Absolute score vs round index

[SNIPERBBB]

I pick score. ESC is the reason. I've seen even low handicappers say "I can only put down a double".

 

Sorry dude that was a 9 - no Xs allowed in medal play.

 

That's true as it applies to the event. But not true for your handicap.

[bladehunter]

I know in theory that is true. But if everybody posted honestly then it wouldn’t be necessary for handicaps. I take it as a measure to combat sandbaggers who will write down huge numbers that they either didn’t shoot or did not try to shoot better on.

[teejaywhy]

I know in theory that is true. But if everybody posted honestly then it wouldn’t be necessary for handicaps. I take it as a measure to combat sandbaggers who will write down huge numbers that they either didn’t shoot or did not try to shoot better on.

 

Makes you a sandbagger as well.

 

[cardoustie]

I’d rather shoot a 79 with a higher differential than an 80 connected to a lower differential than the 79.

 

While I keep personal best records both ways, there’s too much subjectivity in slope and rating to make that my favorite goal.

 

So you would rather a 79 at the the local muni with a differential of 11 than an 80 at Oakmont with a differential of 3? Is that really better golf?

 

One of my best rounds ever was Muirfield Village off the tips. High 70's within 1 of the rating. Almost as good as my 68's at home (73.8 / 144 rating)

 

Edit: just looked it up. 76.8 and 155 .. pretty strong. And I fatted two freaking wedges into ponds!!! Ahhhhh ... youth

[TheCityGame]

Goals change over time. It can be both, but I know for that 13 capper out there improving his game, breaking 80 is a big deal no matter where he does it.

 

Breaking 80 used to be a big deal for me.

 

Then, when it became more common, I'd try to break 80 from a different set of tees. I never really made goals like breaking 75 or 76. At that point, I was more concerned about things like putting up a sub-5 differential. More index-focussed.

 

Then, goals became shooting par and shooting negative differentials. Both of which I've done.

 

Breaking 70 is in my mind these days but not like breaking 80 was. Thing is, I know I'd do it if I played a CR68 course all summer, but I won't do that so I'm looking to do it from a "legit" set of tees.

 

I sort of wiped out the "negative differential" in a big way years ago when I shot a career round from the back tees at Bethpage. Not that it was playing easy, but they weren't really where they were rated for that day.

 

 

[bladehunter]

I know in theory that is true. But if everybody posted honestly then it wouldn’t be necessary for handicaps. I take it as a measure to combat sandbaggers who will write down huge numbers that they either didn’t shoot or did not try to shoot better on.

 

Makes you a sandbagger as well.

 

Huh? How so ? lol. So al I have to do to be a plus cap is stop writing scores down. Lol. What a Effed up scenario that is.

 

Again I say. If everyone wrote it down honestly ...like me. There would be no need for max double. I don’t make many “ others”. But occasionally it happens. Can’t imagine it makes a difference.

[SNIPERBBB]

Remember, your index is a measure of potential. It keeps people from filling the sand bags when they need to raise their index prior to net tournaments.

[BMC]

I pick score. ESC is the reason. I've seen even low handicappers say "I can only put down a double".

 

Sorry dude that was a 9 - no Xs allowed in medal play.

 

That's true as it applies to the event. But not true for your handicap.

 

Yeah, that's my point as the OP question was what do you use for tracking your progress as a golfer.

I like scoring average better than index, where 8s and 9s count. I'm a single and take a triple or quad once in awhile. Hurts more score more than index.

[nsxguy]

I pick score. ESC is the reason. I've seen even low handicappers say "I can only put down a double".

 

Sorry dude that was a 9 - no Xs allowed in medal play.

 

Not sure what "I pick score" means but I have no doubt that the low handicapper you're referring to meant "for handicap purposes". I'm quite sure any low handicapper know that for a gross and net score every stroke counts.

[TheCityGame]

I know in theory that is true. But if everybody posted honestly then it wouldn't be necessary for handicaps. I take it as a measure to combat sandbaggers who will write down huge numbers that they either didn't shoot or did not try to shoot better on.

 

Makes you a sandbagger as well.

 

Huh? How so ? lol. So al I have to do to be a plus cap is stop writing scores down. Lol. What a Effed up scenario that is.

 

Again I say. If everyone wrote it down honestly ...like me. There would be no need for max double. I don't make many " others". But occasionally it happens. Can't imagine it makes a difference.

I don't think you understand the reason we use Equitable Stroke Control.

 

It has nothing to do with honesty.

[BMC]

I pick score. ESC is the reason. I've seen even low handicappers say "I can only put down a double".

 

Sorry dude that was a 9 - no Xs allowed in medal play.

