Jump to content
2024 Houston Open WITB Photos ×

Handicap question


Recommended Posts

The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.

 

Assume a course rating of 72 and slope of 135 for these examples.

 

Golfer A scores

 

80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86

 

Golfer B scores

 

76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86

 

Both golfers would have an index of 7.1, but clearly Golfer B has more "potential ability" as witnessed by his three scores (76, 78, 76) lower than any that Golfer A shot. This is not an extreme example.

 

So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?

 

Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?

 

It looks like moving from 10 lowest to 8 lowest is a step in the right direction, but maybe it's not moving far enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Which handicapped tournament formats would favor Golfer A over B? I haven’t really studied this but I think quota would be won more often by A. If you post your scores on your GHIN app on phone then compare score graphs with a group it’s interesting to see whose graph line is relatively level and whose is erratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.

 

Assume a course rating of 72 and slope of 135 for these examples.

 

Golfer A scores

 

80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86

 

Golfer B scores

 

76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86

 

Both golfers would have an index of 7.1, but clearly Golfer B has more "potential ability" as witnessed by his three scores (76, 78, 76) lower than any that Golfer A shot. This is not an extreme example.

 

So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?

 

Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?

 

It looks like moving from 10 lowest to 8 lowest is a step in the right direction, but maybe it's not moving far enough.

As it stands, the USGA system favors (slightly) a lower-handicap player in a single match. If we move towards using a smaller percentage of scores, I believe the system would favor the lower-handicap player to a greater extent. Obviously not always, as @Fade's analysis suggests, but in general the better player's average would be closer to his "net par" score than would a poorer player, who typically has greater variance in scores. Using fewer scores would favor a more consistent player over a more erratic player, and generally speaking, higher handicaps are more erratic.

I do agree, the system, even using 8 of 20, doesn't assess my real "potential", but identifies "pretty good for me".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point isn't who would win. It's that if you ask somebody about their potential to do something they have been doing, their best effort is the most accurate way of estimating their potential.

 

If you asked about Mickey Mantle's potential for hitting home runs in 1963, it would be 54, not his average of his ten best.

 

If you asked about Usain Bolt's potential for the 100 meter in 2010, it would be 9.58 seconds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea. I agree with the op... My handicap has never reflected my potential. But I’m relatively new to the game. So I think maybe in time it will. But I have more than 4 - 9 hole scores this summer in the low 30s. And one 29. But low 18 this year is 69. With an average as of today of 75.8. And a handicap of 2.4. ( it’s up since two months ago ). Low round last year was 65 T round. Never got to a plus. Why ? I’m still able to throw up on myself and shoot 85. ( driver penalty shots and putter ). Truth. Hasn’t happened in last 3 months. But haven’t kept them all below 75 either. One of these days I’ll string 2 -9s together and be called a bagger I guess. Lol. But that’s when it will start to reflect my potential. Until then it really doesn’t.

 

And I don’t think it reflects plenty of 6-14 guys out there either. If you can shoot in the 70s any given day you should be less than an 8. Period. I don’t care how many 85s you shoot.

Callaway epic max LS 9* GD-M9003 7x 

TM Sim2 max tour  16* GD  ADHD 8x 

srixon zx 19* elements 9F5T 

Cobra king SZ 25.5* KBS TD cat 5 70 

TM p7mc 5-pw Mmt125tx 

Mizuno T22 raw 52-56-60 s400

LAB Mezz Max armlock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea. I agree with the op... My handicap has never reflected my potential. But I'm relatively new to the game. So I think maybe in time it will. But I have more than 4 - 9 hole scores this summer in the low 30s. And one 29. But low 18 this year is 69. With an average as of today of 75.8. And a handicap of 2.4. ( it's up since two months ago ). Low round last year was 65 T round. Never got to a plus. Why ? I'm still able to throw up on myself and shoot 85. ( driver penalty shots and putter ). Truth. Hasn't happened in last 3 months. But haven't kept them all below 75 either. One of these days I'll string 2 -9s together and be called a bagger I guess. Lol. But that's when it will start to reflect my potential. Until then it really doesn't.

 

And I don't think it reflects plenty of 6-14 guys out there either. If you can shoot in the 70s any given day you should be less than an 8. Period. I don't care how many 85s you shoot.

 

Exactly! The other alternative is for the USGA to remove the words "potential ability" from the purpose of a handicap. Maybe replace it with "potential average ability".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point isn't who would win. It's that if you ask somebody about their potential to do something they have been doing, their best effort is the most accurate way of estimating their potential.

