"Play it forward" is the wrong

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G.,

I know that group events are done expediciously with stroke play.

However, match play happens a lot a clubs like mine and apparently John's, because he assumed our club championship is match play.

If Bob Huntley were to invite you to play CPC with him and asked you to play wolf with the members of the foursome, would you turn him down, because you are a medal play player? Why do you suppose the skins, nassaus, wolf, etc. are popular games? Because they are medal play games?

Garland,
I'll answer, though I shouldn't.

1. I never said that match play doesn't happen, nor did anyone else on this thread; this is yet another red herring.  My former club played the semis and finals at matchplay after flighting based on stroke play; this is very common.  My current club also has a separate matchplay championship, as did my former club.  I love matchplay, and I think most golfers do.  The popularity of the Ryder Cup is testimony to this.  But of course you know that there is a huge gap between the existence of something and the dominance of that same thing, and the predominant golf culture is stroke play in both casual and tournament rounds, regardless of handicap.  You KNOW this to be true.

2. I would of course not turn down an opportunity to play CPCC with Bob Huntley, regardless of the format.  I like playing Wolf anyway, as I like Skins, a nassau and so on.  I think my question at this point is, "What in the hell are you talking about?" because each of those games is at best a hybrid of match and stroke play; as Nigel and Patrick have pointed out, you still have to count strokes to determine each hole.  These games are popular because they add variety and allow higher handicap players to compete with and against low handicap players to an even greater extent than either pure stroke play OR pure match play.  And even to the extent that they are matchplay games, there are often dot games and side bets for birdies, right?

And in any event, absolutely none of this has anything whatsoever with what tees to play and/or the validity of teeing it forward.  Regardless of match play or stroke play or a hybrid of the two, you still have to live with these two statements in your very first post on this thread:

"Play it forward is the wrong motto, because beat your buddies should do it. Birdies and pars are just nonsense noise that a very small percentage of golfers worry about."

"Furthermore play if forward is the wrong motto, because it is based on the ignorance of a few players that GIR has some meaning to. The high handicapper (average player) can play it forward and have little or no effect on GIR."

[Garland Bayley]

... Be assured Garland, you get fewer invites because you are a known sandbagger.  I don't know why more people don't tell you.
...

John,

I didn't join this website to get invites to play. I don't have the time nor money to accept them. So all invites have been politely refused. I wonder about your sandbagger reason though. You have invited me. Must have been before you plugged into the grapevine. I have been invited after using my "sandbagger" handicap to help my teammate vanquish the invitee. Must have been a revenge attempt thing.

I'm sure I come across as obnoxious as I don't use the smiley face icons nearly often enough for people to get my intention. I'm thinking that might reduce invites.

Actually, there is one nearby invite I have indicated I would accept, we just haven't worked out anything that fits our schedules.

[Garland Bayley]

  A.G.

And, match play is a hybrid of stroke play and match play, because you have to keep strokes to determine the winner of the hole.

 

Changing the focus, you don't actually have to keep strokes to determine the winner of the hole. You just have to keep track of the difference in strokes taken as you play 6 and 7 shot holes like they did when the game began. The called it playing the odd, playing the like.

[A.G._Crockett]

Garland,
I cannot for the life of me see how you can seriously contend that PIF does not result in more GIR's.  

The course rating difference between the blues and whites at my club is .8 strokes. A guess may mean at my handicap it will be a little more than a stroke difference. Does that mean I will get 1 more GIR by moving from blue to white? It means I will be able to get enough closer on average to gain a stroke. As I wrote above, that is perhaps .2 GIR. I cannot for the life of me see how your seriously can dispute that.

When it comes to enjoying golf, that is and insignificant difference!

There is a rule of thumb in golf equipment called the "24/36 Rule" I believe.  The gist of it is that the average golfer struggles to hit any club with less that 24 degrees or loft and/or a shaft of 36" or longer, which is roughly the modern 4 or 5 iron.  If you reduce the number of times that ANY golfer hits those clubs, you improve his/her accuracy, which means more GIR's.  It is pointless to argue otherwise.

