USGA Course Rating Definitions - Need Refinement?

[golfinFF]

So should those short guys on tour just give up from the get go? I mean why bother if there is someone who can hit it 50 yards past you all the time?

Professional or not, distance is distance. You are comparing golfers of the same level (handicap wise), whether it's +handicaps against +handicaps or bogey golfer versus bogey golfer. Certain courses will always cater to certain golfers, that's the great thing about golf in my opinion.

Even the short guys built their plus HC at those distances not 600+ in front of them.

They are playing in the tourneys even if they can't win cause they are still collecting a check to play.

Even the short guys on tour can carry the trouble off the tee and reach every green in reg. which is not the case for the 200yd driver when moved back 600 yds

 

[arydolphin]

It doesn't have to. That's why course designers make so much money and courses have multiple tee boxes.

It all depends if they are teeing it forward or not, but that's for another thread.

Are you trying to argue that distance isn't an advantage in golf?

 

[blugold]

Are you trying to argue that distance isn't an advantage in golf?

Nope. It most definitely is, from the same tee box.

 

[Canadan]

Are you trying to argue that distance isn't an advantage in golf?

In a handicapped format, with players utilizing their proper tee boxes based on the tee it forward chart, it is no longer an advantage.

Step away from that medium, and it absolutely becomes an advantage for the longer hitter.

 

[Golf 'N Gator]

Are you trying to argue that distance isn't an advantage in golf?

It is, but only if you can control the distance, which most can't. Like I've said before, my brother in law outdrives me between 50 & 75 yards on all par 5's and many par 4's and rarely beats me. He hits the driver a mile, but hits less than 30% of the FW's. I can be in the FW while he is 50/60/70 yards longer, but 40 yards right or left in ankle deep rough. I hit more GIR to him 4 to 1. I'll take my accuracy.

John Daly lead the tour in driving distance for years on end and never won an event in those years.......

 

[darnall]

I've had white lightning in a bottle. is that the same thing?

You had it in a bottle??? Sweet...mine was always in a damn mason jar

 

[blugold]

You had it in a bottle??? Sweet...mine was always in a damn mason jar

A bottle is just a jar with a different shape.

 

[rollin]

Wow!, ya leave this thread for a few hours and pages are added lol.
I'm going to bring up a possible answer to the problem canadan brings to light. I touched on this earlier and after some more thought I think I might have something. Unless of course I am overthinking and passing right over an easy obvious thing which will negate my entire thought here. lol But I will try anyway

The main topic here is that a shorter hitter cant compete in a long tee event with the cap he established at his shorter tees because its not enough of a cap to make up for the distance. Basically he would lose far more strokes than what his cap allows.

So with that in mind I would bring up the possibility that his cap from the shorter tees is not correct and here is why and what I mean. The problem may be in the course rating itself. Of course we know the rating and slope are used for calculating ones HC. The course/tee rating (I am to believe) is what they determine a scratch player would shoot from those tees. Perhaps the rating is just not correct. I will use my home course as an example. It is rated at 73.8 from the longest 7050 tees and rated 68.3 from the short 5800 tees. 1250 yards difference. They are basically saying the scratch player would play only 5 strokes better from those forward tees. But I would say (based on my course) that is wrong and they could actually shoot as much as 12 or 13 strokes better. Read on before shaking your head

They would easily reach all its par5's in two. that's 4 strokes right there. Than the (now very short par 3's) would leave them with makeable one-putts. that's another 2 to possibly 4 strokes. Than there are at least 3 (already shorter holes and now even shorter) that would be drivable. (remember we are talking scratch player) that's another 2 possibly 3 strokes. Than there are another 3 possibly 4 holes where they would be left with a short pitch or chip into the greens from close in due to the doglegs becoming non existent for them playing from those tees. That leads to great one-putt chances and yet another 2 to possibly 4 strokes. There is a real chance (at my course) he can shoot 13 or 14 strokes better from those tees 1250 yrds closer. But even to make this much more practical and also give benefit of doubt for being less than perfect its still very realistic to easily be 9 or 10 strokes better and imo expected. So they are saying the scratch player will only be 5 strokes better at these tees vs the longer ones (rated 73.8) yet the way I see it there is no way he wouldn't be at least 9 or even 10 better (almost twice the amount of strokes better than what they rated).

