We've launched the new forums! Read more here

USGA Course Rating Definitions - Need Refinement?

caeleric said:
are we trying to figure out whether the current usga rating system is flawed? i can't think of anybody who would be a higher handicap if they played more forward tees, and i know most people (myself included) post higher numbers when we move back a set of tees. so doesn't that logically mean that it's working the way it should? i guess i'm missing the point of why we're questioning whether the system is flawed.
Click to expand...

The system is flawed because a guy who is a 8hc from 6200yds hitting the ball 220 from the tee, only gets a couple strokes (1-2) when moving back 800yds thats almost 4drivers for them. which there is no way that an average 44yds of extra distance per hole cann't be made up in 2 total strokes.
 
I was traveling yesterday and didn't really have an opportunity to post, though I did read much of what was added. I have to say I love threads like this. Great thought provoking conversation. There have been many opinions shared and very few feelings hurt. Really good topic Dan!

I get that there is this hole in the system. But just like tour pros have to pick the courses and tourneys they are going to play, we have the same options. Tim Clarke and Justin Leonard being two of the shorter hitters on tour, aren't going to be playing many tourneys that are hosted at courses that are 7,600+, unless conditions like hard fairways make the course "play" shorter. 800 yards is a lot, even for Tour pros. 7,000 yards, versus 7,800 yards.

I'm not moving back 800 yards for a casual round of golf with a friend. Just not going to happen (excepting a distance challenge with Dan :alien: ). I won't have fun from that far back. It would be a grind all day. I would never ask my daughter to move back 800 yards to play with me. Would be taking her way out of her "fun" zone. There is a formula to play from different tee boxes, I'd use that.

Now 400 yards back I find reasonable. There is enough day to day variation in all of our games where I personally feel I could compete from that farther back. I'm going to have to play well to compete, but I know that going in.
 
Last edited:
I sense indignation that the USGA is "dictating" golfers yardage by the 250/210 points they use for Scratch/Bogey golfers in ratings and slope. If its unfair to the Scratch player that only hits it 210 yards, is the reverse also true? Is the Bogey golfer that hits it 250 plus gaining an advantage under the current system?
 
USGA Course Rating Definitions - Need Refinement?

Dave Alvarado said:
But the index isn't a thing--it doesn't have any relevance on its own. My USGA handicap index is 30.5. When I play True Blue in the Legacy, if we play off the white tees (6375yds) my handicap is 34. If we play from the tips (7126yds), it's 39. The 30.5 is irrelevant on its own.

If I was playing you there, your handicap is 1 from either sets of tees. So we'd expect that I'd score 33 higher than you from the whites, and 38 higher than you from the blacks. If you want to get down to actual scores, the course rating from the whites is 70.1 and from the blacks is 74.3. So you'd probably shoot a 71 from the whites and a 75 from the blacks--that's your "par". I'd probably shoot a 104 from the whites and a 113 from the blacks--that's my "par". If that's actually what we scored, we tied in stroke play and the handicap did its job. The fact that par for the course is 72 from both sets of tees is irrelevant.

I can understand why you feel the way you do though--the lower your index, the more closely it resembles your personal handicap from a set of tees. So it starts looking more like your index is what should matter, but it isn't. The higher your index, the more variable your personal handicap is when you move around tee boxes. If you used my 30.5 and said you're giving me 30 strokes when we play, you've already got me beat. I'd have to play 3 under my average from the whites or 8 under my average from the blacks just to tie your personal average game. That would be totally unfair--I could play an exceptional game and lose to your average game. If instead we calculate out our personal handicaps for those tee boxes correctly, my average game and your average game result in a tie. You play better, you beat me. I play better, I beat you. That's how it should be.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think True Blue is a pretty good course to sort of illustrate Dan's point. We played that course from the whites every time last year. I would guess that my score would go up by a good deal more than 5 strokes if we moved to the tips (and I'm not sure if get 5 at my handicap). I just don't hit the ball far enough. With the way some of those greens are protected, hitting fairways or hybrids into most of the par 4 would be a recipe for disaster.