 

Not sure what "I pick score" means but I have no doubt that the low handicapper you're referring to meant "for handicap purposes". I'm quite sure any low handicapper know that for a gross and net score every stroke counts.

 

The OP asked which you prefer for setting goals, index or absolute score, and I picked score, for me.

[bladehunter]

I know in theory that is true. But if everybody posted honestly then it wouldn't be necessary for handicaps. I take it as a measure to combat sandbaggers who will write down huge numbers that they either didn't shoot or did not try to shoot better on.

 

Makes you a sandbagger as well.

 

Huh? How so ? lol. So al I have to do to be a plus cap is stop writing scores down. Lol. What a Effed up scenario that is.

 

Again I say. If everyone wrote it down honestly ...like me. There would be no need for max double. I don't make many " others". But occasionally it happens. Can't imagine it makes a difference.

I don't think you understand the reason we use Equitable Stroke Control.

 

It has nothing to do with honesty.

 

So it is not to keep people from playing half assed and posting a score when they didn’t try their best ? Or outright lying and posting an inflated score with two 8s and a 7 on the back 9. ?

 

If not then you maybe correct.

[bladehunter]

I pick score. ESC is the reason. I've seen even low handicappers say "I can only put down a double".

 

Sorry dude that was a 9 - no Xs allowed in medal play.

 

Not sure what "I pick score" means but I have no doubt that the low handicapper you're referring to meant "for handicap purposes". I'm quite sure any low handicapper know that for a gross and net score every stroke counts.

 

The OP asked which you prefer for setting goals, index or absolute score, and I picked score, for me.

 

Never ran into a good player who would think index over score.

[BMC]

I pick score. ESC is the reason. I've seen even low handicappers say "I can only put down a double".

 

Sorry dude that was a 9 - no Xs allowed in medal play.

 

Not sure what "I pick score" means but I have no doubt that the low handicapper you're referring to meant "for handicap purposes". I'm quite sure any low handicapper know that for a gross and net score every stroke counts.

 

The OP asked which you prefer for setting goals, index or absolute score, and I picked score, for me.

 

Never ran into a good player who would think index over score.

 

I agree with this. The club champion where I work, an amateur, hasn't posted a score in three years. He doesn't play in handicapped tournaments. When he did, he was a +3.

 

Some of better players do post, just to play in the fun events that require an index. Nothing wrong with keeping a handicap at all, but better players aren't that concerned with them.

[nsxguy]

I pick score. ESC is the reason. I've seen even low handicappers say "I can only put down a double".

 

Sorry dude that was a 9 - no Xs allowed in medal play.

 

Not sure what "I pick score" means but I have no doubt that the low handicapper you're referring to meant "for handicap purposes". I'm quite sure any low handicapper know that for a gross and net score every stroke counts.

 

The OP asked which you prefer for setting goals, index or absolute score, and I picked score, for me.

 

Ahhhhh, I see. Right you are. So I guess I'm supposed to read the title, eh ? Why should *I* be any different ? :lol:

 

My bad.

[TheCityGame]

I know in theory that is true. But if everybody posted honestly then it wouldn't be necessary for handicaps. I take it as a measure to combat sandbaggers who will write down huge numbers that they either didn't shoot or did not try to shoot better on.

 

Makes you a sandbagger as well.

 

Huh? How so ? lol. So al I have to do to be a plus cap is stop writing scores down. Lol. What a Effed up scenario that is.

 

Again I say. If everyone wrote it down honestly ...like me. There would be no need for max double. I don't make many " others". But occasionally it happens. Can't imagine it makes a difference.

I don't think you understand the reason we use Equitable Stroke Control.

 

It has nothing to do with honesty.

 

So it is not to keep people from playing half assed and posting a score when they didn't try their best ? Or outright lying and posting an inflated score with two 8s and a 7 on the back 9. ?

 

If not then you maybe correct.

No. It's to alleviate the effect that blow-up holes have on golfers' indexes because those blow-up holes are not indicative of the golfer's potential.

 

I suppose it has a "capping effect" on golfers who are artificially trying to inflate their handicap, but if you're dealing with golfers who are trying to do that, they have a lot of ways to get it done.

 

ESC does get into that stroke/match play aspect of handicaps. Like, if ESC didn't exist, a handicap might be more representative of their ability in stroke play than it currently is, but they would most likely clean up in match play. Handicaps are tough to make work in all forms of play. . .stroke, match, stableford, fourball, etc.

[bladehunter]

l agree with that last line which is why I avoid handicapped events at almost all costs. If I do play in one I try hard to have zero expectation of finishing well. It took a 65 ( career low ) for me to win one last year. Lol. Which in my opinion is nuts competing against mostly 4-15 handicaps. I can usually shoot 72-78 and not be near in the money. And I just got called a sandbagger. Lmao

[BKN1964]

Reviving this thread vs. starting a new one, since I've been thinking about this a lot lately.

