[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.

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).

I've seen handicaps fluctuate, but from 13.3 to 18.9 ?   A 5.6 increase ?

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.]/color]

Not at all.
The goal is universal, get from point "A" to point "B" in as few strokes as possible.


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.

How can that be if your current handicap index is 18.9 ?

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.

...

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.

Garland your differential is 18.5 from 7700 and 18 from 7100. PIF and make more birdies and pars. I'm out!

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

Sure they do.
Had you played tees more forward, you might have cleared that water hazard, not been OB and found your ball.
Teeing further back, inherently brings more trouble into play.
There's more trouble when you have to navigate 550 yards, then when you have to navigate 330 yards.
Distance, by itself creates challenge, but, it also allows for the introduction of more features which can increase the challenge

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.


There's not a sane golfer on the planet that adheres to the premise that your handicap goes down as you move back and play a longer course.

[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).

I've seen handicaps fluctuate, but from 13.3 to 18.9 ?   A 5.6 increase ?

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.]/color]

Not at all.
The goal is universal, get from point "A" to point "B" in as few strokes as possible.


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.

How can that be if your current handicap index is 18.9 ?

You clearly don't understand handicaps!

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.

[Patrick_Mucci]

]

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")

All of those micro flaws are built into one macro determinate, your handicap.

Incompetence, cheating, bad form, nerves, and other issues may affect play, but, the handicap produced incorporates all of those deficiencies.

Hence, a 16 handicap will beat a 22 handicap, almost every time, provided both handicaps are legitimately arrived at..

He asked Santa for a new golf swing for Christmas and hasn't been seen 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.  

NO, it doesn't.
It improves the margins and improved margins inherently results in lower scores.
To claim that no advice, no matter how accurate and germane, will not result in lower scores, is one of the most moronic statements ever posted on this site.  But then again, you didn't achieve most "exalted" moron status for no reason.

But we have a good time.


That's the most important thing.

The guy who depends on Santa for a golf swing is the most score conscious, and therefore, the most often unhappy.

But, by your own admission, even a low handicap can't help your game, so you can't be any better off than the guy hoping that Santa can help him.
So, how can be unhappy the most ?

For 45 years I played in a game that was ruthlessly efficient.
Only scores shot in that game counted for handicap purposes.
We had our own seperate handicap system.
Played by the rules, NO putts were conceded, no leather, and only one subject was off limits.
Kids and grandkids.  Everything else was fair game.
Outsiders who were granted visitation privileges, quickly lost their shirts.
Thin skinned or rabbit eared golfers, lost their minds before they could lose their shirts.
We took trips every year, Vegas, the Bahamas, Atlantic City.
It was quite a group, a wild irreverant bunch.  Alot of fun.
Sadly, our ranks have thinned and the games of those remaining have deteriorated.
But, the comraderie and competitive spirit remain strong.
And, the game has kept us young............ mentally.
Tomorrow, six of us are meeting for lunch, the rest are in Florida or in a home for the wayward.

[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.

Garland your differential is 18.5 from 7700 and 18 from 7100. PIF and make more birdies and pars. I'm out!

As I said. I don't derive golfing fun from birdies and pars. And, as the three handicap said to me during the round from 7700 yards, "you clearly have more fun playing golf than I do." Perhaps golf becomes more like work if you have to maintain a three handicap?

Furthermore, a handicap derived from 20 scores is an approximation. Trying to make a conclusion from two scores is lunacy.

[John Kavanaugh]

If I had to play from 7700 yds with a 22 handicap I'm sure they would enjoy it more than me too.

[Garland Bayley]

If I had to play from 7700 yds with a 22 handicap I'm sure they would enjoy it more than me too.

Yes, you would feel bad about not being able to keep up.

[Garland Bayley]

Woops John,

Forgot the smiley.

[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.

Garland your differential is 18.5 from 7700 and 18 from 7100. PIF and make more birdies and pars. I'm out!

I come up with 19.0 from 7700 and 20.2 from 7100. Care to detail your calculations?
I have the course rating of 77.2 and slope of 141 for 7700
I have the course rating of 73.9 and slope of 135 for 7100
What did you use?

[A.G._Crockett]

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.

Garland your differential is 18.5 from 7700 and 18 from 7100. PIF and make more birdies and pars. I'm out!

I come up with 19.0 from 7700 and 20.2 from 7100. Care to detail your calculations?
I have the course rating of 77.2 and slope of 141 for 7700
I have the course rating of 73.9 and slope of 135 for 7100
What did you use?

Garland, with respect to the two rounds at Chambers Bay that you have referenced, would you say that you played much better one day over the other? It seems to me that a "22 handicapper", who hits his drives 200 yards, must have had his game firing on all cylinders to shoot a 101 on a 7700 yard, 77.2/141 course.

Did you keep stats of that round? If so, how many times did you get "up and down" to save bogey?

DCronan,
I can answer this, I think.  Had you taken the time to read the entire thread, you wouldn't have to ask questions like this!

