We've launched the new forums! Read more here

Moving Tee Boxes - A Handicap Discussion

Canadan

Canadan

LGND
Albatross 2024 Club
Staff member
Joined
May 16, 2010
Messages
148,973
Reaction score
106,875
Location
Ohio
Handicap
**
I was working on something last night, but I think it's a bit of a long read. I'm going to simplify my findings so we can have a discussion on the current handicap system and how it accommodates distance gaps. This originated from discussions I've had at my home course where tournament play is anchored on the 6,553 yard tee boxes, which is a solid 500 yards beyond the average golfer Tee it Forward distance.

My opinion: While the present handicap index design is excellent for golfers playing to their tee it forward distance or shorter on courses, the ability for all golfers to move forwards and backwards in distance is flawed.

Realities:
- The Slope Rating logic uses the definitions of scratch golfers (drive the ball 250 yards) and bogey golfers (drive the ball 200 yards) to calculate a number.
- Most courses aren't going to have a slope rating variance more than 20 (125-145) between 6,000 and 7,000 yards
- The handicap system is perfectly viable when allowing two players to compete from familiar (to them) distances against one another

Case Study:
- My home course green tees (6,082 yards) have a slope/rating of 69.5/126
- My home course black tees (6,921 yards) have a slope/rating of 73.9/143
- A 13.7 index player is given 15 strokes from the green tees
- A 13.7 index player is given 17 strokes from the black tees

Tee it Forward would encourage a golfer who drives the ball 235 yards to play the green tees at my course. Assuming this golfer has established their handicap index of 13.7 from their encouraged set of tee boxes, moving to the back tees and adding nearly 900 yards to their round provides them with only two additional strokes in comparison to their regular tees.

- The distance difference is an average of 35 yards on par 3s (163 to 198), 49 yards on par 4s (119 to 169 after drive), and 47 yards on par 5s (241 to 288 after drive).
- Of the 18 holes on the golf course, this golfer would be incapable of reaching the green in regulation on four holes.

The results:
-This golfer will go from hitting short irons into every green to long irons or hybrids on many of the holes. GIR will be impossible on four holes. The gap will be much greater than the allotted two strokes
-The resulting score will be wildly out of their normal scoring average, even when factoring in the differential

My Solution:
- Incorporate a distance metric into the handicap system that allows players to define their driving ability, which in turn adjusts the slope rating to give them the appropriate number of strokes from various distances
-------Understandably, this will get contested, but at the same time, most all golfers who have a handicap also have the ability to measure their drives through rangefinders, GPS units, and shot tracking software (or free apps)
-------Safeguarding against cheating is no different than the current handicap system, where we expect golfers to be honest in their inputs - Also, peers can easily self police this number
- Promote distance learning locations on driving ranges - This includes a line of 10 flags where golfers can hit balls to acknowledge their distance and apply to their handicap (or tee it forward)

What are your thoughts?
 
Canadan said:
I was working on something last night, but I think it's a bit of a long read. I'm going to simplify my findings so we can have a discussion on the current handicap system and how it accommodates distance gaps. This originated from discussions I've had at my home course where tournament play is anchored on the 6,553 yard tee boxes, which is a solid 500 yards beyond the average golfer Tee it Forward distance.

My opinion: While the present handicap index design is excellent for golfers playing to their tee it forward distance or shorter on courses, the ability for all golfers to move forwards and backwards in distance is flawed.

Realities:
- The Slope Rating logic uses the definitions of scratch golfers (drive the ball 250 yards) and bogey golfers (drive the ball 200 yards) to calculate a number.
- Most courses aren't going to have a slope rating variance more than 20 (125-145) between 6,000 and 7,000 yards
- The handicap system is perfectly viable when allowing two players to compete from familiar (to them) distances against one another

Case Study:
- My home course green tees (6,082 yards) have a slope/rating of 69.5/126
- My home course black tees (6,921 yards) have a slope/rating of 73.9/143
- A 13.7 index player is given 15 strokes from the green tees
- A 13.7 index player is given 17 strokes from the black tees

Tee it Forward would encourage a golfer who drives the ball 235 yards to play the green tees at my course. Assuming this golfer has established their handicap index of 13.7 from their encouraged set of tee boxes, moving to the back tees and adding nearly 900 yards to their round provides them with only two additional strokes in comparison to their regular tees.

