Golf Course Ratings And Handicaps Are A Flawed Concept

[Denny100]

3 hours ago, jcook10 said:

Id like to stretch this take into what some have mentioned regarding long par 3s vs. 600y par 5s. Why is every long par 5 a top 3 handicapped hole but the 215y par 3 with water left is the 8th hardest relative to handicap. It doesn't make sense to me when thinking about difficulty of getting a GIR. 

 

Opinions?

 

I tend to think the same things, im just not very good at articulating them as well as others here.

 

Lets give an example:

 

Say you have a par 5 off the member tees, it plays lets say 500 yards (but you can use whatever number you want). Its on the borderline between can I reach in 2 or cant I, and its got water somewhere around the green.

 

Because this hole is 500 yards and its member tees, the course rating overall will be lower. So the natural inclination is to try and make a 4 on this hole. 5 is still a good score, but its birdieable.

 

Chances are if you play this hole and you DO go for the green, you will probably miss the green anyway. And if you do, you could be in the water which is dead, you could be chipping out of the rough, you dont really know where its going to end up. You know the general area it might go, i.e. away from the water perhaps, but it could be a really scabby lie.

 

OR, you dont try and hit the green, and you lay up anyway. In which case, its pointless that the hole is 500 yards, because you didnt try and hit the green.

 

If the hole all of a sudden becomes 600 yards, im definitely NOT going for the green. Im probably going into the green from maybe 130 away. OK..... but ill be most likely going into the green from the fairwary or the light rough, with a full swing, and ill almost certainly not be going in the water from 130 either, unless i totally fat it or hit a very bad pull/push etc.

 

So whilst im less likely to make a 4, im still quite likely to make a 5, and 5 becomes a better score because the course rating will be higher, and that hole in my eyes hasnt really become harder. You could argue its actually become EASIER, assuming you hit a good tee ball.

 

Either way, unlike the 215 yard par 3, ill manipulate the hole in such a way ill have a substantially shorter approach, i.e. a greenside chip or full short iron, than standing on the tee of a long par 3.

 

 

 

[deadsolid...shank]

On 4/18/2023 at 11:23 PM, StudentGolfer4 said:

Yes, it really does matter. All of the quantitative statistics show that golfers across the board are better the closer they are to the hole. It applies to every distance. Golfers are better from 150 yards than 200. Better from 80 yards than 100. Better from 30 yards than 50. Better from 8 ft than 10. (Everyone claims they are an outlier and are money from X distance. Yes outliers do exist, but not nearly as often as people will claim.) As a whole we know that when you are closer to the hole it takes fewer strokes on average to hole out. 
 

If no one else has done it by then, I’ll be happy to post the data tomorrow. 

To me, not being a stats person at all, this is where the stats don’t tell the complete story. Yes, I agree, we’re all better the closer we are. The question is how much?

 

Someone posted above that maybe that 20 yard difference in approach is worth  a tenth of a shot. Even if that were true on every hole, it adds up the less than two shots for 18. If the rating is two or more higher from the tips then it has done what the OP is saying. There are have been numerous discussions here about rating being tied way too closely to course length. Purely anecdotal, but I would guess that many here (if not most) have moved back a set of tees and really seen not much difference in score. But the difference in the differential could be pretty significant. I know one of the courses I used to play was 100% true for this. I always said if someone wanted to really lower their handicap, playing there, from the tips was the way. Rating was three higher than the regular tees, and it just didn’t play to that. Our home course a few years back, my group moved back to the tips. About 500 yards difference and I think about that three shots difference in rating again. It worked out well for our foursome,  but what we found was when moved into our bigger games with multiple groups, we started getting killed because the handicaps had dropped due the change in tees. 
 

I know, it purely anecdotal and based on how it worked for me. But reading some of the other posts here (and in other threads over the years), unless the added length brings in substantially more trouble off the tee, adding a few hundred yards likely isn’t going to drive scores up that much. 
 

I don’t know if I would use the word flawed necessarily, but the rating system does seem to use course length as too big of a factor. 

