Jump to content

Plus Handicap Formula is Illogical


Recommended Posts

The two courses of equal CR and slopes of 125 and 145 has been discussed. There seems to be this widespread idea that the 145 course is harder. It should be obvious that, at least for scratch golfers, the 145 course is NOT harder. But for a 10.0 golfer it is harder. 

 

So surely we all agree that there exists a pair of courses where A is harder than B for some golfers, but A is not harder than B the other for a different set of golfers. So the idea that maybe A is easier for yet a different set of golfers does not seem far fetched to me. 

 

dave

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 390
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

You place too much faith in USGA ratings and slope.  Statistically across the country they are pretty good, but there are courses not rated really well or course designs for certain golfers where the

1. No it's not harder for a scratch player 2. Likely nothing would happen to the course rating and the slope would be higher.  3. It would be a dreadful golf course as already noted. A golf

For a given score, a higher Slope means the resulting differential is closer to zero.  For a given Handicap Index, a higher slope means the course handicap is further from zero.

Posted Images

31 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:


You think only .1% of golfers shoot under course rating rounds?

 

Every single round under a course rating is affected by this.

 

That will affect plus handicaps all the way to 3 and 4’s.   Not significantly, but a flaw is a flaw and it’s much more widespread than you’re making it out to be.

At what level of occurrence is it worth adding complexity to an intentionally simplified system?  Is the increase in what you perceive as accuracy worth it, worth adding complexity?  And once you start making things more complex, where do you draw the line?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

corporate_productivity_and_dilbert_c4s3h

  • Like 2

Want more posters to read and reply ? "[EMBRACE] THE LINE BREAK"

 

Callaway Epic Flash SZ Hzrdus Yellow HC 6.0 Stiff

Ping G400 hybrids 17*, 19*, 70 gr Stock Stiff

Ping G20, 5-PW, DGS300

Ping Glide Forged, 48, 52, 60, DGS300

Cally PM Grind 56 KBS Tour 115

Odyssey V-Line (Today)

Titleist ProV1 (Yellow)

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

The two courses of equal CR and slopes of 125 and 145 has been discussed. There seems to be this widespread idea that the 145 course is harder. It should be obvious that, at least for scratch golfers, the 145 course is NOT harder. But for a 10.0 golfer it is harder. 

 

So surely we all agree that there exists a pair of courses where A is harder than B for some golfers, but A is not harder than B the other for a different set of golfers. So the idea that maybe A is easier for yet a different set of golfers does not seem far fetched to me. 

 

dave

And of course, even for two golfers with identical handicaps, some courses will be harder for one of them, while others will be easier for that same golfer.  Its absolutely impossible to come up with a system that treats each golfer "fairly" across all situations, yet is simple enough to implement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, davep043 said:

At what level of occurrence is it worth adding complexity to an intentionally simplified system?  Is the increase in what you perceive as accuracy worth it, worth adding complexity?  And once you start making things more complex, where do you draw the line?


Those are great questions that finally acknowledge the issue.  Would probably take people much better at math than me to find a solution if desired.
 

I wouldn’t call the USGA handicap system simplified.  It’s pretty complex.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, davep043 said:

And of course, even for two golfers with identical handicaps, some courses will be harder for one of them, while others will be easier for that same golfer.  Its absolutely impossible to come up with a system that treats each golfer "fairly" across all situations, yet is simple enough to implement.


Of course.  But on average it should even out across all golfers etc.  Lots of red herrings being brought into the discussion.

 

Theres no evening out treating a 125 slope as being more difficult than a 145 slope for plus golfers, when for every other golfer it’s treated as easier.  And we know that’s not their intention.  This flaw occurs for every single round shot under a CR.

Edited by TrueBlue4Lyfe
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:


Of course.  But on average it should even out across all golfers etc.  Lots of red herrings being brought into the discussion.

 

Theres no evening out treating a 125 slope as being more difficult than a 145 slope for plus golfers, when for every other golfer it’s treated as easier.  And we know that’s not their intention.  This flaw occurs for every single round shot under a CR.

 

The bold statement is categorically incorrect. dave

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:

Theres no evening out treating a 125 slope as being more difficult than a 145 slope for plus golfers, when for every other golfer it’s treated as easier.  And we know that’s not their intention.  This flaw occurs for every single round shot under a CR.

