GHIN 9-Hole Differential

[JohnnyO3478]

This time of year, we play a lot of 9 hole rounds after work. It will be two years next month or so since I took up the game. I started 2024 with an index of 20.0 and it is slowly coming down - 18.8 this morning. Side note - I broke 40 for the first time ever last night!



The new 2024 rule on how a 9 hole score is handled in the GHIN system has proved to be interesting. If you have not looked into it, what they do is calculate a 9 hole differential for the holes that you do play (assuming your course has 9 hole ratings) and then they add that to an expected 9 hole differential that is based upon what everyone at your level is likely to card. The differential I got for yesterday's round is 14.7. If you fuddle around with the math - that means the system expected me to card a 46ish on the back nine.

When I first started seeing my differentials for 9 hole rounds this year - they seemed higher than what I expected for a good 9 hole score. But in all honesty - that's how a lot of my 18 hole rounds work out. Sunday I went 47/42. Bottom line - I think the new approach in handling 9 hole scores is probably better than the old - where at certain times of the year - you may go weeks or months waiting for a score to combine.

Here's a link to the USGA explanation: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/h...sion/2024-treatment-of-9-hole-scores-FAQ.html

"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."

 

[Slowmo]

I still don't like it. I"m not supposed to submit a score when I play alone because I might not follow the rules but the USGA can magically make up a score they think I should have shot and that's ok? Luckily I play all of my 9 hole rounds alone so I guess I just don't have to send them in.

 

[JohnnyO3478]

I still don't like it. I"m not supposed to submit a score when I play alone because I might not follow the rules but the USGA can magically make up a score they think I should have shot and that's ok? Luckily I play all of my 9 hole rounds alone so I guess I just don't have to send them in.

Good point.

 

[tucsoncacti]

I still don't like it. I"m not supposed to submit a score when I play alone because I might not follow the rules but the USGA can magically make up a score they think I should have shot and that's ok? Luckily I play all of my 9 hole rounds alone so I guess I just don't have to send them in.

Sorry I had to laugh at you post. Because you make a good point and its absurd they do this.

 

[Slowmo]

Sorry I had to laugh at you post. Because you make a good point and its absurd they do this.

it's incredibly absurd. It also irritates me because I play a lot of 9 hole rounds this time of the year. If I get away from work early enough (which I do about twice a week) I will stop by the course on the way home. I'll play the front 9 one time and the back 9 the next so they get combined and I felt good about it.

 

[USAF Retired]

@Trmpt98

 

[JohnnyO3478]

it's incredibly absurd. It also irritates me because I play a lot of 9 hole rounds this time of the year. If I get away from work early enough (which I do about twice a week) I will stop by the course on the way home. I'll play the front 9 one time and the back 9 the next so they get combined and I felt good about it.

Have you submitted any of your 9 hole rounds? If so - how did the differential that you were assigned differ from what you'd expect for an 18 hole round, given your average performance? Is your current game pretty steady state or are you in a situation where you are improving or getting worse?

 

[dAS0]

First off, congrats on the sub 40 nine!

I do like that a 9 hole round won't sit around as mentioned above, but it can be odd since rounds featuring 'A tale of 2 nines' can pop up making a 9 hole score counting to your HC as imprecise. It is something different so I will wait to see how this season works out across the board. it feels like there has been a trade on the pros and cons; an imperfect method replaced by an imperfect method.

 

[Slowmo]

Have you submitted any of your 9 hole rounds? If so - how did the differential that you were assigned differ from what you'd expect for an 18 hole round, given your average performance? Is your current game pretty steady state or are you in a situation where you are improving or getting worse?

I've not submitted any 9 hole rounds since this rule went into affect. Almost all of my 9 hole rounds are solo so I"m not supposed to submit them anyway

 

[JohnnyO3478]

I've not submitted any 9 hole rounds since this rule went into affect. Almost all of my 9 hole rounds are solo so I"m not supposed to submit them anyway

Gotcha. If you ever do submit one, please drop us a note here on how it went for you.

 

[Canadan]

I still don't like it. I"m not supposed to submit a score when I play alone because I might not follow the rules but the USGA can magically make up a score they think I should have shot and that's ok? Luckily I play all of my 9 hole rounds alone so I guess I just don't have to send them in.

the hypocrisy that exists in the minds of the USGA is staggering when you compare some of their reasoning.

Excellent example. I'll be combining my 9s before I post them this year. Screw this ridiculous logic.