[StudentGolfer4]

@Denny100 @deadsolid...shank

First, I do agree that playing a set  back over a long enough period of time, say 20 rounds, will result in your index going down. I tracked my own for a couple of seasons and compared them by tees.
 

I usually play 6650. 

6900 (74.5/140) average index of all rounds was much higher but we only take the 8 good rounds. When 82 is a 5.5 index it’s easiest to get a low one in. There were a decent number in the 10-13 index range from here. 

6300 yards (72/132). Had a lot more index’s that were around 7-10 but very few high or low ones. 

6650 (73.5/136) my total index from all tees is currently 7.5

 

1. People commonly don’t realize the affect slope has on handicap calculations. Some courses are long but when the slope is still below 130 it really doesn’t matter as much. As the slope increased above that number that’s when I notice distance mattering more. 
 

2. When rating a course 250 is still used as the tee shot distance for a scratch player. I believe that number needs to be increased to 275 and distance wouldn’t be so heavily weighted. It may just be the guys I’m around and we skew on the younger side, but I don’t know anyone I play with under a 5 handicap that doesn’t consistently carry the driver 250+  

 

Denny, I think you’re underestimating how big of a difference distance can make. I’ve tried to find the chart showing average strokes to hole out split up into distance and handicap and it’s currently MIA. The difference between 50 yards or less and 130 yards like you used in your example with the par 5 would be significant. Let’s not forget that pros hit the green just under 80% from 130 yards so that’s not exactly a guaranteed par. 
 

Shotscope data suggests you have a 6-8% fewer chance to hit the green with each club more you have to take. (This was done with 9-4iron) Lets say you have a 50% chance to hit the green from 150 with a 9 iron. Move back to 170 with the 7 and now it’s a 35% chance. Thanks significant. 
 

Shank, this article may interest you a bit talking about distance and strokes. But like you said the answer is complicated and 10-20 yards here isn’t massive. And from some distances it’s almost non existent. https://datagolf.com/how-much-is-10-yards-worth

 

Below is also a chart that shows distance remaining to the hole split up by yards. I commonly reference it when my buddy starts complaining he has 20 ft after a 100 yard wedge shot and how that’s not good enough. 

 

[jibbs1082]

On 4/18/2023 at 5:48 PM, Denny100 said:

Hello Everyone.

 

The more I think about this, the more I think its in everyones interests from a HANDICAP perspective to play the furthest back tees you possibly can.

 

Fairly often, youll see a course where a set of back tees is installed, theyre often way back, and as a result the course rating goes up massively, sometimes to the point where these tees are +2 over par of the course, or 3-4 shots harder than the daily play tees.

 

So, off the daily tees, youre essentially forced to play better to achieve the same end result.

 

Now obviously I get that you SHOULD play better, because the holes are shorter.

 

However, does it really matter?

 

First of all, chances are when most players play the back tees, the trouble is pushed FURTHER away from them, so in reality their tee shots become easier. This is usually coupled with the fact that such courses can often be more open. Course length seems to be too highly weighted within the criteria for ranking difficulties, and often when you do hit bad shots, theres quite a lot of room to play with.

 

Then you have the scenario of WHERE on the course the length is added. If youve got a par 5, if  golfer cant reach in 2, he cant reach in 2. You could make that thing 600 yards, and realistically if he is a competent golfer, he will still have a short iron to the flag on his third shot.

 

If youve got a par 3 that starts life as a 170 yard hole from member tees and it suddenly becomes 190, i would speculate that golfers most of the time will be a long way from the pin regardless. So why not just be a long way from the pin on a higher course rating then?

 

Ultimately, if you have to up and down a ball, it doesnt matter what length the hole started out at. a 6 foot putt is a 6 foot putt for example.

 

I could definitely show examples of short, intricate courses where you would have to play and putt absurdly well to hold a good handicap there, yet there are numerous examples of long, bombers type courses that are ranked "harder" than the shorter courses due to length and in reality they arent, theres plenty of room to miss and the high course rating means you can shoot 3 or 4 strokes higher and achieve the same relative score.

 

I think its an obvious handicapping flaw to be honest.

 

What are your thoughts?

 

Interesting point, and I agree with you...