Garland did NOT play well that day.  He didn't drive it straight, or very far.  When he had the opportunity to hit the ball into trouble, he did so, but still with great unpredictability.  He never knew where his ball was going, but it never went where he was aiming, even by accident.  He could not avoid trees, rough, sand, or water.  It didn't matter if he hit a 4 iron, an 8 iron, or a half wedge; the results were exactly the same; he missed EVERY green, and he missed it in worst possible spot.  He never got up and down because his ball was ALWAYS in a terrible spot; no "good misses", even by luck.  And he putted with brutal incompetence.

The only saving grace was that he was playing with his buddies, who are far, far more inept than he.  One of them repeatedly whiffed half wedges, another left in the middle of the round to redeem a coupon for lessons, and the third guy was blind, deaf, and had no arms.  Consequently, Garland defeated all three of them despite having to give strokes to each and won money.

At the conclusion of the round, Garland went off on the staff because the course is only 7700 yd from the tips. He expressed loud and long his wish for an additional set of tees playing much, much longer so that he could lower his handicap because he had observed that, unlike EVERY other golfer on the entire planet, he is a lower handicap as he moves back and adds yardage.  His calculations showed him that at approx. 8500 yd, he would become a scratch golfer and be able to give Patrick Mucci (and unnamed others) the thrashing that Mucci (and unnamed others) so richly deserves.

I think that about sums it up.  If I missed anything, it was just more of the same.

[Patrick_Mucci]

A.G.

That sounds about right

[John Kavanaugh]

And all this took place in 2 hours and 35 minutes. The low handicap slowed him down.

[Peter Pallotta]

Oh goodness, thanks gents -- I was laughing till I had tears in my eyes, from AG's post on down. Very funny writing, thanks.

Of course, I do see where Garland's coming from....

[Patrick_Mucci]

A.G.,

You did miss one.

And that is, that a lower handicap, or teaching pro can't improve his game nor his scores because his swings are too random, but, by going back and playing the course longer, somehow, his wildly erratic and random game produces a lower handicap.

Can we get pictures, films of this phenomenon in action ?

[Tom Bacsanyi]

DCronan,
I can answer this, I think.  Had you taken the time to read the entire thread, you wouldn't have to ask questions like this!

Garland did NOT play well that day.  He didn't drive it straight, or very far.  When he had the opportunity to hit the ball into trouble, he did so, but still with great unpredictability.  He never knew where his ball was going, but it never went where he was aiming, even by accident.  He could not avoid trees, rough, sand, or water.  It didn't matter if he hit a 4 iron, an 8 iron, or a half wedge; the results were exactly the same; he missed EVERY green, and he missed it in worst possible spot.  He never got up and down because his ball was ALWAYS in a terrible spot; no "good misses", even by luck.  And he putted with brutal incompetence.

The only saving grace was that he was playing with his buddies, who are far, far more inept than he.  One of them repeatedly whiffed half wedges, another left in the middle of the round to redeem a coupon for lessons, and the third guy was blind, deaf, and had no arms.  Consequently, Garland defeated all three of them despite having to give strokes to each and won money.

At the conclusion of the round, Garland went off on the staff because the course is only 7700 yd from the tips. He expressed loud and long his wish for an additional set of tees playing much, much longer so that he could lower his handicap because he had observed that, unlike EVERY other golfer on the entire planet, he is a lower handicap as he moves back and adds yardage.  His calculations showed him that at approx. 8500 yd, he would become a scratch golfer and be able to give Patrick Mucci (and unnamed others) the thrashing that Mucci (and unnamed others) so richly deserves.

I think that about sums it up.  If I missed anything, it was just more of the same.

P.O.Y.!!!!!

(Post of the Year)

[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.

There's not a sane golfer on the planet that adheres to the premise that your handicap goes down as you move back and play a longer course.

Here is the question I sent to the USGA handicapping section, and also to Dr. Dean Knuth, the creator of the USGA handicapping system.

"Is it possible for a player to establish a handicap on a forward teeing
ground, and then after moving back for several rounds have the index go
down assuming that his skills have not changed? If so, what kind of
factors would cause it to go down?"

Garland

Dr. Knuth was the first to answer. Here is what he wrote.

"Hi Garland,

Yes, that could happen.  Or, vice versa, too.

The reason is that the Course Rating and Slope Rating systems account for one model of golfer, "Average Andy".  "Wild Willie" or "Steady Eddie" have different game types and unfortunately, without another dimension to the system identifying their game, what you mentioned below can happen.

Best regards,

Dean Knuth"

So every sane golfer knows that the handicap index can go down when "you move back and play a longer course". Which makes one wonder about the sanity of someone asserting the opposite.

Clearly there is a vast majority of "Steady Eddie"s on this site, so their experience is if you move forward, your index goes down. However, there are a few "Wild Willie"s on this site such as Peter Pallota, George Pazin, and myself for whom moving back would lower our index.

If you have read my explanations on this thread, you have seen that I started by explaining there is an average ("Average Andy") and variations on either side of that. Furthermore, I explained the kinds of variations you see from "Wild Willie" that would make his handicap index lower from back tees.

