Can a 4-handicap man beat an LPGA pro?

[dhc1]

Your opinion isn't quantifiable. Either is mine. That's why we use math and have the handicap system. So we don't have to compare our opinions. Its actually quite easy to figure out the LPGA players handicaps. In fact, we did it thoroughly earlier in this VERY THREAD! Lol! All of their scores are listed on the website and all of the course rating/slope are easily found on the internet. So that's what we did.

 

The 75-100 ranked players are between +1and +2 and the top players in the world are just under +5. That's using only the mens ratings so it's an apples to apples comparison.

 

Again, the discussion of the thread evolved into the likely-hood of a 4 being competitive at the LPGA level. Not could he beat her one time over a 3 hole stretch or over 9 holes or one single round.

 

Who cares AT ALL about a one off?? a 4 handicap makes literally 0 cuts on the LPGA Tour and makes literally $0 money. That means that he's not comparable. End of story. The women that are barely keeping their card are literally 24 shots better on average over a 4 round event than the 4 male.

Why are you focusing solely on the idea of "Can?" Because it's in the title? "Can" you win the powerball? "Can" you get struck by lightening? The point is you're not going to invest your life saving on one or stay inside because of the other.

 

Like I said 10 pages or so ago: How much money would you put up and at what odds? I agree that the guy has a chance of beating the worst players on tour over 18 holes if everything lines up just perfectly for him and poorly for her. So what?? What does that have to do with the actual debate? The actual debate is about if the 4 handicap is comparable to a lower level LPGA player. No he's not comparable. Even if he's a traveling tournament only 4 handicap, he's still 5-6 shots worse per round than the girls that can't pay the bills. So again, he's not comparable.

 

It's math! Not opinion.

 

I'll ask the question again: can we confirm that the tee boxes actually played at LPGA tourneys are equal to the standard men's tees? If so, the math works. If they play from more forward tees, the men's rating could be substantially lower (in the high sixties) and that would make a four more likely to shoot mid 70s.

 

For example at the 2014 us open, it looks like the ladies played from somewhere between the green and white tee boxes according to the yardages in this article (http://www.pinehurst...n-championship/ and the "241-yard, par-4 13th hole", among others). The white tees are rated 70.7 and the greens are rated 68.2 for a par 72.

 

I'd be interested to see what the handicaps of the women's would be if we used the appropriate tee box. I'd guess somewhere between a +1 to scratch index. Which by the way, beats a four 4/5 times....

USGA did the same in the mens event. The 17th was played from the whites and the 18th was played closer to the blues. Overall it was between the white and blue-not white and green. "161-yard, par-3 17th and 391-yard, par-4 18th"

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

 

Here are the distances from the article as well as the yardage from the scorecard from the green and white tee (and blues)

 

The 241-yard, par-4 13th hole (324/356)

the 161-yard, par-3 17th (148/155/165)

The 391-yard, par-4 18th (312/382/417)

the 452-yard, par-5 10th hole (425/469)

the 453-yard, par-4 16th (413/469)

 

The total yards for this bunch of holes:

 

Us open: 1698

Green: 1622

White: 1831

 

While we don't know what the other holes were, a five hole sample shows the "math" to be closer to green than white tees. Given that distance is the primary determinant in course rating differentials, it appears that an approximate rating would be near 69.2

[North Texas]

Once again we have someone confused by the topic at hand. Nobody is claiming a 4 handicap is a better golfer but that golfer can win a certain percentage of rounds depending on the players and the course. What that percentage is depends......... could be 20% or it could be 2%.

See Isaac's post about six or seven posts up.

 

You mean he guy that offered to bet $5,000 on the LPGA pro ? And offered, IIRC, ZERO odds.

 

Yeah, right, a straight up bet on something he considers at least a 20-1 shot, if not impossible ? What a sport !!!! :cheesy:

 

The guy that just said "It's math, not opinion" ? When he didn't even make an attempt at math ? That guy ? :dntknw:

 

Okay, I'll take a stab at the "math" part of it.

 

If a 4 handicapper plays a 0 handicapper on a regular basis, the 0 handicapper will beat the 4 handicapper more times than not.

[Forged4ever]

This is an excellent discussion, let's explore it further.

 

This actually made me laugh out loud !

This made me bust out to the point that nurse ratchet gave me the evil eye in IVs, LMAO

 

Very Nicely Played!!