So if I move back a tee, I will hit my 4 or 5 iron one more time in a round. How will that significantly decrease my GIR? Or, like argument for moving forward.

Holes on every golf course in the country are handicapped based on the need of a bogey golfer to get a stroke to equalize on the hole.  The single most pertinent factor in that is the length of the hole.  Good, middling, or bad, any golfer will get to the green in fewer strokes from closer than from farther, all other things equal.  Again, it is pointless to argue otherwise.

There is a HUGE difference between getting to the proximity of the green in fewer strokes than getting ON the green.

And that is why YOU only hit driver 8 times, by your own account!  YOU say that if you hit driver more, you bring things into play that in effect would prevent you from getting to the green in the smallest possible number of strokes; sidehill lies, partial shots, OB, and so on.  

And lastly, advocating a return to matchplay IS a fundamental change.  Saying that it is going back to the way the game was originally played is also pointless; the game was also originally played with hickory shafts and balls stuffed with feathers.  There is just no matchplay ethic in this country, and there isn't going to be.  Railing against stoke play and PIF on that basis is a complete red herring and a non-starter as an alternative.

God, Garland, get your facts straight, take a position and stay there!  Don't just argue for the sake of arguing!

Course rating about what a scratch golfer would do.  If the difference between the back tees and the next set at your course is only .8 strokes, that is for the scratch golfer, not me or you!  I know you know that.  The fact that yardage doesn't matter nearly as much to a scratch golfer as it does to a bogey golfer is why the slope system was devised; I know you know that, too.

I don't know your golf course well enough to know how your club selection would change, and that wasn't the point of mentioning the 24/36 thing.  Over the course of 18 holes, at a shorter yardage players will hit shorter clubs, period.  Shorter clubs are more accurate if you are named Tiger, or A.G., or Garland, or BettyLou.  More accuracy means more GIRs and better misses, doesn't it?

And lastly there is NOT necessarily a huge difference in proximity and being on the green.  One of the things that Pat was trying to tell you a couple of pages back was that a low handicapper could help a high handicapper play better golf immediately.  An example of this would be that good golfers know where to miss, and even know that there are pins that are easier to get to if you miss the green in the correct spot.  There are two holes on my course that can have pins like this; I'd rather miss short than be above the hole, and I play the hole that way.  It's just a LOT easier to do that, though when I'm hitting my 7 iron than it is when I'm hitting my 4 hybrid.

The key to a good short game is actually at least as much about WHERE you miss as it is about skill chipping and putting, and shorter clubs allow golfers of ALL abilities to control their misses better.  That is not arguable, except by degree.

[John Kavanaugh]

... Be assured Garland, you get fewer invites because you are a known sandbagger.  I don't know why more people don't tell you.
...

John,

I didn't join this website to get invites to play. I don't have the time nor money to accept them. So all invites have been politely refused. I wonder about your sandbagger reason though. You have invited me. Must have been before you plugged into the grapevine. I have been invited after using my "sandbagger" handicap to help my teammate vanquish the invitee. Must have been a revenge attempt thing.

I'm sure I come across as obnoxious as I don't use the smiley face icons nearly often enough for people to get my intention. I'm thinking that might reduce invites.

Actually, there is one nearby invite I have indicated I would accept, we just haven't worked out anything that fits our schedules.

When in the hell did I invite you to anything?  Finding Bigfoot premiers this week, perhaps if you showed up and dropped my name we could split the 10 million.  Beyond that I have no use for you and am disappointed in myself for responding thus far.

This is my last response to you until the week of the Masters.  Good luck.

What's funny is I sit here pissed that people with fake names are still posting and then I think I need to just be happy me, you and Mucci are still around.  This site could be so much better without us.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,
I cannot for the life of me see how you can seriously contend that PIF does not result in more GIR's.  