 

It is to measure potential so people can compete. Not measure potential so folks can brag (or feel miserable).

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?

 

Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?

 

 

Why do you assume that a player's true potential is his lowest score? Why wouldn't "potential" be lower still?

 

All of which seems to me that you have more of a quarrel with the USGA's word choice than the results the formula supplies. I agree that the formula does not produce a literal potential, that something more along the lines of "typical potential" would be more accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point isn't who would win. It's that if you ask somebody about their potential to do something they have been doing, their best effort is the most accurate way of estimating their potential.

 

It is to measure potential so people can compete. Not measure potential so folks can brag (or feel miserable).

I said in an earlier post, I agree that "potential" would be best indicated by a smaller number of the better scores. The ultimate indication of potential would be to use the single best score over the past year, or even two years. On the other hand, the USGA decided to use the term "potential" to differentiate their calculation from a simple average, and throwing out even half of the worst scores moves the handicap index toward a measure of true potential. Decreasing the number from 10 to 8 scores of the last 20 moves it slightly closer to what I would call true potential.

Whatever number of scores is chosen, and the time period of scores to be considered, is essentially an arbitrary decision. To select one set of values over another will result in more or less of an advantage to different types of players, better v. worse, consistent v. erratic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lowest score theory has some errors. If someone plays a 18 hole par 3 course and shoots 54, is that their "potential?'

 

If someone shoots 75 from the tips at Bethpage Black, is that their potential?

 

Course rating, slope and ultimately differential have to be factors that ultimately go into the underlying "potential."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.

 

Assume a course rating of 72 and slope of 135 for these examples.

 

Golfer A scores

 

80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86

 

Golfer B scores

 

76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86

 

Both golfers would have an index of 7.1, but clearly Golfer B has more "potential ability" as witnessed by his three scores (76, 78, 76) lower than any that Golfer A shot. This is not an extreme example.

 

So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?

 

Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?

 

It looks like moving from 10 lowest to 8 lowest is a step in the right direction, but maybe it's not moving far enough.

 

This is where Congu is very different

 

Golfer A would have started off at 8 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores probably be off 9

 

Golfer B would have started off at 4 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores be off 5.1, roughly.

 

But this can depend on weather conditions when they made these scores

Ping G425 LST 9*

Cobra LTDx LS 14.5*

Cobra SZ 17* hybrid

Ping G425 Crossover 3

Ping I500 5-PW

Ping I210 UW

Ping Glide 4.0 54/58

Odyssey OG Rossie "Rahm"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Golfer A scores

 

80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86

 

Golfer B scores

 

76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86

 

I was curious who won more often, turns out it is golfer A. : )

I would take A for a partner. He is a lot more likely to help any given day than is B

Titleist TSR4 9° Tensei AV White 65

Titleist TSi3 strong 3w 13.5° Tensei AV White 70

Titleist TS3 19°  hybrid Tensei Blue/Titleist TSR3 24° Diamana Ahina

Titleist T150 5-pw Nippon Pro Modus 125

Vokey SM8 50° F & 56° M SM9 60°M

Cameron Newport w/ flow neck by Lamont/ Cameron Del Mar

 



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.

 

Assume a course rating of 72 and slope of 135 for these examples.

 

Golfer A scores

 

80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86

 

Golfer B scores

 

76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86

 

Both golfers would have an index of 7.1, but clearly Golfer B has more "potential ability" as witnessed by his three scores (76, 78, 76) lower than any that Golfer A shot. This is not an extreme example.

 

So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?

 

Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?

 

It looks like moving from 10 lowest to 8 lowest is a step in the right direction, but maybe it's not moving far enough.

 

This is where Congu is very different

 

Golfer A would have started off at 8 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores probably be off 9

 

Golfer B would have started off at 4 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores be off 5.1, roughly.

 

But this can depend on weather conditions when they made these scores

Thanks for doing the math on this. So we have two golfers, fairly evenly matched. Looking only at stroke play, and the order in which the scores were written, Player A wins 4, loses 3, and ties 13 times, that's pretty close. In the USGA system, they have identical handicaps. Under CONGU, Player A has a handicap about 4 strokes higher than B, even though he wins slightly more when they play even. Under @Roadking's idea, using the lowest score (80 v. 76) Player A would still get 4 strokes from B, even though A has a slight edge over B playing straight up. Is this consistent with a goal of allowing even competition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Player A is clearly the better player and there is an increased chance he may be a sandbagger. Player B happened to shoot 2 rounds in the last 20 that he at best has about a 2% of shooting any given round (assuming a 7.1 index). More than likely their index is normally higher than 7.1 and they went on a hot streak. Their index is likely going back to 8.5'ish range where they normally are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.

