Average driving distance by handicap

[DShepley]

9 hours ago, iacas said:

 

AFAIK, Canada uses the same system as we do here in the U.S. (as does the rest of the world now, or will soon), where I've been a course rater for over 15 years and captain for a decade.

 

The course rating system isn't 100% absolutely perfect (because no system that boils EVERY golf course down into two numbers could be), but I suspect you'd be hard pressed to back up with actual data and specifics your "flawed" characterization.

 

(There's a lot more that goes into it than the "fictionalized" characters you're talking about. There are a lot of measurements and data collection that goes into a course rating.) It's OT here, but if there's another topic… I'll answer questions there when I have the time.

 

For 20 years I played a Par 72 course in St Marys Ontario that on the card shows a yardage of 6567yds and every tee marker is at the very back of a tee where you could never play from.  In reality, that course plays about 6200yds, par 4s are all driver wedge for decently long guys with reachable par 5s.  The rating is 70.2-133.  Go play a two day better ball tournament at St Thomas Golf and Country Club (Union), which is private and very difficult par 72 and from the blue deck that actually plays 6475 yards, the rating is 71.3-125... only 1 stroke harder for the scratch guy and 8 strokes easier on the high end....The guys from there eat our lunch all day, every day.  From 6848 yards, it's only 3 strokes harder for the scratch and 5 strokes easier on the high end 73.0-128.  It wasn't uncommon for away guys to win the Invitational at St Marys coming out of the B flight.

 

I play now at a par 70 course that plays just over 5900 yards which has three reachable par 5s, two drivable par 4s but also has 3 par 4s that are over 410yds.  It is rated at 67.5-118 and I've been a scratch golfer there and I'm currently a 2 handicap (4.2 index).  I can tell you that going to longer courses it is hard to play to your number and guys coming from longer courses do very well.  I think the course ratings on a lot of the shorter courses are too high...the easier courses aren't rated easy enough and you end up with a lot of low handicap players at those clubs, scratch, 1, 2 guys that in reality should be around 4-5 handicaps.

[betarhoalphadelta]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

 

AFAIK, Canada uses the same system as we do here in the U.S. (as does the rest of the world now, or will soon), where I've been a course rater for over 15 years and captain for a decade.

 

The course rating system isn't 100% absolutely perfect (because no system that boils EVERY golf course down into two numbers could be), but I suspect you'd be hard pressed to back up with actual data and specifics your "flawed" characterization.

 

 

In all fairness, what I'm about to say is purely anecdotal. So take it with a grain of salt. But I find that the rating system doesn't seem to account for how penal a course might be, which may not affect scratch golfers much but us bogey (or bogey+) golfers are tremendously affected by. 

 

I have two courses I play fairly often:

• Ranch San Joaquin: Irvine, CA, 6186y, 69.7/124 from our tees-- This course is set up like a traditional muni. Most par 4s are set up to bang driver. Not a lot of OB to worry about. If you hit an errant drive, you're likely to be in rough with fairly sparse trees and still an opportunity to advance your ball. Not a ton of sand around the green complexes, most are designed to let you run the ball up, and while there are a few tricky greens, they're not really all that bad. 
• San Juan Hills: San Juan Capistrano, 5970, 69.2/122-- This course winds through canyons and near houses. Many of the longer holes must be played strategically, including one par 5 that requires a layup to the dogleg off the tee (If you're not good enough to trust cutting the corner, which I'm not). If you miss off the tee, you're often OB (several holes with OB on both sides) and in many cases you're unplayable or punching out otherwise. Much more liberal use of sand, including several holes where sand fronts the green so you must play your approach through the air. Greens are much faster and more difficult. 

Anecdotally, the second course is MUCH harder to put up a decent score. On the first course, an errant shot may take par off the table, but you still have an opportunity to recover for bogey. On the second, that same errant shot might be OB, unplayable, wet, etc and the same error brings much bigger numbers (double or worse) into play. My scores (and those of my regular playing partners) reflect this. 

 

But obviously the second course is rated at half a stroke lower, and the slope is lower. I simply have a hard time understanding how that works. I don't see how anyone would say that the second course is easier than the first. 

[slytown]

On 7/27/2023 at 10:14 AM, larrybud said:

Teeing it forward will generally lower your score, but not necessarily your handicap. Everybody has a "sweet spot" which matches their game as far as what distance benefits their index the most.

 

Where do you play in Rochester Hills? I haven't played in that area yet.