I'd like to add another option: vs. par, and also how it compares to my course handicap. As in "I shot 7 over, my course handicap is 8". Talking in terms of over/under par also adjusts for par 70's, 72's, etc.

I quit my club and have been playing an "easy" course from short tees (63.4/101 @5,000 yards). I'm a 15.8 index who hits driver about 200 yards max. This yardage allows me to reach all of the holes in regulation without having to hit driver/long club on most of the par 4's just to try to get close to the green. Given this, I think this gives me a realistic shot at making par on every hole.

My course handicap is 8 strokes, and not surprisingly, I've been shooting right around my course handicap.

It's really helping me see where I need to work. Hitting bad tee shots, or second shots on a par 5, that makes it tough (or impossible) to hit the green in regulation? Missing greens with my approach shots, especially with wedges and short irons? Not getting my up-and-down shot close enough to the pin to be able to 1-putt? Missing lag putts or short putts that result in a missed up-and-down or a 3-putt?

Based on all of this, and some of the earlier discussion about course ratings mostly based on distance, I'm leaning toward looking at my scores as how I shot vs. par, relative to my course handicap. If I'm pitching on to the par 4's because I can't realistically reach them in regulation, I shouldn't really expect to make anything better than bogey most of the time on those holes.

 

[Roadking2003]

Slope isn't a measure of difficulty.

[nsxguy]

Instead of trying to bait someone why don't you explain what slope IS, if not a measure of difficulty ???

[Deceptively Short]

Slope is a measure of how much more difficult/easy a course from a particular set of tees is for a bogey golfer than for a scratch golfer.

I am sure there is a more succinct way of putting this though

[nsxguy]

"Slope is a measure of how much more difficult/easy a course from a particular set of tees is for a bogey golfer than for a scratch golfer."

Sure sounds like a "measure of difficulty" to me,,,,,,,,,,

[Newby]

It can be a relatively difficult concept to explain and understand.

[Augster]

It is a measure of difficulty. Just look at the definition. RK just likes to post that nonsense whenever he can. A 140 slope course is going to be much more difficult than a 113 sloped course.

[davep043]

In theory, for a scratch player, those two courses will be of similar difficulty, as long as the Course Ratings are the same. The slope is an indication of the difference in difficulty for higher-handicap players as compared to the scratch player. Its kind of nit-picky, because its really rare that courses with Slope ratings that vary by that much will have similar Course Ratings.

[Roadking2003]

No. Course Rating (CR) and Bogey Rating (BR) are measures of difficulty for scratch and bogey golfers. Those are absolutely measures of difficulty and are produced by the USGA rating teams for every tee on every course they rate.

Slope is a formula based ratio of the two. Slope is the RELATIVE difficulty for a bogey golfer COMPARED to a scratch golfer.

Slope is a relative measure, not an absolute measure.

 

In most cases, higher slope ratings indicate a more difficult course, but not always. Here is an example I ran across yesterday while planning a golf trip to the Banff area.

 

Mt Kidd, blue tees: CR is 68.8, BR is 93.3, Slope is 132.

Mt Lorette, blue tees: CR is 70.4, BR is 94.6, Slope is 130.

 

So, if you only looked at slope you would conclude (incorrectly) that Mt Kidd is a more difficult course than Mt Loretta. Mt Loretta is more difficult than Mt Kidd for both scratch golfers and bogey golfers.

 

[Roadking2003]

See post #56.

[Roadking2003]

It's not nonsense. You obviously don't understand Slope, CR, BR and the way those numbers are developed.

 

See post #56 for a real life example.

[Roadking2003]

Since you used an extreme situation (Slope 113 vs 140), I will show you how a course with a slope of 113 could be more difficult than a course with a slope of 140. This is not likely, but it is possible.

 

Course A: CR is 75.0, BR is 96.0, Slope is 113.

Course B: CR is 69.0, BR is 95.0, Slope is 140.

 

So, which course is more difficult? Obviously Course A is a lot more difficult for a scratch golfer (CR 75 vs CR 69), and slightly more difficult for a bogey golfer (BR 96 vs BR 95).

The very low Slope for Course A simply means that the course is not hugely more difficult for a bogey golfer than a scratch golfer.

The very high Slope for Course B simply means that the course is much more difficult for a bogey golfer than a scratch golfer.

 

[nsxguy]

You said, and I quote (AGAIN), "Slope isn't a measure of difficulty." YOUR words.

NOBODY, not even you, mentioned "absolute measure".

And you yourself now say "Slope is the RELATIVE difficulty for a bogey golfer COMPARED to a scratch golfer"

So slope IS a measure of difficulty.

See you on the flip side.