[Philippe Binette]

Really exacting courses would do the trick,

Muirfield, when a good shot if often not good enough.

[Matt_Ward]

The really good courses that separate the 5 handicap types from the scratch types also insist about player having the wherewithal to work the ball on command as the situation demands. WFW is a great example of this with the final three holes really sealing the deal in a big time way. Many five handicap types generally are content to work the ball one way -- the really solid scratch players can do it both ways -- maybe not equally -- but can do it when called upon.

And, working the driver today, is no small feat as most can attest.

[JESII]

Matt,

I disagree.

I think there are so many different types of players at each level that you can't identify one aspect that is the real differentiator...take #16 at Winged Foot. I cannot stand on the tee knowing I'll turn over the driver well enough to make sense on that hole and if I were 25 yards shorter and relatively good from 220 yards it would be a no-brainer to bunt it out straight and play in from there...how would I as a scratch have an advantage over a 5 on that hole if he's pretty good from 200+ yards?

[Matt_Ward]

Jim:

Most scratch players have the capacity to hit the ball far further than you might imagine. They have the "extra" 20 yards in the tank. No doubt there are those who can be scratch who hit the ball 225 yards from the tee and are short game wizards akin to Tiger and can putt like demons. They are few and far inbetween.

At WFW -- especially the 16th is pays to reach the corner and turn the ball over to get well within 200 yards for your approach. Those who are further back need to have the dexterity with the hybrid or fairway metal equivalent to the likes of a Hale Irwin or Larry Nelson to get the ball even remotely close.

There are no 100% categories in golf players -- I agree with that rudimentary proposition. But, my main point still stands -- scratch players can work the ball with far more ease and in a greater range of situations than most five handicaps.

[Scott Stearns]

a lot of the comments here seem to imply the diff bet a true 5 hcp and a true scratch is the ability to hit greens, and by extention quality of iron play.

i disagree.

the diff bet a 5 and a scratch is putting, wedges and length.

they both can hit it straight, or nearly so.  what happens when they miss greens is typically the diff in my experience. 

Jack at the peak led the GIR list with abt a .730 aavg.  think 50% is prob. 50-60th place on tour list.

so short game is important.

you guys will hate this answer, but i think the right answer is ANY course with lotsa water, particularly courses with lots of forced carries over water-because by defn the dispersion of scores is wider bet the 0 and the five, penalty strokes would widen the dispersion.  Good arcitecture creates choices.  if you want to see the scratch beat the five like drum, remove the choices and see who can avoid the blow-up better.


Spiritually thoughi like Gene's answer-WFW provides a huge premium for length, and what happens after a player misses a green usually decides who wins.

[Greg Tallman]

Greg,

I have been around a lot of golfers, I have found few "scrappy scratch players with good short games" that stayed scratch for long.

Bob

About 25 years here... played with numerous 5 handicappers or so that were far superior in terms of ball striking. Some could have gotten the better pof me on a course say with water everywhere around the greens.

[Mike_Young]

Oak Hill, Merion, and TPC Sawgrass

[Patrick_Mucci]

Let me phrase this another way for you cretins.

Do you think that the architect crafts a disproportionate challenge in his routing, hole and feature designs ?

Do you think that what the the architect crafts favors a particular game ?

Or, that instead of crafting a disinterested challenge, he crafts a biased challenge, favoring the 0 handicap as opposed to the 5, 10, 15, 20 or 25 handicap ?

Matt Ward,

How I wish that your premise were true.
Unfortunately, I'm living proof that your premise is flawed.
For a good number of years I've been driving the ball sensationally.
My bunker game is terrific and my course management skills, pretty savy.
Unfortunately, my scores are lacking.
My iron play, chipping and putting are part of my downfall, especially my iron play.

I've had numerous rounds where I hit every fairway, unfortunately, I have to finish the hole, and that's been my downfall.

[Steve Kline]

Any course.

A scratch golfer will find a way to get the ball in the hole in less strokes than a 5 handicap anywhere.

That's what makes them scratch and the 5 handicapper a 5 handicap.

Exactly. I can't think of a course where I would worry about a five handicap beating me. My dad and I played a ton of rounds together when I was around scratch and he was between a 4 and 6. If he was lucky he would beat me once a year - and I had to have the flu or something for that to happen. It didn't matter what course we played.

I think the better question and more interesting course is the one that frustrates the low handicapper but the high handicapper still shoots his normal score. I've never seen a course do this better than #2 because it gets harder the closer you get to the hole.

[Steve Kline]

Kyle:

I've played enough competitive golf and seen plenty of players who can get to a certain point with their scores by being really plucky in terms of short game dexterity and putting.