Edited 5 minutes ago by TrueBlue4Lyfe

This comment is at the very crux of this issue. If one can make a cogent argument for why 145 slope is easier, in general, for a plus golfer than a slope of 125, I'd like to hear it. I'm not talking about a specific golfer on a specific course, but in general.

 

I don't think the problem lies in the fact the model is linear, either. It's more due to the fact that there's a crossover point. That crossover point was deemed a point of "goodness" and that's why the model fails. The farther away from the crossover, the model says you're less good. Which is nonsense, of course. One could create a reasonably linear model with no crossover and this issue would go away. However, today's notion of "scratch" would need to be tossed out the window. I suspect that would be unpalatable to many, since "scratch" is a deep-rooted part of golf culture.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:


Of course.  But on average it should even out across all golfers etc.  Lots of red herrings being brought into the discussion.

 

Theres no evening out treating a 125 slope as being more difficult than a 145 slope for plus golfers, when for every other golfer it’s treated as easier.  And we know that’s not their intention.  This flaw occurs for every single round shot under a CR.

Look, you want something to change, make your case.  How many rounds are affected, and how large is the affect?  Is the difference typically as much as a full handicap stroke to the effected players' index, or is it less than that?  If the problem causes a tenth or two difference in handicaps of 2 or 3% of all golfers with a handicap, is it worth changing? 

 

 

You acknowledge that the system has shortcomings for golfers across the entire spectrum, and you've picked on particular shortcoming to criticize.  I just don't think its a big enough issue to be concerned about, and you haven't provided any kind of data to make me re-asses that opinion.

5 minutes ago, dubbelbogey said:

I don't think the problem lies in the fact the model is linear, either. It's more due to the fact that there's a crossover point. That crossover point was deemed a point of "goodness" and that's why the model fails. The farther away from the crossover, the model says you're less good. Which is nonsense, of course. One could create a reasonably linear model with no crossover and this issue would go away. However, today's notion of "scratch" would need to be tossed out the window. I suspect that would be unpalatable to many, since "scratch" is a deep-rooted part of golf culture.

This is the clearest description I've seen.  The only way to make things work is to move the "zero point" far enough below the Course Rating that you virtually never have to deal with a score that low.  But that system would be dang hard to explain to just about everyone, and when you tell the golfing world that its important because of all the scores shot under par, imagine the reactions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

The bold statement is categorically incorrect. dave


no, no it’s not.  You guys want to play mental gymnastics and pretend “slope” isn’t a way of measuring difficulty but we all know that it is.  
 

No one in their right mind would argue a 72/125 is meant to be more difficult than a 72/145.

 

Rating and slope are supposed to work together to predict how a golfer will shoot.

Edited by TrueBlue4Lyfe
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, davep043 said:

Look, you want something to change, make your case.  How many rounds are affected, and how large is the affect?  Is the difference typically as much as a full handicap stroke to the effected players' index, or is it less than that?  If the problem causes a tenth or two difference in handicaps of 2 or 3% of all golfers with a handicap, is it worth changing? 

 

 

You acknowledge that the system has shortcomings for golfers across the entire spectrum, and you've picked on particular shortcoming to criticize.  I just don't think its a big enough issue to be concerned about, and you haven't provided any kind of data to make me re-asses that opinion.

This is the clearest description I've seen.  The only way to make things work is to move the "zero point" far enough below the Course Rating that you virtually never have to deal with a score that low.  But that system would be dang hard to explain to just about everyone, and when you tell the golfing world that its important because of all the scores shot under par, imagine the reactions.


We’ve slowly gone from “no that’s not illogical” to “it doesn’t need to be changed because the benefits don’t outweigh the costs”

 

The latter I don’t have much of an issue with.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

Two courses with different slopes and the same CR present the same level of difficulty to a scratch golfer. dave


Okay for the golfers that are literally exactly 0.0 it’s treated the same.  You got me.

 

Are you still arguing a 125 should be treated as more difficult than the 145 for the plus golfer?

Edited by TrueBlue4Lyfe
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:


Okay for the golfers that are literally exactly 0.0 it’s treated the same.  You got me.