So, if I was a lunatic and established my handicap from the blacks, I'd probably end up shooting better relative to my handicap from the whites than I would playing my "normal" tees.
 
golfinFF said:
The system is flawed because a guy who is a 8hc from 6200yds hitting the ball 220 from the tee, only gets a couple strokes (1-2) when moving back 800yds thats almost 4drivers for them. which there is no way that an average 44yds of extra distance per hole cann't be made up in 2 total strokes.
Click to expand...

but wouldn't that guy over a long enough timeline eventually have his handicap adjust to be higher than 8 if he consistently played the 7k tees? Or is the concern solely for one-off matches?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
cpljohnst said:
I was traveling yesterday and didn't really have an opportunity to post, though I did read much of what was added. I have to say I love threads like this. Great thought provoking conversation. There have been many opinions shared and very few feelings hurt. Really good topic Dan!

I get that there is this hole in the system. But just like tour pros have to pick the courses and tourneys they are going to play, we have the same options. Tim Clarke and Justin Leonard being two of the shorter hitters on tour, aren't going to be playing many tourneys that are hosted at courses that are 7,600+, unless conditions like hard fairways make the course "play" shorter. 800 yards is a lot, even for Tour pros. 7,000 yards, versus 7,800 yards.

I'm not moving back 800 yards for a casual round of golf with a friend. Just not going to happen (excepting a distance challenge with Dan :alien: ). I won't have fun from that far back. It would be a grind all day. I would never ask my daughter to move back 800 yards to play with me. Would be taking her way out of her "fun" zone. There is a formula to play from different tee boxes, I'd use that.

Now 400 yards back I find reasonable. There is enough day to day variation in all of our games where I personally feel I could compete from that farther back. I'm going to have to play well to compete, but I know that going in.
Click to expand...

Welcome back voice of reason! Well said Barry.

I too was out of pocket most of the day yesterday and in no way could keep up with all being said here.

Good thread though, I suspect a lot of people know a lot more about how course handicaps relate to course ratings and slope ratings. And certainly some "outside the box" thoughts to ponder.

And, as I said early on in this thread, if there were major problems that need addressed it could happen in the course rating process. Course rating is an involved process where each hole is evaluated individually for each set of tees, the various factors that affect the play of the hole are combined to get a rating of the hole. That's the point where length could be given an even greater portion of the rating. Length is already the larger part of ratings. Then all the holes ratings are added to obtain the course rating. But, I don't think that necessary.

And, also from earlier, every golfers score is composed of several factors, including length. And since scores are used to compute handicap, length is only one variable in your handicap. For some length is a greater part than for others. Length is already built into everyone's handicap! No point in trying to add it in again. Maybe other factors could be added to handicaps for individual weaknesses, I could propose that putting be given extra weight in my handicap to make up for my poor performance with the flat stick, that would make just as much sense as adding an extra factor for length.

So, in the real world, the best plan is to play the tees that make sense for your game. If needed, play different tees within your group using the GHIN rule 3-5 to adjust hcps. I play in a weekend group that uses four sets of tees, golfers choose their own tees, hcps are adjusted, teams are formed, and it has worked very well for several years. It's possible to be in a foursome with guys on three sets of tees (four is possible but doesn't happen often) When we first started, I heard a lot of the same arguments that are being made here but now people are settled into it and everyone has bought in to that people on the whites can compete with people on the golds at 800 more yards fairly. The only tough part was at first getting some of the high handicap guys to move up to the whites but now they are having more fun, even though they "lose" two strokes from rule 3-5.
 