Watch the scratch or + handicap types and it's the driving game -- both length, shaping and control -- that really separate them. They are almost always in play and generally able to place the tee ball in a position to attack with their approach play. 5 handicap types don't do this nearly as well -- in many cases they are out of position and only through a deft short game are they able to escape with a par.

The driving game allows the scratch player to hit more greens, have more birdie putts and minimize the possibility of having DB's on the card.

I agree with this too. But Kyle is still correct imo in that on easier course the scratch will still beat the 5 rather easily. As the demands on the long game grow the sratch beats the five even easier. My home course, Ivy Hills in Cincinnati, is a perfect example. The course is not long 6,800 yards and par 71 from the back tees. But each hole presents the potential of double bogey if you hit a bad tee shot. I can shape the ball really well with my driver so I can take one side out of play. The guys that I play with there in the 3 to 6 range can't do that. They invariably make one or two double bogeys a round.

[Matt_Ward]

Pat:

Exceptions to exist ... there is no sure fire determination.

My conclusoins were based on personal observations and from gauging a percentage of players who fit what I described.

Sorry to hear you're out of that loop.

[Jud_T]

Butler National or Medinah #3 from the Tips....

[John Moore II]

Well, I think just about every course that has a reputation of being hard has been mentioned on this thread. And of course, a very long Pat Mucci 'green letter' response which I have missed in my time away. But I have to agree with him, nearly any course is going to do a good job of showing the difference between 0 and 5 handicap golfers; especially the very first time they play it, if together.

But on anther note, what if you have a vanity handicap 0 and a sandbag handicap 5 on the course playing together?

Or what if the 0 has a handicap from a very easy course and the 5 is from a very hard course and they play a hard course together? The 5 will likely come out on top because he is used to playing the hard course while the 0 is not.

The question being asked has too many variables to really have an answer, it all depends on the two players.

[archie_struthers]

 


Matt Ward ...at first blush I'd probably agree with you that driving the ball consistently separates the scratch from the five and that putting and chipping separate the tour player fro the scratch  but when I looked at the results for the 2002 Open you've got some relatively short hitters (after Tiger and Phil of course ) that made it in the tip twenty ....Justin  Leonard ..Jeff Maggert

perhaps I was wrong about distance re: Bethpage as I've only played it once

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

In a word -- yes -- you are wrong !

I said this before -- aberations can be found -- but the general premise I offered stands up when applied across the continum of players.

[archie_struthers]

 

Hey .....I'm agreeing about Bethpage and you are still  beating up on me  Tsk tsk   Get in the holiday spirit lad  Merry Christmas !!!

[Matt_Ward]

Archie:

Yes, the holiday spirit !!!

Looking forward to heading south to AC area for some golf when any warm air cooperates.

[Jason McNamara]

GD's own testing found the biggest difference between scratch and 4.5 hcps was the ability to get up and down, greenside in general but especially from bunkers.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HFI/is_2_52/ai_69073966/

Also, this (i.e. the minor deviation from the original title of this thread) was discussed last month.

http://golfclubatlas.com/forum/index.php?topic=42221.0

[Doug Siebert]

I would think that Carnoustie is the nearest thing to the test of the 5 handicap wannabe. Everything going well, until the 16th onward.


Bob

I'm a 5 handicap (probably closer to 6 right now) and my lifetime total on two rounds over the last three holes at Carnoustie is -2.  I've never found Carnoustie to be as awfully difficult as most people believe it to be.  I've had a far more difficult time with Prestwick.  Lots of people consider Turnberry a stern test and TOC easy, I've shot 77 both trips to Turnberry, in the 80s both times at TOC.

I suppose its down to the usual where everyone's game is a bit different, but for me the main things that will really kill me are:

1) big penalties for missing the fairway - water or OB obviously, as well as trees which don't leave you with a shot at or near the green, or rough that's so bad you can't even play for the green from wedge distance.

2) approach shots with the ball below my feet, especially with short irons/wedges (but I'm damn good with the ball above my feet, go figure)

3) narrow (as opposed to shallow) greens

4) closely mown areas around the greens (as opposed to thick rough)  Since I've always played courses with thick rough around the greens I've become fairly proficient at the flop shot, so a scratch player with a more well rounded short game would have a great advantage against my more one dimensional short game when more options for a given shot are available versus just surrounding the greens with spinach.

Personally I'd lean more towards the short but tricky/tight layouts with small greens that were mentioned, like Olympic Lake, as being something that a scratch would want to play me on if he wanted to truly humiliate me.  Pinehurst #2 would be another one, even though the greens aren't narrow per se they play narrow, and a guy who is really good at the bump and run around the greens would eat me alive even if we missed the same number of greens.

Give me a course that's more defended by length and tricky greens like Oakmont and if I have a good ball striking day and if the scratch is off a bit or I'm getting a few more than usual in the fairway and have a decent feel on the greens the humiliation could go the other way.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()