This point is actually of some significance. You are proposing that as you move down the index scale from say 10 toward scratch, the 145 is harder but is slowly getting easier (vs. the 125) until we hit scratch, where they are the same. Then, mysteriously, as you continue to improve, this relationship reverses course and the 145 starts again to get harder as the level of play improves. This is not impossible, but does not seem like a behavior that one would expect (but it isn't impossible).

 

dave

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

This point is actually of some significance. You are proposing that as you move down the index scale from say 10 toward scratch, the 145 is harder but is slowly getting easier (vs. the 125) until we hit scratch, where they are the same. Then, mysteriously, as you continue to improve, this relationship reverses course and the 145 starts again to get harder as the level of play improves. This is not impossible, but does not seem like a behavior that one would expect (but it isn't impossible).

 

dave


No that’s not what I’m proposing.  I’m saying the 125 doesn’t become harder than the 145 as someone gets better than scratch, which is what the system says now.

 

Treating the 145 as more difficult would make more sense than the current treatment of the two.  But it’s not a perfect solution.

Edited by TrueBlue4Lyfe
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TrueBlue4Lyfe said:


No that’s not what I’m proposing.  I’m saying the 125 doesn’t become harder than the 145 as someone gets better than scratch.

 

Treating the 145 as more difficult would make more sense than the current treatment of the two.  But it’s not a perfect solution.

So you are in the 'ignore slope below CR camp' - that right? 

 

dave

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is an interesting discussion.

 

Some things I have noted after going through the thread:

 

1. The flaw noted in the OP doesn't matter for people who who play at the same course and maintain a handicap index (HI) and calculate the course handicap (CH) for handicap events using consistent slope and rating.

 

2. Slope technically isn't a difficulty rating as defined by USGA, we all know that. However, it is hard to argue this considering an example:

 

  • golfer A shoots 85 on a par 72, CR=72 Slope=140 (diff=10.5)
    • Does this 8 times in a row for a 10.5 HI
  • golfer B shoots 85 on a par 72, CR=72 Slope=120 (diff=12.2)
    • Does this 8 times in a row for a 12.2 HI

When they go play each others course, calculating the course handicaps, golfer A will be giving golfer B 2 strokes for both the slope 140 course and the slope 120 course. All this to say, USGA says one thing however it is pretty obvious slope is somewhat of a measure of difficulty.

 

3. The main flaw in the math is there, you can't really argue it a way. There already is an example of a plus handicap in here who has experienced an issue with it. Lets do another example (unrealistic slopes and ratings, but to prove the point):

 

  • golfer Y shoots 70 on a par 72, CR=72 Slope=150 (diff=-1.5)
    • Does this 8 times in a row for a -1.5 HI
  • golfer Z shoots 70 on a par 72, CR=72 Slope=115 (diff=-2.0)
    • Does this 8 times in a row for a -2.0 HI

Again, when they go play each other's courses in a handicapped event, golfer Z is having to give up half a shot to golfer Y when playing the slope 115 course and .7 of a shot when playing slope 150 course. Considering what was shown in the bogey golfer's example above, how can anyone not see the flaw here?

 

Maybe this is more just an interesting quirk that is fun to discuss more than a real issue since I had to use pretty extreme examples to even calculate .7 of a stroke difference. Models are notoriously not perfect but maybe there is a better way?

Edited by Habitual Flipper
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Agreed - this is an interesting discussion, but no need to get too wound up about it.

 

There is a way to solve it, but not one where the system measures "scratch" as the measure of goodness. (At least not one I can think of). The current model enforces this notion, and is therefore flawed. 

 

Toss out the notion of scratch, put everyone on an absolute rating system and go from there. E.g. table tennis is a sport where the governing body ranks all competitive players on an absolute scale. The current best player in the world has x number of points, everyone else has less than x. There is no notion of "scratch". There is the notion that world class players are in some range of points, national level players at a lower range, hacks and duffers at an even farther level below. Sure, golf could move to such a model, but this is all really antithetical to traditional golf culture where being scratch has long been a measuring stick.

 

Is it worth changing? Everybody will have a different opinion on this. Personally, I'm not that much into net scoring events at all, therefore I don't really care (and this is not because I'm a scratch or better golfer - I'm not). To me, this is just interesting as a topic of discussion.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dubbelbogey said:

 

Agreed - this is an interesting discussion, but no need to get too wound up about it.