[PracticeSwinger]

1 hour ago, DShepley said:

For 20 years I played a Par 72 course in St Marys Ontario that on the card shows a yardage of 6567yds and every tee marker is at the very back of a tee where you could never play from.  In reality, that course plays about 6200yds, par 4s are all driver wedge for decently long guys with reachable par 5s.  The rating is 70.2-133. 

Just as an aside (not looking to jump into the rating/slope evaluation debate) the USGA appendix mentions that for the course rating/slope to be valid the markers have to be, overall, within a 100 yards distance of the relevant permanent distance marker... at 300 yards less, a -1.3 rating and -3 slope has to be applied... anyhow, doesn't invalidate the anectodal evidence you provide

[PracticeSwinger]

43 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

In all fairness, what I'm about to say is purely anecdotal. So take it with a grain of salt. But I find that the rating system doesn't seem to account for how penal a course might be, which may not affect scratch golfers much but us bogey (or bogey+) golfers are tremendously affected by. 

 

I have two courses I play fairly often:

• Ranch San Joaquin: Irvine, CA, 6186y, 69.7/124 from our tees-- This course is set up like a traditional muni. Most par 4s are set up to bang driver. Not a lot of OB to worry about. If you hit an errant drive, you're likely to be in rough with fairly sparse trees and still an opportunity to advance your ball. Not a ton of sand around the green complexes, most are designed to let you run the ball up, and while there are a few tricky greens, they're not really all that bad. 
• San Juan Hills: San Juan Capistrano, 5970, 69.2/122-- This course winds through canyons and near houses. Many of the longer holes must be played strategically, including one par 5 that requires a layup to the dogleg off the tee (If you're not good enough to trust cutting the corner, which I'm not). If you miss off the tee, you're often OB (several holes with OB on both sides) and in many cases you're unplayable or punching out otherwise. Much more liberal use of sand, including several holes where sand fronts the green so you must play your approach through the air. Greens are much faster and more difficult. 

Anecdotally, the second course is MUCH harder to put up a decent score. On the first course, an errant shot may take par off the table, but you still have an opportunity to recover for bogey. On the second, that same errant shot might be OB, unplayable, wet, etc and the same error brings much bigger numbers (double or worse) into play. My scores (and those of my regular playing partners) reflect this. 

 

But obviously the second course is rated at half a stroke lower, and the slope is lower. I simply have a hard time understanding how that works. I don't see how anyone would say that the second course is easier than the first. 

We all know that since the evaluation is based on people grading every hole for length and 10 obstacles (that account for what you're mentioning), comparing and 'averaging' the result on each hole to arrive at the slope/rating values - for sure we're bound to see inconsistencies and yours is a flagrant one.

 

I'm a numbers guy and that's why I always like to see people that want to come up with objective / data driven evaluation ideas, but so far, they inevitably have to loop back to the actual system to compare player levels (since you can't say, SG data shows that a scratch plays that par4 in 4.12 strokes, your base is the actual scratch player)

Edited August 2, 2023 by Varry_Hardon
typo

[vandyfan]

On 7/27/2023 at 5:50 AM, GoGoErky said:

There are guys on forums who state they are low digit handicps and don’t play longer than 6000 yards. 
 

So yes one can be a low digit handicap from short and easy courses by scoring low from those tees

 

I wouldn't quite call myself a "low hdcp" but I do count myself in the group that typically plays less than 6000 yds and I move between a 4.0 - 6.0 HDCP. Also my average drive, per GPS app, is 260 yd total. 

 

Also, there has been some talk about impact on HDCP moving up or back etc. For me, I have never understood why the impact to your HDCP (either up or down) is a determinant in what tees you select. I would just suggest you play from where it is fun. FOR ME, it is more fun to have options off the tee and more birdie looks so I play shorter. I don't mind if I am playing well and I have wedges into most par 4s or "don't hit all the clubs in my bag." I have either too little or too much ego (probably both to be honest) to play from 6,600 yds+. 

 

[SNIPERBBB]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

In all fairness, what I'm about to say is purely anecdotal. So take it with a grain of salt. But I find that the rating system doesn't seem to account for how penal a course might be, which may not affect scratch golfers much but us bogey (or bogey+) golfers are tremendously affected by. 

