Jump to content


Advanced Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by DaveLeeNC

  1. It always seemed to me that two indexes would have served the world better than a compromise system like the WHS (where it seems to me that mostly the world compromised and adopted the USGA system). There is real 'power' in an index of only well vetted scores (see @ThinkingPlus recent post). And this comes from a guy who has not had a 'well vetted score' for years now. But if there were a 'general play index' (just like what we have now) and an additional index (call it your VI - Vetted Index) that more serious competitions could use (or even whole countries that only used vetted scores until the WHS - just seems better to me. Lots of details to worry about like how to define a 'well vetted round' and so on. But this seemed a better solution to me. But they didn't ask dave ps. Looks like @mark m just made a very similar suggestion.
  2. Yep - that is how it works for me as well. In our casual play USGA Handicap Strokes are what we get and I also have not had a true comp round in a few years now. dave
  3. Re: Stevie Ray Vaughan Sound Check This one, starting about 2 minutes in it is truly as good as any live footage of SRV that I have ever seen. It is kind of a legend in some guitar worlds (this video was covered in Guitar World at some point in time. dave
  4. For lots of golfers that is true. Then there are the 80 year old guys who used to carry legit mid single digit handicaps and now can't hit a driver more than 170 in the air - very different story for them. dave
  5. @Mtn_Mikey Your symptoms sound more severe than mine at this point. I am now on my second injection and even before the first one I could mostly live my life with just a few exceptions. One of those was swinging a golf club (another would be stairs and/or inclines). Oddly long bike rides (30 miles is a very typical ride for me) are quite therapeutic. My pain shows up in my hip and lower leg and my discomfort level is ZERO after a typical bike ride without exception. I don't care how bad it was when I started. Right now I can play golf comfortably immediately after a spinal epidural. A month or 2 later golf starts to become difficult and a month or 2 after that impossible. I am seeing the 'surgical team' in a couple weeks just to understand what is in front of me. I have huge concerns about my epidural injections as in both cases I encountered pain starting about 6 hours after the injection and lasting about 4-6 more hours. In both cases it was so bad that I literally could not get around even with crutches. I was completely immobile. The pain doc and I are going to have a very serious discussion about this the next time I see her. This is not normal from all I can determine. Good luck. dave
  6. I remember seeing that guideline a VERY long time ago when a 5i was probably more like a 7i today. dave
  7. I tend to agree with that statement regarding breaking 100 and long hitters. But there was one guy that I used to play with long ago. He was around 6' 4" and (back in the late 1960's) played basketball for NC State. He could put the ball out there in the 260 range (not a whole lot longer) but had no control over where it went or where the clubface/ball made contact. He was very athletic but had a fatal swing flaw (the worst case of early extension I have ever seen). For whatever reason either the lessons he took made no impact or he did not take lessons. It would have been a HUGE change for him, BTW. But this is really a quite exceptional case. dave ps. I did once see him hit a drive well right and OB. What was unusual in this case was that it was OB to the right of the adjacent fairway.
  8. I've got good friends, but not that good dave
  9. I'd have to put this in the category of Greatest Guitar Solo from someone you've never heard of and almost certainly never will. The guy is David Schaub and he is some kind of special affects artist with a Academy Award nomination in the Visual Effects category. If you are not familiar with the song Roundabout by Yes, see to understand what he is trying to do with one classical guitar and two hands. Pretty impressive given that this is not even his full time job. dave
  10. This doesn't really speak to the necessity of doing calculated vs just assigned hole handicaps, but I find it interesting in retrospect. A decade or so back my Friday Group was younger than it is now and we were a mixed tee group (middle vs. 'senior tees' - 6100-6300'ish vs. 5600 to 5800 yards at par 72). We did the prescribed course handicap adjustments and a couple of the guys would, very week take a close look at the cards and 'game sheet' which had their strokes for each set of tees. The difference was typically 2 to 4 strokes. It depended on the course, their index, and how roundoff played out at that time. Of course they were always looking to move back when the round off played in their direction from the middle tees. But the other thing that they looked at very carefully was 'on which holes do I get my extra stroke'. This mattered because, at that time, we often played Stableford games that gave you more than one extra point for going (for example) from net par to net birdie. And if we weren't playing Stableford we were playing something like 2 BB (4 person team format) where yet another net par had little value but net birdie/better might be a gain on the field. This doesn't demonstrate or prove anything, but it was interesting to watch. dave
  11. It would be easier to answer if you were to explain the problem that you see WRT to not posting hole by hole. dave ps. I think I now understand your thinking the the stroke index stuff - thanks for the clarification.