- The distance difference is an average of 35 yards on par 3s (163 to 198), 49 yards on par 4s (119 to 169 after drive), and 47 yards on par 5s (241 to 288 after drive).
- Of the 18 holes on the golf course, this golfer would be incapable of reaching the green in regulation on four holes.

The results:
-This golfer will go from hitting short irons into every green to long irons or hybrids on many of the holes. GIR will be impossible on four holes. The gap will be much greater than the allotted two strokes
-The resulting score will be wildly out of their normal scoring average, even when factoring in the differential

My Solution:
- Incorporate a distance metric into the handicap system that allows players to define their driving ability, which in turn adjusts the slope rating to give them the appropriate number of strokes from various distances
-------Understandably, this will get contested, but at the same time, most all golfers who have a handicap also have the ability to measure their drives through rangefinders, GPS units, and shot tracking software (or free apps)
-------Safeguarding against cheating is no different than the current handicap system, where we expect golfers to be honest in their inputs - Also, peers can easily self police this number
- Promote distance learning locations on driving ranges - This includes a line of 10 flags where golfers can hit balls to acknowledge their distance and apply to their handicap (or tee it forward)

What are your thoughts?
Click to expand...

I love the idea. The inverse was true on my home course a few years ago. It was dumb for me not to play the back tees as I needed to shoot 6-8 strokes better from the white tees to make the handicap entry worth it. They have since re evaluated the course and while it is closer, I still don’t think they have it correct.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I like this train of thought. I think it needs to be taken farther though. I’m a big fan of the Longleaf system with lots of tee boxes, laid out so everyone has the same types of shots into the green. Why not play tournaments from the tee box where your handicap is established from?
 
Wow, Dan. That is a very well analyzed and thought out post there. I think you make a tremendous point in the distance element having to be accounted for somewhere because, after all, the tees we select to play are largely based on DISTANCE! In your specific case there, there is an incredible disadvantage to go back in tees while having an incredible advantage going forward. It would be interesting to see what actual scores would be in this scenario, an experiment of some sort. This hard evidence would be impossible to ignore along with the preliminary analysis.
 
I appreciate the concept that a single handicap system will appropriately manage the disparities between all golfers is inadequate.
I also appreciate the illustration of its inadequacy with the data from your home course. It probably reflects what goes on at most courses.
If the idea of the handicap system is to level the playing field between golfers of differing ability, then it makes sense to have the metric.
My assumption is that the metric will create a greater number than the 2 strokes offered above. It seems logical to allow strokes to even competitive play
when one golfer cannot even reach 4 holes on their best day. How you come up with the metric, I'm not sure.
I'd like to hear more ideas.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #6
dazeedmonds said:
I like this train of thought. I think it needs to be taken farther though. I’m a big fan of the Longleaf system with lots of tee boxes, laid out so everyone has the same types of shots into the green. Why not play tournaments from the tee box where your handicap is established from?
Click to expand...
tpluff said:
Wow, Dan. That is a very well analyzed and thought out post there. I think you make a tremendous point in the distance element having to be accounted for somewhere because, after all, the tees we select to play are largely based on DISTANCE! In your specific case there, there is an incredible disadvantage to go back in tees while having an incredible advantage going forward. It would be interesting to see what actual scores would be in this scenario, an experiment of some sort. This hard evidence would be impossible to ignore along with the preliminary analysis.
Click to expand...

I am glad you asked for that. I've been on the advisory board at my course for about a year and a half now, and am in the middle of trying to encourage tournaments be adjusted to accommodate a greater range of golfers.