 

[Canadan]

it's incredibly absurd. It also irritates me because I play a lot of 9 hole rounds this time of the year. If I get away from work early enough (which I do about twice a week) I will stop by the course on the way home. I'll play the front 9 one time and the back 9 the next so they get combined and I felt good about it.

I'd just wait and post them as an 18 hole score. Your handicap remains legitimate (or arguably more accurate) and you don't stress the nonsense.

Or, drop two balls a couple of times, roll your ball a couple of times, take a couple gimmes, and invalidate the 9.

 

[JohnnyO3478]

I'd like to hear from some folks who have actually posted a 9-hole score this year and learn what they thought about the resulting differential.

 

[amarkabove]

I've not submitted any 9 hole rounds since this rule went into affect. Almost all of my 9 hole rounds are solo so I"m not supposed to submit them anyway

People actually follow that no posting when solo rule?

 

[MWard]

People actually follow that no posting when solo rule?

Depends on the round. It would look fishy if I only posted a handful of rounds since they were with people, so I post it if I remember to. If I haven’t by the time I get home, I’ve probably already forgot what I shot and I’m not turning on my GPS to look.

 

[Johnny mojo]

I decided a long time ago not to post 9 hole scores when they came up with this nuttiness. Shout out and thanks to Canadan for the work around. It’s a great idea.

 

[Slowmo]

People actually follow that no posting when solo rule?

I don’t before but I will now if I only play 9. I do my best to keep an accurate score by the rules. My worst offense when playing alone is tossing down an extra ball, but I always score the original.

 

[That post]

I'd just wait and post them as an 18 hole score. Your handicap remains legitimate (or arguably more accurate) and you don't stress the nonsense.

I play 9 holes in the morning at least 4 to 5x a week in the season. This is what I'm going to do. It sucks, it's inconvenient, and I hate it. I have to figure out a way to unlink my Grint scoring app from the USGA so that they aren't automatically uploading all my 9 hole scores and getting them voodoo magic'd into 18 hole scores

Or I guess I could use paper scorecards and feel like we are in the 90s again. Maybe the nostalgia of using them will also allow me to score like I did back then.

 

[Canadan]

I decided a long time ago not to post 9 hole scores when they came up with this nuttiness. Shout out and thanks to Canadan for the work around. It’s a great idea.

I am here to belittle, downplay, and find loopholes to the dumbfuckery that is the USGA.

It is my pleasure to serve.

 

[Daddio]

Inventing a Score? AYFKM? Hypocritical, Unnecessary, Stupid. Saddest thing is I doubt it even sniffs the USGA's Top 10 Stupidest Decisions List.
The above might might sound harsh, but WHY? Eventually when actual 9 hole rounds got paired they were REAL scores at least?

 

[JohnnyO3478]

Inventing a Score? AYFKM? Hypocritical, Unnecessary, Stupid. Saddest thing is I doubt it even sniffs the USGA's Top 10 Stupidest Decisions List.
The above might might sound harsh, but WHY? Eventually when actual 9 hole rounds got paired they were REAL scores at least?

Full disclosure - I have no real dog in this hunt. I'm relatively new to the game and had no idea that the USGA was a common target for widespread animus. And it seems as though I may be the only golfer on the planet who has submitted a 9-hole score in 2024 .... Bizzare.

Anyway - for the sake of discussion and since you asked "why" - here are the reasons that the evil USGA has given for the change:

"What are the benefits of this change?​

The growing number of golfers who regularly play 9-hole rounds no longer have to wait for another 9-hole score for their Handicap Index to be updated.

In addition, it provides a better indicator of how a player will normally perform over 18 holes on a given day when compared to combining 9-hole scores from different days and under different playing conditions.

Finally, this new method produces a more consistent and comparable Handicap Index for golfers who post 9-hole scores. For example, under the previous method:

• Combining two independent 9-hole scores often resulted in more volatility and was highly dependent on the order in which scores are combined.
• It was also common for two good 9-hole scores to be combined that produce an 18-hole Score Differential that is better than any of the player’s 18-hole scores made over 18 consecutive holes. The impact was an artificially low Handicap Index."

The first point seems reasonable - it's a quicker update. Granted if it's bad information - do you really want it quicker? Not saying it's bad information - but if nobody ever submits 9 hole scores - we really will never know.

The second point also seems reasonable. Varying conditions seems to be, well a variable - perhaps an unnecessary one. I do not see an argurment against this. But it's not like I've never been accused of being obtuse.