For making the correct assertions of fact and explanations as to why my assertions are true, I have been labelled excessively argumentative. IMO, excessively argumentative people would be those that continue to argue the wrong side of an argument when they have been presented correct statements and correct explanations for the correctness of the statements.

QED

[Michael Moore]

I have been labelled excessively argumentative.

And your handicap has been labeled "unfortunate" by the USGA.

[Brent Hutto]

Garland,

You are indeed extremely argumentative. Of that there can be no doubt.

That said, apparently many participants in this discussion have a truly touching degree of irrational belief in the abilities of the USGA Handicap System. Or maybe I meant "truly touched".

There's only two numbers, two degrees of freedom to work with in calibrating the system. They can assign a course rating and a slope rating to each set of tees on each course. It is not remotely plausible, much less actually possible for a two-parameter system to ensure that any golfer in the world can arbitrarily choose a set of tees and his handicap index will magically compute out even approximately the same. Just a ridiculously underdetermined system.

Sorry to be so argumentative, but c'mon you guys. Engage just a smidgeon of common sense here.

[Tim Martin]

I am flabbergasted that this much attention is being paid to Garland's handicap but not that he has done everything imaginable to perpetuate the thread. Sort of a "twenty minutes of fame" situation as far as I can tell.

[Patrick_Mucci]

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.

There's not a sane golfer on the planet that adheres to the premise that your handicap goes down as you move back and play a longer course.

Here is the question I sent to the USGA handicapping section, and also to Dr. Dean Knuth, the creator of the USGA handicapping system.

"Is it possible for a player to"ESTABLISH" a handicap on a forward teeing
ground, and then after moving back for several rounds[/b][/size] have the index go
down assuming that his skills have not changed? If so, what kind of
factors would cause it to go down?"

The question is both a phony and a "loaded" question.
His skills have to change in order for him to score better or the same.
Anyone's handicap can go down if the scores they turn in from the back tees are lower.

Golfers go through cycles.
We don't play the same, each and every round.
So, if a golfer moves back, but his game begins the cycle of better play, his handicap will go down.
The critical factor is that his game has improved vis a vis the cycle, not due to the tees he's playing.

A 16 handicap will automatically have his handicap increase when the golfer moves back to another set of tees.

Garland

Dr. Knuth was the first to answer. Here is what he wrote.

"Hi Garland,

Yes, that could happen.  Or, vice versa, too.

The reason is that the Course Rating and Slope Rating systems account for one model of golfer, "Average Andy".  "Wild Willie" or "Steady Eddie" have different game types and unfortunately, without another dimension to the system identifying their game, what you mentioned below can happen.

But, we know your type of game, it's "Wild Willie", so we can dismiss, the other types of games.
And, as a wild golfer moves further back, his scores, inherently, must increase.

Best regards,

Dean Knuth"

So every sane golfer knows that the handicap index can go down when "you move back and play a longer course". Which makes one wonder about the sanity of someone asserting the opposite.

ONLY if your game improves and your scores are better, vis a vis the "cycle".
A 22 handicaps game doesn't fare better on a 7,700 yard course than on a 6,700 yard course.
And, I'm willing to wager you on that any time you want, for as much as you want.

You've already admitted that your game doesn't improve, even with expert guidance, so, either you're a phony handicap or delusional

Clearly there is a vast majority of "Steady Eddie"s on this site, so their experience is if you move forward, your index goes down. However, there are a few "Wild Willie"s on this site such as Peter Pallota, George Pazin, and myself for whom moving back would lower our index.

It's just the opposite.
Wild play, from 540 to 1,000 yards further back will produce worse results. eg, a higher handicap.

If you have read my explanations on this thread, you have seen that I started by explaining there is an average ("Average Andy") and variations on either side of that. Furthermore, I explained the kinds of variations you see from "Wild Willie" that would make his handicap index lower from back tees.

Baloney, as JakaB stated, only a sandbagger could produce those results.

And, as I stated, the betting window is open, perpetually, for you.

For making the correct assertions of fact and explanations as to why my assertions are true, I have been labelled excessively argumentative. IMO, excessively argumentative people would be those that continue to argue the wrong side of an argument when they have been presented correct statements and correct explanations for the correctness of the statements.

Only a highly exalted moron could posture as you have.

But, let's have you put your money where your "positive you're right" statement is.

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

We'll call you extremely argumentative.

QED

[Patrick_Mucci]

Patrick,

We'll call you extremely argumentative.

It took you this long to figure that out ?

The difference is that I employ facts and geometric like logic, while you delve into the realm of the hypothetical 

[Garland Bayley]

Patrick,

We'll call you extremely argumentative.

It took you this long to figure that out ?

The difference is that I employ facts and geometric like logic, while you delve into the realm of the hypothetical 

So the fact that Dr. Dean Knuth understood the question and provided the answer has no bearing on your "employ facts and geometric like logic". I'm sorry Patrick, but your are no Dean Knuth and your assertions are laughable.

[John Kavanaugh]

Patrick is also no Jerome Russell. Mr. Knuth has lead an exemplary life that will sadly be tarnished by a failed invention. To his credit he developed the current system back when golf was practiced by honorable people. Who could have seen where we are today.

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()