 

Assume a course rating of 72 and slope of 135 for these examples.

 

Golfer A scores

 

80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86

 

Golfer B scores

 

76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86

 

Both golfers would have an index of 7.1, but clearly Golfer B has more "potential ability" as witnessed by his three scores (76, 78, 76) lower than any that Golfer A shot. This is not an extreme example.

 

So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?

 

Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?

 

It looks like moving from 10 lowest to 8 lowest is a step in the right direction, but maybe it's not moving far enough.

 

This is where Congu is very different

 

Golfer A would have started off at 8 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores probably be off 9

 

Golfer B would have started off at 4 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores be off 5.1, roughly.

 

But this can depend on weather conditions when they made these scores

Thanks for doing the math on this. So we have two golfers, fairly evenly matched. Looking only at stroke play, and the order in which the scores were written, Player A wins 4, loses 3, and ties 13 times, that's pretty close. In the USGA system, they have identical handicaps. Under CONGU, Player A has a handicap about 4 strokes higher than B, even though he wins slightly more when they play even. Under @Roadking's idea, using the lowest score (80 v. 76) Player A would still get 4 strokes from B, even though A has a slight edge over B playing straight up. Is this consistent with a goal of allowing even competition?

 

That would be right if they are playing Medal matchplay, a format that is almost never used over here at least. In matchplay obviously without hole by hole scores we cannot know the result.

Off the same handicaps player A will probably never win any event with more than a handful of players, similarly in a team event I think I would prefer to have two Bs rather than two As in order to give our team a chance of wining, but then again not sure how these scores are achieved hole by hole so this is just a guess .

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.

 

Assume a course rating of 72 and slope of 135 for these examples.

 

Golfer A scores

 

80, 80, 82, 82, 84, 84, 80, 80, 82, 84, 80, 86, 86, 86, 82, 86, 80, 84, 84,86

 

Golfer B scores

 

76, 84, 82, 82, 84, 84, 78, 82, 82, 84, 82, 86, 86, 86, 86, 86, 76, 84, 84,86

 

Both golfers would have an index of 7.1, but clearly Golfer B has more "potential ability" as witnessed by his three scores (76, 78, 76) lower than any that Golfer A shot. This is not an extreme example.

 

So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?

 

Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?

 

It looks like moving from 10 lowest to 8 lowest is a step in the right direction, but maybe it's not moving far enough.

 

This is where Congu is very different

 

Golfer A would have started off at 8 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores probably be off 9

 

Golfer B would have started off at 4 (providing he never scored over a double) and after the rest of the scores be off 5.1, roughly.

 

But this can depend on weather conditions when they made these scores

 

How did you calculate the CONGU handicap?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for doing the math on this. So we have two golfers, fairly evenly matched. Looking only at stroke play, and the order in which the scores were written, Player A wins 4, loses 3, and ties 13 times, that's pretty close. In the USGA system, they have identical handicaps. Under CONGU, Player A has a handicap about 4 strokes higher than B, even though he wins slightly more when they play even. Under @Roadking's idea, using the lowest score (80 v. 76) Player A would still get 4 strokes from B, even though A has a slight edge over B playing straight up. Is this consistent with a goal of allowing even competition?

 

That would be right if they are playing Medal matchplay, a format that is almost never used over here at least. In matchplay obviously without hole by hole scores we cannot know the result.

Off the same handicaps player A will probably never win any event with more than a handful of players, similarly in a team event I think I would prefer to have two Bs rather than two As in order to give our team a chance of wining, but then again not sure how these scores are achieved hole by hole so this is just a guess .

I agree with the underlined bit, but if we only have total scores, there's only one way we can compare them.

 

I remember reading this article on Dean Knuth's webpage about partners.

http://www.popeofslope.com/guidelines/picking.html

He suggests that in fourball match play, you should look for a partner with a handicap significantly different from yours, who is also a different "type" of player (i.e. an erratic player should pair with a steady player).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

How did you calculate the CONGU handicap?

Others may be able to explain better, but in essence your "exact handicap" is increased or decreased by a set amount, based on your new score. It can only go up by 0.1 at a time, but can decrease a much larger margin based on a single low score. You can read about it here:

http://www.congu.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/2019-CONGU-Manual.pdf

on page 48, or in Appendix E on page 76

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How did you calculate the CONGU handicap?

