ThinkingPlus

The average elevation of the course is closer to 1500 ft (I did a search on Evian-Les-Bains course elevation). The elevation helps a couple of percent maybe. They play at different lengths each day. Given the good final round scores it wouldn't surprise me if it played on the short side.

LPGA touring pros would have men's handicap indices between +1 and maybe as high as +3. At the very bottom you might have some just slightly plus, but highly unlikely they will be scratch or worse (they couldn't keep a card). PGAT players hover between +6 and +9. Once again, much worse than +6 and they will be struggling to keep a card.

Gender based handicaps have been around long before you spent your time in Vietnam (thank you for your service). A +7.8 D1 woman would never claim to be better than a PGAT player. She will, however, be very competitive with a men's scratch to +1. There is roughly a 6 - 7 stroke difference between men's indices and women's.

I'm sure you realize that there is a difference between handicap indices of men and women. You are just trying to be sarcastic or something?

One other tiny note is the golf course sits at about 1500 feet above MSL. So the ladies were getting a few percent help on distance.

Fortunately you are being paid, so what's a little mental anguish...LOL

Yes, although a little uphill on approach to the green I think.

Gotterup GotRdone!

Both players had between 185 and 195 yards into the last on the 2nd playoff hole. Grace Kim hit a hybrid to 12' and Geeno blew her 6 iron just over the green left of the pin.

In theory they have to put changes in place and then points begin to be awarded a year later. The OWGR committee might waive the wait time, but that would be an exception to existing policy.

Tough news. Sorry to hear, especially at such young ages.

You underestimate the considerable arrogance of the USGA...

And the 6 iron was too much club. She needed to hit a big 7 or a 3 finger 6. First time thru in the playoff was understandable, but she needed to adjust on the 2nd go and didn't. C'est la vie...

Uh, do quoted reply to Monte's post so he gets notified.

If you want to get a response it is better to use "Quote" method to reply to a post as I have done here. You can also ping a member directly using "@" followed by member name using the pull-down menu like @MonteScheinblum.

Gotterup GetRdone because it's fun to say Gotterup GetRdone...

Sad. Thank you for the information. Greatly appreciated.

My understanding is that most OEMs give "effective" bounce, but I don't know that for sure or if some give actual bounce instead. They should provide both numbers because they are useful in different ways. Effective bounce (and grind) indicates how the wedge will play for short game shots. Actual bounce provides a minimum shaft lean for full shots if you don't want bounce interaction with the turf.

We might get a couple weeks of colder, wetter than you would like weather in the "winter" here. For the most part October to April is generally pretty nice except we get wind all year.

Yes. I understand that these new wedges have some kind of bounce values provided. The previous version of the wedges did not. David Edel didn't allow bounce values to be published. Also, it is important to know whether the bounce values are "effective" or actual bounce.

Are the bounce numbers actual or "effective"? I was always irritated by the lack of bounce values of any kind in the specs.

That's really good. It gives you a fighting chance of staying hydrated.