Plus Handicap Formula is Illogical

[dhc1]

1 hour ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I assume that you are not saying that you feel that a round of 5 under the CR on the senior tees at your local muni course should be treated the same as a score of 5 under the CR at a PGA Tour caliber course (championship tees). And that you are not saying that a scratch golfer should get the same strokes from a Plus 8 golfer on the muni senior tees vs. the same championship tees. 

 

But if you are saying that the proper relationship between the 'right diff' for scores better than the CR might be different than the slope for scores between CR and BR, I have no argument with that. 

 

dave

It's a good question that I'd like to consider further but I'm not sure why that would be the case.

 

Is it harder for a scratch player to play to the course rating on the senior tees at your local muni than it is to shoot the CR at a PGA Tour caliber course (championship tees)? If not for a scratch player, what is the non-formulaic rationale that it would be harder/easier for a plus player?

[dhc1]

10 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Let’s see how that works out shall we? Typical club rated at 72.0 with a 133 slope. 
shoot 102 30 over the course rating differential is 25.49

shoot 92 20 over the rating 16.99 differential 

shoot 82 gets you a 8.49 differential. 
Notice that the margin between the differential of those 10 stroke different scores is a uniform 8.50

Using this as a good example, every stroke on the course is equal to .85 index. The more slope, the lower the impact of every shot such that a 145 sloped course is worth 0.78.

 

The non-math question is why that's appropriate for a match between two golfers who are good enough where the slope definitionally doesn't apply to them. more to the point for exceptional golfers, why does a stroke on a course with more bogey golfer difficulty count less for plus golfers than strokes on courses with less bogey golf difficulty?

 

I'm not looking to understand the formula but the rationale on why it makes for a better match between two plus golfers?

 

BTW, i'm sympathetic to the point that "simplicity/practicality of process is more important than fairness" as one can say that while it is illogical, it's too small a population to complicate a simple system. 

[DaveLeeNC]

43 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

It's a good question that I'd like to consider further but I'm not sure why that would be the case.

 

Is it harder for a scratch player to play to the course rating on the senior tees at your local muni than it is to shoot the CR at a PGA Tour caliber course (championship tees)? If not for a scratch player, what is the non-formulaic rationale that it would be harder/easier for a plus player?

 

The problems being faced on these 2 courses are very different. To think that the difficulty is the same would be a huge and unwarranted leap of expectation that I don't understand. 

 

In one case (championship course) if you are at scratch then your 'proto-typical play to your index round' is probably above par and your best path to better is most likely avoiding some bogeys.  In the other case you already have (for example) 6 birdies in your proto-typical play to your index round and are trying for a couple more. 

 

dave

Edited October 14, 2020 by DaveLeeNC

[DaveLeeNC]

23 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

duplicate, somehow

 

Edited October 14, 2020 by DaveLeeNC

[davep043]

28 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

again, I understand the math that you're espousing particularly for players on the same course.

 

the issue is what is the non-math reason that a player who consistently shoots 10 under the course rating at a course with a 120 slope has to give a stroke to a player who consistently shoots 10 under at a course with a 133 slope. this stroke is irrespective of whether the match is played at the 120 or 133 slope course btw.

There's not a single person in the world who CONSISTENTLY shoots 10 under the Course Rating on any course. The fact that it takes such extreme "what ifs" to make even a single stroke difference shows just how insignificant any "problem" really is.  

And even if Kim Jung-Il miraculously returns from the dead to play his equally skilled son, do you think they're going to play even up, or beg for a single handicap stroke?

[Shilgy]

28 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

again, I understand the math that you're espousing particularly for players on the same course.

 

the issue is what is the non-math reason that a player who consistently shoots 10 under the course rating at a course with a 120 slope has to give a stroke to a player who consistently shoots 10 under at a course with a 133 slope. this stroke is irrespective of whether the match is played at the 120 or 133 slope course btw.

 

For example: the reason a player who shoots 18 over the course rating on a course with a higher slope rating gives a stroke or two to a player who shoots 18 over the course rating on a course with a lower slope rating is because s/he has to navigate more bogey type difficulty so the same score relative to the "easier" bogey golfer course is viewed as being a better round.