Others may be able to explain better, but in essence your "exact handicap" is increased or decreased by a set amount, based on your new score. It can only go up by 0.1 at a time, but can decrease a much larger margin based on a single low score. You can read about it here:

http://www.congu.co....ONGU-Manual.pdf

on page 48, or in Appendix E on page 76

 

I know how CONGU works - I've had my handicap calculated off it for years.

 

My query was with the suggestion Player B's handicap would have started off at 4.

 

I'd have thought it would have started at 7.

 

That would be on the basis on the first three scores (76, 84, 82) being submitted for the calculation. The worst score would be thrown out, so it'd be the average of the 76 and the 82 that would be used. So that would be 79 on a 72 rated course giving a 7 handicap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Player A is clearly the better player and there is an increased chance he may be a sandbagger. Player B happened to shoot 2 rounds in the last 20 that he at best has about a 2% of shooting any given round (assuming a 7.1 index). More than likely their index is normally higher than 7.1 and they went on a hot streak. Their index is likely going back to 8.5'ish range where they normally are.

 

lol. Say it ain’t so !

 

Brother. You hit the nail on the head.

Callaway epic max LS 9* GD-M9003 7x 

TM Sim2 max tour  16* GD  ADHD 8x 

srixon zx 19* elements 9F5T 

Cobra king SZ 25.5* KBS TD cat 5 70 

TM p7mc 5-pw Mmt125tx 

Mizuno T22 raw 52-56-60 s400

LAB Mezz Max armlock 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the initial CONGU handicap is based on your best card not an average.

 

You may be correct - it's that long since I was involved in an initial handicap allocation.

 

I had it in my head best two of three were used.

It does appear to be the single lowest 18-hole score of the first 54 holes posted (any combination of 9 or 18 hole scores)

Initial Handicap = (LAGD + (LAGD*0.13))/ 1.237 truncated to provide a whole number.

where LAGD is Lowest Adjusted Gross Differential

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.

 

The way I read the above premise doesn't seem to represent the USGA very well. You are putting too much emphasis on what the handicap number means or doesn't mean, IMO. I like their wording better.

 

The purpose of the USGA Handicap System is to make the game of golf more enjoyable by enabling players of differing abilities to compete on an equitable basis.

http://www.usga.org/...tml#!rule-14367

 

The handicap numbers used to accomplish that are primarily a means to that end.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if the goal is to identify a player's "potential ability", why not use only their ONE lowest score? If a golfer shoots a 76, isn't that his "potential ability"?

 

Wouldn't it be accurate to say Golfer A's potential ability is 80 and Golfer B's potential ability is 76?

 

 

Why do you assume that a player's true potential is his lowest score? Why wouldn't "potential" be lower still?

 

 

Yes, you could say his forecasted potential is quite a lot lower. But basing potential on past results is probably more accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The lowest score theory has some errors. If someone plays a 18 hole par 3 course and shoots 54, is that their "potential?'

 

If someone shoots 75 from the tips at Bethpage Black, is that their potential?

 

Course rating, slope and ultimately differential have to be factors that ultimately go into the underlying "potential."

 

And they are included in potential. The 54 on a par 3 would probably produce high differential since the course rating would be quite low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The USGA says the purpose of a handicap is to identify a players potential ability so they can compete with players of differing abilities on an equitable basis.

 

The way I read the above premise doesn't seem to represent the USGA very well. You are putting too much emphasis on what the handicap number means or doesn't mean, IMO. I like their wording better.

 

The purpose of the USGA Handicap System is to make the game of golf more enjoyable by enabling players of differing abilities to compete on an equitable basis.

http://www.usga.org/...tml#!rule-14367

 

The handicap numbers used to accomplish that are primarily a means to that end.

 

I understand the goal is to allow everyone to compete on an equal basis.

 

USGA "A Handicap Index intends to reflect potential ability,...."

 

https://www.usga.org...r.asp?FAQidx=22

 

USGA "The USGA Handicap Index is widely recognized in America and elsewhere as a reliable measure of a player's potential ability."