cpljohnst said:
I sense indignation that the USGA is "dictating" golfers yardage by the 250/210 points they use for Scratch/Bogey golfers in ratings and slope. If its unfair to the Scratch player that only hits it 210 yards, is the reverse also true? Is the Bogey golfer that hits it 250 plus gaining an advantage under the current system?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think this is a straw dog too, way too much focus on these two figures. Both those numbers are averages. For an average of 250 there are maybe half longer and half shorter than 250. Same for the 210, we see people here confirming that, that they are bogie golfers but drive the ball much further than 210 and we all know there are those that drive it less than 210. I don't know if they are correct or not but suspect that there are plenty of data to back up those averages. Main thing is that it doesn't matter what numbers are chosen, they wouldn't make handicaps perfect because there is much more to a handicap than length.
 
cpljohnst said:
I sense indignation that the USGA is "dictating" golfers yardage by the 250/210 points they use for Scratch/Bogey golfers in ratings and slope. If its unfair to the Scratch player that only hits it 210 yards, is the reverse also true? Is the Bogey golfer that hits it 250 plus gaining an advantage under the current system?
Click to expand...

Yes the bogey golfer hitting it 250 in theory has it easier from the shorter tees but he obviously isn't capitalizing on the opportunity due to poor driving, putting or irons.

The bogey golfer hitting it 250 isn't penalized as much moving back a set as the scratch guy hitting it 210. Due to the fact that 250 guy has the distance to get it on or close on that 420yd par 4



caeleric said:
but wouldn't that guy over a long enough timeline eventually have his handicap adjust to be higher than 8 if he consistently played the 7k tees? Or is the concern solely for one-off matches?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The concern is for anytime a short hitter is pushed back for tournament purposes where the strokes given by the system aren't a true depiction of what really will happens when he plays the longer tees.

The other problem is that for him to carry a handicap that allows him to compete at the longer yardage he has to establish it from a set of tees that he struggles to score and enjoy the game.
 
Here's the problem; I don't see why people need to just 'accept' things how they are. I appreciate that you do, and obviously your ball striking numbers and yearly experiences allow for it, but a broken system is a broken system. I simply think it's worth fixing so everything can go out, get a REAL handicap index, and have it apply to any set of tee box on any course they play. While I appreciate the repeated comments about "just playing the tees that suit you" -- It's not solving anything about the main topic of this thread. It's a bandaid at absolute best.

Also, don't be entirely convinced that 'every' tee box is rated. Last I heard, the USGA rates the member or tournament tees of a golf course, and then creates an equation to generate slope/rating for the rest of the tee boxes on the course. I'd love for someone to be able to confirm that (with fact not speculation).
 
caeleric said:
but wouldn't that guy over a long enough timeline eventually have his handicap adjust to be higher than 8 if he consistently played the 7k tees? Or is the concern solely for one-off matches?
Click to expand...

That is EXACTLY the issue, and has been described as such numerous times.

Said golfer would now have an enormously inflated handicap if he returned to his 'tee it forward' tees, dominating anyone he played when utilizing handicaps to dictate final score.
 
Dan did you catch my post about having ratings based for each box based on driving yardage or or contrail able yardage off the tee box?
 
golfinFF said:
This thread has been fascinating to read and Dan I thank you for starting it and the rest for participating in it.

Here is my take- distance is an advantage weather it's off the tee or not- example my 9i will be more accurate on average than most hitting a 5i if that's the right club from X-yds.

We often see two ratings for the shorter tees a men's and a ladies tee and often even see a discrepancy in what par is on that hole 4vs5 this is based off distance on average each should hit the ball.

A course near me has recommended tees based on how far you drive the ball, which should be more like what club/distance can you keep in play 70-80% of the time then play X-tees.

So why not rate/slope tee boxes based off several averages of distance you can play off the tee and keep in play?

Example- 160-180 190-210yds, 220-240yds, 250-270, 290+

Those in the middle decide where they want to be placed so 215 says I want to be HC via the 190-210 slope/rating or the 220-240yds slope rating sure they'll have a slight advantage at 190-210 vs 220-240 but it's more fair than what we have now.