I think if the two guys are capable of shooting 10 under the course rating they likely play each other straight up.😎

Besides the glib answer of “it’s math” the only response would be to echo what someone posted a while ago.  The 120 slope course, if they have the same rating,  is most likely longer by a fair margin. And since neither player,  being a +10 capable player, is rarely bothered by hazards the longer player probably does have a slight advantage. 
May be hogwash but there is some logic to it.

[HatsForBats]

11 hours ago, Shilgy said:

Let’s see how that works out shall we? Typical club rated at 72.0 with a 133 slope. 
shoot 102 30 over the course rating differential is 25.49

shoot 92 20 over the rating 16.99 differential 

shoot 82 gets you a 8.49 differential. 
Notice that the margin between the differential of those 10 stroke different scores is a uniform 8.50

 

Now take a score of 77 which is 5 over the rating (4.25 differential) and compare it to a score of  67 which is 5 better than the rating AND the same ten stroke spread between scores. You think that differential spread should be 9.25 instead of the current 8.50? All because it doesn’t look right?

The purpose of the handicap system is to make a match between two players as even as possible. Not to determine how “good” a player is.  So on the same course the difference between scores and the differential they create needs to be the same.

Its funny isn’t it? Without getting political this is like taxing those richer than us. We used to have a 96% reward for excellence built into the handicap system and now some want to punish that darn plays cap for being good.

 

Just because it produces the same spread does not mean it is right much in the way that only using Score minus Course rating would also not be right. That would also produce the same spread.

 

The potential issue is that for a score over the Course Rating the differential produced will be higher for a lower slope and lower for a higher slope. For a score below the Course Rating the differential will be the opposite (ie. Lower for a lower slope and higher for a higher slope). You already know this but think just because the spread is the same that suddenly makes it right. It does not necessarily. The only way to definitively answer that is to have access to enough scores from plus players for 2 courses that have the same Course Rating but decently different slopes. My guess is their best gross scores will be better/lower on the lower slope than the higher slope course just like it is for those that are not plus indexes. Which would mean the differential for the lower slope course should be higher than the differential for the same score on the higher slope course. Which would mean the formula is not accurate once the score is below the course rating.

Edited October 14, 2020 by HatsForBats

[davep043]

12 minutes ago, HatsForBats said:

The only way to definitively answer that is to have access to enough scores from plus players for 2 courses that have the same Course Rating but decently different slopes. My guess is their best gross scores will be better/lower on the lower slope than the higher slope course just like it is for those that are not plus indexes. 

Because different courses and different factors affect different players differently (I know, that's a lot of differents), you'd need to find a bunch of + handicaps who regularly play a large variety of courses.  You might be right as to the expected trend, but there's no way to know for sure.  

Even if the trend you expect proves true, what should be done, it anything?  Are enough players affected severely enough to make it worthwhile to change the system?  And I mentioned it before, if we research this low-scoring end of the spectrum of players, shouldn't we also research the group well above bogey?  Maybe we need a 3-slope basic line, instead of the (very simple) single line system we have now.

[Shilgy]

22 minutes ago, HatsForBats said:

 

Just because it produces the same spread does not mean it is right much in the way that only using Score minus Course rating would also not be right. That would also produce the same spread.

 

The potential issue is that for a score over the Course Rating the differential produced will be higher for a lower slope and lower for a higher slope. For a score below the Course Rating the differential will be the opposite (ie. Lower for a lower slope and higher for a higher slope). You already know this but think just because the spread is the same that suddenly makes it right. It does not necessarily. The only way to definitively answer that is to have access to enough scores from plus players for 2 courses that have the same Course Rating but decently different slopes. My guess is their best gross scores will be better/lower on the lower slope than the higher slope course just like it is for those that are not plus indexes. Which would mean the differential for the lower slope course should be higher than the differential for the same score on the higher slope course. Which would mean the formula is not accurate once the score is below the course rating.

Just because it produces the same spread does not meanit is right

 

But would you be saying that if the zero line was moved a dozen strokes lower so there were no plus handicaps? Why not? Why not just have an arbitrary, and believe me the current system is arbitrary, cutoff line of a ten handicap? So playing with your buddies you give more strokes than you should because they are a 15 handicap and you’re a 5?  Using my +12 cutoff as the zero line If the +5 was a 7 and the 5 was a 17 would you still say he should give more strokes in a match than the 17 playing a 27? 
it needs to stay linear to work as a handicap system. It’s not a player rating system it is foe making a fair match.