The course rating difference between the blues and whites at my club is .8 strokes. A guess may mean at my handicap it will be a little more than a stroke difference. Does that mean I will get 1 more GIR by moving from blue to white? It means I will be able to get enough closer on average to gain a stroke. As I wrote above, that is perhaps .2 GIR. I cannot for the life of me see how your seriously can dispute that.

When it comes to enjoying golf, that is and insignificant difference!

There is a rule of thumb in golf equipment called the "24/36 Rule" I believe.  The gist of it is that the average golfer struggles to hit any club with less that 24 degrees or loft and/or a shaft of 36" or longer, which is roughly the modern 4 or 5 iron.  If you reduce the number of times that ANY golfer hits those clubs, you improve his/her accuracy, which means more GIR's.  It is pointless to argue otherwise.

So if I move back a tee, I will hit my 4 or 5 iron one more time in a round. How will that significantly decrease my GIR? Or, like argument for moving forward.

Holes on every golf course in the country are handicapped based on the need of a bogey golfer to get a stroke to equalize on the hole.  The single most pertinent factor in that is the length of the hole.  Good, middling, or bad, any golfer will get to the green in fewer strokes from closer than from farther, all other things equal.  Again, it is pointless to argue otherwise.

There is a HUGE difference between getting to the proximity of the green in fewer strokes than getting ON the green.

And that is why YOU only hit driver 8 times, by your own account!  YOU say that if you hit driver more, you bring things into play that in effect would prevent you from getting to the green in the smallest possible number of strokes; sidehill lies, partial shots, OB, and so on.  

And lastly, advocating a return to matchplay IS a fundamental change.  Saying that it is going back to the way the game was originally played is also pointless; the game was also originally played with hickory shafts and balls stuffed with feathers.  There is just no matchplay ethic in this country, and there isn't going to be.  Railing against stoke play and PIF on that basis is a complete red herring and a non-starter as an alternative.

God, Garland, get your facts straight, take a position and stay there!  Don't just argue for the sake of arguing!

Course rating about what a scratch golfer would do.  If the difference between the back tees and the next set at your course is only .8 strokes, that is for the scratch golfer, not me or you!  I know you know that.  The fact that yardage doesn't matter nearly as much to a scratch golfer as it does to a bogey golfer is why the slope system was devised; I know you know that, too.

Of course you know I know those things. I wrote them in the post your are responding to.  

I don't know your golf course well enough to know how your club selection would change, and that wasn't the point of mentioning the 24/36 thing.  Over the course of 18 holes, at a shorter yardage players will hit shorter clubs, period.  Shorter clubs are more accurate if you are named Tiger, or A.G., or Garland, or BettyLou.  More accuracy means more GIRs and better misses, doesn't it?

Once again, exactly what I said in the post above, especially about the better misses.

And lastly there is NOT necessarily a huge difference in proximity and being on the green.  

Yes there is. 1. On the green counts as 1 GIR, in the proximity to the green counts as 0. Better misses still count as 0.

One of the things that Pat was trying to tell you a couple of pages back was that a low handicapper could help a high handicapper play better golf immediately.  An example of this would be that good golfers know where to miss, and even know that there are pins that are easier to get to if you miss the green in the correct spot.  There are two holes on my course that can have pins like this; I'd rather miss short than be above the hole, and I play the hole that way.  It's just a LOT easier to do that, though when I'm hitting my 7 iron than it is when I'm hitting my 4 hybrid.

You don't think high handicappers know these things too. The ones I play with know these things and discuss them. The difference is that high handicappers have a very low probability of guessing correctly what their next miss is going to be like. That is why discussing this on this forum of mostly low handicappers is to a certain extent like beating my head against the wall. The people on this website that complain about their handicap going up are complaining because they are getting shorter, not wilder.