 

I hit the ball average to slightly above distance for my age/index - nothing special but maybe 265 carry. I find I almost always score the same (or better) from either the second to back, or back tee box. I am a 9-10 index. My issue is short game. I find that my differentials are much lower when I play back tees - like in the 6-8 range.

 

I would agree that longer courses (or tees) shouldn't necessarily have higher ratings. On the flip side, playing (for the simplistic sake of a normal course set up) whites/blues  usually has trouble in my landing zones (pinched fairways, fairway bunkers) - which is how the course is supposed to be set up (ie: hit a perfect drive, carry the trouble... slight mishit and you will find the trouble).

 

 

[betarhoalphadelta]

23 hours ago, vandyfan said:

I understand the logic, if not all the exact points, that the OP is putting out here. In my personal experience, putting lets me down the most. And I find that I typically shoot about the same score from 6,300 yds and I do from 6,000 yds if I am playing well but when I am scraping it around or can't hit my driver well on a given day...playing from 6,000 yds is much better because I can hit my hybrid on all the par 4s and still reach. 

 

Also, side note, I don't really want to make my handicap lower. I find it more fun to play shorter. And I always push back a little on when people say "driving is easier from farther back". That is true IF you are trying to hit driver from both sets of tees. If you are playing 40 yds up from the tips at the next set of tees, couldn't you just hit a hybrid to the same spot as where you would hit your driver from the tips? Isn't that easier? Like this example below (see picture), the white line is from the tips which is about a 280 yd drive (300+ will run into the water). The landing zone is about 50 yds wide with OB left and water right. The yellow line is from the standard members' tees and is about 225 yds (same landing zone obviously). Now, if you were forced to hit driver from the members' tees, you would be trying to fit it into that little alleyway of grass that is 25 yds wide. But why would you do that? By playing the up tees, you have to hit the same approach as the tips player, yes, but you have a much easier tee shot (provided you hit the correct club). I never understand this "it is easier from farther back", yes, I guess, if you have no course strategy knowledge AT ALL and just bang driver everywhere. 

 

 

IMHO holes like this are exactly what proves Denny's point. You're thinking about the tee ball, but perhaps more important is what happens to the approach shot.

 

On a wide open hole, if it's 410 from the back tees and 370 from the middle tees, and you drive it 250, that distance difference is important. Because if you play it from 410 you're left with 160 into the green and if you play it from 370, you're left with 120 into the green, a much higher probability shot to hit it closer. With proper rating, the 410 should be rated to account for that longer approach shot. 

 

But in your example, the water creates an ability to hit driver from the back tee but it's a forced layup from the forward tee. Meaning that although the hole will be RATED higher from the back tee, with a proper tee shot your approach shot will be the same distance, and thus the same difficulty. While hitting hybrid off the forward tee might be less dispersion than driver from the back tee, as long as you keep it in play your second shot will be of equal difficulty. 

 

If the rating for the hole overreacts to the distance difference, then the hole will play "easier" to rating hitting driver off the back tee than hitting hybrid off the middle tee. 

 

I know we've gone back and forth on this in the past, but this is why I choose tee selection not based on forward tee to make the course "easier", but playing the course at a natural distance that I should be hitting driver on the par 4 holes while still able to reach them all in two, as long as there are not features that push me to select a shorter club due to optimal landing areas/etc. And those usually only come into a play on a few holes, most often the shorter par 4s. 

 

I could play shorter tees, score better, but likely increase my handicap. Or I could play longer tees, score worse, but likely reduce my handicap. Instead I just try to play the course for my natural length. 

[vandyfan]

51 minutes ago, StudentGolfer4 said:

Shotscope data suggests you have a 6-8% fewer chance to hit the green with each club more you have to take. (This was done with 9-4iron) Lets say you have a 50% chance to hit the green from 150 with a 9 iron. Move back to 170 with the 7 and now it’s a 35% chance. Thanks significant. 

 

I don't doubt that but I think what was being referenced was the odds of dumping a shot in a hazard close to a green. I *think* my ability to avoid most hazards near a green is fairly good up to a 6 iron. Once we start getting into longer irons and hybrids, I rarely take those on. I know I miss greens with my 7 iron but rarely do I yank them or block them into a hazard (typically aim away from that stuff). 