So if each tee box is evaluated and given a index based off yardage that is driven or can be controlled than when moving from tee to tee should the strokes should be adjusted more fairly.

Say my longest club I can control is a 5wd and I hit 210 then that's what my HC is based on even though my driver is 240 but is all over the place and gets me OB or in the crap often and cost me strokes. This factors in for those tight courses or and won't give too much away on more open courses.

My errant driver hinders my scores and artificially inflates my HC in my opinion cause if I wasn't a knucklehead and would play 4i or hybo off the tee I could shave and easy 8 strokes off my HC. I've played with a 4i only off the tee or hybo and the scores are dramatically different from the same yardage.

Just my thoughts
Click to expand...

You make an interesting argument. I was about to type that I don't think the courses need to change, but maybe that's not right after all.

- Create a baseline slope/rating based on the difficulties presented to a golfer that hits the ball on average 250 yards off the tee.
- Establish a variable of change to incorporate for golfers who hit the ball shorter than 250 (and longer than 250 at that, but nowhere near as large a number).
- This can be incorporated into the handicap index lookup features that many official handicap apps or programs offer.

Note: I say smaller numbers for longer hitters because I don't think the distance variable is as much of a challenge, as I have mentioned, when moving forward from ideal tee boxes. It certainly changes the way a course is played, but in personal experience I think the slope/rating reflects it well in relation to handicap index change.
 
Canadan said:
That is EXACTLY the issue, and has been described as such numerous times.

Said golfer would now have an enormously inflated handicap if he returned to his 'tee it forward' tees, dominating anyone he played when utilizing handicaps to dictate final score.
Click to expand...

so your only concern is in a one-off match, which I suppose is the whole reason we have handicaps in the first place. I think enormously inflated is quite an overstatement, but I can concede that he'd probably still beat other people. maybe because I don't enjoy the competitive aspect of the game, I don't see this as an issue, and as long as I've been playing golf I just haven't seen that many times (if ever) where two guys playing their best golf results in the higher handicap beating the lower handicap due to differences in length. or maybe I'm missing the point? I've cried "pencil whip" at times, but in retrospect it's because the higher handicap golfer just played better than his cap or I played worse than mine.

I appreciate that people are interested enough to describe the issue "numerous times," but I don't get what all the fuss is about?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
caeleric said:
so your only concern is in a one-off match, which I suppose is the whole reason we have handicaps in the first place. I think enormously inflated is quite an overstatement, but I can concede that he'd probably still beat other people. maybe because I don't enjoy the competitive aspect of the game, I don't see this as an issue, and as long as I've been playing golf I just haven't seen that many times (if ever) where two guys playing their best golf results in the higher handicap beating the lower handicap due to differences in length. or maybe I'm missing the point? I've cried "pencil whip" at times, but in retrospect it's because the higher handicap golfer just played better than his cap or I played worse than mine.

I appreciate that people are interested enough to describe the issue "numerous times," but I don't get what all the fuss is about?
Click to expand...

I'll be happy to try, but it's been stated quite clearly many times over the course of 260+ posts in here.

Golfers who hit the ball shorter cannot establish their handicap from a certain length (let's assume their 'tee it forward' length) and then travel to another set of tee boxes and have a competitive match against someone who hits the ball notably further than them. The USGA handicap system does not have a consideration for length, and the strokes provided to this short hitting player are nowhere near enough to compensate for the added distance (because it's beyond their driver threshold of getting to many of the greens in two shots).

You can take away the variable of another golfer and use this singular golfer in this example and it still applies. he cannot be competitive against his own established handicap if he moves back well beyond his tee it forward tees. This is also the case if he establishes his handicap from well beyond his 'tee it forward' tees and then moves up to the proper length (for him). The game changes massively, while the stroke difference based on the GHIN index system would likely only take away a single stroke, if that, from his handicapped score. More often than not, he'll shoot better than his established handicap by a handful of strokes.
 
