Pinehurst - why not just call it rough?

[Ken Moum]

Ken

Is that not against the rules?

Jon

Of course it is, but no one around these parts seems to give a crap.  Today I played with a group of guys around my age (66) most of whom are very short hitters.  The like to play our gold tees that are about 5800 yards, but the markers are always set at least 300 yards shorter than that.

So the course rating is playing roughly 1.5 too high, and the slope is about 4 points too high.

As a result, rounds posted from those tees result in the player's handicap being about 1.5 strokes lower than it should be.  I've told them, and they simply don't care.

K

[Thomas Dai]

"To post a 9-hole score, the player must play 7 to 12 holes, and at least 7 holes must be played in accordance with the principle of the Rules of Golf. To post an 18-hole score, the player must play at least 13 holes in accordance with the principles of the Rules of Golf."

I'm rather curious as to the meaning/interpretation of this.

Do USGA regulations really permit someone to play 9-holes and effectively on 2 of the holes use their um, imagination, to make up the score? Or play 18-holes and on 5 of the holes use their again um, imagination, to make up the score.

Sorry for the cynicism but something seems a little odd here.

atb

[Paul Gray]

So call it rough with you can treat as a lateral hazard. If you're on a little holiday knocking a ball around I fail to see why the definition is important.

Paul,

is there any holiday golf in the US anymore? I thought they had to return a card for every round played whether in a competition or not.

Jon

Bizarre concept, is it not?

I wonder what I'd be expected to do with my five holes after work with only myself as a partner.

No need to post.

Per the USGA Handicap Manual:

5-1. Acceptability of Scores

Fair handicapping depends upon full and accurate information regarding a player's potential scoring ability as reflected by a complete scoring record. Every player must be responsible for returning all acceptable scores, as defined in this section. For handicap purposes, all Section 4 adjustments, including Equitable Stroke Control, must be applied to all scores including tournament scores.

 a. Scores To Post

To post a 9-hole score, the player must play 7 to 12 holes, and at least 7 holes must be played in accordance with the principle of the Rules of Golf.  To post an 18-hole score, the player must play at least 13 holes in accordance with the principles of the Rules of Golf. (See Decisions 5-1a/3 through 5-1a/5.)......



Ken

Yep, sounds like Duckworth-Lewis to me. 

[Brent Hutto]

Thomas,

The entire system is bullshit. The #1 and in fact only priority in the USGA Handicap System is making sure EVERY SCORE IS POSTED NO MATTER WHAT. So all manner of "most likely" and "ESC limited" and "par plus your handicap strokes" are used to fill in partial rounds and come up with a number to type into the handicap system.

So you get a three decimal point precision number based on lots and lots of "scores" many of which are actually just numbers and not scores from actual rounds of golf at all.

But it's the system we're stuck with. I guess that's a distinctly American idea. The fact that the numbers are made-up garbage doesn't matter as long as you have lots and lots and lots of made-up garbage numbers.

[Ken Moum]

But it's the system we're stuck with. I guess that's a distinctly American idea. The fact that the numbers are made-up garbage doesn't matter as long as you have lots and lots and lots of made-up garbage numbers.

Damn, Brent, you just made my day.

[Paul Gray]

And in all seriousness, what if you are on your own?

[Brent Hutto]

Paul,

Lest you misunderstand, it is EVERY DAMNED "SCORE" OF YOUR LIFE.

Matters not if you're alone, matters not if you're competing, matters not anything except if you play at least 13 holes of golf the system says you are supposedly honor-bound to type some number or another into the computer. Every time.

It's ludicrous.

[Carl Johnson]

Thomas,

The entire system is bullshit. The #1 and in fact only priority in the USGA Handicap System is making sure EVERY SCORE IS POSTED NO MATTER WHAT. So all manner of "most likely" and "ESC limited" and "par plus your handicap strokes" are used to fill in partial rounds and come up with a number to type into the handicap system.

So you get a three decimal point precision number based on lots and lots of "scores" many of which are actually just numbers and not scores from actual rounds of golf at all.

But it's the system we're stuck with. I guess that's a distinctly American idea. The fact that the numbers are made-up garbage doesn't matter as long as you have lots and lots and lots of made-up garbage numbers.

This is true.  Of course, there are exceptions among us.  But most American golfers, including club golfers, don't understand the system and really don't care to try to understand it.  That having been said, when you're playing with the same folks more or less all the time, the relative handicaps come out pretty fair, in my experience.  For most American golfers, handicaps are more important as a measure of skill, so the fudging tends to result in handicaps that are lower than strict adherance to rules would result in.  The sandbaggers are there, but in the minority.  The vanity handicaps prevail.

[Jon Wiggett]

Wow, what a mess.

[Thomas Dai]

Thanks guys for the enlightening comments about the USGA hcp system. Now I better understand why so many comments critical of it have been posted herein.
atb

[Paul Gray]

Brent,

Thanks for that.