Edited October 14, 2020 by Shilgy

[TourSpoon]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

There's not a single person in the world who CONSISTENTLY shoots 10 under the Course Rating on any course. The fact that it takes such extreme "what ifs" to make even a single stroke difference shows just how insignificant any "problem" really is.  

And even if Kim Jung-Il miraculously returns from the dead to play his equally skilled son, do you think they're going to play even up, or beg for a single handicap stroke?

My bet is that they play even up to the established course hole-in-one ratings using the NoKo double secret probation no virus here slope factor (applicable only in North Korea).  Dennis Rodman will obviously be officiating this pristine display. Start thawing the ice! 

[dhc1]

1 hour ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

The problems being faced on these 2 courses are very different. To think that the difficulty is the same would be a huge and unwarranted leap of expectation that I don't understand. 

 

In one case (championship course) if you are at scratch then your 'proto-typical play to your index round' is probably above par and your best path to better is most likely avoiding some bogeys.  In the other case you already have (for example) 6 birdies in your proto-typical play to your index round and are trying for a couple more. 

 

dave

 

Dave - makes sense. Why is that it would be harder for a scratch golfer to shoot the rating on one vs. the other? 

[dhc1]

1 hour ago, davep043 said:

There's not a single person in the world who CONSISTENTLY shoots 10 under the Course Rating on any course. The fact that it takes such extreme "what ifs" to make even a single stroke difference shows just how insignificant any "problem" really is.  

And even if Kim Jung-Il miraculously returns from the dead to play his equally skilled son, do you think they're going to play even up, or beg for a single handicap stroke?

 

weird response. if it makes you feel better, we can use 5 under on course with a 72.0 rating and two slopes of 125 and 140 (not that uncommon) for 8/20 rounds to get to around stroke difference

 

If your point is that you don't mind a system that isn't logical because it's more practical, that's fine. But it still doesn't make sense especially if the purpose is to fairly handicap matches. Presumably you don't believe in single stroke differentials in any matches given your disdain for it.

[DaveLeeNC]

8 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

 

Dave - makes sense. Why is that it would be harder for a scratch golfer to shoot the rating on one vs. the other? 

 

According to the USGA it is the same. But shooting a 64 on a 64/105 course is certainly a different challenge than shooting a 74 on a 74/140 course. There are probably a lot of golfers who can hit that 74 on a 8 out of 20 basis who could not hit 64 on the 64/105 course. And the other way around. But for golfers with the skillset defined by the USGA (across the board) as a scratch golfer (starting with a driver length of around 250), they are supposedly the same. I don't find that far fetched. 

 

OTOH, I was in Myrtle Beach once and showed up as a single to play a afternoon (out of season) round and was paired with another guy. Turns out that his index and mine were identical (5.4, IIRC). We decided that we had to play a match given that coincidence, and the discussion of tees came up. I just said that "I am unlikely to play to my index at 6700 yards". He said "I am unlikely to play to my index at 6200 yards. We played at 6700 yards and I lost (2 down) on the 17th hole. He was a lot longer than me, but much less consistent - probably longer and less consistent than your typical 5 handicapper. For me it was the complete opposite. 

 

dave

[dhc1]

1 hour ago, Shilgy said:

I think if the two guys are capable of shooting 10 under the course rating they likely play each other straight up.😎

Besides the glib answer of “it’s math” the only response would be to echo what someone posted a while ago.  The 120 slope course, if they have the same rating,  is most likely longer by a fair margin. And since neither player,  being a +10 capable player, is rarely bothered by hazards the longer player probably does have a slight advantage. 
May be hogwash but there is some logic to it.

 

I get that in order to make the concept work, it's all about additional length but I do think it's hogwash. It's not hard to come up with courses that are the same length and rating but with varying slopes. 

 

The bad part about two plus golfers playing straight up is that they miss the joy of negotiating handicaps: as a great man once said, the match is won before the first ball is struck.....next time i play against a current PGA players, I'll be certain to get those extra strokes. I still can't be an LPGA pro, even if i was a 4.

Edited October 14, 2020 by dhc1

[davep043]

4 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

The bad part about two plus golfers playing straight up is that they miss the joy of negotiating handicaps:

If you're going to NEGOTIATE handicaps, who the F__ cares what the actual numbers are?

