What would you score?

[Kyle Harris]

Given three stock holes:

A 170 Yarder
A 390 Yarder
A 520 Yarder

All holes are flat with no features. No bunkers or water or OB.

There is a tee, a fairway with no rough surrounding it, and a green that stimps around a 10.

The green is a circle with a 30 yard diameter and the hole is cut in the exact center.

Given 100 chances to play each hole, what do you think your average would be?

[A.G._Crockett]

O.K., I'll bite.

(My most recent index is 5.2)

3.4 on the par 3

4.1 on the par 4

4.8  on the par 5

[John_Cullum]

1221

[JLahrman]

What does "a fairway with no rough surrounding it" mean?  Is it all fairway?

I'm a 6.6.  I like AG Crockett's scores except that I would bump the par 3 score down a bit (170 is a 7/8 iron for me, I don't think I would make bogey 40% of the time), and I would bump the par 4 score up a bit.  With the way I've been hitting my tee shots lately, a 390 yard hole can easily become a 420 yard hole.

[John_Cullum]

Is there a point to this exercise?

[Mike Nuzzo]

I play so much better when I'm engaged or interested in the course, hole or shot.

So I'd probably shoot myself after two times around of shooting bogey golf.

When the holes get redesigned I'll play much better.

[Kyle Harris]

Mike,

Fair enough, but I am approaching it from a statistical stand point  

John,

Yes, to get people thinking about the primary hazard in golf, distance; and how that effects the design of various lengthed holes. I speculate that given only distance as a hazard, par 3s would play easiest with par 5s as a second, and par 4s being the hardest.

However, in relation to par, it would seem that most people have more trouble with par 3s than par 5s.

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

Yes, to get people thinking about the primary hazard in golf, distance; and how that effects the design of various lengthed holes.

Interesting that you say that, I think you have a very good point.  I was quite surprised when I played the Fighting Joe Course at the Shoals in AL a few weeks ago from the back tees at 8092 yds. (I just had to try it once).  I was amazed to see how low the slope was for what I expected, but the rating was very high.  Thus someone else thinks that the inordinantly long distance there effects the low handicapper more than it does the high handicapper which is more effected by the hazards off the line of play.

The Rating and slope were something like 78.7 / 137 I dont remember the slope for sure, but I remember it was about what my home club is from the members tees which are only about 6400 yds.

Pretty interesting stuff.   I think most of the hazards are so far from the back tees that most high handicappers will not reach them with their first shot.  They then hit short of the green (and its hazards) on their next shot, knock it on with thier third (maybe) and probably make about the same score that they would on a shorter course with more trouble for them.

However for a lower handicapper there is no antidote for the inordinantly long approaches you will have on most holes.  I hit lots of 1 Irons and 3 woods for second shots in on the par 4's.  Not my normal shot selection for sure.

[JohnV]

Kyle,

The Course Rating and Slope for a course with 4 par 3s, 10 par 4s and 4 par 5s of the type that you mentioned would be about 68.9 and 97.

So, a scratch golfer should average about 3 under in that configuration.  If you had 6/6/6 the numbers would be different.

Turboe,  The slope of a 8000 yard course is not directly comparable to the slope of a 6400 yard course without knowing the course rating.  Slope is only relative to course rating (see my many posts on this in the past.)  The simple math is:

Slope = 5.381 * (Course Rating - Bogey Rating)

Both Course Rating and Bogey Rating are made up of two factors: Yardage Rating and Obstacle Rating.  The scratch yardage rating for an 8092 yard course is 77.7, while the bogey yardage rating is 101.3.  The Bogey Rating for the course in question is 104.2 (reverse the equation above).  Therefore, the obstacle rating for the scratch golfer is 1.0 and for the bogey golfer 2.9.  All this presumes that there are not large elevation changes or other factors (roll, dogleg, forced layup etc) that might change the yardage rating.  Those numbers tell me that there aren't a whole lot of hazards or OB around the course.  If both the obstacle ratings were 0, the slope would be 127 so you can see that there is some effect (note that obstacle ratings can go negative as they do in Kyle's example)

[wsmorrison]

John,

According to my calculations the multiplier should be 5.382.   Gosh, I can't believe you guys would make that kind of error.  All slopes should be .0001858 times higher  

Sorry for the levity.  I know this is serious stuff and you real course raters should be congratulated for the hard work you do.  I guess that 5.381 is based on something...is it hard to explain where and why that number is used?