Canadan said:
You make an interesting argument. I was about to type that I don't think the courses need to change, but maybe that's not right after all.

- Create a baseline slope/rating based on the difficulties presented to a golfer that hits the ball on average 250 yards off the tee.
- Establish a variable of change to incorporate for golfers who hit the ball shorter than 250 (and longer than 250 at that, but nowhere near as large a number).
- This can be incorporated into the handicap index lookup features that many official handicap apps or programs offer.

Note: I say smaller numbers for longer hitters because I don't think the distance variable is as much of a challenge, as I have mentioned, when moving forward from ideal tee boxes. It certainly changes the way a course is played, but in personal experience I think the slope/rating reflects it well in relation to handicap index change.
Click to expand...

I agree that if the longer hitters move forward or back the scores won't change a ton if they started at the proper tee to begin with.

But say you take the guy who is scratch at 250yds off the tee from 6600yds and take away his longest clubs and leave him with his longest club as a 210 which is prolly a 4i or 4 hybrid he can still reach that 420 yard par 4 and should find the green. Now if you move him back to 7200yds he is totally done and will be lucky to break 80 as he can't get at GIR from there, now if you put his driver back in the bag he'll prolly only shoot 2-3strokes worse cause he's covering that 600yds with his tee club
 
Canadan said:
I'll be happy to try, but it's been stated quite clearly many times over the course of 260+ posts in here.

Golfers who hit the ball shorter cannot establish their handicap from a certain length (let's assume their 'tee it forward' length) and then travel to another set of tee boxes and have a competitive match against someone who hits the ball notably further than them. The USGA handicap system does not have a consideration for length, and the strokes provided to this short hitting player are nowhere near enough to compensate for the added distance (because it's beyond their driver threshold of getting to many of the greens in two shots).

You can take away the variable of another golfer and use this singular golfer in this example and it still applies. he cannot be competitive against his own established handicap if he moves back well beyond his tee it forward tees. This is also the case if he establishes his handicap from well beyond his 'tee it forward' tees and then moves up to the proper length (for him). The game changes massively, while the stroke difference based on the GHIN index system would likely only take away a single stroke, if that, from his handicapped score. More often than not, he'll shoot better than his established handicap by a handful of strokes.
Click to expand...

I wasn't directing a question at you. sorry to waste your time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Canadan said:
Again I'll use my dad as an example. He's a 15 from the golds (6,553 yards - 71.8/132) and is more like an 8 from the greens (6,082 - 69.5/126). he plays a ton of golf, is SOLID around the greens, but has long irons or hybrids or + in his hands on a handful of holes after his tee shot.

The difference in his performance directly reflects his distance off the tee, and if I ever moved him back to the tips, I'd destroy him. His handicap index translates as follows:

Green tees (69.5/126): 14 strokes
Gold tees (71.8/132): 15 strokes
Black tees (73.4/137): 15 strokes

That's a difference of nearly 900 yards, and a stroke difference of ONE moving between them. Tell me that isn't flawed for a guy hitting the ball 210 yards off the tee.
Click to expand...

Dave Alvarado said:
Ignore my earlier comments, I get your gripe now. I see why you're saying this is unfair.
Click to expand...

First, I don't have time to read 17 pages of commentary on this one. I don't think that I need to to give my opinion on it.

The answer is simple: Dan's dad has no business playing from the back tees. I don't care how good the rest of his game is, if he isn't long enough for that, he doesn't belong there - his handicap is irrelevant if it was achieved on a shorter course. If a golfer is a scratch player from the middle tees, but only hits his drives 200 yards, then he can't expect his handicap to carry over to the back tees which require a player to average 250 off the tee. That's like saying that a hole which requires a 230 yard carry is unfair for a player who only hits his driver 210. That is wrong thinking. The hole from that tee is not designed for a player who can't achieve the necessary carry. He should be playing from a shorter tee set. The handicap rating is designed in a similar fashion.