[vandyfan]

2 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

But in your example, the water creates an ability to hit driver from the back tee but it's a forced layup from the forward tee. Meaning that although the hole will be RATED higher from the back tee, with a proper tee shot your approach shot will be the same distance, and thus the same difficulty. While hitting hybrid off the forward tee might be less dispersion than driver from the back tee, as long as you keep it in play your second shot will be of equal difficulty. 

 

If the rating for the hole overreacts to the distance difference, then the hole will play "easier" to rating hitting driver off the back tee than hitting hybrid off the middle tee. 

 

This is a good point. I think it comes down to where do you throw most of your shots away. To me, I am much more likely to go in the water off the tee here than I am on the approach. And it was actually hard to find a lot of holes like the one I showed here. What I was trying to prove what that it wasn't "easier" to drive from the back tees (even though on this particular hole, with the rating adjustment the back tees play relatively easier probably). 

 

5 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

You're thinking about the tee ball, but perhaps more important is what happens to the approach shot.

 

Correct. Most of the other holes at this course and others do not present this forced layup. I was just talking about where playing shorter takes the driver out of your hands in some cases but doesn't really make it HARDER off the tee. You have the same approach shot but, to me, a much easier tee shot where the hazards are more in play. Just my view point. Happy to disagree. 

[cardoustie]

23 hours ago, vandyfan said:

I understand the logic, if not all the exact points, that the OP is putting out here. In my personal experience, putting lets me down the most. And I find that I typically shoot about the same score from 6,300 yds and I do from 6,000 yds if I am playing well but when I am scraping it around or can't hit my driver well on a given day...playing from 6,000 yds is much better because I can hit my hybrid on all the par 4s and still reach. 

 

Also, side note, I don't really want to make my handicap lower. I find it more fun to play shorter. And I always push back a little on when people say "driving is easier from farther back". That is true IF you are trying to hit driver from both sets of tees. If you are playing 40 yds up from the tips at the next set of tees, couldn't you just hit a hybrid to the same spot as where you would hit your driver from the tips? Isn't that easier? Like this example below (see picture), the white line is from the tips which is about a 280 yd drive (300+ will run into the water). The landing zone is about 50 yds wide with OB left and water right. The yellow line is from the standard members' tees and is about 225 yds (same landing zone obviously). Now, if you were forced to hit driver from the members' tees, you would be trying to fit it into that little alleyway of grass that is 25 yds wide. But why would you do that? By playing the up tees, you have to hit the same approach as the tips player, yes, but you have a much easier tee shot (provided you hit the correct club). I never understand this "it is easier from farther back", yes, I guess, if you have no course strategy knowledge AT ALL and just bang driver everywhere. 

 

Most golfers hit driver straighter than 3 wood

[Drwoods2017]

For what it's worth most golf courses are designed from the tips.  That's how the course is meant to be played. Aesthetically most courses look better from those tees and maybe it makes things a little easier sight line wise.  I don't think increasing the yardage that you play gives you advantage for just one specific round but over time maybe.  Just in general I think playing the tips helps to lower your handicap but we all know thats a flawed system anyway.   Bottom line is play it wherever you like as long as you don't hold up play.  

[cardoustie]

10 hours ago, jcook10 said:

Id like to stretch this take into what some have mentioned regarding long par 3s vs. 600y par 5s. Why is every long par 5 a top 3 handicapped hole but the 215y par 3 with water left is the 8th hardest relative to handicap. It doesn't make sense to me when thinking about difficulty of getting a GIR. 

 

Opinions?

Because on par 5’s a bogey golfer will need the stroke to compete in a match against a scratch player …. 3 swings = more mistakes statistically 

 

it has nothing to do with how hard a hole is overall

[vandyfan]

11 minutes ago, cardoustie said:

Most golfers hit driver straighter than 3 wood

 

I agree. I don't even carry a 3W. In this example, the tee shot is 280 vs 225, for the same golfer that is probably a 2 club difference so maybe a 5W or a 3 Hybrid. Or even bunt a driver. Another way to say you have options from the up tee whereas it is YOU MUST HIT DRIVER from the tips. I like options and protecting my ego so I typically play from 6,000 yds (I am not saying this how anyone should play or that this is RIGHT or anything like that). I am not a good or competitive golfer. 