 

On another topic, Bro, do you know where that thread went that you posted about me lamenting what poor dancers white guys are, even white guys that have great hips in their swing, LMAO??

 

Have a great day Gents :)

 

All the Best,

RP

[Scottie68]

Come on, can't end this when so close to 1,000 posts! How about if I change the question to "can a 3 handicap man beat an LPGA pro?". That should get us over the hump!

[farmer]

Max, that's kind of the point. A few post up someone mentioned a friend beating Jim Colbert for 9 holes. So I guess a 4 can beat a tour pro? Start a thread? For 9 holes a 4 could play well and shoot even and the pro shoot one over. What does that price s Isaac mentioned. A one off fluke means nothing. Play 4 rounds like an event or even play a season like Isaac mentioned. Does the 4 maker even a single cut?

 

Edit, my head's getting sure from beating it against the wall. Peace out. :)

Last go round for me. I posted about my friend topping Jim Colbert by one for nine holes in a pro-am. However, my friend was a scratch player, the course was set up for a pro-am, my friend got beat by eight on the back, and Colbert was "playing" golf, not "working" golf. Like Shilgy, my head is now sore, I'd like to buy Isaac a drink, and Jim Colbert is a really nice guy.

[PowderedToastMan]

Do you know why the cut-off for US Open qualifying is 1.4? If the USGA let in 4 handicaps, they'd win because they hit the ball so far.

[CallawayLefty]

Do you know why the cut-off for US Open qualifying is 1.4? If the USGA let in 4 handicaps, they'd win because they hit the ball so far.

 

But they usually play those qualifiers from around 7,000 yards. 4 handicaps only start to shine from 6,500 and in. If they play from 7,000, they're just 4 handicaps. But when you move them up 500 yards, they shoot in the 60s all the time (including under tournament pressure). I'm starting to feel like you didn't read the first 930 posts in this thread. Maybe go back and refresh yourself.

[SurfDuffer]

Perhaps now we can delve into the flaws of the handicap system. Some seem to think all 4 handicaps are the same.

 

In my experience handicaps aren't a spot on prediction of play.

[juliette91]

Do you know why the cut-off for US Open qualifying is 1.4? If the USGA let in 4 handicaps, they'd win because they hit the ball so far.

 

But they usually play those qualifiers from around 7,000 yards. 4 handicaps only start to shine from 6,500 and in. If they play from 7,000, they're just 4 handicaps. But when you move them up 500 yards, they shoot in the 60s all the time (including under tournament pressure). I'm starting to feel like you didn't read the first 930 posts in this thread. Maybe go back and refresh yourself.

 

Ha! Humor says more in its fun poking than 900+ posts did in their pontification (mine included!)

[Pepperturbo]

Perhaps now we can delve into the flaws of the handicap system. Some seem to think all 4 handicaps are the same.

 

In my experience handicaps aren't a spot on prediction of play.

 

I agree 100%. Some people want to believe they are literally equal to all others, in all terms and ways of the game. Its a recipe for failure. One flaw is being scratch on easy short course. I know a few older guys like that. Take them to more difficult courses, playing even up, they can be beat rather consistently by a 2. Same could be said for just about any index. Not sure how that flaw can be improved though.

[dan360]

If a person can repel out of a helicopter on short notice to the #1 tee box at any course on the planet, and scare the heck out of par, then the argument COULD be made that said person COULD have a CHANCE of beating a touring professional.

 

Any given day.

 

That said, I'd rather bet $100 on the Cleveland Browns winning this seaon's Super Bowl.

[North Texas]

Perhaps now we can delve into the flaws of the handicap system. Some seem to think all 4 handicaps are the same.

 

In my experience handicaps aren't a spot on prediction of play.

 

I agree 100%. Some people want to believe they are literally equal to all others, in all terms and ways of the game. Its a recipe for failure. One flaw is being scratch on easy short course. I know a few older guys like that. Take them to more difficult courses, playing even up, they can be beat rather consistently by a 2. Same could be said for just about any index. Not sure how that flaw can be improved though.

 

Yep.

 

Our club plays another club in a Ryder Cup style event every year. Both courses are about the same yardage but theirs is much tighter and the greens are faster and more difficult than ours. Our 4 handicappers don't fare well at all against their 4 handicappers. Or our 10's against their 10's. Or our 20's against their 20's.

[bluedot]

Perhaps now we can delve into the flaws of the handicap system. Some seem to think all 4 handicaps are the same.