[wsmorrison]

By the way, John, do you know why American handicaps are meant to predict the potential best score you are capable of (or something like that) rather than the score you are likely get.  In other words, why isn't there a standard deviation component in an individual's handicap.  

I'm a Jeckyll and Hyde type player.  I can shoot low one day and high the next or like the other day shoot even par on the front and 10 over on the back.  To someone like me, a fair handicap is one that levels the playing field based upon what you are likely to shoot rather than what you are capable of shooting.  What was the genesis of the different approach?  

[Brad Tufts]

0.6 index

3.1 on the par three

4.05 on the par four

4.85 on the par five

Even being close to a scratch player, i dont think i would manage the 3 and 4 under par for 100 plays.  There would be birdies, but lots of bogeys as well.  There is too little a margin of error in missing a shot on a par 3 or 4 of that length for me to make more birdies than bogies.  The 5, on the other hand, recoveries and even birdies can be made with bad tee shots if the length is only 520.

[Matt_Ward]

Turboe:

Quick question -- how soft were the fairways and if so are they generally kept slow.

Was the turf for the fairways Bermuda?

Thanks ...

P.S. How hilly is the site in Alabama?

[JohnV]

Wayne,

I think it is a way to keep higher scores from having an impact on a handicap.  I completely understand your pain as I'm also an inconsistent scorer.  The Brits could be looked on as doing something similar in that low scores bring your handicap down much faster than high scores take it up.

Since the US only counts the average of your 10 best of 20, you should only shoot your handicap about 25% of the time unless you are very consistent.  This definitely benefits consistency as opposed to the player with wild swings in his scores.  But, the consistent 5 is probably a better player than the inconsistent one so he should get some benefit.

[wsmorrison]

But John, when an inconsistant (fill in the blank) handicapper plays with anyone consistant at whatever handicap it never works out very well.  There should be a standard deviation component.  

Simply put, why doesn't a handicap be based on a predicted likely score rather than some 1 in 4 or more likelihood?  I know it doesn't but I am not certain what the thinking behind the formula is.  

Empirically the inconsistant guy (namely me) gets his ass kicked.  

[A.G._Crockett]

But John, when an inconsistant (fill in the blank) handicapper plays with anyone consistant at whatever handicap it never works out very well.  There should be a standard deviation component.  

Simply put, why doesn't a handicap be based on a predicted likely score rather than some 1 in 4 or more likelihood?  I know it doesn't but I am not certain what the thinking behind the formula is.  

Empirically the inconsistant guy (namely me) gets his ass kicked.  

Wayne,
A lower handicap player would generally be expected to have a smaller range of likely scores when compared to the higher handicap player, wouldn't he?  The guy who averages 85 is much more likely to shoot 95 than the guy who averages 75 is to shoot 85.  So the system ought to allow a competitive match between the two, but still favor the more consistent player over time.  Adding some sort of a standard deviation component, besides confusing the heck out of everybody   would favor the more inconsistent player, usually the higher handicapper of the two.  This isn't what the system is for.

[Daryl "Turboe" Boe]

Turboe:

Quick question -- how soft were the fairways and if so are they generally kept slow.

Was the turf for the fairways Bermuda?

Thanks ...

P.S. How hilly is the site in Alabama?

Sorry been sitting in gas lines today in AL.  Late night arrival in Chattanooga tonight.

Matt,

The fairways certainly were not what I would call firm and fast, but the ball did release a little bit.  I would say just average.   They are bermuda.

The sight overall is fairly flat, but there is kind of a split personality of terrain.   The area on the bluffs near the lake has more roll and are tree lined.   The area back away from the lake is prety flat and wide open with little to no trees.   The first hole (611yd par 5) plays out of some trees on the property as seen here.