Recently, my pro ran an assessment using GHIN for golfers in the 8-15 range moving from the gold tees (6.553 yards) to the green/gold combination (basically the green tees on the holes where distance is a great punishment). The results were surprising to him, with stroke ranges of around 3-5 improvement moving forward. As the average golfer (based on game golf info) for ages of 20-60 is in the realm of 225 yards, it comes at little surprise that this is experienced.

My suggestion to him (this will never happen) is to allow golfers to play the tees where their handicap has been established in tournament play. My suggestion was 80% of rounds played, so 16 of the last 20 rounds. If 80% of the rounds occurred from the green tees or closer, they could play the green tees in tournaments. The importance of this, of course, is that generating a handicap from a set of longer tees will create an advantage for the shorter hitter then moving to a set of tees they can actually score from. By creating that 80% buffer, it basically guarantees that each player is going to be using a handicap of their actual potential from the set of tees they play.
 
Good stuff Dan.

Definitely some flaws in the current system, Having played the course (not from the black) I can confirm that the 2 stroke difference will DEFINITELY not be enough. That 2 strokes is probably on more on par from the set at 6500 yards (in between your 2 examples).

Could definitely use some form of distance adjustment for sure, the Par 4 figures you threw up there are crazy
 
I agree there needs to be some tweeking of the handicap system but the reality is there needs to be more work done in getting people to understand the proper way to play a course according to their driver distance. My league plays from 6500 yds and out of 40 guys maybe 3 averaged 250 on drives so we are all playing long ball on second shots trying to get to the green. Many people have had it ingrained in them for years that the White colored tees are for men and they never actually check the distance and have never been taught the correct way to play golf.
 
Canadan said:
I am glad you asked for that. I've been on the advisory board at my course for about a year and a half now, and am in the middle of trying to encourage tournaments be adjusted to accommodate a greater range of golfers.

Recently, my pro ran an assessment using GHIN for golfers in the 8-15 range moving from the gold tees (6.553 yards) to the green/gold combination (basically the green tees on the holes where distance is a great punishment). The results were surprising to him, with stroke ranges of around 3-5 improvement moving forward. As the average golfer (based on game golf info) for ages of 20-60 is in the realm of 225 yards, it comes at little surprise that this is experienced.

My suggestion to him (this will never happen) is to allow golfers to play the tees where their handicap has been established in tournament play. My suggestion was 80% of rounds played, so 16 of the last 20 rounds. If 80% of the rounds occurred from the green tees or closer, they could play the green tees in tournaments. The importance of this, of course, is that generating a handicap from a set of longer tees will create an advantage for the shorter hitter then moving to a set of tees they can actually score from. By creating that 80% buffer, it basically guarantees that each player is going to be using a handicap of their actual potential from the set of tees they play.
Click to expand...

Not surprised to see those results at all and I should have assumed there has been some sort of experiment already in place. The difference between a driver or 3 wood off the tee or 8 iron vs 5-6 iron multiple times a round is huge. I think your suggestion is a good idea under the current parameters that you are dealing with while not actually changing the issue in the handicap system itself. I'm not sure if the average golfer getting a handicap is aware enough to realize this inherent advantage/disadvantage in the system (I know I was not really aware, admittedly), but it is something that can completely undermine the purpose of the handicap system, which is to level the playing field regardless of skill/ability.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #10
krispyk said:
I agree there needs to be some tweeking of the handicap system but the reality is there needs to be more work done in getting people to understand the proper way to play a course according to their driver distance. My league plays from 6500 yds and out of 40 guys maybe 3 averaged 250 on drives so we are all playing long ball on second shots trying to get to the green. Many people have had it ingrained in them for years that the White colored tees are for men and they never actually check the distance and have never been taught the correct way to play golf.
Click to expand...

I am and always will be a huge proponent of tee it forward, but I think it's a totally different conversation, and it definitely starts with the course. At my home course, the tournaments are all played at 6,553 yards. Speaking with golfers who should be playing 6,100, they won't do it because their handicap will get too low to compete from the tournament tees.
 
good thoughts. I definitely agree on your last point under solutions. Driving ranges here should offer more targets to help golfers understand exactly how far they dont actually hit and learn to play the game using this information.
 