 

http://www.usga.org/...e-23c19d10.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's tricky to find the right balance. As a high handicapper, I believe that I am much more likely than a low handicapper of popping out a round several shots better than any of my previous twenty rounds. That said, I am also pretty likely to shoot one a few shots off the high end. For be, using fewer scores is going to (I think) put me a something of a disadvantage, since my actual scores are more likely to be more spread out. I have to confess to not reading the whole thread, but I got the feeling at the start that the issue seen by the OP might not be so much the actual numbers, but the definition, or application, of the word potential. And I could see that. I certainly have the potential to shoot 85, maybe lower. Now and then I get under 90, so it's certainly in there. But if my handicap was based on that, I would be out of luck, because it's probably not happening (at least it hasn't yet!) I know we'd like a perfect system, but what we have doesn't seem awful too me, We use a very similar (just not official) method in our summer golf league, and on any one day we find that pretty much any team can beat any other, and vice-versa. It's not perfect, but we have fun. And that's what I'm looking for!

Jeff, an Arizona hacker

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Our picks

    • 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Discussion and links to Photos
      Please put any questions or Comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Monday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #1
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #2
      2024 Texas Children's Houston Open - Tuesday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Thorbjorn Olesen - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ben Silverman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jesse Droemer - SoTX PGA Section POY - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      David Lipsky - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Martin Trainer - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Zac Blair - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jacob Bridgeman - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Trace Crowe - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Jimmy Walker - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Daniel Berger - WITB(very mini) - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Chesson Hadley - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Callum McNeill - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Rhein Gibson - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Patrick Fishburn - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Peter Malnati - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Raul Pereda - WITB - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Gary Woodland WITB (New driver, iron shafts) – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Padraig Harrington WITB – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      Tom Hoge's custom Cameron - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Piretti putters - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Ping putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Kevin Dougherty's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Bettinardi putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Cameron putter - 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Erik Barnes testing an all-black Axis1 putter – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
      Tony Finau's new driver shaft – 2024 Texas Children's Houston Open
       
       
       
       
       
      • 7 replies
    • 2024 Valspar Championship WITB Photos (Thanks to bvmagic)- Discussion & Links to Photos
      This weeks WITB Pics are from member bvmagic (Brian). Brian's first event for WRX was in 2008 at Bayhill while in college. Thanks so much bv.
       
      Please put your comments or question on this thread. Links to all the threads are below...
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 31 replies
    • 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational - Monday #3
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Matt (LFG) Every - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Sahith Theegala - WITB - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Cameron putters (and new "LD" grip) - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Bettinardi MB & CB irons - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Bettinardi API putter cover - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      Custom Swag API covers - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
      New Golf Pride Reverse Taper grips - 2024 Arnold Palmer Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2024 Cognizant Classic - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #1
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #2
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #3
      2024 Cognizant Classic - Monday #4
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Brandt Snedeker - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Max Greyserman - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Eric Cole - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Carl Yuan - WITb - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Russell Henley - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Justin Sun - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alex Noren - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Shane Lowry - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Taylor Montgomery - WITB - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jake Knapp (KnappTime_ltd) - WITB - - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Super Stoke Pistol Lock 1.0 & 2.0 grips - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      LA Golf new insert putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Garsen Quad Tour 15 grip - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      New Swag covers - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Jacob Bridgeman's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Bud Cauley's custom Cameron putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Ryo Hisatsune's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Chris Kirk - new black Callaway Apex CB irons and a few Odyssey putters - 2024 Cognizant Classic
      Alejandro Tosti's custom Cameron putter - 2024 Cognizant Classic
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 2 replies
    • 2024 Genesis Invitational - Discussion and Links to Photos
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
       
       
      General Albums
       
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Monday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #1
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #2
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #3
      2024 Genesis Invitational - Tuesday #4
       
       
       
       
      WITB Albums
       
      Rory McIlroy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Sepp Straka - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Patrick Rodgers - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Brendon Todd - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Denny McCarthy - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Corey Conners - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Chase Johnson - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tommy Fleetwood - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Matt Fitzpatrick - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Si Woo Kim - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Viktor Hovland - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Wyndham Clark - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Cam Davis - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Nick Taylor - WITB - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Ben Baller WITB update (New putter, driver, hybrid and shafts) – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      Pullout Albums
       
      New Vortex Golf rangefinder - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Fujikura Ventus shaft - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods & TaylorMade "Sun Day Red" apparel launch event, product photos – 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods Sun Day Red golf shoes - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Aretera shafts - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      New Toulon putters - 2024 Genesis Invitational
      Tiger Woods' new white "Sun Day Red" golf shoe prototypes – 2024 Genesis Invitational
       
       
       
       
       
      • 22 replies

×
×
  • Create New...