Edited April 20, 2023 by vandyfan

[cardoustie]

I agree with the OP almost 100% … because length is waaaaaaay too much of the factor in rating courses from location to location 

 

I am a member at a tight 6500 (blues) yard course with tough green complexes … and sloped fast greens … give me a match at my home club against another 2 from a neighbouring course that is 7200 and wide open, He will get crushed every time and he does (this is first hand experience) 
 

look at tour stops.  Narrow courses are hard for tour players … 7600 and wide open = easy peasy 

 

the caveat I find at my home club … where it’s all of the above as described in the 2nd paragraph …. Is the course is rated too low from 7000 (74.4) vs 6500 at 73.0.   The course is at least 4 shots harder from the tips as the par 3’s are way longer (over water … ie 215 vs 175) and two of the par 5’s become unreachable.  This is only true because it’s longer at a tight course with loads of trouble off the tee and carnage greenside

[StudentGolfer4]

14 minutes ago, Drwoods2017 said:

For what it's worth most golf courses are designed from the tips.  That's how the course is meant to be played. Aesthetically most courses look better from those tees and maybe it makes things a little easier sight line wise.  I don't think increasing the yardage that you play gives you advantage for just one specific round but over time maybe.  Just in general I think playing the tips helps to lower your handicap but we all know thats a flawed system anyway.   Bottom line is play it wherever you like as long as you don't hold up play.  

Are they? This isn’t something I have heard from many, if any, golf architects. It’s surely not something you will ever hear come from the mouth of Tom Doak. 
 

The fact that so many courses require significant walks back to the tips would seem to indicate the opposite to me. 
 

Sorry don’t mean to derail the thread but I had to ask. 

[betarhoalphadelta]

28 minutes ago, vandyfan said:

 

This is a good point. I think it comes down to where do you throw most of your shots away. To me, I am much more likely to go in the water off the tee here than I am on the approach. And it was actually hard to find a lot of holes like the one I showed here. What I was trying to prove what that it wasn't "easier" to drive from the back tees (even though on this particular hole, with the rating adjustment the back tees play relatively easier probably). 

 

 

Correct. Most of the other holes at this course and others do not present this forced layup. I was just talking about where playing shorter takes the driver out of your hands in some cases but doesn't really make it HARDER off the tee. You have the same approach shot but, to me, a much easier tee shot where the hazards are more in play. Just my view point. Happy to disagree. 

 

 

Yeah, and the course is definitely easier to score from the forward tees. That particular hole is harder because the water is in play down the right side of the landing area, so it's not just a question of "can I reach it". It's probably easier to find water with the dispersion pattern of driver than it would be with a hybrid. So in that case the tee shot is probably easier. 

 

My point is that if you're thinking your way strategically around a course, you're thinking about the windows that you want to hit your tee shot into. If moving up takes driver out of your hand more often than not to hit that window, leaving you with the same approach distance, the course may play easier (because of less dispersion on those tee shots), but play harder relative to rating. And if moving back means you can hit driver every hole without ever worrying about reaching trouble, it will play harder (because your approaches are longer) but it may play easier relative to rating. 

 

[jcook10]

29 minutes ago, cardoustie said:

Because on par 5’s a bogey golfer will need the stroke to compete in a match against a scratch player …. 3 swings = more mistakes statistically 

 

it has nothing to do with how hard a hole is overall

Ok. So the fact that its a par 5 simply means there's more statistical chance for error due to it being a longer hole requiring more shots which lowers handicap for a "bogey" golfer?

[Drwoods2017]

15 minutes ago, StudentGolfer4 said:

Are they? This isn’t something I have heard from many, if any, golf architects. It’s surely not something you will ever hear come from the mouth of Tom Doak. 
 

The fact that so many courses require significant walks back to the tips would seem to indicate the opposite to me. 
 

Sorry don’t mean to derail the thread but I had to ask. 

