Jump to content

Course rating out of whack?


Recommended Posts

Our Sponsors

So the vast majority of my play is at LA city golf courses, particularly Hansen Dam, Sepulveda (Balboa and Encino), and Woodley Lakes. Played Balboa today and playing Woodley Lakes tomorrow.

Looking through my posted scores and Woodley is a track that has really pushed down my handicap and (in my opinion) that’s because it’s easier than it’s rating. It’s 6800 yards from the tips, so not particularly short, but it’s absolutely wide open and the few hazards really don’t come into play. Maybe it just happens to suite me, but it is generally considered the “easy” full course in the LA city system. Despite that, the rating from the tips is pretty much the same as Hansen Dam and Encino (and like 1.5 strokes higher than Balboa!), but I would consider it to be at least a stroke or two easier than any of those.

Not really bothered by it and I’ll still play there, just something I found myself thinking about and thought I’d open up a conversation. Any tracks you play have ratings way out of whack either direction?

...and apologies for all the LA city course talk. I recommend them if you have the chance though!

  • Like 1

Driver: Honma TW747 460 VIZARD 50 S-flex
3 wood: GigaGolf TRX 15*  Grafalloy Pursuit M2T S-flex
Hybrids: GigaGolf TRX 18* and 22* UST HDX 70 S-flex
Irons: GigaGolf TRX PowerSlot 5-PW UST HDX 80 S-flex
Wedges: GigaGolf TRX 6.0 50*, 55*, 60* Dynamic Gold S-flex
Putter: Ray Cook M1 (2020) 34”

“Golf is a good walk enhanced”

Link to post

I agree. It seems like courses get their rating and slope when they first open and it isn't really updated. Maybe traps were taken out, or maybe a bunch of trees have come down without replacement. Or maybe there was a redesign and it's gotten tougher.

Take Dead Aim

  • Like 2
Link to post

Seems like the USGA would have all the data they need from handicaps to make the rating and slope much more dynamic. Nothing crazy, just maybe every 5 years or so make adjustments based on the last 5 years of posted scores.

  • Like 2

Driver: Honma TW747 460 VIZARD 50 S-flex
3 wood: GigaGolf TRX 15*  Grafalloy Pursuit M2T S-flex
Hybrids: GigaGolf TRX 18* and 22* UST HDX 70 S-flex
Irons: GigaGolf TRX PowerSlot 5-PW UST HDX 80 S-flex
Wedges: GigaGolf TRX 6.0 50*, 55*, 60* Dynamic Gold S-flex
Putter: Ray Cook M1 (2020) 34”

“Golf is a good walk enhanced”

Link to post

I wrote an overview several years ago of the USGA course rating process conducted by the WSGA at a few courses in my area.  This link explains the criteria, how they do it and what they look for at a course.  Raters go to a workshop to learn how to do this.

https://forum.mygolfspy.com/topic/17020-my-experience-with-the-wsga-course-rating-committee/?tab=comments#comment-222149

I did it so I could understand how the ratings were assigned.  People may realize that the rating is based on a scratch golfer and a bogey golfer, but the criteria are that a male scratch golfer drives 250 off the tee and 220 for a second shot.  The male bogey golfer drives 200 off the tee and 170 for a second shot.  So, the rating team looks for what is located at those yardages to determine difficulty.  A bunker must be within 20 yards of these distances or it's not considered.  I mention other factors in the link, but these distances have a big impact on course rating and slope.

Ratings are usually conducted about every 10 years, but the WSGA will send a team earlier to a course if major modifications are made that would affect the rating.  The course just has to request it.  I assume it's the same in CA.

I suspect that your game doesn't align with the USGA criteria and the features of a course might not come into play for you depending on tees played.  That's fine.  Some courses are easier and some are more challenging.  Play what's fun for you.

  • Like 4

We don’t stop playing the game because we get old; we get old because we stop playing the game.”

Link to post

There are courses that I play that are “easier” for me because it suits my game better, there are other courses similar rating that just eat me up. I would be willing to bet that track plays better to you.

