubling it's impact. It assumes the what you'll play the back nine as well (or poorly) as you played the front nine. And in practice (at least for me) that rarely happens. It doesn't even happen that often with the pros (who are generally far more consistent than w

This is absolutely not correct.  The "expected differential" is something close to the average 9-hole differential for all players with that same Handicap Index.  Most players average a few strokes over par, net, they only shoot even par net 20-25% of the time.  So your average 9-hole differential will be a little higher than half your HI.  For low handicappers (less variability) it'll be about 1.2 strokes higher, for higher handicappers (higher variability) it will be closerr to 2 strokes greater than half the HI.  I don't know the "formula", but I did calculations for a number of 9-hole scores posted at my home club, and those are the numbers that emerged.  And for those who ask about the course, the slope, the CR, remember that the differential is the number that results when an actual score is "normalized" for CR and Slope.

 

I think its important to remember that the USGA was not operating in a vacuum in making these changes, this is one more step towards a truly unified World Handicap System.  9-hole scores were handled differently in different parts of the world, now they're handled the same all over, I believe.  I can see positives as well as negatives in the changes, and its likely to be positive for some players and negative for others.  There's not a perfect solution to any of this.

Edited April 19 by davep043

[Imp]

16 hours ago, mxskier said:

Either way, at this time, I'm just going to post 18 hole scores, even if I play a casual 9 after work with friends, I'll just play for fun.

 

 

Your Index is/will no longer in accordance with the rules of handicapping if you make that choice and should be treated as such when entering tournaments that require GHIN to participate.

 

I'm not a fan of it either, but I understand the importance of following the rules. If you do this, and many others do this, it will give the USGA false data on how bad an idea the move was to those that post 9 holes, and they'll think it was the best idea ever. Don't let them do that.

Edited April 19 by Imp