[Garland Bayley]

... 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?  ...

My assumption is you were talking about moving up at my course, because that's what I estimated the .2 for.

[Garland Bayley]

AG,
   You don't actually have to hit more greens either. If you get close enough to putt from the fairway you might eliminate the dreaded half wedge shot

You can ask any of my buddies whether I putt from the fairway to avoid the half wedge shot. Then, you might not find your comment so y.

[Nigel Islam]

AG,
   You don't actually have to hit more greens either. If you get close enough to putt from the fairway you might eliminate the dreaded half wedge shot

You can ask any of my buddies whether I putt from the fairway to avoid the half wedge shot. Then, you might not find your comment so y.

Garland, I am assuming you are pretty proficient at putting based on some of your other statements. The comment was meant to make a point that any time you can get a putter in your hand it's a good thing.

[A.G._Crockett]

... 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?  ...

My assumption is you were talking about moving up at my course, because that's what I estimated the .2 for.

I DID NOT ESTIMATE INCREASED GIR NUMBERS AT YOUR COURSE OR ANY OTHER!  YOU DID!  I SAID THE ESTIMATE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE COURSE RATING, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU!

Why is this so hard for you to understand?  It seems such a simple thing...

I also said that it really stretches credulity to imagine that moving up 25 yd. per hole would result in an average of ONE additional GIR every FIVE rounds, which was your estimate!

And I must say, you are the first golfer that I have ever encountered who so stridently insists on his own complete and utter incompetence, seemingly in every phase of the game every time you play.  It is remarkable.

[Peter Pallotta]

"And I must say, you are the first golfer that I have ever encountered who so stridently insists on his own complete and utter incompetence, seemingly in every phase of the game every time you play."

And with that one brilliantly conceived and executed sentence, an entire 10 page thread is redeemed! Dare I say it, AG, but so balanced and lyrical is the sentiment, so compactly forceful and to the point, that were I to handicap you as a writer of bon mots you'd be a +6, and that from the tips. Playing it forward, in that context, would be gilding the lily!  

Peter

[Joe Leenheer]

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.)

Philip,

I understand, but, Joe didn't indicate that he was playing from Junior/Family tees, hence, my interest.

Pat…on my initial post on page 6 I may have mentioned a little something about Junior Tees….I'm not saying you're wrong or mistaken…nor am I saying that I'm going to print this post out and frame it……but both of those statements may be true…or not.

[Tim Martin]

Garland,

Somewhere, a very proud Baghdad Bob is wiping away tears of pride.

 

[jeffwarne]

]



And I must say, you are the first golfer that I have ever encountered who so stridently insists on his own complete and utter incompetence, seemingly in every phase of the game every time you play.  It is remarkable.

Yet has as a stated goal to "beat your buddies"

[Keith Grande]

As Bobby Jones stated:

"He plays a game with which I am not familiar"

[James Brown]

Playing from the tees that let you enjoy the game is soooooo important.  Look at all the great courses in Britain.  Not many have tees past 6400 yards and many of the great ones are 6100.  And most of the links courses kick everyone's butt, even from the shortest tees.    

A golfer who hits a good tee shot max 230 should be playing 6000 yards.  Speeds up play and enhances enjoyment.

If you look at the clubs that the tour pros hit, which are mostly 7 irons and in on the par fours and 6-8 irons on the par threes, we need to be pushing golf to these clubs for amateur designs as as well.  

If you go play Torrey Pines or Bethpage or Pinehurst from the 7500 yard tips, a good amateur will be doing very well to break 80 - I don't care what people say.  l    

  

[Garland Bayley]

... 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?  ...

My assumption is you were talking about moving up at my course, because that's what I estimated the .2 for.

I DID NOT ESTIMATE INCREASED GIR NUMBERS AT YOUR COURSE OR ANY OTHER!  YOU DID!  I SAID THE ESTIMATE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE COURSE RATING, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU!

Au Contraire. The estimate was based on course rating, slope, and my handicap index, which was alluded to pithily and you overlooked apparently not having the patience to understand the words written.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?  It seems such a simple thing...

Let's cut to the brass tacks of understanding. Is or is it not possible for a golfer, without having his playing competence change, have a lower handicap index calculated from rounds played at back tees than what is calculated from rounds played at forward tees?