 

I have two courses I play fairly often:

• Ranch San Joaquin: Irvine, CA, 6186y, 69.7/124 from our tees-- This course is set up like a traditional muni. Most par 4s are set up to bang driver. Not a lot of OB to worry about. If you hit an errant drive, you're likely to be in rough with fairly sparse trees and still an opportunity to advance your ball. Not a ton of sand around the green complexes, most are designed to let you run the ball up, and while there are a few tricky greens, they're not really all that bad. 
• San Juan Hills: San Juan Capistrano, 5970, 69.2/122-- This course winds through canyons and near houses. Many of the longer holes must be played strategically, including one par 5 that requires a layup to the dogleg off the tee (If you're not good enough to trust cutting the corner, which I'm not). If you miss off the tee, you're often OB (several holes with OB on both sides) and in many cases you're unplayable or punching out otherwise. Much more liberal use of sand, including several holes where sand fronts the green so you must play your approach through the air. Greens are much faster and more difficult. 

Anecdotally, the second course is MUCH harder to put up a decent score. On the first course, an errant shot may take par off the table, but you still have an opportunity to recover for bogey. On the second, that same errant shot might be OB, unplayable, wet, etc and the same error brings much bigger numbers (double or worse) into play. My scores (and those of my regular playing partners) reflect this. 

 

But obviously the second course is rated at half a stroke lower, and the slope is lower. I simply have a hard time understanding how that works. I don't see how anyone would say that the second course is easier than the first. 

The rating doesn't take the penal stuff into consideration as much because the scratch golfer isn't bothered by it. The slope rating of the course is what keeps your handicap from ballooning badly when you play tougher courses. The slope takes into the stuff that penalizes wayward shots.  Anything over 113 starts to get more difficult. Anything under 113 and you're playing a glorified pitch n putt

[betarhoalphadelta]

59 minutes ago, Varry_Hardon said:

We all know that since the evaluation is based on people grading every hole for length and 10 obstacles (that account for what you're mentioning), comparing and 'averaging' the result on each hole to arrive at the slope/rating values - for sure we're bound to see inconsistencies and yours is a flagrant one.

 

I'm a numbers guy and that's why I always like to see people that want to come up with objective / data driven evaluation ideas, but so far, they inevitably have to loop back to the actual system to compare player levels (since you can't say, SG data shows that a scratch plays that par4 in 4.12 strokes, your base is the actual scratch player)

 

Agreed, and I think there are some issues with the objective / data-driven one as you mentioned in your previous post. It also runs into issues with private courses where, unlike public courses where players "float around" significantly from course to course, relatively few non-members are playing often and members likely prioritize play on their own course most of the time. So you may start running into sample size issues where there isn't enough data of people playing outside their home course to accurately rate the difficulty of their home course. 

 

14 minutes ago, SNIPERBBB said:

The rating doesn't take the penal stuff into consideration as much because the scratch golfer isn't bothered by it. The slope rating of the course is what keeps your handicap from ballooning badly when you play tougher courses. The slope takes into the stuff that penalizes wayward shots.  Anything over 113 starts to get more difficult. Anything under 113 and you're playing a glorified pitch n putt

 

But what I think people are seeing anecdotally is that the slope doesn't necessarily account for it as much as it should. My example was of two courses where I cannot legitimately understand why the course that I and everyone I know believes plays "easier" has a higher slope than the one that plays "harder". Admittedly it's 200 yards longer from the tees we play, but I would hope that the penal aspects of it would affect slope more than the length. 

 

I think the issue that we see is that players who primarily play tougher courses have handicaps that "travel well", while players who do not have handicaps that don't. You could of course argue this is due to those players actually changing their style of play to take hazards out of play, but I think it might be more due to slope not fully taking the difficulty into account. In short, it's just much harder to "go low" at one of those courses if you're a higher-index player. 

 

Re: pitch and putt, I play most frequently at a course (Oso Creek) that is 18 holes, par 60, 3670y and 58.2/99. If I look at my last 20, I've played that course 14 times, San Juan Hills 5, and Rancho San Joaquin once. Statistically, SJH/RSJ should combine to be 3 of my 8 scores counted for handicap. It only accounts for one (SJH), and that differential is tied for my 2nd-worst differential counting towards my 8 scores. 

 

When you're an inconsistent higher-cap golfer, a more penal course just makes it REALLY hard to avoid enough mistakes over 18 holes to not blow your score to smithereens. Whereas a less-penal course allows you to make those very same mistakes but without blowing up your score anywhere near as badly. The slope of the course is designed to normalize that, but I don't necessarily think it's strong enough of a factor. As others have suggested where players who primarily play harder courses tend to do MUCH better relative to their indexes when visiting easier courses. 