If you start trying to rate courses or make handicap adjustments according to how far a player hits the ball you are going overburden an already complex system. Handicaps are designed to be portable from course to course, and work best from similar lengths, but don't necessarily translate to all tees for all players. Not all good players are created equal, and that is particularly true for how far we hit the ball. This is one reason why I get my hackles up when I see a post that denigrates players who claim a personal best, or breaking 90 or 80 but not from the back tees or not on a course that the poster deems as sufficiently difficult to qualify. Some of us actually choose to play a course or tee set that actually suits our game, and any handicaps or milestones made from those tees are just as relevant for our play as they are for the player who plays well and properly from the back tees.

My first year in my former men's club we played our spring scramble, and our "A" player was an 8 handicap, but he was also 72 years old, and his handicap was achieved from the middle tees. In the scramble the "A" player was required to play the back tees, and that put us at a real disadvantage, because each side required at least one tee shot be used from each player. For whatever reason, on the back 9, he never hit a good shot on either par 3, nor on the one shorter par 4, so we ended up having to use an unfavorable tee shot on 18, which ultimately dropped us two places in the standings. We didn't cry about it, it's just how it was - Charlie knew going in that he'd have a problem with it. That tournament was modified at some point after that season, and no players are required to play from the back tees any more in that format.
 
caeleric said:
I wasn't directing a question at you. sorry to waste your time.
Click to expand...

You're not wasting my time at all, but I hope that you'd take the time to respond to me more than just saying this. Lots of good conversation to be had.
 
Fourputt said:
The answer is simple: Dan's dad has no business playing from the back tees. I don't care how good the rest of his game is, if he isn't long enough for that, he doesn't belong there - his handicap is irrelevant if it was achieved on a shorter course. If a golfer is a scratch player from the middle tees, but only hits his drives 200 yards, then he can't expect his handicap to carry over to the back tees which require a player to average 250 off the tee. That's like saying that a hole which requires a 230 yard carry is unfair for a player who only hits his driver 210. That is wrong thinking. The hole from that tee is not designed for a player who can't achieve the necessary carry. He should be playing from a shorter tee set. The handicap rating is designed in a similar fashion.
Click to expand...
I think you're up to speed on the conversation there. Everybody seems to be in agreement that this is the case. The problem is, the handicap system *says* it's portable to all tee boxes and actually has provisions for this. They just don't work right apparently. Hence, Canadan's gripe and this thread.
 
Fourputt said:
First, I don't have time to read 17 pages of commentary on this one. I don't think that I need to to give my opinion on it.

The answer is simple: Dan's dad has no business playing from the back tees. I don't care how good the rest of his game is, if he isn't long enough for that, he doesn't belong there - his handicap is irrelevant if it was achieved on a shorter course. If a golfer is a scratch player from the middle tees, but only hits his drives 200 yards, then he can't expect his handicap to carry over to the back tees which require a player to average 250 off the tee. That's like saying that a hole which requires a 230 yard carry is unfair for a player who only hits his driver 210. That is wrong thinking. The hole from that tee is not designed for a player who can't achieve the necessary carry. He should be playing from a shorter tee set. The handicap rating is designed in a similar fashion.

If you start trying to rate courses or make handicap adjustments according to how far a player hits the ball you are going overburden an already complex system. Handicaps are designed to be portable from course to course, and work best from similar lengths, but don't necessarily translate to all tees for all players. Not all good players are created equal, and that is particularly true for how far we hit the ball. This is one reason why I get my hackles up when I see a post that denigrates players who claim a personal best, or breaking 90 or 80 but not from the back tees or not on a course that the poster deems as sufficiently difficult to qualify. Some of us actually choose to play a course or tee set that actually suits our game, and any handicaps or milestones made from those tees are just as relevant for our play as they are for the player who plays well and properly from the back tees.