 

There is a way to solve it, but not one where the system measures "scratch" as the measure of goodness. (At least not one I can think of). The current model enforces this notion, and is therefore flawed. 

 

Toss out the notion of scratch, put everyone on an absolute rating system and go from there. E.g. table tennis is a sport where the governing body ranks all competitive players on an absolute scale. The current best player in the world has x number of points, everyone else has less than x. There is no notion of "scratch". There is the notion that world class players are in some range of points, national level players at a lower range, hacks and duffers at an even farther level below. Players get a feel for how good a 1500 level player is vs a 2000 level player. Sure, golf could move to such a model, but this is all really antithetical to traditional golf culture where being scratch has long been a measuring stick. I.e. it'll never happen.

 

Is it worth changing? Everybody will have a different opinion on this. Personally, I'm not that much into net scoring events at all, therefore I don't really care (and this is not because I'm a scratch or better golfer - I'm not). To me, this is just interesting as a topic of discussion.

 

 

Oops - double post. please ignore.

Edited by dubbelbogey
Double post - please ignore.
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Habitual Flipper said:

I think it is an interesting discussion.

 

Some things I have noted after going through the thread:

 

1. The flaw noted in the OP doesn't matter for people who who play at the same course and maintain a handicap index (HI) and calculate the course handicap (CH) for handicap events using consistent slope and rating.

 

2. Slope technically isn't a difficulty rating as defined by USGA, we all know that. However, it is hard to argue this considering an example:

 

  • golfer A shoots 85 on a par 72, CR=72 Slope=140 (diff=10.5)
    • Does this 8 times in a row for a 10.5 HI
  • golfer B shoots 85 on a par 72, CR=72 Slope=120 (diff=12.2)
    • Does this 8 times in a row for a 12.2 HI

When they go play each others course, calculating the course handicaps, golfer A will be giving golfer B 2 strokes for both the slope 140 course and the slope 120 course. All this to say, USGA says one thing however it is pretty obvious slope is somewhat of a measure of difficulty.

 

3. The main flaw in the math is there, you can't really argue it a way. There already is an example of a plus handicap in here who has experienced an issue with it. Lets do another example (unrealistic slopes and ratings, but to prove the point):

 

  • golfer Y shoots 70 on a par 72, CR=72 Slope=150 (diff=-1.5)
    • Does this 8 times in a row for a -1.5 HI
  • golfer Z shoots 70 on a par 72, CR=72 Slope=115 (diff=-2.0)
    • Does this 8 times in a row for a -2.0 HI

Again, when they go play each other's courses in a handicapped event, golfer Z is having to give up half a shot to golfer Y when playing the slope 115 course and .7 of a shot when playing slope 150 course. Considering what was shown in the bogey golfer's example above, how can anyone not see the flaw here?

 

Maybe this is more just an interesting quirk that is fun to discuss more than a real issue since I had to use pretty extreme examples to even calculate .7 of a stroke difference. Models are notoriously not perfect but maybe there is a better way?


Good post.  
 

Your example wasn’t really “extreme” though, it just seems like it because you need to make it simple to be easier to understand.

 

EVERY SINGLE under CR round is effected.

 

If golfers are plus 4 or 5 handicaps it’s not hard to come up with an incorrect stroke given.  The difference between a 145 slope and a 130 slope for a 5 under CR round is half a stroke in the direction it shouldn’t be.

 

CR’s don’t actually have to be the same for this effect to occur.  

Edited by TrueBlue4Lyfe
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, dubbelbogey said:

 

Agreed - this is an interesting discussion, but no need to get too wound up about it.

 

There is a way to solve it, but not one where the system measures "scratch" as the measure of goodness. (At least not one I can think of). The current model enforces this notion, and is therefore flawed. 

 

Toss out the notion of scratch, put everyone on an absolute rating system and go from there. E.g. table tennis is a sport where the governing body ranks all competitive players on an absolute scale. The current best player in the world has x number of points, everyone else has less than x. There is no notion of "scratch". There is the notion that world class players are in some range of points, national level players at a lower range, hacks and duffers at an even farther level below. Sure, golf could move to such a model, but this is all really antithetical to traditional golf culture where being scratch has long been a measuring stick.