[PracticeSwinger]

12 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Agreed, and I think there are some issues with the objective / data-driven one as you mentioned in your previous post. It also runs into issues with private courses where, unlike public courses where players "float around" significantly from course to course, relatively few non-members are playing often and members likely prioritize play on their own course most of the time. So you may start running into sample size issues where there isn't enough data of people playing outside their home course to accurately rate the difficulty of their home course. 

 

 

But what I think people are seeing anecdotally is that the slope doesn't necessarily account for it as much as it should. My example was of two courses where I cannot legitimately understand why the course that I and everyone I know believes plays "easier" has a higher slope than the one that plays "harder". Admittedly it's 200 yards longer from the tees we play, but I would hope that the penal aspects of it would affect slope more than the length. 

 

I think the issue that we see is that players who primarily play tougher courses have handicaps that "travel well", while players who do not have handicaps that don't. You could of course argue this is due to those players actually changing their style of play to take hazards out of play, but I think it might be more due to slope not fully taking the difficulty into account. In short, it's just much harder to "go low" at one of those courses if you're a higher-index player. 

 

Re: pitch and putt, I play most frequently at a course (Oso Creek) that is 18 holes, par 60, 3670y and 58.2/99. If I look at my last 20, I've played that course 14 times, San Juan Hills 5, and Rancho San Joaquin once. Statistically, SJH/RSJ should combine to be 3 of my 8 scores counted for handicap. It only accounts for one (SJH), and that differential is tied for my 2nd-worst differential counting towards my 8 scores. 

 

When you're an inconsistent higher-cap golfer, a more penal course just makes it REALLY hard to avoid enough mistakes over 18 holes to not blow your score to smithereens. Whereas a less-penal course allows you to make those very same mistakes but without blowing up your score anywhere near as badly. The slope of the course is designed to normalize that, but I don't necessarily think it's strong enough of a factor. As others have suggested where players who primarily play harder courses tend to do MUCH better relative to their indexes when visiting easier courses. 

Great points. I've ran the numbers on my game also and my differentials are more correlated to the rating than the slope. Does that validate the system as a relatively low cap player? Way too small of a sample size and more importantly, it's only based on my game. But it's still interesting to see that a +1 in rating doesn't equate to a +1 in my differentials, on average (and that a +22 in slope is required for my differentials to jump 1)

[MPStrat]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

But what I think people are seeing anecdotally is that the slope doesn't necessarily account for it as much as it should. My example was of two courses where I cannot legitimately understand why the course that I and everyone I know believes plays "easier" has a higher slope than the one that plays "harder". Admittedly it's 200 yards longer from the tees we play, but I would hope that the penal aspects of it would affect slope more than the length. 

I think overall my course is rated appropriately, but individual holes are rated much more on length than penal aspects. Among the membership it’s almost universally agreed upon that the #10 handicap hole is the hardest hole among many other head scratchers. 

[Golfonthemind]

1 hour ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

Agreed, and I think there are some issues with the objective / data-driven one as you mentioned in your previous post. It also runs into issues with private courses where, unlike public courses where players "float around" significantly from course to course, relatively few non-members are playing often and members likely prioritize play on their own course most of the time. So you may start running into sample size issues where there isn't enough data of people playing outside their home course to accurately rate the difficulty of their home course. 

 

 

But what I think people are seeing anecdotally is that the slope doesn't necessarily account for it as much as it should. My example was of two courses where I cannot legitimately understand why the course that I and everyone I know believes plays "easier" has a higher slope than the one that plays "harder". Admittedly it's 200 yards longer from the tees we play, but I would hope that the penal aspects of it would affect slope more than the length. 

 

I think the issue that we see is that players who primarily play tougher courses have handicaps that "travel well", while players who do not have handicaps that don't. You could of course argue this is due to those players actually changing their style of play to take hazards out of play, but I think it might be more due to slope not fully taking the difficulty into account. In short, it's just much harder to "go low" at one of those courses if you're a higher-index player. 

 

Re: pitch and putt, I play most frequently at a course (Oso Creek) that is 18 holes, par 60, 3670y and 58.2/99. If I look at my last 20, I've played that course 14 times, San Juan Hills 5, and Rancho San Joaquin once. Statistically, SJH/RSJ should combine to be 3 of my 8 scores counted for handicap. It only accounts for one (SJH), and that differential is tied for my 2nd-worst differential counting towards my 8 scores. 