 

In my experience handicaps aren't a spot on prediction of play.

 

Handicaps aren't meant to be a prediction of play; they are meant to be a way to try to equalize competition. Your index expresses you potential to play well; your average score will be, according to the USGA, approx. 3 strokes higher than your index.

[SurfDuffer]

Perhaps now we can delve into the flaws of the handicap system. Some seem to think all 4 handicaps are the same.

 

In my experience handicaps aren't a spot on prediction of play.

 

I agree 100%. Some people want to believe they are literally equal to all others, in all terms and ways of the game. Its a recipe for failure. One flaw is being scratch on easy short course. I know a few older guys like that. Take them to more difficult courses, playing even up, they can be beat rather consistently by a 2. Same could be said for just about any index. Not sure how that flaw can be improved though.

 

Here is a recent handicap story:

Earlier this season I played in a tournament at a course where I used to be a member. My opponent had a big handicap advantage. (Handicaps were not in play for the round, only the pairings) I actually thought I didn't have a prayer. I ended up beating him easily on his home course. I played my usual game.....nothing spectacular for me. The whole time, I'm thinking there is no way this guy's handicap was legit based on his play. I was thinking this guy must be a vanity capper.

 

It all began to make sense though after I entered my score in the computer and saw the differential for my round. The differential would put me down near scratch if I played that course regularly. Here is why, back when I was a member the course was much different but the course ratings have never been adjusted to make up for the changes. The course fell on hard times and the new owner removed many of the course features that made it very difficult but also slowed down play. The thick fescue that would make balls vanish is all mowed tight and the shaved slopes that could make balls roll off into hazards now are mowed to a height to gather wayward balls without penalty. At one time this course was a bear that would eat you up if you missed fairways and greens but not anymore. Now it would be hard for anyone to lose a ball short of hitting it into a water hazard.

Its now very tame, easy actually. Meanwhile the course keeps its ratings which would lead one to believe it is a very very hard course and dramatically skew one's handicap if it were your home course.

 

When I looked up my opponent's recent scores in the system it confirmed what I suspected. His scores were all legit but the messed up course ratings just made him out to be a much better player than someone with the same handicap from my home club. The reality is someone from my club with the same handicap would be a much better player. My home course, if anything is the exact opposite. It plays much harder than its ratings, especially if you don't have great speed control with your putter and precise distance control with your short game.

[nsxguy]

Once again we have someone confused by the topic at hand. Nobody is claiming a 4 handicap is a better golfer but that golfer can win a certain percentage of rounds depending on the players and the course. What that percentage is depends......... could be 20% or it could be 2%.

See Isaac's post about six or seven posts up.

 

You mean he guy that offered to bet $5,000 on the LPGA pro ? And offered, IIRC, ZERO odds.

 

Yeah, right, a straight up bet on something he considers at least a 20-1 shot, if not impossible ? What a sport !!!! :cheesy:

 

The guy that just said "It's math, not opinion" ? When he didn't even make an attempt at math ? That guy ? :dntknw:

 

Okay, I'll take a stab at the "math" part of it.

 

If a 4 handicapper plays a 0 handicapper on a regular basis, the 0 handicapper will beat the 4 handicapper more times than not.

 

Well, I'm not sure I see your math either but FWIW I agree.

[juliette91]

Perhaps now we can delve into the flaws of the handicap system. Some seem to think all 4 handicaps are the same.

 

In my experience handicaps aren't a spot on prediction of play.

 

I agree 100%. Some people want to believe they are literally equal to all others, in all terms and ways of the game. Its a recipe for failure. One flaw is being scratch on easy short course. I know a few older guys like that. Take them to more difficult courses, playing even up, they can be beat rather consistently by a 2. Same could be said for just about any index. Not sure how that flaw can be improved though.

 

Yep.

 

Our club plays another club in a Ryder Cup style event every year. Both courses are about the same yardage but theirs is much tighter and the greens are faster and more difficult than ours. Our 4 handicappers don't fare well at all against their 4 handicappers. Or our 10's against their 10's. Or our 20's against their 20's.

 

So what you're saying is that course conditions and tournament conditions will affect players who have the same handicap---differently and play out in a greater differential than their handicaps would otherwise dictate. A 4 is a 4 is a 4 unless…..? So where the 4 establishes his handicap really does matter when it comes to taking that handicap out on the road, right? You establish your 4 at a tight course and I establish my 4 at a wide open course. When I play your course I don't score as well. Not used to the conditions.