The rating (as we know) is used in the cap formula so for that shorter hitter who established his cap form the those forward tees, he (provided they rated the tees at the 63.4) would now have a higher cap and perhaps a much more justified one. And he would of course then also have a few more strokes in the bank when he moves back for a longer tee event. It never did quite make sense to me that if one can not maintain (lets say) a 7 cap from the longer tees, than why should he be a 7cap from shorter ones? Lets say I were hypothetically a 7cap established from the rear. Lets say I began to struggle with my game or became shorter and shorter for whatever the reason and my cap was falling towards 12 and I had to move to those forward tees. So then all of a sudden I am a 7cap again? That is just not right imo unless I improved. But I didn't get better, I actually got worse and they simply made the course shorter for me. How can you hand me a chunk of the golf course and still leave me to claim that I am a 7 cap? I would and should now be a 12 cap. Shortening my course made it more fun and more practical for me but didn't imo make me better. Sure I can improve my game in other ways and then possibly lower my cap deservingly so. But it should not imo be lower again just because my course was shortened.

Conversely if a 7capper wasn't having any issues and moved forward anyway and established a cap from there. He would drop his cap at least a few because of the same improper rating. But with the proper (via my crazy logic) rating he would instead still be a 7 or at least very close to it. So here too it makes better sense.

Getting back to the rating and me hypotheically being a 7cap who had to move forward due to struggles, if the rating were done more properly as described (at my course) I would indeed have a 12 cap and not still the 7. Its imo what is more truly reflective of my play. And then of course when moving back for an event I would have some more strokes (which would also be proper).

So there we go the flaw lies in the fact that they are not giving enough credit for what the scratch player would do from my forward tees and as a result they are not rating them properly. They only anticipate a 5 stroke difference between the tees when its clearly more than that. Fix that rating number and in turn it helps (via the HC formula) to put out a better suited and more proper cap and in turn this problem is not as big

OK, now all my fellow THPers jump on and kill me for this mistake
I overlooked or forgot something simple and my entire post is worthless waste of time? lol I hope not, what say you? Do I have anything at all with this? I'm trying. An "A" for effort.

 

[Mulligan9111]

Wow!, ya leave this thread for a few hours and pages are added lol.
I'm going to bring up a possible answer to the problem canadan brings to light. I touched on this earlier and after some more thought I think I might have something. Unless of course I am overthinking and passing right over an easy obvious thing which will negate my entire thought here. lol But I will try anyway

The main topic here is that a shorter hitter cant compete in a long tee event with the cap he established at his shorter tees because its not enough of a cap to make up for the distance. Basically he would lose far more strokes than what his cap allows.

So with that in mind I would bring up the possibility that his cap from the shorter tees is not correct and here is why and what I mean. The problem may be in the course rating itself. Of course we know the rating and slope are used for calculating ones HC. The course/tee rating (I am to believe) is what they determine a scratch player would shoot from those tees. Perhaps the rating is just not correct. I will use my home course as an example. It is rated at 73.8 from the longest 7050 tees and rated 68.3 from the short 5800 tees. 1250 yards difference. They are basically saying the scratch player would play only 5 strokes better from those forward tees. But I would say (based on my course) that is wrong and they could actually shoot as much as 12 or 13 strokes better. Read on before shaking your head

They would easily reach all its par5's in two. that's 4 strokes right there. Than the (now very short par 3's) would leave them with makeable one-putts. that's another 2 to possibly 4 strokes. Than there are at least 3 (already shorter holes and now even shorter) that would be drivable. (remember we are talking scratch player) that's another 2 possibly 3 strokes. Than there are another 3 possibly 4 holes where they would be left with a short pitch or chip into the greens from close in due to the doglegs becoming non existent for them playing from those tees. That leads to great one-putt chances and yet another 2 to possibly 4 strokes. There is a real chance (at my course) he can shoot 13 or 14 strokes better from those tees 1250 yrds closer. But even to make this much more practical and also give benefit of doubt for being less than perfect its still very realistic to easily be 9 or 10 strokes better and imo expected. So they are saying the scratch player will only be 5 strokes better at these tees vs the longer ones (rated 73.8) yet the way I see it there is no way he wouldn't be at least 9 or even 10 better (almost twice the amount of strokes better than what they rated).