  • Like 1

Check out my reviews

 :ping-small: G710 Irons Lacassem official review

 :taylormade-small: FlexTech is filled with all this shiny metal and tracked by :Arccos::

:titelist-small: TS2 9.5 - Project X HZRDUS Smoke VS Project X HZRDUS Green 

:taylormade-small: SIM 3W - Project X HZRDUS Green 

:adams-small: 2H VST - Super Idea S Matrix Kujoh S-Flex

:taylormade-small: 2019 P790 4-PW - Project X 6.5 LZ 

:titelist-small: 52, 56, 60 SM7 - Nippon Modus 125

:odyssey-small: O-Works 1W

:titelist-small: PROV1X #19 

Bushnell Tour V3 Jolt

🇺🇸Thank you to all those that have served/are serving and God Bless America 🇺🇸

Link to post

I have two courses that get most of my rounds. One, where my league is, I think is underrated, and the rating and slope are too low (67.1, 106). The other is probably fairly rated (71.1, 126), but it's very well suited to my game, so I consistently score better than my friends. A few years ago, as an academic exercise, I calculated my index two ways, using only rounds from my league course, and then using rounds only from the second course. I can't find the file now, so I don't remember the exact numbers, but the difference was almost 5 strokes.

Link to post
4 hours ago, Kenny B said:

I wrote an overview several years ago of the USGA course rating process conducted by the WSGA at a few courses in my area.  This link explains the criteria, how they do it and what they look for at a course.  Raters go to a workshop to learn how to do this.

https://forum.mygolfspy.com/topic/17020-my-experience-with-the-wsga-course-rating-committee/?tab=comments#comment-222149

I did it so I could understand how the ratings were assigned.  People may realize that the rating is based on a scratch golfer and a bogey golfer, but the criteria are that a male scratch golfer drives 250 off the tee and 220 for a second shot.  The male bogey golfer drives 200 off the tee and 170 for a second shot.  So, the rating team looks for what is located at those yardages to determine difficulty.  A bunker must be within 20 yards of these distances or it's not considered.  I mention other factors in the link, but these distances have a big impact on course rating and slope.

Ratings are usually conducted about every 10 years, but the WSGA will send a team earlier to a course if major modifications are made that would affect the rating.  The course just has to request it.  I assume it's the same in CA.

I suspect that your game doesn't align with the USGA criteria and the features of a course might not come into play for you depending on tees played.  That's fine.  Some courses are easier and some are more challenging.  Play what's fun for you.

Thanks for the info and for the link! That's all super interesting to me. Speaking of my game, I'm actually pretty dead on with those yardages you mentioned, 250 off the tee and 220 is just about as far as I can consistently hit a second, but unfortunately I'm not scratch (yet?) 😃 

Playing there today, I think it really comes down to two par threes where the back tees force carries over hazards to get to the green. I always get plenty of air under the ball, so those really don't bother me that much. Additionally, the course rarely has the back tees as far back as they could be. All that said, I do still enjoy the course and will continue to play it. Shot 4 over from the middle tees today, and it's going to drop handicap a whole .1 strokes. I'll just have to play Griffith Park - Wilson a few times before I enter any comps to get it up. 😉 

  • Like 2

Driver: Honma TW747 460 VIZARD 50 S-flex
3 wood: GigaGolf TRX 15*  Grafalloy Pursuit M2T S-flex
Hybrids: GigaGolf TRX 18* and 22* UST HDX 70 S-flex
Irons: GigaGolf TRX PowerSlot 5-PW UST HDX 80 S-flex
Wedges: GigaGolf TRX 6.0 50*, 55*, 60* Dynamic Gold S-flex
Putter: Ray Cook M1 (2020) 34”

“Golf is a good walk enhanced”

Link to post
2 hours ago, Siamese Moose said:

I have two courses that get most of my rounds. One, where my league is, I think is underrated, and the rating and slope are too low (67.1, 106). The other is probably fairly rated (71.1, 126), but it's very well suited to my game, so I consistently score better than my friends. A few years ago, as an academic exercise, I calculated my index two ways, using only rounds from my league course, and then using rounds only from the second course. I can't find the file now, so I don't remember the exact numbers, but the difference was almost 5 strokes.