The key to a good short game is actually at least as much about WHERE you miss as it is about skill chipping and putting, and shorter clubs allow golfers of ALL abilities to control their misses better.  That is not arguable, except by degree.

[Philip Caccamise]

Slope was finally mentioned after 8 pages in this thread. Slope doesn't correlate to length 100% as the key driver is more often trouble for slope calculation, for example Tobacco Road has a slope of 150 from the 6500 yards, whereas the national average is probably closer to 120-122 for that yardage. That said, the point that the longer the course the bigger the divergence in score between the low handicapper and the high handicapper is absolutely true. My assessment is slope doesn't account ENOUGH for length. I know plenty of senior golfers that are 4-5 index from 6000 yards that couldn't break 90 in 10 tries on the same course from 7000 yards. That isn't a knock on them, it's a failure of the handicap system to properly address it. Likewise, if they played the US Open at 6300 instead of 7300 while maintaining the rest of the conditioning challenges, scores wouldn't likely be better than 12 under for 4 rounds... or 3 per round.

I agree with Mr. Mucci... Play it Forward is not the right slogan. Have More Fun would be my tagline... because at the end of the day, golf is supposed to be FUN. And hitting 3 woods into par 4s isn't fun, dancing 9 irons is.

[Jason Thurman]

I'm sorry that people are so dishonest in Indiana. No one has ever kicked me out of a regular game for sandbagging. They might consider kicking me out for being obnoxious, but not for sandbagging. Perhaps if Indiana would get its act together so people could see their scores on ghin.com, the problem might be alleviated, and I might even help you find my scores.

If you think this is just an Indiana issue, then I think you might be lying to yourself.  I suspect that members at JKs club come from Kentucky and Illinois as well.

There are no dishonest people from Kentucky.

[Garland Bayley]

Hi Jason,

I bumped the GRUDGE MATCH thread to the first page for your reading pleasure.
Too bad you didn't know Anthony Gray, former member of the website from your neck of the woods.

[A.G._Crockett]

Garland,

You tried to make a statistical case to the effect that your GIR number wouldn't change but by .2 with a .8 change in the course rating.  My point to you is that this is a silly thing to say, since course rating is what a SCRATCH golfer would do.  Not you.  Not me.  SCRATCH.  So building a "case" on a small change in course rating is doomed.  You are misusing the number and you know it.

You said long ago in this thread that on your course the average difference when you move up is 20 or 30 yards.  Do you really mean to tell me that you hit only .2 greens more per round with that distance reduction?  I can see 2 being a reasonable number, but .2?  You'd have to play FIVE rounds before you hit even ONE additional green with each hole reduced by 25 yds.?  Really?  C'mon, man!  I'll buy it eventually if you keep telling me how bad you suck, but I've never met a bogey golfer who would have those results, and I play a lot of golf with bogey golfers.

And getting shorter and getting "wilder" (as you put it) go hand in hand.  If I'm shorter, I have to hit longer clubs.  Longer clubs are less accurate.  Not really complicated, except apparently to you for purposes of pointless arguments.

And lastly, as to missing the green intentionally in certain cases, don't twist what I said.  Good golfers do that from time to time; on Tour they use the bunkers for this.  But on Tour or at Bushwood, it is easier to either hit greens or miss them in the correct place with a shorter club in your hand, which is what TIF is all about.

And whether a high handicapper knows where to miss or not varies with the player and the hole.  A chimp would know not to hit it in the water or the bunker, though the chimp's ability to predict his/her miss is, in fact, much lower; I'm not talking about that, so think on a bit more subtle level, ok?

[A.G._Crockett]

And now I'm tired of this, too.  Mucci is already gone, you wore down even Jaka, and I'll leave at this point.  Argue with somebody else about something you do anyway.

Sheesh...