 

So we have LPGA +2 and we have who knows where established male 4. Applying the same criteria, playing conditions--which includes tournament pressure conditions-- the scoring differential between the tournament experienced +2 and the club experienced 4 is greater than the 6 strokes. Possibly the 7300 yard par 70 course tilts a bit into the male 4's favor because if it's the right 4 he hits it longer than she does, but I'd be hard pressed to believe that distance factor can make up for the pressure that tournament conditions factor into scoring. If it's a wash I'd be shocked. So have we reached 1000 posts yet?

[bluedot]

Perhaps now we can delve into the flaws of the handicap system. Some seem to think all 4 handicaps are the same.

 

In my experience handicaps aren't a spot on prediction of play.

 

I agree 100%. Some people want to believe they are literally equal to all others, in all terms and ways of the game. Its a recipe for failure. One flaw is being scratch on easy short course. I know a few older guys like that. Take them to more difficult courses, playing even up, they can be beat rather consistently by a 2. Same could be said for just about any index. Not sure how that flaw can be improved though.

 

Yep.

 

Our club plays another club in a Ryder Cup style event every year. Both courses are about the same yardage but theirs is much tighter and the greens are faster and more difficult than ours. Our 4 handicappers don't fare well at all against their 4 handicappers. Or our 10's against their 10's. Or our 20's against their 20's.

 

So what you're saying is that course conditions and tournament conditions will affect players who have the same handicap---differently and play out in a greater differential than their handicaps would otherwise dictate. A 4 is a 4 is a 4 unless…..? So where the 4 establishes his handicap really does matter when it comes to taking that handicap out on the road, right? You establish your 4 at a tight course and I establish my 4 at a wide open course. When I play your course I don't score as well. Not used to the conditions.

 

So we have LPGA +2 and we have who knows where established male 4. Applying the same criteria, playing conditions--which includes tournament pressure conditions-- the scoring differential between the tournament experienced +2 and the club experienced 4 is greater than the 6 strokes. Possibly the 7300 yard par 70 course tilts a bit into the male 4's favor because if it's the right 4 he hits it longer than she does, but I'd be hard pressed to believe that distance factor can make up for the pressure that tournament conditions factor into scoring. If it's a wash I'd be shocked. So have we reached 1000 posts yet?

 

I am going to add to this just slightly, I hope.

 

I think that (much) more than the difficulty of two courses, the familiarity with one course versus the other determines whether or not a handicap "travels". If a player of ANY handicap plays the same course all the time, their handicap is VERY likely to be lower than what they can carry in competition when they travel. There is a BIG difference, for instance, between KNOWING greens and READING greens; we see putts every week on TV that even the pros and their caddies can't read! I KNOW that putts on the 9th hole at my home course break AWAY from the water, but NOBODY gets that read right until they've played a zillion rounds there.

 

Conversely, the guy who plays lots of courses, especially competitively, is much more likely to have a handicap that will travel; he is just used to assessing the course and reading greens and so on. This isn't a "flaw" in the handicap system, and it doesn't mean the guy who plays all his rounds at the same course is a vanity cap. It's just part of the game.

[North Texas]

Perhaps now we can delve into the flaws of the handicap system. Some seem to think all 4 handicaps are the same.

 

In my experience handicaps aren't a spot on prediction of play.

 

I agree 100%. Some people want to believe they are literally equal to all others, in all terms and ways of the game. Its a recipe for failure. One flaw is being scratch on easy short course. I know a few older guys like that. Take them to more difficult courses, playing even up, they can be beat rather consistently by a 2. Same could be said for just about any index. Not sure how that flaw can be improved though.

 

Yep.

 

Our club plays another club in a Ryder Cup style event every year. Both courses are about the same yardage but theirs is much tighter and the greens are faster and more difficult than ours. Our 4 handicappers don't fare well at all against their 4 handicappers. Or our 10's against their 10's. Or our 20's against their 20's.

 

So what you're saying is that course conditions and tournament conditions will affect players who have the same handicap---differently and play out in a greater differential than their handicaps would otherwise dictate. A 4 is a 4 is a 4 unless…..? So where the 4 establishes his handicap really does matter when it comes to taking that handicap out on the road, right? You establish your 4 at a tight course and I establish my 4 at a wide open course. When I play your course I don't score as well. Not used to the conditions.