My first year in my former men's club we played our spring scramble, and our "A" player was an 8 handicap, but he was also 72 years old, and his handicap was achieved from the middle tees. In the scramble the "A" player was required to play the back tees, and that put us at a real disadvantage, because each side required at least one tee shot be used from each player. For whatever reason, on the back 9, he never hit a good shot on either par 3, nor on the one shorter par 4, so we ended up having to use an unfavorable tee shot on 18, which ultimately dropped us two places in the standings. We didn't cry about it, it's just how it was - Charlie knew going in that he'd have a problem with it. That tournament was modified at some point after that season, and no players are required to play from the back tees any more in that format.
Click to expand...

Your simple answer of "don't play from there" is absolutely simple. It's polarized, and in my opinion, makes the entire handicap system design useless. Fact is, we rely on accurate handicaps every time we use them to try and level the playing field. You're basically saying a shorter hitter cannot depart from tee boxes that suit their game, essentially exempting them for various tournaments and experiences. The most logical solution here is to get golf courses and their membership on board with tee it forward as a whole, but it's not going to happen. Call it pride, call it sheer stupidity, it's just not going to happen - Rather, we can improve the handicap system and make it fair for anyone, regardless of the tees they play.

While I will NEVER object to the tee it forward concept (I'd argue I'm a big proponent of it), I think it's silly that we can't build a handicap system that allows movement from a certain yardage, ESPECIALLY when there's not benchmark for inputs (aka they aren't obligated to build their handicap from said yardage). This isn't about 'crying about it' as no one does (not even my dad who plays all his rounds from tee boxes well beyond his tee it forward distance), this is about making it fair with the structure that is already in place.
 
Dave Alvarado said:
I think you're up to speed on the conversation there. Everybody seems to be in agreement that this is the case. The problem is, the handicap system *says* it's portable to all tee boxes and actually has provisions for this. They just don't work right apparently. Hence, Canadan's gripe and this thread.
Click to expand...

That's the joke of it all. In the current system, which doesn't define how far a golfer played to establish their handicap, their handicap is entirely relevant by definition from the back tees. Claiming it's not suggests one does not understand the handicap system as a whole (which i don't think is true). It's just turning a blind eye to something that is flawed by saying "don't play there, then."

I'm surprised at how many are claiming the handicap system is already too complex. It's interesting to see.
 
Canadan said:
Again I'll use my dad as an example. He's a 15 from the golds (6,553 yards - 71.8/132) and is more like an 8 from the greens (6,082 - 69.5/126). he plays a ton of golf, is SOLID around the greens, but has long irons or hybrids or + in his hands on a handful of holes after his tee shot.

The difference in his performance directly reflects his distance off the tee, and if I ever moved him back to the tips, I'd destroy him. His handicap index translates as follows:

Green tees (69.5/126): 14 strokes
Gold tees (71.8/132): 15 strokes
Black tees (73.4/137): 15 strokes

That's a difference of nearly 900 yards, and a stroke difference of ONE moving between them. Tell me that isn't flawed for a guy hitting the ball 210 yards off the tee.
Click to expand...

Canadan said:
Your simple answer of "don't play from there" is absolutely simple. It's polarized, and in my opinion, makes the entire handicap system design useless. Fact is, we rely on accurate handicaps every time we use them to try and level the playing field. You're basically saying a shorter hitter cannot depart from tee boxes that suit their game, essentially exempting them for various tournaments and experiences. The most logical solution here is to get golf courses and their membership on board with tee it forward as a whole, but it's not going to happen. Call it pride, call it sheer stupidity, it's just not going to happen - Rather, we can improve the handicap system and make it fair for anyone, regardless of the tees they play.

While I will NEVER object to the tee it forward concept (I'd argue I'm a big proponent of it), I think it's silly that we can't build a handicap system that allows movement from a certain yardage, ESPECIALLY when there's not benchmark for inputs (aka they aren't obligated to build their handicap from said yardage). This isn't about 'crying about it' as no one does (not even my dad who plays all his rounds from tee boxes well beyond his tee it forward distance), this is about making it fair with the structure that is already in place.
Click to expand...