[Garland Bayley]

Garland,

You tried to make a statistical case to the effect that your GIR number wouldn't change but by .2 with a .8 change in the course rating.  My point to you is that this is a silly thing to say, since course rating is what a SCRATCH golfer would do.  Not you.  Not me.  SCRATCH.  So building a "case" on a small change in course rating is doomed.  You are misusing the number and you know it.

You didn't read carefully enough. I estimated the change for me since I am not a scratch golfer to be a little more that a stroke. I wasn't planning to do the actual calculation. Do you want me to do the actual calculation? It wouldn't seem necessary, because it would be a big data collection project to determine what small percent of in your words "better misses" greens would become actual hit, which is what we are disagreeing about.

You said long ago in this thread that on your course the average difference when you move up is 20 or 30 yards.  Do you really mean to tell me that you hit only .2 greens more per round with that distance reduction?  I can see 2 being a reasonable number, but .2?  You'd have to play FIVE rounds before you hit even ONE additional green with each hole reduced by 25 yds.?  Really?  C'mon, man!  I'll buy it eventually if you keep telling me how bad you suck, but I've never met a bogey golfer who would have those results, and I play a lot of golf with bogey golfers.

How many greens in regulation do you hit? You are clearly a far more accurate hitter than me, and I bet you couldn't increase by 2 by moving up 20 yards on each hole. I find your estimate of 2 to be outlandish and unreasonable for these "bogey" golfers you play with, especially if they are direction challenged and not distance challenged.

And getting shorter and getting "wilder" (as you put it) go hand in hand.  If I'm shorter, I have to hit longer clubs.  Longer clubs are less accurate.  Not really complicated, except apparently to you for purposes of pointless arguments.

As a low handicapper, I don't think you even know the definition of wilder. Wilder is topping it 20 yards, flipping the wrists and snap hooking it so bad you swear the ball is coming back at you before it lands, laying sod over the top of the ball, blading the ball 30 yards over the green, etc., and doing these things semiregularly.


And lastly, as to missing the green intentionally in certain cases, don't twist what I said.  

Was intentionally missing greens even mentioned by me on this thread? Somehow I must have missed that.

Good golfers do that from time to time; on Tour they use the bunkers for this.  But on Tour or at Bushwood, it is easier to either hit greens or miss them in the correct place with a shorter club in your hand, which is what TIF is all about.

And whether a high handicapper knows where to miss or not varies with the player and the hole.  A chimp would know not to hit it in the water or the bunker, though the chimp's ability to predict his/her miss is, in fact, much lower; I'm not talking about that, so think on a bit more subtle level, ok?

[Garland Bayley]

OK, here's the data.

http://www.thegrint.com/range/2013/03/golf-tips-gir/

It's not exactly the data we are looking for, but it can perhaps facilitate the discussion some. I fit in the 12% of GIR on the graph. If I amazingly improved my game by 5 strokes, I would get 20% GIR. An 8% improvement or 1.44 GIR improvement. I don't think moving forward on set of tees at may course which is an average of 10 yards per hole is going to give me anywhere near the improvement in GIR that improving my game by 5 strokes will. In fact the USGA course handicap calculator says the difference is 1 stroke for the difference between the two tees. That is 1/5 or .2 which multipled by 1.44 gives .288 more GIR. So my guess of .2 was a lot closer than AG's guess of 2.

QED

I too am done with this thread, because it takes a lot of time and patience to talk some common sense into you guys.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

I just noticed your post about being a bogey golfer when you had cancer.

Although it is unfortunate that you had to go through that, I suspect that if you were to play a short par 3 course with me you would have been a par golfer, and I still would have been a bogey golfer.

Then, you "suspect" incorrectly.

I lost tremendous distance on my irons and couldn't get them airborne as I had in the past, hence, your conclusion, is wrong......... again.

However, at miniature golf (putt-putt) I might have retained a reasonable degree of proficiency.

[Patrick_Mucci]

And now I'm tired of this, too.  Mucci is already gone, you wore down even Jaka, and I'll leave at this point.  Argue with somebody else about something you do anyway.