[dhc1]

3 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

According to the USGA it is the same. But shooting a 64 on a 64/105 course is certainly a different challenge than shooting a 74 on a 74/140 course. There are probably a lot of golfers who can hit that 74 on a 8 out of 20 basis who could not hit 64 on the 64/105 course. And the other way around. But for golfers with the skillset defined by the USGA (across the board) as a scratch golfer (starting with a driver length of around 250), they are supposedly the same. I don't find that far fetched. 

 

OTOH, I was in Myrtle Beach once and showed up as a single to play a afternoon (out of season) round and was paired with another guy. Turns out that his index and mine were identical (5.4, IIRC). We decided that we had to play a match given that coincidence, and the discussion of tees came up. I just said that "I am unlikely to play to my index at 6700 yards". He said "I am unlikely to play to my index at 6200 yards. We played at 6700 yards and I lost (2 down) on the 17th hole. He was a lot longer than me, but much less consistent - probably longer and less consistent than your typical 5 handicapper. For me it was the complete opposite. 

 

dave

 

horses for courses! on an overall basis, I think these things should even out. 

 

I simply believe that there isn't good logic on a consistent basis for how it treats scores below par. I do get that it's simpler the way it is now and probably not that relevant to the grand scheme of things. on the flip side, I'd bet less than 5% of golfers with handicaps can calculate one and simply rely on the computer so it wouldn't be hard to have the system have a more intricate scoring formula. 

[Shilgy]

2 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

According to the USGA it is the same. But shooting a 64 on a 64/105 course is certainly a different challenge than shooting a 74 on a 74/140 course. There are probably a lot of golfers who can hit that 74 on a 8 out of 20 basis who could not hit 64 on the 64/105 course. And the other way around. But for golfers with the skillset defined by the USGA (across the board) as a scratch golfer (starting with a driver length of around 250), they are supposedly the same. I don't find that far fetched. 

 

OTOH, I was in Myrtle Beach once and showed up as a single to play a afternoon (out of season) round and was paired with another guy. Turns out that his index and mine were identical (5.4, IIRC). We decided that we had to play a match given that coincidence, and the discussion of tees came up. I just said that "I am unlikely to play to my index at 6700 yards". He said "I am unlikely to play to my index at 6200 yards. We played at 6700 yards and I lost (2 down) on the 17th hole. He was a lot longer than me, but much less consistent - probably longer and less consistent than your typical 5 handicapper. For me it was the complete opposite. 

 

dave

Using 8 of 20 scores two guys with the same index certainly can be wildly different players. And betting would reflect that. I am currently at 4.2. Getting older after being scratch-ish for years. A friend is currently down to a 4.5 which is his lowest ever due to some good play. Six weeks ago he was at about 8.0. 
I would gladly play him straight up for the next 20 rounds. His best 8 will probably be a wash with mine but the other 12 I would have a big advantage.

[dhc1]

Just now, davep043 said:

If you're going to NEGOTIATE handicaps, who the F__ cares what the actual numbers are?

 

because there's few things in life more fun than to call your best friends shameless sandbaggers (and vice versa). I can't recall ever really getting strokes outside of the cards except for rounds deep into the drinks but the fun we've had disputing handicaps is as good as the golf itself. YMMV.

[Shilgy]

2 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

 

horses for courses! on an overall basis, I think these things should even out. 

 

I simply believe that there isn't good logic on a consistent basis for how it treats scores below par. I do get that it's simpler the way it is now and probably not that relevant to the grand scheme of things. on the flip side, I'd bet less than 5% of golfers with handicaps can calculate one and simply rely on the computer so it wouldn't be hard to have the system have a more intricate scoring formula. 

You are correct that most cannot calculate an index. And I would bet if those two fictional 67 shooting guys went to play a match and asked each other what their index and course handicap for the day was it would never occur to them to ask how and where it was achieved. 

[dhc1]

2 minutes ago, Shilgy said:

Using 8 of 20 scores two guys with the same index certainly can be wildly different players. And betting would reflect that. I am currently at 4.2. Getting older after being scratch-ish for years. A friend is currently down to a 4.5 which is his lowest ever due to some good play. Six weeks ago he was at about 8.0. 
I would gladly play him straight up for the next 20 rounds. His best 8 will probably be a wash with mine but the other 12 I would have a big advantage.