 

When you're an inconsistent higher-cap golfer, a more penal course just makes it REALLY hard to avoid enough mistakes over 18 holes to not blow your score to smithereens. Whereas a less-penal course allows you to make those very same mistakes but without blowing up your score anywhere near as badly. The slope of the course is designed to normalize that, but I don't necessarily think it's strong enough of a factor. As others have suggested where players who primarily play harder courses tend to do MUCH better relative to their indexes when visiting easier courses. 

I would also like to know more about the rating process. Does someone actually show up to the course and play it? It seems like it just heavily accounts for distance over everything else. My home course is a 70.3 (129) but plays very difficult. There are four par 4s on the back nine where you can’t hit driver off the tee due to hazards and are often left with long irons in. On paper these are “ short “ holes but realistically they play very difficult. 

[SNIPERBBB]

2 hours ago, MPStrat said:

I think overall my course is rated appropriately, but individual holes are rated much more on length than penal aspects. Among the membership it’s almost universally agreed upon that the #10 handicap hole is the hardest hole among many other head scratchers. 

Handicapping of holes isn't about which holes are the hardest. If all levels of golfer average bogey on the "hardest" hole, then it would be low on the totem pole for getting a stroke . Where the biggest disparity between score for the scratch golfer vs the bogey golfers occurs, that's where the stroke holes should happen.

[North Butte]

4 hours ago, vandyfan said:

 

I wouldn't quite call myself a "low hdcp" but I do count myself in the group that typically plays less than 6000 yds and I move between a 4.0 - 6.0 HDCP. Also my average drive, per GPS app, is 260 yd total. 

 

Also, there has been some talk about impact on HDCP moving up or back etc. For me, I have never understood why the impact to your HDCP (either up or down) is a determinant in what tees you select. I would just suggest you play from where it is fun. FOR ME, it is more fun to have options off the tee and more birdie looks so I play shorter. I don't mind if I am playing well and I have wedges into most par 4s or "don't hit all the clubs in my bag." I have either too little or too much ego (probably both to be honest) to play from 6,600 yds+. 

 

I am completely with you. Play any course a few times from different tees and I'll bet you find one set of tees is more fun than the others. That's the tees you ought to be playing, as far as I'm concerned. 

[iacas]

10 hours ago, DShepley said:

and 8 strokes easier on the high end

 

No. That's not what that means at all. The slope is literally the slope of a line. It's not "strokes" at all.

 

https://ncrdb.usga.org/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=33220

https://ncrdb.usga.org/courseTeeInfo.aspx?CourseID=12370

 

Those St. Thomas Golf and Country Clubs have a Gold Tee rating and slope of 74.0/133 and 73.8/140. The bogey rating (not the slope, and a number most people don't have to worry about) is 99.7 and 98.6.

 

8 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

But I find that the rating system doesn't seem to account for how penal a course might be, which may not affect scratch golfers much but us bogey (or bogey+) golfers are tremendously affected by.

 

You're also counting all of your scores versus the best 8.

 

Your 12 non-counting scores will by the very nature of things encounter more penalties, etc. So, your average might be higher, but your counting scores can still work out to a 12.1 or whatever index you are.

 

The slope is pretty good at reducing the differential, too: 87 on a 71.3/137 course is the same differential (12.9) than an 84 on a 70.4/119 course.

 

7 hours ago, SNIPERBBB said:

The rating doesn't take the penal stuff into consideration as much because the scratch golfer isn't bothered by it. The slope rating of the course is what keeps your handicap from ballooning badly when you play tougher courses. The slope takes into the stuff that penalizes wayward shots.  Anything over 113 starts to get more difficult. Anything under 113 and you're playing a glorified pitch n putt

 

Yep. On a 138 slope course, a score 20 shots above the course rating becomes a 16.4 differential.

[betarhoalphadelta]

29 minutes ago, iacas said:

 

You're also counting all of your scores versus the best 8.

 

Your 12 non-counting scores will by the very nature of things encounter more penalties, etc. So, your average might be higher, but your counting scores can still work out to a 12.1 or whatever index you are.

 

The slope is pretty good at reducing the differential, too: 87 on a 71.3/137 course is the same differential (12.9) than an 84 on a 70.4/119 course.

 

 

I think you're not understanding what I'm getting at. 