A.G.,

Not gone, just tending to other priorities.

Have no fear, I'll be back later tonight

Sheesh...

[Joe Leenheer]

I'm 6 pages late but here's my 2 dollars worth….

This past fall when my club started to get a bit wet (and cart were restricted to paths), I went out and started playing from our Junior Tees (maybe 1600 yards for 9 holes).  Played super fast, didn't have to chase balls all over the place on soggy turf, and I learned a lot about my game.

On the Front 9 I can drive 1 of the par 5's, all the par 4's (most with irons), and the par 3's all play from inside of 30 yards.

6 under is the best I could do (using the regular par for the hole).  I got so hooked the first time I did it, I played my next 4 rounds from the forward tees.  

It's fun and I think it's just as challenging as playing from any tee.  

Pat…totally agree that they got the name all wrong.  

I don't think the program will really take off, but I wish everyone would try it especially on a course you play frequently.  Even if you just move up one tee or if you can check you manhood in the pro shop and tee if from the forwards.  Let me know how pissed you are when you make a bogey!

Joe,

Did you post those scores?  I've done the same thing and am sure to be the only person who has played from all 100+ tees at Victoria National. Of course I only play the "junior" tees when in non posting situations. I do not believe for a second that courses are rated for handicap using this new play it forward mentality.  The USGA has a long history of punishing those who do the right thing and protecting those who don't.

John,

I do not track my handicap as I gave up my amateur status a few years back.  However, the tee markers from which I played are not rated so posting of the scores would require using the USGA's "Adjustment for Unrated Tees" Chart.  Using this chart you can find the "appropriate" slope and rating for the posting of these scores. NOTE: The USGA does say that a course must be a minimum of 3000 yards for 18 holes (1500 for 9 holes) in order to post a score.

The Handicap issue is the other reason why "Tee it Forward" will not work (at least not for those in the private club world or competitive public course world).  

As far as the "USGA" is concerned, your club's handicap committee is the governing body over your handicap and it would be up to their discretion to punish or not to punish.  I would think an equitable decision would be made if the issue arose.


 

[Patrick_Mucci]

What Garland doesn't understand is "human nature".

Accomplishments make us happy.
Achieving goals makes us happy, including on the golf course.

In golf, the object of the game is to get from point "A" to point "B" in as few strokes as possible.

The architect crafts a field of play upon which, we pursue the above endeavor.

Making pars and birdies is an inherent goal .....and lure of the game.

Making MORE pars and birdies makes us happier.

Scoring is directly related to distance.

While Garland didn't understand the reason I selected courses of different lengths (7,400, 6,400 & 5,400), the example was obvious to all but a few "Supreme" morons.   Scoring for EVERY level of golfer improves as you move up from 7,400 yards to the shorter distances.
The big jump from 7,400 to 5,400 was to demonstrate a significant gap that even he could understand, in terms of "concept" and "scoring"

Moving up 30 yards per hole as someone suggested, brings a 6,700 yard course to a 6,160 yard course, and if Garland doesn't think that a 540 yard reduction in distance won't produce more pars and birdies for every level of golfer, he's transitioned from a "Supreme" moron to the most "exalted" of morons.

It's clear and Irrefutable, that playing from shorter distances produces lower scores.

Hence, if you want to make more pars and birdies, reduce the length of the course you play by moving up.

Bogey golfers can play all the match play rounds they want from 7,400 and it won't bring them the fun, thrill and sense of accomplishment that playing from 6,400 or 5,400 will bring them.

Will someone who's adept at communicating with morons, explain that to Garland.

P.S.  Why would a 22 handicap be so quick to accept a match with a 16 handicap without shots ?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Joe Leenheer,

I don't understand what you say when you state that you play tee markers that aren't rated.

What club establishes markers but doesn't rate them ?