They can depart from those tee boxes as long as the departure is made when playing with players of similar ability as far as length goes. They simply can't expect to compete evenly with a player who drives the ball 50 or more yards longer than they do - not even on the shorter tees unless the course is designed to be more difficult for a player who drives the ball beyond a certain design specific landing area. If a player refuses to accept this fact, then there isn't much that can help him. If he's playing in a casual round, he can "negotiate" a handicap adjustment within the group. If it's an actual competition, then he's just gong to have to learn to deal with it.

I used to be able to play either the middle or back tees on my former home course interchangeably and my handicap worked back and forth just fine. Now at age 68 I can no longer do so - I just can't hit the ball far enough. In fact even the middle tees are getting to be a bit of a stretch. Soon I'll be up one more set of tees when I play there. I know the frustration, because my brother is 3½ years younger than me, so his age shortening process is just that far behind me. As a result, I keep trying and failing to keep up with him off the tee, and it hurts my game just that much more. I'll learn to live with it. That's life.
 
Dave Alvarado said:
I think you're up to speed on the conversation there. Everybody seems to be in agreement that this is the case. The problem is, the handicap system *says* it's portable to all tee boxes and actually has provisions for this. They just don't work right apparently. Hence, Canadan's gripe and this thread.
Click to expand...

Dan's point is real I've seen it at the numerous THP events and gatherings I've been to. My 2hybo is the same as some guys 3wd or driver who have better caps than me but I'm more accurate with it than they are with a driver when the course gets tight or going for a green.

I want you to play your next round from the same tees you do now but remove your 3 longest clubs from the bag(driver, 3wd, 5wd/hybo) and let us know how you score. I bet it's more than 4shots worse than you currently do since the course will be too long.
 
golfinFF said:
Dan's point is real I've seen it at the numerous THP events and gatherings I've been to. My 2hybo is the same as some guys 3wd or driver who have better caps than me but I'm more accurate with it than they are with a driver when the course gets tight or going for a green.

I want you to play your next round from the same tees you do now but remove your 3 longest clubs from the bag(driver, 3wd, 5wd/hybo) and let us know how you score. I bet it's more than 4shots worse than you currently do since the course will be too long.
Click to expand...

He wouldn't need to. he's a short hitter. All he needs to do is move to the tips to see if his index travels, which it will not - But I think Dave gets what is being said and agrees there's an issue.
 
Fourputt said:
They can depart from those tee boxes as long as the departure is made when playing with players of similar ability as far as length goes. They simply can't expect to compete evenly with a player who drives the ball 50 or more yards longer than they do - not even on the shorter tees unless the course is designed to be more difficult for a player who drives the ball beyond a certain design specific landing area. If a player refuses to accept this fact, then there isn't much that can help him. If he's playing in a casual round, he can "negotiate" a handicap adjustment within the group. If it's an actual competition, then he's just gong to have to learn to deal with it.

I used to be able to play either the middle or back tees on my former home course interchangeably and my handicap worked back and forth just fine. Now at age 68 I can no longer do so - I just can't hit the ball far enough. In fact even the middle tees are getting to be a bit of a stretch. Soon I'll be up one more set of tees when I play there. I know the frustration, because my brother is 3½ years younger than me, so his age shortening process is just that far behind me. As a result, I keep trying and failing to keep up with him off the tee, and it hurts my game just that much more. I'll learn to live with it. That's life.
Click to expand...

But why does it have to be life? Why shouldn't the system be able to accommodate the lack of distance?

If a lady is playing in the same tourney where does she play from? I guarantee its not the men's tips/tournament tees!

She will play from the "women's" tees, even if she hits it as far or farther than you or for the example of Dan's dad.

Example- lady hits ball 220 she'll play from 5700 guy hits the ball 220 and he must play from 6600. That's dumb that's 900yds cause he has a pair of hang me downs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top