After the first it goes out into the more open areas for several holes see the photo of the 478 Yard par 4 3rd.



The 716 Yard Par 5 12th plays from the open back towards the treelined portion of the property.


The 600+ yard par 5 16th has a little bit of roll to it.


Hope this gives a little feel for the property.

The other course there called "The Schoolmaster" appeared to play much more through the treelined parkland portion of the property from what little I saw.

[wsmorrison]

A.G. Crockett,

Well, I guess I am the exception to a relatively low handicap player.  I got me a wide standard deviation.  Well, a narrower scoring range is something to work on in the future.  

[Jim Nugent]

But John, when an inconsistant (fill in the blank) handicapper plays with anyone consistant at whatever handicap it never works out very well.  There should be a standard deviation component.  

Simply put, why doesn't a handicap be based on a predicted likely score rather than some 1 in 4 or more likelihood?  I know it doesn't but I am not certain what the thinking behind the formula is.  

Empirically the inconsistant guy (namely me) gets his ass kicked.  

Basing handicap on all your scores gives the inconsistent player an unbeatable advantage.  When he shoots his good game, he will kick the consistent player´s ass.  Almost guaranteed.  The consistent player will need a career round to stay even.  

If the inconsistent player shoots a bad round, he will lose in any event.

Basing handicap on only the best scores levels the playing field a bit.  Though I wonder if this was the intent behind the formula.

[A.G._Crockett]

A.G. Crockett,

Well, I guess I am the exception to a relatively low handicap player.  I got me a wide standard deviation.  Well, a narrower scoring range is something to work on in the future.  

Like all generalities, there must be exceptions!

[JohnV]

Wayne,

From looking on ghin.com it appears that your inconsistency costs you two shots vs counting all your scores.  But, perhaps if you played more you'd be more consistent.  Only 14 rounds this year?

I guess you're busy on your book.

[Doug Siebert]

Mike,

Fair enough, but I am approaching it from a statistical stand point  

John,

Yes, to get people thinking about the primary hazard in golf, distance; and how that effects the design of various lengthed holes. I speculate that given only distance as a hazard, par 3s would play easiest with par 5s as a second, and par 4s being the hardest.

However, in relation to par, it would seem that most people have more trouble with par 3s than par 5s.

Good players will do worst to the par 3s and best on the par 5s.  Real hacks (or short but very accurate golfers) will do the opposite.  You probably couldn't design a par 3 I could average less than 3 on (well, maybe a 100 yarder with a punchbowl green that stimps at 14 with the pin in the exact center and only flat part of the green )  But I'm sure I could average under 4.5 on that flat and hazard-free 520 yarder you propose.  As long as there aren't any trees you forgot to mention....if there's even one I'm sure I'll somehow find a way to hit it and make bogey every third trip around

A couple times a year I'll play courses with holes like this -- except for the greens.  The "cow pasture" type courses in the Midwest often are converted farm fields that are fairly flat, have trees lining their generous fairways, and often there is no rough since they mow the whole course like one giant park (the "grass", such as it is, is a mix of bluegrass and weeds)  But the greens are usually little pushups that are 45' in diameter if you are lucky, have subtle breaks due to uneven settling, and approaches are tricky even with a flip wedge because you are hitting off hardpan and if you fail to land the ball on the tiny overwatered green it will go bounding miles away on the unirrigated fairway, leaving you with pretty much the same shot again.

[JWL]

I'll chime in.
290
370
425
Total 1085
Sounds pretty easy.

[cary lichtenstein]

1 over

[ForkaB]

Wayne,

From looking on ghin.com it appears that your inconsistency costs you two shots vs counting all your scores.  But, perhaps if you played more you'd be more consistent.  Only 14 rounds this year?

I guess you're busy on your book.

John

Nothing like Wayne's writing partner, TE Paul, who hasn't posted a score since August 2004!  Those pictures of him at Sand Hills must have been a mirage.....  He must be really beavering away at the book, which, knowing his writing style, must mean that they are up to several million words or so by now.