 

So we have LPGA +2 and we have who knows where established male 4. Applying the same criteria, playing conditions--which includes tournament pressure conditions-- the scoring differential between the tournament experienced +2 and the club experienced 4 is greater than the 6 strokes. Possibly the 7300 yard par 70 course tilts a bit into the male 4's favor because if it's the right 4 he hits it longer than she does, but I'd be hard pressed to believe that distance factor can make up for the pressure that tournament conditions factor into scoring. If it's a wash I'd be shocked. So have we reached 1000 posts yet?

 

I am going to add to this just slightly, I hope.

 

I think that (much) more than the difficulty of two courses, the familiarity with one course versus the other determines whether or not a handicap "travels". If a player of ANY handicap plays the same course all the time, their handicap is VERY likely to be lower than what they can carry in competition when they travel. There is a BIG difference, for instance, between KNOWING greens and READING greens; we see putts every week on TV that even the pros and their caddies can't read! I KNOW that putts on the 9th hole at my home course break AWAY from the water, but NOBODY gets that read right until they've played a zillion rounds there.

 

Conversely, the guy who plays lots of courses, especially competitively, is much more likely to have a handicap that will travel; he is just used to assessing the course and reading greens and so on. This isn't a "flaw" in the handicap system, and it doesn't mean the guy who plays all his rounds at the same course is a vanity cap. It's just part of the game.

 

I definitely agree that "familiarity" is a huge factor.

 

I'm not sure that I agree that this isn't a "flaw" in the handicap system. But I don't know how you would factor it in. But I'm also not exactly a Mensa candidate either. Surely there are some people who are smart enough to figure it out.

[Forged4ever]

Any given day.

 

That said, I'd rather bet $100 on the Cleveland Browns winning this seaon's Super Bowl.

Bro, I put a thousand on the Stillers to do just that

 

Did you see that travesty today????

 

They suck and I'm an idiot ;)

 

Have a great week :)

 

All the Best,

RP

[juliette91]

In her August "Ask Stina" column, Senior Editor Stina Sternberg responded to the question of whether a 4-handicap male player could outplay an LPGA pro. A reader had a friend who thought he could. Stina called the man "delusional." "As a 4-handicapper, he'd get so badly beaten by any of the LPGA's 152 players (even those with nonexempt status) that he'd have a tough time getting back up." The question, and Stina's response, generated a lot of (mostly male) mail.

 

Dear Stina,

I am glad the viewer listed a 4-handicapper in the question because if you go to a 2-handicapper and provide him with the conditions the ladies play on he will be a scratch or better. I would take him over two-thirds of the field at most ladies tournaments, maybe more if played from the tips. Consider: Watered-down bunkers pristinely raked; rolled greens that are fast and smooth (most good golfers prefer fast greens, but the course can't keep greens alive cut that low all the time). Most good courses have bunkers in front of all par 5s and I don't see that at many women's venues. I will probably go to the Women's U.S. Open at Pinehurst for one day just to see where the ladies play from. I have played that course several times. It can be a challenge if the greens are hard and fast and the tees are back. I've posted a 74 and a few 76's from the men's tees.

Brad

by email

 

 

Dear Stina,

Good day. A previous writer said his 4-handicap friend believed he (hitting the ball 300 yards plus) could beat the average LPGA tour pro on 18 holes. I believe it would depend greatly on the course. If course conditions are like those at Congressional or Oakmont for a PGA Tour event I may give the edge to the big hitter. First, because the big hitter can spin the ball and hold the greens and the closer you are to the green the better off you are on such courses. In addition, courses with par 3s in excess of 240 yards (Congressional #2) will not help the average LPGA member as I do not believe they have a club that would hold those greens.

Now, for the dose of reality to the amateur. Amateurs in golf lack the mental aspect (unless they have played a professional sport like Tony Romo or John Elway) and when confronted with playing with a pro would perform in ways foreign to them because of being nervous. Now if I could take Mr. Romo (2) or Elway (1) in the same bet it would be a no brain-er for me as they should triumph given their abilities to perform under pressure and their physical prowess in given situations.

I do agree with you about the percentages in driving, etc., but I also submit that a course set up to PGA Tour standards would also not benefit the average (not the best) LPGA tour pro as it would be tougher than a Women's U.S. Open.

Let me know the time and place this takes place and I will bring my wallet depending on: the course, setup, and who is playing as well as their sports resume.