The rating (as we know) is used in the cap formula so for that shorter hitter who established his cap form the those forward tees, he (provided they rated the tees at the 63.4) would now have a higher cap and perhaps a much more justified one. And he would of course then also have a few more strokes in the bank when he moves back for a longer tee event. It never did quite make sense to me that if one can not maintain (lets say) a 7 cap from the longer tees, than why should he be a 7cap from shorter ones? Lets say I were hypothetically a 7cap established from the rear. Lets say I began to struggle with my game or became shorter and shorter for whatever the reason and my cap was falling towards 12 and I had to move to those forward tees. So then all of a sudden I am a 7cap again? That is just not right imo unless I improved. But I didn't get better, I actually got worse and they simply made the course shorter for me. How can you hand me a chunk of the golf course and still leave me to claim that I am a 7 cap? I would and should now be a 12 cap. Shortening my course made it more fun and more practical for me but didn't imo make me better. Sure I can improve my game in other ways and then possibly lower my cap deservingly so. But it should not imo be lower again just because my course was shortened.

Conversely if a 7capper wasn't having any issues and moved forward anyway and established a cap from there. He would drop his cap at least a few because of the same improper rating. But with the proper (via my crazy logic) rating he would instead still be a 7 or at least very close to it. So here too it makes better sense.

Getting back to the rating and me hypotheically being a 7cap who had to move forward due to struggles, if the rating were done more properly as described (at my course) I would indeed have a 12 cap and not still the 7. Its imo what is more truly reflective of my play. And then of course when moving back for an event I would have some more strokes (which would also be proper).

So there we go the flaw lies in the fact that they are not giving enough credit for what the scratch player would do from my forward tees and as a result they are not rating them properly. They only anticipate a 5 stroke difference between the tees when its clearly more than that. Fix that rating number and in turn it helps (via the HC formula) to put out a better suited and more proper cap and in turn this problem is not as big

OK, now all my fellow THPers jump on and kill me for this mistake
I overlooked or forgot something simple and my entire post is worthless waste of time? lol I hope not, what say you? Do I have anything at all with this? I'm trying. An "A" for effort.

I think you are putting scratch golfers on a ridiculously high pedestal. I think a scratch golfer would shave maybe 5 strokes off their score, if that, going from 6700 down to 5700. Scoring (in my opinion anyways) still happens from 125 yards and in, and putting usually accounts for at least 1/3 of total strokes. To assume that a scratch golfer is just going to start 1 putting almost every green simply because they moved tee boxes from 6700 to 5700 is a little bold of a prediction in my opinion. Also, unless the par 4 is 220 yards (even then a lot of par 3's that are 200+ don't have the highest GIR %), do you really think it's that easy to drive a par 4 that's 250+ yards? Shorter doesn't always mean ridiculously easy.

 

[Tedfroop]

Okay, fair enough, but they are relying on one incredibly flawed concept: Not ALL scratch golfers hit the 250 yards, and not ALL bogey golfers hit the ball 200 yards! They have been pushing this "Tee it forward" initiative for some time now, which I am STRONG proponent of, however it destroys handicaps for golfers who opt to play the correct set of tee boxes with regards to moving back a tee box.

We're missing a huge metric here. Take my dad for example. He's built his 15 handicap from a tee box too far back, and the differential between him playing our tournament tees and our 'green' or 'senior' tees, or even the new green/gold combination tees is not accurately adjusted in his improved results. Playing from the green tees, he's easily competing with the single digits, despite the course rating only removing one, maybe two strokes from his handicap.

Why then, can we factor our regular scores into our handicap definition, but not our regular carry distance with a driver? Sure, there's going to be a gap with people who genuinely don't know how far they hit the ball, but if we're talking about an OFFICIAL handicap, I see no reason to limit the definitions to something as ridiculous as making the claim that a scratch golfer hits it "X" yards - And even if that were the case, they have my dad nearly pegged as a bogey golfer (he might carry it 210) - Yet their defined logic claims he only needs an extra 1-2 strokes against a "scratch" golfer moving back nearly 1,000 yards. I feel like other examples are those who struggle to 'travel' with their handicap.

Is it really that impossible to create a functioning handicap system based on realistic score variance between tee boxes. Sure, it works just fine for me, but I've been told I'm in a rather small percentage of golfers in terms of carry distance. Why am I being catered to?

Your fist concept is a bit flawed. When I go to play a course I have never played before and go to get my factor for that course I choose the tees I will be playing when I get my factor. So yes it does take the tee box into account.

The USGA numbers are based on millions of samples and are averages that are constantly updated. They are updated into the rating system about every 4 years but work is in progress to change that. Because this was mostly a paper based system it meant there was no room for averages to change rapidly as the new course rating info would have to be rolled out to the raters all at the same time.
This also means that with any significant changes to any part of the rating system the course would have to be re-rated to be updated.