I like your thought pattern in incorporating a distance metric which also adjusts the slope rating. The ratings above for green tees are very similar quite similar to the course I play (20 total yards less with a course rating of 69.9 and slope of 122) so would feel quite comfortable playing the green tees at a course handicap of 6 with my actual index of 5.2 and approximate average driving distance of 240. If I were to play the black tees at your course, my index would yield me a course handicap of 7 and my short game woud have to be clicking on all cylinders for me to have a chance to break 80 from that distance. I would venture to guess my average score would be in the low to mid 80's. My plan of attack from that distance would be to set up as many 200 - 210 approach shots as possible because I am much more consistent with my 5 wood from that distance range than I am with a 6 iron from 170 or my hybrids from 180 or 190.

Dispite the lack of distance of my home course (back tees only measure 6300 with course rating of 71.1 and slope of 127), the defense it has are narrower fairways and smaller greens, with a lot of contour, than most courses. I basically shot the same scores from the white or blue tees but started playing exclusively whites about 5 years ago because all tournaments are played from there.
 
Last edited:
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #13
Sox Fan said:
I like your thought pattern in incorporating a distance metric which also adjusts the slope rating. The ratings above for green tees are very similar quite similar to the course I play (20 total yards less with a course rating of 69.9 and slope of 122) so would feel quite comfortable playing the green tees at a course handicap of 6 with my actual index of 5.2 and approximate average driving distance of 240. If I were to play the black tees at your course, my index would yield me a course handicap of 7 and my short game woud have to be clicking on all cylinders for me to have a chance to break 80 from that distance. I would venture to guess my average score would be in the low to mid 80's. My plan of attack from that distance would be to set up as many 200 - 210 approach shots as possible because I am much more consistent with my 5 wood from that distance range than I am with a 6 iron from 170 or my hybrids from 180 or 190.

Dispite the lack of distance of my home course (back tees only measure 6300 with course rating of 71.1 and slope of 127), the defense it has are narrower fairways and smaller greens than most courses. I basically shot the same scores from the white or blue tees but started playing exclusively whites about 5 years ago because all tournaments are played from there.
Click to expand...

How far do you drive the ball? I can speak personally, as a guy who carries the ball 270+ with a driver, that I can freely move between the 6,082 and 6,921 tees at my course and successfully maintain an index because I am within my tee it forward threshold (although the back tees can be a bit of strain when it's wet which makes sense per the tee it forward chart). Where this error occurs is when golfers play beyond their threshold. That is where the gap becomes much greater.
 
The distance thing is a little curious to me(scratch 250 and bogey 200). The thing I have noticed when I play with good players is how good their short games are. That what happens off the tee doesn't matter so much but they always find a way to score.
 
Canadan said:
How far do you drive the ball? I can speak personally, as a guy who carries the ball 270+ with a driver, that I can freely move between the 6,082 and 6,921 tees at my course and successfully maintain an index because I am within my tee it forward threshold (although the back tees can be a bit of strain when it's wet which makes sense per the tee it forward chart). Where this error occurs is when golfers play beyond their threshold. That is where the gap becomes much greater.
Click to expand...

Average is probably in the 240 range with driver. Usually catch a couple per round over 250 but those few off the toe or heel that only go 220 - 225 cancel those out.
 
This is very interesting. If I play the blue tees at my course I shoot near par ( 6500). Move back one set to golds (6900) and I'm in the mid to low 80s. M9ve to the tips (7300) and it's anyone's guess what I shoot lol
 
Great post and great thoughts Dan.

My league was struggling with this as well. Making the higher caps go back a box and adding 5-600 yards was too punishing for them, and making the low caps move forward had mixed results depending on the course.
Finally we settled on using differential to determine the winner, not gross or net scores. This allows every player to choose the tee box they feel gives them the best chance to win. This only works because my league keeps it's own handicap for each player, and only league scores count. Otherwise it would be really easy to game the system.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #18
ArmyGolf said:
Great post and great thoughts Dan.