 

in the 4vLPGA you brought up that it's 8/20 now which brought up an interesting point. I agree that today's handicaps are even harder to match now than before as anti-caps (the differentials on the scores not included) will have a much wider spread vs handicaps.

[Krt22]

9 pages for a scenario that likely impacts <1% of golfers, based on theoretically rated courses that largely do not exist 

[Shilgy]

Just now, dhc1 said:

 

in the 4vLPGA you brought up that it's 8/20 now which brought up an interesting point. I agree that today's handicaps are even harder to match now than before as anti-caps (the differentials on the scores not included) will have a much wider spread vs handicaps.

For most players yes. Although the removal of the 96% factor made the 8/0 vs 10/20  issue a wash for most players.

[DaveLeeNC]

23 minutes ago, dhc1 said:

 

horses for courses! on an overall basis, I think these things should even out. 

 

I simply believe that there isn't good logic on a consistent basis for how it treats scores below par. I do get that it's simpler the way it is now and probably not that relevant to the grand scheme of things. on the flip side, I'd bet less than 5% of golfers with handicaps can calculate one and simply rely on the computer so it wouldn't be hard to have the system have a more intricate scoring formula. 

 

I would say that the way the current system treats scores below but near the CR is very logical and reasonable. If you are a 2 index golfer playing sloped 140 courses, you need to improve your scoring by around 2.5 strokes to improve 2 strokes in index (to scratch). If you are playing 113 sloped courses then you need only 2 strokes improvement to achieve that same index improvement. I assume that there is no issue with that. 

 

The assumption that the relationship holds for the 'next step of another 2 stroke improvement' does not seem unreasonable to me. A straight line going from Plus 8 to the 40's or something like that - not so sure about that one. And maybe scoring well below the CR is an area that is significantly different. Those last handful of strokes are quite hard to acquire, I think. 

 

dave

[Ty_Webb]

8 minutes ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

I would say that the way the current system treats scores below but near the CR is very logical and reasonable. If you are a 2 index golfer playing sloped 140 courses, you need to improve your scoring by around 2.5 strokes to improve 2 strokes in index (to scratch). If you are playing 113 sloped courses then you need only 2 strokes improvement to achieve that same index improvement. I assume that there is no issue with that. 

 

The assumption that the relationship holds for the 'next step of another 2 stroke improvement' does not seem unreasonable to me. A straight line going from Plus 8 to the 40's or something like that - not so sure about that one. And maybe scoring well below the CR is an area that is significantly different. Those last handful of strokes are quite hard to acquire, I think. 

 

dave

 

Agreed. Took a look at Phil Mickelson's handicap record: https://www.ghin.com/golfer-lookup/golfer/53616c7465645f5f02f88a881c6cee5f9c29e4c25c06968f/club/27992

 

His lowest scores are on the high slope courses. The one low slope course he played he shot four middle of the road scores. I wonder why that would be? Could be the low slope is harder for him... Certainly harder to put distance between the course rating and his score. 

[DaveLeeNC]

56 minutes ago, Ty_Webb said:

 

Agreed. Took a look at Phil Mickelson's handicap record: https://www.ghin.com/golfer-lookup/golfer/53616c7465645f5f02f88a881c6cee5f9c29e4c25c06968f/club/27992

 

His lowest scores are on the high slope courses. The one low slope course he played he shot four middle of the road scores. I wonder why that would be? Could be the low slope is harder for him... Certainly harder to put distance between the course rating and his score. 

 

This is interesting. First if the system is correct (as in correct enough to be useful) and a player matches whatever 'ideal' would exist for a given level of golf skill, then you would expect the average differentials of that golfer to be relatively unchanged when going from low slope to high slope courses. 

 

Phil's average diff on courses at slope 150 and above is -3.63, His average differ on courses at slope under 150 is -3.64. Not enough data to draw a conclusion (and not a well constructed experiment even with more data), but interesting. 

 

dave

Edited October 14, 2020 by DaveLeeNC

[Halebopp]

When you're done with this issue, you can tackle the problem of a fair share of plus handicaps being based on tournament rounds, which are not played in the conditions for which the courses they play are rated to begin with. 🙂

[nsxguy]

6 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

OTOH, I was in Myrtle Beach once and showed up as a single to play a afternoon (out of season) round and was paired with another guy. Turns out that his index and mine were identical (5.4, IIRC). We decided that we had to play a match given that coincidence, and the discussion of tees came up. I just said that "I am unlikely to play to my index at 6700 yards". He said "I am unlikely to play to my index at 6200 yards. We played at 6700 yards and I lost (2 down) on the 17th hole. He was a lot longer than me, but much less consistent - probably longer and less consistent than your typical 5 handicapper. For me it was the complete opposite. 