 

Cheers,

Roger Wiskavitch

by email

 

 

Dear Stina,

Not only are you spot on about a 4-handicap player getting waxed by any LPGA pro, but I would say the top AJGA junior girl would kill the guy as well. I have played squash at a very high level for most of my adult life and have played against the top women squash players and when younger, I could kind of hold my own. But I lost to most of them. And squash is a fairly minor unknown game. Guys don't get it: Venus Williams, Dinara Safina would kill all but the top men's college players in tennis. The top women softball pitchers would routinely strike out all but the best men baseball players. I could go on. I am a 8-handicap golfer who took up the game at age 38 and what I have seen is it would take a country club player with at least a +2 to even stand a chance and then not much of one. Being a father of three daughters who all played competetive sports I have seen it. Give me the name of the number 100-ranked LPGA player and I would bet paychecks on her against a 4 on ANY course.

Fred Duboc

by email

 

Dear Stina,I want to comment on your recent column in Golf Digest discussing the 4-handicapper that thinks he can beat most LPGA players. Clearly this guy is out of touch. The women of the LPGA, Duramed and college ranks are real athletes’ many of whom maintain a workout schedule equal to that of the best athletes’ in the world regardless of sport or gender. All one needs to do is watch the re-runs of Big Break to see some great women golfers. Kim Welsh and Gerina Mendoza both drive the ball around 300 yards consistently. I’m a 6-handicap and I would never think to play any plus 3 handicapper even-up on any course regardless of length. The big issue here isn’t length or gender. These women are just plain better golfers than a 4- or 6-handicapper. Guys like “Mister 4-handicap” give the rest of us(men) a bad name.

Matthew Geier

Saint Charles, Ill

 

Let's set aside the talent level for a moment. Nerves would do the man in. A couple days after our U.S. Open Challenge amateur winner, Larry Giebelhausen, shot 101 at Bethpage, we played at another Long Island course. Granted, the set-up was nowhere near as difficult, but it was not an easy golf course. Larry shot even par on the front nine, three or four over on the back. It was not his talent, but rather the pressurized situation at the Challenge, the fact that he was totally out of his element, that had been the issue at Bethpage. And it would be, too, for our 4-handicapper against the LPGA players

But it would be fun to see, wouldn't it?

--Bob Carney

 

View the full article

 

 

For North Texas: Ha! Mensa candidate. Doubt there are many on this thread me included. And you don't need to be one to say something worthwhile. I think the USGA system kinda takes that into account when you play in a tournament (don't they, there is a tournament category for handicap entry?) but I don't think it would take a mensa candidate to figure out some algorithm that reduced one's handicap depending upon how many scores one has played on the same course. But with the 10 out of your last 20 as the golden rule you could never take into full account the years some have played the same course.

[Shilgy]

Juliette ^^

And others. What would you suggest? A home and away course rating? The rating and slope of a course are an average really, not a specific rating of the challenge of the course. Is the player a better driver or iron player or start game wizard? All of these things will help determine which player will thrive on a specific course and which will not. But the average difficulty for all players will stay the same.

[juliette91]

Juliette ^^

And others. What would you suggest? A home and away course rating? The rating and slope of a course are an average really, not a specific rating of the challenge of the course. Is the player a better driver or iron player or start game wizard? All of these things will help determine which player will thrive on a specific course and which will not. But the average difficulty for all players will stay the same.

 

Sure, I can see something like that. You could even refine it a bit for more accuracy by looking at the slope rating and the Scratch Score relative to par of the multi played course. I've seen some 130 slope par 72 courses with scratch scores a stroke or more above par and some a stroke or more below par. So there's that too.

[SurfDuffer]

Juliette ^^

And others. What would you suggest? A home and away course rating? The rating and slope of a course are an average really, not a specific rating of the challenge of the course. Is the player a better driver or iron player or start game wizard? All of these things will help determine which player will thrive on a specific course and which will not. But the average difficulty for all players will stay the same.

 

See my previous post about handicap flaws. My personal opinion is that handicaps really aren't accurate except among your peers at your home course who all play the same tee box. Beyond that there could be a three+ point spread either direction depending on a person's home course where the bulk of their scores are made and their physical abilities when taken to different yardages.

 

Handicaps in Bowling are pretty spot on because there isn't much variation from venue to venue. Golf, not so much.

 

In theory and in a perfect world that shouldn't be the case but that is how I see it.