My league was struggling with this as well. Making the higher caps go back a box and adding 5-600 yards was too punishing for them, and making the low caps move forward had mixed results depending on the course.
Finally we settled on using differential to determine the winner, not gross or net scores. This allows every player to choose the tee box they feel gives them the best chance to win. This only works because my league keeps it's own handicap for each player, and only league scores count. Otherwise it would be really easy to game the system.
Click to expand...

The differential.. That's really interesting. Wouldn't that encourage the guys who are longer hitters/better players to move up as well? An even par round looks a heck of a lot better from 69.1 than it does from 73.9 as it relates to differential.
 
Canadan said:
The differential.. That's really interesting. Wouldn't that encourage the guys who are longer hitters/better players to move up as well? An even par round looks a heck of a lot better from 69.1 than it does from 73.9 as it relates to differential.
Click to expand...
Yes and no. For myself, I moved up on a few courses thinking it gave me the best chance to score (wedges on par 3s, easily reachable par 5s) but the problem was it put a lot of pressure on myself to make birdies and go LOW, and I couldn't deliver. From 6000 I have to shoot 74-75 to have a chance at winning, but from 6600 I can get away with a 78-79 and still post a solid differential.

The events I won last year I won by playing further back and taking the "free" strokes.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Moderator
  • #20
ArmyGolf said:
Yes and no. For myself, I moved up on a few courses thinking it gave me the best chance to score (wedges on par 3s, easily reachable par 5s) but the problem was it put a lot of pressure on myself to make birdies and go LOW, and I couldn't deliver. From 6000 I have to shoot 74-75 to have a chance at winning, but from 6600 I can get away with a 78-79 and still post a solid differential.

The events I won last year I won by playing further back and taking the "free" strokes.
Click to expand...

I think in my head I had it going the other way hahaha. Yes, I can fully see what you're saying now. Parring out from 7k looks a ton better than from 6k on the differential spectrum.

Cool, I like that.
 
I need to give this a through read but this seems like it will be a fun conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 
This is an amazing post, and one that I struggle with personally. I played our green tees to establish a handicap, that handicap dropped to 16 as I improved, then I felt it was almost a forced move to the "regular" tees, and now my hdcp has jumped nearly 2 strokes. So as a golfer not on a board, that plays competively every weekend, it's a bit frustrating, I know where my limits are, yet there is a stigma that playing the "greens" is for old men. While I can handle my own from the regular tees, I have only been sub 90 twice since I moved, most rounds are mid to high 90s.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
This is a great discussion and some great thoughts by all. I agree that distance should play a factor in determining a fair contest. If I am a mid to short knocker at the longer yardage then it is taking my scoring clubs out of my hands and expecting me to score with 5-iron and above. I am nowhere near as accurate with that kind of club into most holes. With that in mind my short game would have to be on fire to make up the short falls. The difference between the 2 tee boxes at the courses I frequent are almost 500+ yards and that effectively adds a par 5 to what yardage I normally play and I equate that to at least 5 more strokes.
 
Good analysis. An issue our Club has is competition for players using different tee boxes.

When computing handicaps for golfers competing using different tee boxes, the Course Rating also has to be considered.

So, in your example, a 13.7 index would get 15 strokes from the tees with the 127 slope.

You, playing the tees with a slope of 143, would get 17 strokes, Plus the difference in Course Rating. That would give you another 4 strokes (73.9 - 69.5). So, your handicap would be 21 and the 13.7 player playing from the shorter tees would get 15.
 
Canadan said:
I think in my head I had it going the other way hahaha. Yes, I can fully see what you're saying now. Parring out from 7k looks a ton better than from 6k on the differential spectrum.

Cool, I like that.
Click to expand...
It's not a perfect system, but it works really well for what we are trying to accomplish. Wide range of caps and skill levels competing against each other. We've accepted that the ability to choose your own tee box is just another element of strategy for everyone to use or not use as they see fit.
It is however more susceptible to a course that's rated poorly between tee boxes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top