 

Is it worth changing? Everybody will have a different opinion on this. Personally, I'm not that much into net scoring events at all, therefore I don't really care (and this is not because I'm a scratch or better golfer - I'm not). To me, this is just interesting as a topic of discussion.

 

 


Yea I don’t think I’d be in favor of a wholesale change but I might be in favor of a smaller solution that mathematicians might be able to come up with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were going to 'fix' this 'problem', this is what I would do. Note that I do not agree that there is a problem,  but I agree that no one has ever demonstrated that one way or the other (AFAIK). 

 

First I would look at the data that exists and see if golfers in the range of Plus 1 to Plus Whatever score (vs their handicap) on courses of varying slope differently than golfers of 1.0 to Whatever index. If there is no meaningful difference, then there is no problem and nothing should change. 

 

If there is a meaningful difference then I would add a 3rd standard golfer to the current list of 2 (Scratch and Bogey). This would be the average Plus 8.0 (or something like that). Then every course would have 2 slopes (one for scores above the CR and one for scores below the CR). Other than that things would remain the same as they are now. 

 

I don't know what the 'standard Plus 8 golfer' looks like, but between that definition (and the resulting new slope calculations, which are interdependent) you should end up equalizing matches (stroke or match play) among Plus (and not Plus golfers near scratch) as well as the system works today for those above scratch. Of course if the slope line is not the same for below scratch golfers, then there is no reason to believe that it is the same for above bogey golfers, so then you need to .....

 

dave

Edited by DaveLeeNC
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no problem with the current system.  Possibly the attached docs will help:

Section 10--Plus Handicaps Negative Differentials.doc

Section 10--The USGA Slope System on the Plus Side of Scratch.doc

Driver Maltby KE4 w Aeortech Steelfiber SS65 shaft 46.5”
3 wood Rogue subzero 15 degree with Paderson KG70 F30
Hybrids: 3, 4 and 5 Rogue with Steelfiber HLS980 shaft
Irons: 6 through wedge PXG 0311 with Steelfiber i110cw shaft
Wedge: 50 deg 10 deg bounce MacDaddy 4 S Grind
Wedge: 56 deg 10 deg bounce Jaws S Grind
Wedge: 62 deg 10 deg bounce MacDaddy 4 C Grind (bent to 62 degrees from 60 degrees)
Wedges with steelfiber i110 shafts.
Putter: Strokelab EXO 7; 39.25 inches; 77 degree lie angle; Takimac arthritic grip

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Nels55 said:

I'm unable to download your files, can you explain how there isn't an issue? My example 3 in the post below shows that the handicap calculation is flawed when dealing with 2 plus handicaps playing at different courses.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Habitual Flipper said:

I'm unable to download your files, can you explain how there isn't an issue? My example 3 in the post below shows that the handicap calculation is flawed when dealing with 2 plus handicaps playing at different courses.

 

Sorry about the attachments maybe there is some reason why they are not allowed to be opened.  You can write to the USGA and they will explain it and probably send you the same docs I tried to post.  LOL I believed as you do before I wrote to the USGA and posted such on another forum.   

 

It is a linear fit and the zero point is arbitrarily set to 'par'.  If it was set to -18 instead then everything would come out the same and you would not notice anything other than your handicap being 18 strokes higher...

  • Like 2

Driver Maltby KE4 w Aeortech Steelfiber SS65 shaft 46.5”
3 wood Rogue subzero 15 degree with Paderson KG70 F30
Hybrids: 3, 4 and 5 Rogue with Steelfiber HLS980 shaft
Irons: 6 through wedge PXG 0311 with Steelfiber i110cw shaft
Wedge: 50 deg 10 deg bounce MacDaddy 4 S Grind
Wedge: 56 deg 10 deg bounce Jaws S Grind
Wedge: 62 deg 10 deg bounce MacDaddy 4 C Grind (bent to 62 degrees from 60 degrees)
Wedges with steelfiber i110 shafts.
Putter: Strokelab EXO 7; 39.25 inches; 77 degree lie angle; Takimac arthritic grip

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Habitual Flipper"I'm unable to download your files, can you explain how there isn't an issue? My example 3 in the post below shows that the handicap calculation is flawed when dealing with 2 plus handicaps playing at different courses."