The last point - "more consistent and comparable". This is where the rubber meets the road - and again they are either right or wrong about this and the only real way to know for sure is to collect some data. I already conceded that I'm susceptible to the aforementioned "tale of two nines" - so it seems reasonable that they added a higher differential for the 9 holes i didn't play rather than assume I'd keep playing the round of my life through 18 on the example I posted. That said - I can definitely see that there may be a good argument of where they are getting that back nine differential. Polling the community vs looking at the individual player's history. Again - time may tell.

Interestingly enough - with regard to the second bullet in the third point - I went back and looked at my qualifying scores for my index calculation. I still have two of my 8 that are combined 9-hole rounds from 2023. They are two of my lowest 4 differentials. So perhaps my index was artificially low and it was me who was the problem. If so, I apologize to the community for causing any disruption to the game ...

 

[Daddio]

No problems, no disruption, it was very good you brought this up, I was unaware. I'll admit I'm completely done with the USGA after recent interjections despite being as big proponent of them in the past. I actually scratched them a renewal check every year of my 19 year golf hiatus. Became more and more jaded after returning and seeing their elitist meddling first hand so my intial response was admittedly an angry personal rant. Thanks for your detailed response and bringing the subject up.

 

[JonD]

I'll be combining my 9s before I post them this year. Screw this ridiculous logic.

I'll be doing the same. I play a lot of 9 hole rounds in league and every once in a while I'll go pretty low. Taking a good, usually lucky 9 holes, and creating an 18 hole score out of it is beyond dumb IMO. I'd be more comfortable if they based my entire handicap on 9 hole rounds and just split it up when I play 18. At least it would be based on holes I've actually played.

 

[bkuehn1952]

Full disclosure - I have no real dog in this hunt. I'm relatively new to the game and had no idea that the USGA was a common target for widespread animus. And it seems as though I may be the only golfer on the planet who has submitted a 9-hole score in 2024 .... Bizzare.

Anyway - for the sake of discussion and since you asked "why" - here are the reasons that the evil USGA has given for the change:

"What are the benefits of this change?​

The growing number of golfers who regularly play 9-hole rounds no longer have to wait for another 9-hole score for their Handicap Index to be updated.

In addition, it provides a better indicator of how a player will normally perform over 18 holes on a given day when compared to combining 9-hole scores from different days and under different playing conditions.

Finally, this new method produces a more consistent and comparable Handicap Index for golfers who post 9-hole scores. For example, under the previous method:

• Combining two independent 9-hole scores often resulted in more volatility and was highly dependent on the order in which scores are combined.
• It was also common for two good 9-hole scores to be combined that produce an 18-hole Score Differential that is better than any of the player’s 18-hole scores made over 18 consecutive holes. The impact was an artificially low Handicap Index."

The first point seems reasonable - it's a quicker update. Granted if it's bad information - do you really want it quicker? Not saying it's bad information - but if nobody ever submits 9 hole scores - we really will never know.

The second point also seems reasonable. Varying conditions seems to be, well a variable - perhaps an unnecessary one. I do not see an argurment against this. But it's not like I've never been accused of being obtuse.

The last point - "more consistent and comparable". This is where the rubber meets the road - and again they are either right or wrong about this and the only real way to know for sure is to collect some data. I already conceded that I'm susceptible to the aforementioned "tale of two nines" - so it seems reasonable that they added a higher differential for the 9 holes i didn't play rather than assume I'd keep playing the round of my life through 18 on the example I posted. That said - I can definitely see that there may be a good argument of where they are getting that back nine differential. Polling the community vs looking at the individual player's history. Again - time may tell.

Interestingly enough - with regard to the second bullet in the third point - I went back and looked at my qualifying scores for my index calculation. I still have two of my 8 that are combined 9-hole rounds from 2023. They are two of my lowest 4 differentials. So perhaps my index was artificially low and it was me who was the problem. If so, I apologize to the community for causing any disruption to the game ...

Your handicap will properly reflect your potential under the World Handicap System. There is no reason for you to apologize for following the handicap rules of the WHS. I admit that while I tend to support the efforts of the USGA, the idea of projecting an 18 hole differential based on 9 holes seems a bit out there. I do not tend to play 9 but I will be interested to see how the system works when I do post 9 (or 13 or 15).

 

[Muchmore]

I was wondering when the first thread about this would come up. And I very much looked forward to @Canadan ’s post in here. It didn’t disappoint and I will be following your lead lol