That is changing as the computerized database is being built up with course ratings being added and updated. I know one of our association raters was simply entering the rating data and finding ratings were changing 2 to 5 points just based on the computer doing the calculations vs. a human doing them n a worksheet. This also means that most of the complex changes can be done in the background and the raters just need to do their work looking at the landing areas as specified instead of the one specified years ago.

What this also means is that as the USGA averages change the course rating can be updated likely without re-rating which should help keep things more current. Last but not least this also means changes in the how of rating can be made more often and the raters will have less to do.

Just FYI most course raters are trained volunteers from USGA/ R&A /Golf Canada without whom there would likely be very few course ratings done.

 

[Canadan]

Your fist concept is a bit flawed. When I go to play a course I have never played before and go to get my factor for that course I choose the tees I will be playing when I get my factor. So yes it does take the tee box into account.

The USGA numbers are based on millions of samples and are averages that are constantly updated. They are updated into the rating system about every 4 years but work is in progress to change that. Because this was mostly a paper based system it meant there was no room for averages to change rapidly as the new course rating info would have to be rolled out to the raters all at the same time.
This also means that with any significant changes to any part of the rating system the course would have to be re-rated to be updated.

That is changing as the computerized database is being built up with course ratings being added and updated. I know one of our association raters was simply entering the rating data and finding ratings were changing 2 to 5 points just based on the computer doing the calculations vs. a human doing them n a worksheet. This also means that most of the complex changes can be done in the background and the raters just need to do their work looking at the landing areas as specified instead of the one specified years ago.

What this also means is that as the USGA averages change the course rating can be updated likely without re-rating which should help keep things more current. Last but not least this also means changes in the how of rating can be made more often and the raters will have less to do.

Just FYI most course raters are trained volunteers from USGA/ R&A /Golf Canada without whom there would likely be very few course ratings done.

What concept was flawed? That not all golfers should be grouped based on handicap with regards to distance hit? That's not really a make or break for me dude. I'm talking about the score variation between tee it forward ideal (for any golfer) and tees moving backward from there. The game gets notably harder, yet an established handicap for that individual does not accommodate for the transition.

 

[Canadan]

I think you are putting scratch golfers on a ridiculously high pedestal. I think a scratch golfer would shave maybe 5 strokes off their score, if that, going from 6700 down to 5700. Scoring (in my opinion anyways) still happens from 125 yards and in, and putting usually accounts for at least 1/3 of total strokes. To assume that a scratch golfer is just going to start 1 putting almost every green simply because they moved tee boxes from 6700 to 5700 is a little bold of a prediction in my opinion. Also, unless the par 4 is 220 yards (even then a lot of par 3's that are 200+ don't have the highest GIR %), do you really think it's that easy to drive a par 4 that's 250+ yards? Shorter doesn't always mean ridiculously easy.

I can attest to this. I've moved back and forth on my course out of sheer entertainment and my scores don't get wildly better from way forward. I think the system as it works now is fine for me, building my handicap at the proper tee length (based on tee it foward) and moving up from there. It's moving back beyond my tee it forward threshold that ruins everything about the system.

 

[rollin]

I think you are putting scratch golfers on a ridiculously high pedestal. I think a scratch golfer would shave maybe 5 strokes off their score, if that, going from 6700 down to 5700. Scoring (in my opinion anyways) still happens from 125 yards and in, and putting usually accounts for at least 1/3 of total strokes. To assume that a scratch golfer is just going to start 1 putting almost every green simply because they moved tee boxes from 6700 to 5700 is a little bold of a prediction in my opinion. Also, unless the par 4 is 220 yards (even then a lot of par 3's that are 200+ don't have the highest GIR %), do you really think it's that easy to drive a par 4 that's 250+ yards? Shorter doesn't always mean ridiculously easy.

I did give some consideration to what you mention and there are a few things I can point out.
Firstly, yardage diff is (at the specific course I used) is 1250 and is 7050 down to 5800. That is quite significant.
Then (knowing my course well) and how I play it from my middle 6450 tees I know very well what my good drives can offer me and so can honestly figure what a scratch player who is not only longer but much more consistent can do especially when from the tees in front of mine.
I think I was being fairly realistic. I did mention that I believe saving 13 or 14 strokes would be an obtainable possibility, but I also noted to play it safe, be more practical about it and give benefit of doubt I used 9 or 10 as the more fitting number. I do honestly believe that is not at all far fetched for the scratch player but probably where he would actually be. My course is mostly all doglegs and fairly wide fairways. Move a scratch player up 1200 yards and I believe saving 9 strokes would be expected. The 13 or 14 strokes would be pushing it and perhaps giving him too much credit but not the 9 or 10 imo. I think thats very real. But its just opinion and when you think about it, so is what they are saying he would do. I just dont think they were correct. And I may not be so very correct with all this but I can at least make the argument. But all this fwiw does only reflect and is based off my one home course and its ratings. It may be very different at other courses.

