USGA 9-Hole Scores, Thoughts?

[downeyjr]

I play a lot of 9 hole golf as I don't have a ton of time to play 18 and it allows me to get onto the course more than just once a week.

Have posted 2x so far (39, 40), course has a 35/124 rating on the front 9. Under the old system this would have been a 7.88 differential combined score but under the current system I've posted a 9.6 and a 8.5.

To me it seems like posting 9 holes has gone from a way to get a vanity handicap to a way to sandbag.

[SteveLo]

I personally don’t post my 9 hole scores. I feel like a lot can change on a “back 9”. At least for my skill set & experience.

[downeyjr]

I'm fairly consistent front and back, and if anything I'm usually better on the back 9. If I didn't post my 9's I wouldn't have a handicap lol.

Trying to play more tournaments this year so new posting rules could end up helping me out I guess, just thinking USGA will need to tweak their algorithm to get a fairer picture. Could be a me thing though as I usually just stroll to the first tee from my car and bypass any sort of practice.

[Golf2Much]

Overall, I think the new WHS deals with 9 hole scores (and for when only 10-17 holes are played) are a better solution than combining 9-hole rounds or relying on net double bogeys for missed holes.  The use of expected score for the holes not played is based on what the player is expected to score over a specific number of holes of standard difficulty using the player's handicap index and a normal distribution of scores.  It's not specific to any player.  The good news is that the math is "behind the curtain" and the average golfer doesn't have to worry about it.  

The new system helps provide more consistency in scoring.   In the past, you could play two nine-hole rounds over an extended time under completely different playing conditions.  Missed holes were assigned a net double bogey.   Does that better represent one's true demonstrated ability?  The new system also gives more flexibility, makes it easier for people just starting to establish a handicap and automates something that many would find confusing.  As someone who involved with my club's handicaps, it's amazing after four years some people still do not get the net double bogey maximum score for posting purposes.

As far as leading toward more sandbagging, the way that 9 hole scores or when 10-17 holes are completed will show up differently on a player's posted rounds.  I believe people will see (including the Handicap Committee) the number of holes played, the adjusted score for those holes along with the modified course rating, slope and adjusted differential for the estimated 18 hole round.  If there's something fishy going on with posting rounds with less than 18 holes completed, it should pop up and be easier to see.  

[downeyjr]

4 hours ago, Golf2Much said:

Missed holes were assigned a net double bogey. 

I think they were scored Net Par if you had to skip for a valid reason, which would be even worse. 

4 hours ago, Golf2Much said:

If there's something fishy going on with posting rounds with less than 18 holes completed, it should pop up and be easier to see.  

What I meant by sandbagging is that from what I've seen on my first couple of rounds posted of 9 holes, that even if I'm playing up to or a little bit better than my average, the differential from the 9 hole will not count. It is like auto-sandbagging if you play 9, and previously it was nearly a penalty (by lowering your handicap) to combine scores.

Just seems like they went from one extreme to maybe another, I think we may see some revisions to the differential calculations in a year or two for 9 and 10-17.

I have some tournaments coming up so not really complaining lol

[Golf2Much]

Yep, net par.   For some reason, I had net double on my mind.  

We're still in the early phases of this transition to the new methodology.  As more people post scores of 9-hole rounds, hopefully things will all level off and it will become less of an issue.  

[RoyF]

On 3/21/2024 at 7:43 PM, SteveLo said:

I personally don’t post my 9 hole scores. I feel like a lot can change on a “back 9”. At least for my skill set & experience.

The USGA requires that you post all rounds played, with a few exceptions, like scrambles, alternate shot, etc. Each 9 holes has its own rating, so the resulting affect on your handicap index is accurate (explained here and video here). Just something to consider...

While I don't agree with your decision, I admit that a rule I commonly violate is to use a different ball during a round. I might hit a Callaway Tour Soft on 1, lost it on 3 and pull a Titiest Pro V1 out of my bag. I never switch balls to putt or for a particular hole or shot, but I don't always stick to one specific ball during non-competition rounds. If a quality ball is on sale, I'll buy it. Now, during a tournament, I'm careful to use the same ball throughout.

Hmm, in looking up the USGA rule so I could reference it, I may have learned something. The One Ball Rule is actually Model Local Rule G-4 and it is a rule that Committees may choose to use, I didn't know that and I don't know if I've ever seen it stated for a tournament that the rule is being used, I just learned at some point that a One Ball Rule existed and thought it was a standard USGA rule. Perhaps I haven't been the habitual criminal that I thought I was.

Edited March 27 by RoyF

[Jonknowsgolf]

My first two 9 hole scores just posted last night from the men's league I play in. First impression is that they seem a little inflated. I am guessing that the algorithm will need some tweaking over time to get more accurate. I guess we're in the data collection phase now.

I like the idea, especially considering it never seemed like the combined scores gave a fair assessment of an 18 hole round. Playing conditions, course conditions and just day to day fluctuations in play had too much variation for 2 scores from different days, weeks, months, etc to give an accurate differential. It will be interesting to see how this new system works out. In the short run, I'm expecting some inflated handicaps..