Most say to start at the green and work backwards. So when they are adding in tee boxes they don't just stop at say the one ups and then throw the back tee in wherever.  If you go check sightlines on a lot of courses the tips typically line up perfectly and the forward tees are added in based on that.

[StudentGolfer4]

1 hour ago, Drwoods2017 said:

Most say to start at the green and work backwards. So when they are adding in tee boxes they don't just stop at say the one ups and then throw the back tee in wherever.  If you go check sightlines on a lot of courses the tips typically line up perfectly and the forward tees are added in based on that.

I’m familiar with starting at the green and working backwards. It could just be what I’m seeing in the Midwest but that is not at all my experience. A lot of courses require the player to work the ball off the back tee boxes if they want a better chance to hit the fairway despite the angle from the other boxes being straightforward. In other words, the sight lines and hole movement have been altered in search for distance. 

 

We will agree to disagree on this one. I don’t think a course was designed to play best from any specific tee box. Architects lay out tee boxes to try to best meet the needs of an impossibly large set of golfers, not the ones that will be playing from the back tees. 

[golfortennis]

On 4/19/2023 at 1:23 AM, StudentGolfer4 said:

Yes, it really does matter. All of the quantitative statistics show that golfers across the board are better the closer they are to the hole. It applies to every distance. Golfers are better from 150 yards than 200. Better from 80 yards than 100. Better from 30 yards than 50. Better from 8 ft than 10. (Everyone claims they are an outlier and are money from X distance. Yes outliers do exist, but not nearly as often as people will claim.) As a whole we know that when you are closer to the hole it takes fewer strokes on average to hole out. 
 

If no one else has done it by then, I’ll be happy to post the data tomorrow. 

 

This is wrx.  We're all outliers.  Since you have to drive it 350 to be here, nothing applies to us.

 

Especially if you're a CEO.

[ChaosTheory]

3 hours ago, jcook10 said:

Ok. So the fact that its a par 5 simply means there's more statistical chance for error due to it being a longer hole requiring more shots which lowers handicap for a "bogey" golfer?

Yes to the first part at least.

[jcook10]

6 minutes ago, Snowman9000 said:

Yes to the first part at least.

I'm just at a loss to understand. I may lack the intellectual capacity to grasp this. I hate making the general statements of "I feel like most golfers I play with etc etc etc" but I have played so much golf with people from all walks of life and skill level and I feel like I've seen more scores higher in relation to par on long par 3s than 550+y par fives. Does that statement not have any impact on "handicapping" a hole? Score does not equal to difficulty/handicap??

[DaveLeeNC]

15 hours ago, Chanceman said:

Being an “older” golfer my distance off the tee is much less than past days so I always come up short of the green.  But my short game is par excellence even if I do say so. So whether I am 50 yards away or 80 yards makes little difference to me. Hence I agree with the OP. 

Maybe that is correct for @Chanceman. But I find it absolutely astounding and I would bet a large sum of money that the statement is incorrect. But I could be wrong.

 

Back in the day I spent a lot of time on my shots inside 60-70 yards. Closer is better for me and every golfer that I have ever seen (other than those who have special problems like yippy chipping motions, etc). 

 

dave

[DaveLeeNC]

35 minutes ago, jcook10 said:

I've seen more scores higher in relation to par on long par 3s than 550+y par fives. Does that statement not have any impact on "handicapping" a hole? Score does not equal to difficulty/handicap??

 

There are two ways to do hole handicapping. 

 

1) The #1 handicap hole is the hole with the largest scoring difference between low and high handicap golfers. 

 

2) The #1 handicap hole is the hole that (across all golfers) yields the highest average score vs. par. 

 

These two approaches yield different results. I recall one time doing hole handicapping and one hole came out hole handicap #1 using approach 1) and #12 using approach 2). A low handicap golfer saw a hole with a reasonably generous driver  landing area and a short iron or wedge to the green. The high handicap golfer saw a hole with some trouble in his (I was doing handicapping for the men's tees) landing area, he was on an upslope for his second shot (probably with a fairway wood or longer hybrid), and he has a difficult/small landing area short of the green with a runoff into water if he is short and right. 