I also said that it really stretches credulity to imagine that moving up 25 yd. per hole would result in an average of ONE additional GIR every FIVE rounds, which was your estimate!

And I must say, you are the first golfer that I have ever encountered who so stridently insists on his own complete and utter incompetence, seemingly in every phase of the game every time you play.  It is remarkable.

[Bill_McBride]

... 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?  ...

My assumption is you were talking about moving up at my course, because that's what I estimated the .2 for.

I DID NOT ESTIMATE INCREASED GIR NUMBERS AT YOUR COURSE OR ANY OTHER!  YOU DID!  I SAID THE ESTIMATE WAS INVALID BECAUSE IT WAS BASED ON THE COURSE RATING, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU!

Au Contraire. The estimate was based on course rating, slope, and my handicap index, which was alluded to pithily and you overlooked apparently not having the patience to understand the words written.

Why is this so hard for you to understand?  It seems such a simple thing...

Let's cut to the brass tacks of understanding. Is or is it not possible for a golfer, without having his playing competence change, have a lower handicap index calculated from rounds played at back tees than what is calculated from rounds played at forward tees?

I also said that it really stretches credulity to imagine that moving up 25 yd. per hole would result in an average of ONE additional GIR every FIVE rounds, which was your estimate!

And I must say, you are the first golfer that I have ever encountered who so stridently insists on his own complete and utter incompetence, seemingly in every phase of the game every time you play.  It is remarkable.

Garland, you have dug yourself such a deep hole you may never escape!

Does it really make any sense that you might conceivably have a lower index playing from the back tees than the front?   Maybe for a couple of weeks but certainly not over time. 

[Tim Martin]

Garland, you have dug yourself such a deep hole you may never escape!

Does it really make any sense that you might conceivably have a lower index playing from the back tees than the front?   Maybe for a couple of weeks but certainly not over time. 

A wise man might walk away from this thread. Nah........

[JMEvensky]

Garland, you have dug yourself such a deep hole you may never escape!

Does it really make any sense that you might conceivably have a lower index playing from the back tees than the front?   Maybe for a couple of weeks but certainly not over time. 

A wise man might walk away from this thread. Nah........

Since I haven't looked at the box score lately,who's winning?

[Garland Bayley]

]



And I must say, you are the first golfer that I have ever encountered who so stridently insists on his own complete and utter incompetence, seemingly in every phase of the game every time you play.  It is remarkable.

Yet has as a stated goal to "beat your buddies"

But the incompetence of my buddies is remarkable too. One of them whiffs a half wedge shot ever 2nd or 3rd round or so. Another one duck hooks driver the moment any pressure on the shot appears (like "you're down two, you better start making up some ground"). He asked Santa for a new golf swing for Christmas and hasn't been see since. We suspect he is off taking lessons somewhere. The low handicapper can advise me on what shots to play, but the randomness of my mistakes just defeats his purpose. But we have a good time. The guy who depends on Santa for a golf swing is the most score conscious, and therefore, the most often unhappy.

[Nigel Islam]

You know what I agree that it is possible for you to have a lower index from farther back. It just becomes less likely the worse your handicap is. At 22 it is downright impossible unless you are trying to keep your handicap up.

[Garland Bayley]

You know what I agree that it is possible for you to have a lower index from farther back. It just becomes less likely the worse your handicap is. At 22 it is downright impossible unless you are trying to keep your handicap up.

If I hit one OB, one in the water, and loose one each round, there are five strokes that don't care what tees I play from. They will make my handicap index lower from the back. It seems to me the higher one's handicap is, the more of these excess strokes will be counted. So I reject your supposition.

[Garland Bayley]

Garland, you have dug yourself such a deep hole you may never escape!

Does it really make any sense that you might conceivably have a lower index playing from the back tees than the front?   Maybe for a couple of weeks but certainly not over time. 

Bill,

I have sent essentially your question to the USGA handicap committee. We will see what they say.

I also PM'd a knowledgeable statistics person on the site, and he PM back that he agrees with me.

[Nigel Islam]

Garland,

What color is the sky?

[Garland Bayley]

Nigel,

The color of the sky is white. It is only because air scatters blue sunlight more than it scatters red that the sky appears to be blue.
Unless of course you were asking about the night sky.