Like Thomas, I now understand why you guys get so annoyed with it.

Interesting to note that the apparent desire to make handicaps as accurate as possible seems to do the exact opposite. I literally played one hole the other night when the rain suddenly hit and I walked in. Any data taken from that one bogey would seemingly be utterly pointless.

[Carl Johnson]

Brent,

Thanks for that.

Like Thomas, I know understand why you guys get so annoyed with it.

Interesting to note that the apparent desire to make handicaps as accurate as possible seems to do the exact opposite. I literally played one hole the other night when the rain suddenly hit and I walked in. Any data taken from that one bogey would seemingly be utterly pointless.

Paul, under the USGA handicap procedures one hole wouldn't be enough.  It takes a minimum of 13, and then you post the remainder as par plus your handicap strokes on each of the holes.  In theory the system is a good one, I think.  The procedures make sense.  The problem is that they just don't work in practice.  An example.  I'm in the 20s HC range and play with a lot of other 20s.  The maximum score such a handicapper may post on a hole for handicap purposes is an 8.  I've several friends in that category who will not post more than a 7, "because I just don't feel good about it," they say.  (Otherwise they are quite religious about reporting scores.)  As a result, their handicaps are slightly lower than they should be, which is no problem for them in friendly 2-balls.  But what about having one of these guys as a partner in a 4-ball, or playing a 2-ball in inter-club team competition?  You have to just bite your tongue and go on with it.

[Ken Moum]

To give you another example, I am the captain of men's league team in our nine-hole match play system. We play for points so it's possible to tie with 4 1/2 points each, or have a lopsided match like 8 to 1.

My best player, a three hdcp., got drilled 6 to 3 by a six who shot one over.  As we were walking  back to the clubhouse he said, "I guess I'm going have start posting all my bad scores."

Now, since his hdcp. is based on the 10 best of the last 20 scores, a few 85s might not make much difference.  But there's a chance they'd push some low scores out of the last 20.

K

[Paul Gray]

Carl,

Amazing. I'm not quite sure how people can blatantly put the wrong score down and not develop a huge sense of self loathing. At least lie. 

[Brent Hutto]

Some people put more importance on the number that appears after their name in the handicap computer than they do in their own sense of integrity. They'd rather lie to themselves and others than see "12.5" next to their name than face up to the reality of a "17.8" posted there instead.

They think of themselves a "about a 13 handicap" or whatever and they manage their score postings to keep the computed index consistent with that self-concept.

P.S. Keep in mind that the "scores" being posted, as I've outlined earlier, have only a tenuous relationship to actual medal scores from a stipulated competition round where the ball is played down and putted out. Maybe 5% of the scores entered this weekend in the USGA Handicap System are from stroke-play competition. The rest are from rounds which are not necessarily played according to the Rules of Golf and many of the players didn't even have a small wager riding on the outcome. So when they institute procedures to convert results of various non-Rules-of-Golf rounds into pseudo-medal scores it's no surprise that many golfers substitute in their own petty adjustments and self-flattering bullshit along with the various types of bullshit stipulated in the Handicap System manual

It's like the old joke with the punchline, "We've established what you are, now we're just haggling over price".

[Paul Gray]

Sorry for the endless questions but at least one Brit is fascinated by all this......

Over here you have to have a handicap of four or less in order to become a PGA Pro. Does such a prerequisite exist over there and, if so, given that anyone choosing to do so can write down any number they like, why?

[Carl Johnson]

Sorry for the endless questions but at least one Brit is fascinated by all this......

Over here you have to have a handicap of four or less in order to become a PGA Pro. Does such a prerequisite exist over there and, if so, given that anyone choosing to do so can write down any number they like, why?

There is a playing ability requirement.  I'm not certain whether it's based on HC or on some actual rounds at the school.  Here's a cite to the general rules - not sure how the playing requirement comes into play, but maybe you could find it here: http://www.pga.com/pga-america/pga-information/pga-america-member-classifications

[Jon Wiggett]

Paul,

the 4 handicap is so you can sign on as an assistant to then take your qualifications at a later date. There is also a playing qualification that needs to be met on top of this.

Jon

[Paul Gray]

Jon,

Thanks.

In the depths of the recession I did consider a complete career change so I'm familiar with the various loops one has to go through. I just wondered how the criteria was navigated in America. I mean, at least our system prevents any number of high handicappers from applying.

[Carl Johnson]

I am speculating that in the future the resort will request that lost balls be played as a lateral hazard. It is the current policy at Streamsong for pace of play reasons.

Pinehurst's response today: "Mr. Johnson: We do not treat any of the sandy areas as lateral hazards. If the ball is found, play it as it lies (or take an unplayable), if it is not found within the allotted 5 minutes the ball is lost. I have heard of some courses providing lateral relief for pace of play purposes but I believe it is against the nature of the game and the rules of golf."