[Shilgy]

Juliette ^^

And others. What would you suggest? A home and away course rating? The rating and slope of a course are an average really, not a specific rating of the challenge of the course. Is the player a better driver or iron player or start game wizard? All of these things will help determine which player will thrive on a specific course and which will not. But the average difficulty for all players will stay the same.

 

See my previous post about handicap flaws. My personal opinion is that handicaps really aren't accurate except among your peers at your home course who all play the same tee box. Beyond that there could be a three+ point spread either direction depending on a person's home course where the bulk of their scores are made and their physical abilities when taken to different yardages.

 

Handicaps in Bowling are pretty spot on because there isn't much variation from venue to venue. Golf, not so much.

 

In theory and in a perfect world that shouldn't be the case but that is how I see it.

But again, what is better? Do you have a plan? As I stated the rating and slope will always be an average. Some courses suit you better than me and vice versa. Do they have a different rating for each of us when we play a match against each other? Seems impossible to me to implement.

[golferdrmjr]

Juliette ^^

And others. What would you suggest? A home and away course rating? The rating and slope of a course are an average really, not a specific rating of the challenge of the course. Is the player a better driver or iron player or start game wizard? All of these things will help determine which player will thrive on a specific course and which will not. But the average difficulty for all players will stay the same.

 

See my previous post about handicap flaws. My personal opinion is that handicaps really aren't accurate except among your peers at your home course who all play the same tee box. Beyond that there could be a three+ point spread either direction depending on a person's home course where the bulk of their scores are made and their physical abilities when taken to different yardages.

 

Handicaps in Bowling are pretty spot on because there isn't much variation from venue to venue. Golf, not so much.

 

In theory and in a perfect world that shouldn't be the case but that is how I see it.

I would have to disagree about your bowling statement. There can be big differences in lane conditions from one house to another. If you knew anything about high level sport bowling, you would know this to be true. I've seen guys come into a house with a 220+ average at their home lanes and not even be able to shoot 200's at the different house. A high traveling bowling handicap is much more impressive than a house rat's handicap.

 

Personally, I don't think golf handicaps travel well from course to course. Close but not perfect. But they are a good starting point to negotiate from. :-)

[SurfDuffer]

I didn't say there was no variation but there isn't much. The basic parameters are the same from house to house. Not so in golf where one course can be hundreds of yards longer with a completely different look and where the course ratings may be fairly arbitrarily set.

[SurfDuffer]

Working our way towards 1000 posts.

 

Consider this regarding handicaps:

 

Two courses I play.......if I shoot 79 on one it is a differential of a 4.5 On the other shooting a 74 is a differential of 5.3 Of the two courses the one that yields a 4.5 for a 79 is by far the easier of the two. Its not even close. The course rating and slope are completely backwards if you compare the two courses. On the course that is supposedly the harder of the two on paper I've had a bad day if I don't break 80 where the other course I've had a good day to break 80. There is no way that shooting 74 on the one course is a better round than a 79 on the other.

[juliette91]

Working our way towards 1000 posts.

 

Consider this regarding handicaps:

 

Two courses I play.......if I shoot 79 on one it is a differential of a 4.5 On the other shooting a 74 is a differential of 5.3 Of the two courses the one that yields a 4.5 for a 79 is by far the easier of the two. Its not even close. The course rating and slope are completely backwards if you compare the two courses. On the course that is supposedly the harder of the two on paper I've had a bad day if I don't break 80 where the other course I've had a good day to break 80. There is no way that shooting 74 on the one course is a better round than a 79 on the other.

 

So, this means _________________?

[SurfDuffer]

Working our way towards 1000 posts.

 

Consider this regarding handicaps:

 

Two courses I play.......if I shoot 79 on one it is a differential of a 4.5 On the other shooting a 74 is a differential of 5.3 Of the two courses the one that yields a 4.5 for a 79 is by far the easier of the two. Its not even close. The course rating and slope are completely backwards if you compare the two courses. On the course that is supposedly the harder of the two on paper I've had a bad day if I don't break 80 where the other course I've had a good day to break 80. There is no way that shooting 74 on the one course is a better round than a 79 on the other.

 

So, this means _________________?

 

Three additional posts on the march towards 1,000. Just pointing out how inaccurate the handicap system can be.

[bogeypro]

just helping the post count...

 

FYI... most 4 handicaps think they are much better than they are. LPGA pro would embarrass them on the course....any course.