 

[Tedfroop]

What concept was flawed? That not all golfers should be grouped based on handicap with regards to distance hit? That's not really a make or break for me dude. I'm talking about the score variation between tee it forward ideal (for any golfer) and tees moving backward from there. The game gets notably harder, yet an established handicap for that individual does not accommodate for the transition.

The only huge variation should be when you go back to a tee where you reduce your chance of hitting the green in regulation. Apart from that there should not be a huge variation in score from any tee forward of your usual tee.

 

[tahoebum]

I can attest to this. I've moved back and forth on my course out of sheer entertainment and my scores don't get wildly better from way forward. I think the system as it works now is fine for me, building my handicap at the proper tee length (based on tee it foward) and moving up from there. It's moving back beyond my tee it forward threshold that ruins everything about the system.

My index doesn't change at all when I play tees ranging from 6156 to 6960 at my home course. The 6156 tees are 4.5 strokes easier than the back tees and I've shot 4 or 5 strokes under my average score the few times I've played those tees. It gets a little boring from that yardage because every par 4 is one of my 4 wedges for an approach. Most of my rounds are played from the 6640 tees which have a 2.0 lower rating than the back tees and play exactly 2 strokes easier for me. One year I played 60% of my rounds from the back tees and my index didn't change at all. My limit where I start to struggle is at about 7150 yards but I really enjoy the challenge when I get the chance once every few years to play a 7150+ yard course.

 

[Canadan]

My index doesn't change at all when I play tees ranging from 6156 to 6960 at my home course. The 6156 tees are 4.5 strokes easier than the back tees and I've shot 4 or 5 strokes under my average score the few times I've played those tees. It gets a little boring from that yardage because every par 4 is one of my 4 wedges for an approach. Most of my rounds are played from the 6640 tees which have a 2.0 lower rating than the back tees and play exactly 2 strokes easier for me. One year I played 60% of my rounds from the back tees and my index didn't change at all. My limit where I start to struggle is at about 7150 yards but I really enjoy the challenge when I get the chance once every few years to play a 7150+ yard course.

How far do you drive the golf ball?

 

[Canadan]

The only huge variation should be when you go back to a tee where you reduce your chance of hitting the green in regulation. Apart from that there should not be a huge variation in score from any tee forward of your usual tee.

And I agree with that. However if my established handicap from 6,500 yards is a 2, and I go play a friendly game with my friends at a course that has a 7,500 yard tee, my handicap either remains a 2, or moves up to a maximum of 3 (depending on the course). I used this example yesterday. Being that I am now well outside my ability to comfortably hit greens in regulation, how is the handicap system working for me?

 

[sparksjr]

And I agree with that. However if my established handicap from 6,500 yards is a 2, and I go play a friendly game with my friends at a course that has a 7,500 yard tee, my handicap either remains a 2, or moves up to a maximum of 3 (depending on the course). I used this example yesterday. Being that I am now well outside my ability to comfortably hit greens in regulation, how is the handicap system working for me?

Just curious but why would you play at 7500 yards? If that's 1000 yards more than you are used to?

 

[Mulligan9111]

I did give some consideration to what you mention and there are a few things I can point out.
Firstly, yardage diff is (at the specific course I used) is 1250 and is 7050 down to 5800. That is quite significant.
Then (knowing my course well) and how I play it from my middle 6450 tees I know very well what my good drives can offer me and so can honestly figure what a scratch player who is not only longer but much more consistent can do especially when from the tees in front of mine.
I think I was being fairly realistic. I did mention that I believe saving 13 or 14 strokes would be an obtainable possibility, but I also noted to play it safe, be more practical about it and give benefit of doubt I used 9 or 10 as the more fitting number. I do honestly believe that is not at all far fetched for the scratch player but probably where he would actually be. My course is mostly all doglegs and fairly wide fairways. Move a scratch player up 1200 yards and I believe saving 9 strokes would be expected. The 13 or 14 strokes would be pushing it and perhaps giving him too much credit but not the 9 or 10 imo. I think thats very real. But its just opinion and when you think about it, so is what they are saying he would do. I just dont think they were correct. And I may not be so very correct with all this but I can at least make the argument. But all this fwiw does only reflect and is based off my one home course and its ratings. It may be very different at other courses.