  12. @ThinkingPlus I am not sure how bit a 'titch' is. Can we start with this and work our way up or down dave
  13. Wow, for someone who refused to read the first couple pages of a pdf, the is a helluva request (rescoring 900 holes - possibly twice). I doubt that I even have that data, but maybe in some old backup files (somewhere). You keep saying "No difference. None." Here is a list of things that might (or might not) change. Are you saying none of them ever change? If not, then which ones do change? A player's Stableford score on a round (and hence the outcome of a single individual or team competition) The average Stableford score of a player over some period of time (you seem to imply 50 rounds) The index of a player at any point in time The average index of a player over some period of time (50 rounds?) The outcome of a given match (MP scoring) The aggregate outcome of a bunch of matches between the same 2 players over 50 (?) rounds Could you clarify? Thanks. dave
  14. I tried to get that info once (back in the early 2000's and was turned down. But maybe if our club asked for it ......... Or maybe that perspective has changed. dave
  15. No problem - you are free to hit a PW on #18 if you choose . dave ps. I was (long ago) playing with a very 'spirited group'. Milt hit an approach shot with some iron, it came up short, and he mumbled "not enough club". His nemesis (Bill) responded "plenty of club, not enough golfer".
  16. I don't know how long your long run is. Regardless we will have to agree to disagree unless you have some additional information to back up your statement when match outcomes, posted scores, and results of Stableford tournaments all are potentially affected by hole handicap assignments. dave
  17. @Mr. Bean , I guess you are saying that it doesn't matter. I would say that it most certainly can matter on a given round of Stableford scoring, or a given match, or a given posted score. Maybe at some level of increasing granularity it no longer matters, but I don't find that satisfying. When I was doing hole ratings it quickly came to my mind that 'damn, this is a bunch of work when the data that the rating organization has is probably of higher quality and would give me everything I need'. And with that data you could do a lot more than is currently done. First I think it is rare for a course to not have separate ratings for men and women. But I am sure it happens ( @ThinkingPlus probably has some insight here). The issue that hole #x from the back tees might well have a natural different stroke index than the same hole from the front tees is certainly valid, and the data from the rating process tells you what you need to know about that (I have seen scorecards with different stroke indexes by tee). You could even take a stab at addressing the issue of the relative difficulty of holes (from a given set of tees) varying by skill level, although the implementation complexity is probably not worth it. At least (IMHO) the rating organization should make that data routinely available for use (if the club chooses) in determining hole handicaps. And (to me) the USGA/R&A allowing random/ad hoc processes to determine hole handicaps seems slightly irresponsible. dave
  18. The rating organizations have the best data that you are likely to get (IMHO) regarding the calculations of the hole handicaps (stroke index) for all rated courses/tees. They have their (estimated) expected scores (from each set of tees) for scratch golfers and bogey golfers. And that is precisely the data needed to calculate hole handicaps. Prior to the WHS hole handicaps were really just 'competition things' that did not affect actual scoring or posting. But now they most definitely do affect scoring (for Stableford anyway - something that I wish were used more commonly in the US) and posting. It seems to me to now be something that should be coming from the rating authorities rather than whoever it is that does it now (it varies club to club, at least here in the US). Has this ever been seriously discussed at the USGA/R&A level and what was the general consensus? Thanks. dave
  19. Thanks. I not aware of that change and did not realize that under preferred lies (per the model rule) that, assuming no one ball limitation is in place, that I could hit my distance ball off the tee and swap it out for my spinny Pro V1 around the green (assuming that I can keep it in the short grass). I am quite surprised to learn that. FWIW, I am not in favor of allowing that particular action. dave
  20. I have read the thread but my wording was careless. I changed that. dave
  21. It is interesting that the link provided by @davep043 states that simplification is the primary reason for allowing substitution any time that you are taking relief. The change suggested (syntax error - should have said 'referenced') by @Mr. Bean certainly does not introduce any complexity and you could argue that any time the ball is lifted is somewhat simpler than any time you are taking relief. You would need to at least modify the model local rule for 'winter rules' (I assume that no one is advocating choosing the best ball to use for almost every shot). And I wonder if there are some other surprises lurking in there somewhere. dave
  22. It seems to me that @Golferpaulwants to add another exception (that does not currently exist) in the cause of simplification. Or maybe there is something in his thinking that I don't understand. dave
  23. This is a rules group so discussions such as this are certainly well within 'the reasonable bounds of discourse'. But wouldn't it be nice if issues such as this one were typical of the problems that you see in the 'quality' of scores posted for handicap in the US. dave
  24. A spontaneous statement from a playing partner earlier today (after a chunked pitch shot, IIRC). I have got to find a less stressful game. Maybe I will try mixed martial arts. He was having a bad day, BTW. dave
  25. The solution may be in that concept, but those potential waste areas are everywhere. And most rational folks, I think, would see some of 'those areas' as being honest bunkers. So now rather than defining boundaries you are left with defining which areas fall in which category. The USGA seems to have dealt with this effectively in 2014. There are a number of higher level competitions held on this course and I don't know how they deal with this. dave
  • Create New...