 

dave

 

Aren't both of you just as likely to shoot your index at any tee you play ?

[DaveLeeNC]

51 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Aren't both of you just as likely to shoot your index at any tee you play ?

 

That would be true as an average across a bunch of golfers, but not for any given pair of golfers. Take the case of two 15 handicappers who play the same local muni - a typical course with some bunkers, but sand play hardly dominates a typical round. Just a few  sand shots on a typical day. 

 

Golfer A is a decent sand player for his index. He is confident that he can get out of most greenside bunkers and is trying to get close but often ends up on the green but outside of 12'. He is reasonably confident that he can advance the ball out of a fairway bunker. 

 

Golfer B is terrified of the sand, often takes two out of a greenside bunker, has trouble advancing the ball out of fairway bunkers, etc. But where he plays he only  loses somewhere between 1 and 2 strokes to Golfer A per round due to weak sand play. And on average they shoot about the same on their local muni and by definition they both play to their index on a 8 out of 20 basis. Now put them on a course that looks like the one below. Clearly they are not going to shoot the same scores any more on any basis.

 

dave. 

 

 

 

Edited October 15, 2020 by DaveLeeNC

[Krt22]

58 minutes ago, nsxguy said:

 

Aren't both of you just as likely to shoot your index at any tee you play ?

Theoretically yes, in practice no, especially in match play. I'm in the long but inconsistent bucket, while some of my partners with similar index's are shorter but much more consistent. At my club I play from 3 different tees depending on the group or tournament. My scores generally dont get better moving up because it just forces me to take less than driver on certain holes and doesnt dramatically change my chances of having a bad hole. Where as the short but steady guy really suffers from the back tees, essentially because he just cant reach certain holes in regulation. So in match play format, the longer guy is at an advantage playing further back IMHO, he only loses 1 hole if hits one really wayward, while potentially reaching par 5s in two, having wedge in hand on shorter ones.  Where as the shorter guy is struggling just to tie on the longer holes,  rarely has a wedge in hand,  is hitting 2 more clubs into every par 3, etc

The other scenario for muni vs a course with lots of trouble, given they are the same total length. The longer guy can hit it all over and possibly never take a penalty stroke given he can play from other fairways, where as at a course with lots of trouble he might have a slew of penalties. In heads up play the course length/type and anti-cap of the players is important

[nsxguy]

3 hours ago, DaveLeeNC said:

 

That would be true as an average across a bunch of golfers, but not for any given pair of golfers. Take the case of two 15 handicappers who play the same local muni - a typical course with some bunkers, but sand play hardly dominates a typical round. Just a few  sand shots on a typical day. 

 

Golfer A is a decent sand player for his index. He is confident that he can get out of most greenside bunkers and is trying to get close but often ends up on the green but outside of 12'. He is reasonably confident that he can advance the ball out of a fairway bunker. 

 

Golfer B is terrified of the sand, often takes two out of a greenside bunker, has trouble advancing the ball out of fairway bunkers, etc. But where he plays he only  loses somewhere between 1 and 2 strokes to Golfer A per round due to weak sand play. And on average they shoot about the same on their local muni and by definition they both play to their index on a 8 out of 20 basis. Now put them on a course that looks like the one below. Clearly they are not going to shoot the same scores any more on any basis.

 

dave. 

 

 

 

 

 

Sheesh. You ALWAYS make up conditions to fit your less than perfect scenarios, don't you ?

 

Your odds of shooting to your index is the same from ANY sets of tees. That's the way the handicap system is supposed to work. It matters not one whit what pictures you can show me of a course.

 

The course rating and slope is such that you should have an equal chance of shooting your handicap index/differential from ANY set of tees. And if you 2 played different tee sets the course handicap calculation is supposed to accommodate that. Shooting to your index has nothing to do with making your match.

 

Your newest bff and you had a problem being comfortable with tee sets you didn't like. Had nothing to do with shooting "to your index".