 

So this is an easy hole for the scratch golfer and pretty darn tough for the high handicapper. HUGE difference in scoring between the two groups but the average of the two groups is kind of middle of the road. 

 

dave

[ThinkingPlus]

2 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

There are two ways to do hole handicapping. 

 

1) The #1 handicap hole is the hole with the largest scoring difference between low and high handicap golfers. 

 

2) The #1 handicap hole is the hole that (across all golfers) yields the highest average score vs. par. 

 

These two approaches yield different results. I recall one time doing hole handicapping and one hole came out hole handicap #1 using approach 1) and #12 using approach 2). A low handicap golfer saw a hole with a reasonably generous driver  landing area and a short iron or wedge to the green. The high handicap golfer saw a hole with some trouble in his (I was doing handicapping for the men's tees) landing area, he was on an upslope for his second shot (probably with a fairway wood or longer hybrid), and he has a difficult/small landing area short of the green with a runoff into water if he is short and right. 

 

So this is an easy hole for the scratch golfer and pretty darn tough for the high handicapper. HUGE difference in scoring between the two groups but the average of the two groups is kind of middle of the road. 

 

dave

I think the USGA is making #2 approach above the default starting next year. I am guessing clubs can request #1 in addition, but #2 will be used for most situations because of the impact on handicaps of NDB. Also match play isn't as popular a form of play as it used to be.

[ChaosTheory]

1 hour ago, jcook10 said:

I'm just at a loss to understand. I may lack the intellectual capacity to grasp this. I hate making the general statements of "I feel like most golfers I play with etc etc etc" but I have played so much golf with people from all walks of life and skill level and I feel like I've seen more scores higher in relation to par on long par 3s than 550+y par fives. Does that statement not have any impact on "handicapping" a hole? Score does not equal to difficulty/handicap??

 

Yeah I can also only offer anecdotes.  I play with a lot of high handicap seniors.  I notice that once they hit a bad shot on a par 5, it starts a death spiral.  Sometimes it feels like the group is never going to finish the hole.

[DaveLeeNC]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I think the USGA is making #2 approach above the default starting next year. I am guessing clubs can request #1 in addition, but #2 will be used for most situations because of the impact on handicaps of NDB. Also match play isn't as popular a form of play as it used to be.

I strongly favor such a move. Additionally I would like to see the ratings teams supply the hole handicap order (using both the stroke and match play approaches and the data generated by the rating process) to the club to use at their discretion. 

 

dave

Edited April 20, 2023 by DaveLeeNC

[jcook10]

24 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

I strongly favor such a move. Additionally I would like to see the ratings teams supply the hole handicap order (using both the stroke and match play approaches and the data generated by the rating process) to the club to use at their discretion. 

 

dave

Wouldn’t this move favor my theory of long par 3s being rated more difficult due to the aggregate score relative to par being higher due to the fact that a low handicap can birdie a long 5 more likely than than they birdie a long par 3? Bringing down the relative score to par down for the par 5s. 

[klebs01]

1 hour ago, ThinkingPlus said:

I think the USGA is making #2 approach above the default starting next year. I am guessing clubs can request #1 in addition, but #2 will be used for most situations because of the impact on handicaps of NDB. Also match play isn't as popular a form of play as it used to be.

That must me a regional thing. Match play is the norm and stroke play rare in the upper Midwest.  

[ThinkingPlus]

12 minutes ago, klebs01 said:

That must me a regional thing. Match play is the norm and stroke play rare in the upper Midwest.  

Maybe. Played all my golf in the West, Southwest, South, and Southeast. Very little match play.  I play one match play tournament a year and never play match play casually.

[cardoustie]

If I am a 15 cap in a match against a scratch you want strokes on par 5’s

[klebs01]

3 hours ago, ThinkingPlus said:

Maybe. Played all my golf in the West, Southwest, South, and Southeast. Very little match play.  I play one match play tournament a year and never play match play casually.

I play an average of 2 rounds of stroke play a year and 50+ of match play. This has been consistent across multiple clubs. All club events other than some group hit and giggle events are match play.