 

Your example happens with EVERY pair of courses of unequal Slope and Rating and often Plus handicaps are not involved. For the case of the same CR, this point is scores at the CR. But take a pair of courses at CR/Slope of 70/139 and 71/125. If you shoot scores above 80, then you will get a lower index on the high slope course. If you shoot scores only below 80 your will get the lower index on the lower slope course (and scores of 80 yield the same index on both courses). It has nothing to do with Plus vs not Plus handicaps (except for the case where the two courses have the same CR). 

 

dave

Link to post
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

    • 2021 3M Open - Discussion and Links
      Please put any questions or comments here
       
      2021 3M Open - Tuesday #1
      2021 3M Open - Tuesday #2
      2021 3M Open - Tuesday #3
      2021 3M Open - Tuesday #4
      2021 3M Open - Tuesday #5
      2021 3M Open - Tuesday #6
      2021 3M Open - Tuesday #7
      2021 3M Open - Tuesday #8
       
      2021 3M Open - Wednesday #1
      2021 3M Open - Wednesday #2
      2021 3M Open - Wednesday #3
      2021 3M Open - Wednesday #4
      2021 3M Open - Wednesday #5
       
       
       
      TaylorMade MG3 wedges - 2021 3M Open
      Mizuno 225 2 iron - 2021 3M Open
      TaylorMade Mini Driver - 2021 3M Open
      Scotty Cameron putters - 2021 3M Open
      New Odyssey putter cover - 2021 3M Open
      Bettinardi wedges - 2021 3M Open
      Rypstick training aid - 2021 3M Open
      Bettinardi putters and covers - 2021 3M Open
      Kuch putting right armlock - 2021 3M Open
       
       
       
       
       
       
        • Like
      • 15 replies
    • 2021 TPC Colorado Champ. @ Heron Lakes WITB Photos- Discussion & Links
      Please put any questions or comments here...
       
      2021 TPC Colorado Championship @ Heron Lakes - Tuesday #1
      2021 TPC Colorado Championship @ Heron Lakes - Tuesday #2
      2021 TPC Colorado Championship @ Heron Lakes - Tuesday #3
      2021 TPC Colorado Championship @ Heron Lakes - Tuesday #4
      2021 TPC Colorado Championship @ Heron Lakes - Tuesday #5
      2021 TPC Colorado Championship @ Heron Lakes - Tuesday #6
      2021 TPC Colorado Championship @ Heron Lakes - Tuesday #7
       
      Titleist T200 2& 3 irons - 2021 TPC Colorado Championship @ Heron Lakes
       

       

       
      • 16 replies
    • 2021 Rocket Mortgage Classic WITB Photos- Discussion and Links
      Please put any questions or comments here.
       
      2021 Rocket Mortgage Classic - Monday #1
      2021 Rocket Mortgage Classic - Monday #2
      2021 Rocket Mortgage Classic - Monday #3
      2021 Rocket Mortgage Classic - Monday #4
      2021 Rocket Mortgage Classic - Monday #5
       
      Cameron putters - 2021 Rocket Mortgage Classic
       

       
       
       
       
      • 15 replies
    • 2021 Travelers Championship - Discussion & Links
      2021 Titleist T100 irons (in hand photos) - Travelers Championship
      2021 Titleist T100S irons (in hand photos) - Travelers Championship
      2021 Titleist U 505 (in hand photos) - Travelers Championship
      Mitsubishi Tensei K series (red, white & blue US Open) shaft - 2021 Travelers Championship
       
      Rickie Fowler's custom Cameron putters - 2021 Travelers Championship
      Scotty Cameron putters - 2021 Travelers Championship
       
      2021 Travelers Championship - Tuesday #1
      2021 Travelers Championship - Tuesday #2
       
      • 20 replies
    • Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Discussion and Links
      Please put any question or comments here.
       
      Links to the galleries...
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #1
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #2
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #3
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #4
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #5
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #6
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #7
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #8
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #9
       
      Adam Svensson with new model of Puma golf shoes - 2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry)
       


       
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #1
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #2
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #3
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #4
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #5
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #6
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #7
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #8
      2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry) - Tuesday #9
       
      Adam Svensson with new model of Puma golf shoes - 2021 Wichita Open (Korn Ferry)
       

       
        • Like
      • 4 replies

×
×
  • Create New...