[Patrick_Mucci]

Bill, Nigel, et. al.,

In reviewing the replies, especially Garland's, it appears that Garland's objective is to maintain a higher handicap rather than strive for a lower one.

It would also appear that Garland has contradicted himself on numerous occasions.

If the goal is to beat your buddies, then, no matter how you slice it, you have to score lower than your buddies.

I always liked to play the back tees, but, two things have convinced me to move forward, and to perhaps keep on moving forward.

1.     Courses are getting longer.
2      I'm getting shorter
3      That's not a good combination.

[Nigel Islam]

OK Pat, since Garland didn't bite on my Pacific Dunes question, and he confirmed my suspicions about his argumentative nature I am going to pose this question to you.

At Mountain Ridge would you be more likely to average 83 from the back tees for your best 10/20 rounds OR average 82 from the next set up for your best 10/20 rounds?  

Also would a 22 handicap be more likely to average 100 from the backs for their best 10/20 round OR 99 from the next set up?

I used some data that I hope is right, but this is the scorecard data I used for all you numbers nerds like me.
http://www.customscorecards.com/scorecard.php?course=7656

[Garland Bayley]

Bill, Nigel, et. al.,

In reviewing the replies, especially Garland's, it appears that Garland's objective is to maintain a higher handicap rather than strive for a lower one.

It would also appear that Garland has contradicted himself on numerous occasions.

Only your reading incomprehension leads you to that conclusion. For example, I stated my lowest differential in my current handicap record was 13.3. You were unable to distinguish handicap index from the differential for a round and went off to ridiculous lengths saying my index was 13.3 so of course I should play Kalen at a 16. You should know that my current handicap record has 20 scores, and that each one has a differential calculated for it. The 10 lowest differentials are used to calculate the index. Although my handicap index tends to be very close to 22 much of the time, my current handicap index is 18.9, in part because I tied my personal best in the next to last round of the handicap posting season (the 13.3 differential).

If the goal is to beat your buddies, then, no matter how you slice it, you have to score lower than your buddies.

And your goal may at one time have been to win the US Am or the US MidAm. Did you do it? To make conclusions about someones handicap index based on their goal is simply ludicrous. Using handicaps, I beat my buddies my appropriate share of the time (because handicaps are equalizers) and they pay me, and I buy the post round refreshment. My buddies win their appropriate share of the time, I pay them, and they buy refreshments. Since our indexes were frozen at the end of the handicap season, I have been doling out the cash and getting "free" cokes.

I always liked to play the back tees, but, two things have convinced me to move forward, and to perhaps keep on moving forward.

1.     Courses are getting longer.
2      I'm getting shorter
3      That's not a good combination.

[Garland Bayley]

OK Pat, since Garland didn't bite on my Pacific Dunes question, and he confirmed my suspicions about his argumentative nature I am going to pose this question to you.

...

Geez Nigel, did you ever think that I may never have played Pacific Dunes?
I actually have played it twice during the winter when scores are not posted and have no recollection of what the scores were.
I have posted a 101 for Chambers Bay at 7700 yards, and a 98 at Chambers Bay from 7100 yards.

[Patrick_Mucci]

OK Pat, since Garland didn't bite on my Pacific Dunes question, and he confirmed my suspicions about his argumentative nature I am going to pose this question to you.

At Mountain Ridge would you be more likely to average 83 from the back tees for your best 10/20 rounds OR average 82 from the next set up for your best 10/20 rounds?

Nigel,

Mountain Ridge is a very challenging golf course.
The disparity between the Back/Black tees and the next tees, the Blue tees is significant.
Irrespective of what the slope may indicate (2.3), I'd say that there's about a 6+ shot difference between the Black and the Blues.  

Also would a 22 handicap be more likely to average 100 from the backs for their best 10/20 round OR 99 from the next set up?

I can guarantee you that a 22 handicap shooting 99 from the Blue, will be shooting much higher from the black.
NO way it's a 1 shot differential, the slope differential is 2.3, but, I think that's not accurate, especially for a mid to high handicap.

I used some data that I hope is right, but this is the scorecard data I used for all you numbers nerds like me.
http://www.customscorecards.com/scorecard.php?course=7656

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()