Or, are you saying that you play from a complex combination of markers from different courses/tee markers

[Nigel Islam]

Ok I will take a stab at it Pat.

Garland, the point Pat  and others are trying to make is that if you tee it forward considerably (ie more than at your course) then you will hit closer to greens (note I did not use the GIR term.) If you hit closer to greens then you will make lower numbers. If you make lower numbers then you will potentially make more birdies, pars, bogeys, or even double bogeys than you would otherwise have made. I agree this will not likely help you in match play.

It is a fact for 99.9% of golfers (I am placing you in the 0.1%) that if they have a shorter club with more loft there will be less dispersion on the shot. Thus, they may be able to use a putter for the next stroke. If that is the case then handicaps will go down. To the majority of golfers this is something desirable.

Correct me if I am wrong here, but I believe that you don't actually care if your handicap goes down?

[Patrick_Mucci]

Nigel,

Garland may NOT want his handicap to go down.

Remember, he readily forfeited 6 shots when playing against a 16 handicap when he was a 22

[Brent Hutto]

I enjoy winning a hole in match play by making a seven to my opponent's eight as much as anyone. But you know what's even more fun that winning a hole with a triple-bogey? Winning a hole by making a birdie putt!

If someone forced me to play a 7,400 golf course for some reason or another, hell yes I'd rather do it in head-to-head match play than be keeping a scorecard. No rational 200-yard driver of the ball wants to play stroke play or even Stableford on a course that's 75 yards a hole longer than he's capable of playing well on. But I'd rather not be screwing around trying to play Par 4's with driver, 3-wood, 3-wood, 5-iron in the first place.

[Nigel Islam]

I enjoy winning a hole in match play by making a seven to my opponent's eight as much as anyone. But you know what's even more fun that winning a hole with a triple-bogey? Winning a hole by making a birdie putt!

If someone forced me to play a 7,400 golf course for some reason or another, hell yes I'd rather do it in head-to-head match play than be keeping a scorecard. No rational 200-yard driver of the ball wants to play stroke play or even Stableford on a course that's 75 yards a hole longer than he's capable of playing well on. But I'd rather not be screwing around trying to play Par 4's with driver, 3-wood, 3-wood, 5-iron in the first place.

+1

[Philip Caccamise]

Joe Leenheer,

I don't understand what you say when you state that you play tee markers that aren't rated.

What club establishes markers but doesn't rate them ?

Or, are you saying that you play from a complex combination of markers from different courses/tee markers

Most courses that have "junior" or "family" tees don't have them rated, probably because it's more cost and hassle than its worth (since the vast majority of people playing those tees are not going to have a handicap anyways.)

[Garland Bayley]

"P.S.  Why would a 22 handicap be so quick to accept a match with a 16 handicap without shots ?"

That's easy. Because it was an estimated handicap. People remember their good performances, and often think of them as standard. That's why people tell you to never trust people when they tell how far they drive the ball. The give you their best results, not their average. Besides, he had earned himself a derogatory nickname based on his incompetence at a previous Kings Putter.

So with a 13.3 differential from a hot round at the end of the season this year (which means I'm dishing out money to friends all winter while the handicaps are frozen), by Kalen's methodology I was really a 13 handicap quickly accepting at match with a 16 handicap without shots.

[Nigel Islam]

"P.S.  Why would a 22 handicap be so quick to accept a match with a 16 handicap without shots ?"

That's easy. Because it was an estimated handicap. People remember their good performances, and often think of them as standard. That's why people tell you to never trust people when they tell how far they drive the ball. The give you their best results, not their average. Besides, he had earned himself a derogatory nickname based on his incompetence at a previous Kings Putter.

So with a 13.3 differential from a hot round at the end of the season this year (which means I'm dishing out money to friends all winter while the handicaps are frozen), by Kalen's methodology I was really a 13 handicap quickly accepting at match with a 16 handicap without shots.

Garland, you may have successfully drug JakaB back into the thread with that post.