You are basically implying that a scratch golfer should shoot 8 or 9 under par (64 or 63) on a consistent basis from 5800 yards (which has a 68.3 course rating). The lower your handicap is, the harder it is to shave off strokes. Because usually that means it's going to come down to short game/putting. The player still has to make the putts, which has absolutely nothing to do with the yardage of the course. The reason I say maybe 5 strokes is because I'm thinking he might hit it closer to the flag on most of the holes which would give him some better birdie opportunities. Thing that I think you are forgetting is that you can hit every single green in regulation and still shoot even par if you 2 putt every green.

Scratch golfer's, on average, aren't going to hit every single green in regulation, even at 5,800 yards. It doesn't matter how short the course gets, it's hard to hit every green in regulation. I just think you have it in your mind that all scratch golfers hit it straight down the middle and make every single putt they look at. Golf just isn't that easy for anybody. I just don't think you realize how hard it would be to shoot 63 or 64 on a consistent basis, even at 5800 yards.

 

[Canadan]

Just curious but why would you play at 7500 yards? If that's 1000 yards more than you are used to?

I don't. I'm not arguing that I should, either - What I am arguing is that the handicap system by current design doesn't accommodate me if I want to.

This has little to do with me. I don't feel the need to play outside my Tee it Forward length because most people I play with don't want to. I'm thinking about the golfers who can't hit the ball that far yet want to join the group and still be competitive. I'm simply using the 'myself vs 7,500' because it's a comparable transition that a 6,000 yard tee it forward golfer experiences when moving back to 6,600.

 

[sparksjr]

I don't. I'm not arguing that I should, either - What I am arguing is that the handicap system by current design doesn't accommodate me if I want to.

This has little to do with me. I don't feel the need to play outside my Tee it Forward length because most people I play with don't want to. I'm thinking about the golfers who can't hit the ball that far yet want to join the group and still be competitive. I'm simply using the 'myself vs 7,500' because it's a comparable transition that a 6,000 yard tee it forward golfer experiences when moving back to 6,600.

makes sense but if the handicap system were to accommodate those wanting to play beyond their means then doesn't that basically spit in the face of "tee it forward" and "while were young"?

 

[Canadan]

makes sense but if the handicap system were to accommodate those wanting to play beyond their means then doesn't that basically spit in the face of "tee it forward" and "while were young"?

While we're young relates to tee box played? i thought it was just for slow play.

I don't think it's fair to incorporate tee it forward into the USGA handicap system (as it stands today), because they don't incorporate distance factors themselves beyond all scratch golfers hitting the ball 250 yards, and all bogey golfers hitting it 200.

 

[Tadashi70]

I've never understood the idea of giving strokes so others can play further back. And strokes would have to be given for them to be competitive. Maybe they should play back and if they do maybe they need to take their lumps.

I don't. I'm not arguing that I should, either - What I am arguing is that the handicap system by current design doesn't accommodate me if I want to.

This has little to do with me. I don't feel the need to play outside my Tee it Forward length because most people I play with don't want to. I'm thinking about the golfers who can't hit the ball that far yet want to join the group and still be competitive. I'm simply using the 'myself vs 7,500' because it's a comparable transition that a 6,000 yard tee it forward golfer experiences when moving back to 6,600.

 

[Canadan]

I've never understood the idea of giving strokes so others can play further back. And strokes would have to be given for them to be competitive. Maybe they should play back and if they do maybe they need to take their lumps.

Is the handicap system not designed to make things fair?

Why do you get giving a 10 handicap 10 strokes from whatever set of tees he's comfortable with, but you won't give someone extra strokes who can barely hit the green in two shots?

 

[sparksjr]

While we're young relates to tee box played? i thought it was just for slow play.

I don't think it's fair to incorporate tee it forward into the USGA handicap system (as it stands today), because they don't incorporate distance factors themselves beyond all scratch golfers hitting the ball 250 yards, and all bogey golfers hitting it 200.

Do you think playing a set of tees 1000 yards longer than your normal tee boxes will slow your play?

Edit: take "your" out of it as we aren't talking about you specifically. Think average golfer.