 

And please understand me... You've forgotten more about course rating than I'll likely ever learn. And I'm bringing anecdotes while you've got real-world experience. So I'm asking this respectfully and in a desire to be educated...

 

My argument would be that a less-skilled golfer would be FAR LESS LIKELY to achieve 87 on the 71.3/137 course than an 84 on the 70.4/119 course. I think the difference is largely due to slope not always full accounting for how penal a course is. 

 

And as a result, my hypothesis is that Golfer A who develops a 12.9 index regularly playing a course that's 71.3/137 is going to be a better golfer, and more likely to beat, Golfer B who develops a 12.9 index regularly playing a course that's 70.4/119, on a neutral course.

 

And the corollary is that Golfer C (me), who basically has developed my index at a par-60, 58.2/99 course, ends up getting destroyed when I actually hit a penal course and don't play to my handicap differential much, if ever. 

 

But again, this is anecdotal. It seems others here share the same anecdotes. But I can't claim it holds up to statistical scrutiny as I don't have access to any of that data. 

[MPStrat]

4 hours ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Handicapping of holes isn't about which holes are the hardest. If all levels of golfer average bogey on the "hardest" hole, then it would be low on the totem pole for getting a stroke . Where the biggest disparity between score for the scratch golfer vs the bogey golfers occurs, that's where the stroke holes should happen.

Thanks for educating those of us who didn’t know. Much appreciated.

[iacas]

4 hours ago, SNIPERBBB said:

Handicapping of holes isn't about which holes are the hardest. If all levels of golfer average bogey on the "hardest" hole, then it would be low on the totem pole for getting a stroke . Where the biggest disparity between score for the scratch golfer vs the bogey golfers occurs, that's where the stroke holes should happen.

 

That's actually slightly outdated information. The USGA recommends using the combined hole rating (basically the bogey rating and the scratch rating), relative to par, and assigning stroke indexes that way, in combination with their "triad" system.

 

This explains the old way a bit: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/world-handicap-system/world-handicap-system--education-resources-for-club-administrators/stroke-index-allocation.html.

 

This explains the new way a bit: https://www.usga.org/content/usga/home-page/handicapping/roh/Content/rules/Appendix E Stroke Index Allocation.htm

 

56 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

I think you're not understanding what I'm getting at.

 

I do, I just think it happens less than you think.

 

56 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

My argument would be that a less-skilled golfer would be FAR LESS LIKELY to achieve 87 on the 71.3/137 course than an 84 on the 70.4/119 course. I think the difference is largely due to slope not always full accounting for how penal a course is.

 

They're more likely than you seem to think. It really depends on a lot, too: does their game suit one course or the other? I've known 10s that, because they're long, "benefit" more from playing "tougher" tees than shorter, lower-rated tees. They actually get lower differentials.

 

Heck, as a +2 I have an easier time shooting a lower differential from the back tees than from some 66.8/124 rated tees. The hole is still only 4.25", and on many holes, I'm now laying up to almost the same place as where I'd hit 3W or something to from the back tees.

 

56 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

And as a result, my hypothesis is that Golfer A who develops a 12.9 index regularly playing a course that's 71.3/137 is going to be a better golfer, and more likely to beat, Golfer B who develops a 12.9 index regularly playing a course that's 70.4/119, on a neutral course.

 

Possibly, but again… I think it's less than you seem to think. What if the 12.9 on the "easier" course really isn't playing a course that suits his strengths? Maybe he's a great putter, but that course has flat, boring greens where his advantage doesn't help him much.

 

56 minutes ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

And the corollary is that Golfer C (me), who basically has developed my index at a par-60, 58.2/99 course, ends up getting destroyed when I actually hit a penal course and don't play to my handicap differential much, if ever.

 

Yes, I will agree with that: if you're playing a course like that, you aren't hitting driver as often, you aren't developing the same skills as often, so shifting 12+ strokes on the course rating is really a big, big change. Stuff falls apart at the extremes, as you can imagine.

[betarhoalphadelta]

15 hours ago, iacas said:

 

Yes, I will agree with that: if you're playing a course like that, you aren't hitting driver as often, you aren't developing the same skills as often, so shifting 12+ strokes on the course rating is really a big, big change. Stuff falls apart at the extremes, as you can imagine.

 

Fair enough. And in fact, I don't hit driver all that often (on the short course maybe twice a round), so I don't practice driver often enough, which probably makes the penal course not suit my current game.