That's about the same situation for me. How it went this weekend is pretty indicative, shot 8 over on the "easier" rated course and 4 over on the "harder" rated course that better suites my game I guess. All evens out in the end though. 

Driver: Honma TW747 460 VIZARD 50 S-flex
3 wood: GigaGolf TRX 15*  Grafalloy Pursuit M2T S-flex
Hybrids: GigaGolf TRX 18* and 22* UST HDX 70 S-flex
Irons: GigaGolf TRX PowerSlot 5-PW UST HDX 80 S-flex
Wedges: GigaGolf TRX 6.0 50*, 55*, 60* Dynamic Gold S-flex
Putter: Ray Cook M1 (2020) 34”

“Golf is a good walk enhanced”

Link to post

Its amazingly difficult to design a rating system that treats every single golfer "fairly".  Consider how many different ways there are to shoot any given score.  You could drive it great, hit crummy irons, and get up and down.  You could hit lots of greens and 3-putt a dozen times.  We all have different strengths and weaknesses, yet we NEED to have a single universal handicap system.  Its inevitable that the rating system doesn't always reflect any single player's game consistently.

  • Like 5

:titelist-small: Irons Titleist AP2 714, KBS Tour S, 3 flat

:callaway-small: Rogue SubZero, GD YS-Six X

:vokey-small: 52, 56, and 60 wedges

:ping-small: B60 G5i putter

Right handed

Reston, Virginia

Link to post
30 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

We all have different strengths and weaknesses, yet we NEED to have a single universal handicap system.  Its inevitable that the rating system doesn't always reflect any single player's game consistently.

Completely agree and I believe that the handicap system as a whole is one of the most special things about golf. I don't think any other sport can claim a system that allows anyone to compete on a fair level with everyone else. It really is incredible.

I also really like the push to the WHS and the evolution of the handicap system. I would love to see the USGA utilize their massive amounts of play data to evolve the course ratings process as well.

  • Like 2

Driver: Honma TW747 460 VIZARD 50 S-flex
3 wood: GigaGolf TRX 15*  Grafalloy Pursuit M2T S-flex
Hybrids: GigaGolf TRX 18* and 22* UST HDX 70 S-flex
Irons: GigaGolf TRX PowerSlot 5-PW UST HDX 80 S-flex
Wedges: GigaGolf TRX 6.0 50*, 55*, 60* Dynamic Gold S-flex
Putter: Ray Cook M1 (2020) 34”

“Golf is a good walk enhanced”

Link to post
13 hours ago, Cory O said:

Completely agree and I believe that the handicap system as a whole is one of the most special things about golf. I don't think any other sport can claim a system that allows anyone to compete on a fair level with everyone else. It really is incredible.

I also really like the push to the WHS and the evolution of the handicap system. I would love to see the USGA utilize their massive amounts of play data to evolve the course ratings process as well.

How do you anticipate that the data could be used?  Based on everything we read, different courses will play differently for different players.  You might go to a different course and shoot consistently lower differentials (maybe its longer but open, so it doesn't penalize wayward tee shots), making you think its rated too high.  Another player with different skills (maybe he's shorter and straighter) could go there and shoot consistently higher differentials, leading HIM to think its rated too low.  The Slope and Course Rating process has certainly been revised over the decades since its introduction in 1980s, and even then was based on mountains of actual scoring data.  

:titelist-small: Irons Titleist AP2 714, KBS Tour S, 3 flat

:callaway-small: Rogue SubZero, GD YS-Six X

:vokey-small: 52, 56, and 60 wedges

:ping-small: B60 G5i putter

Right handed

Reston, Virginia

Link to post
34 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

How do you anticipate that the data could be used?  Based on everything we read, different courses will play differently for different players.  You might go to a different course and shoot consistently lower differentials (maybe its longer but open, so it doesn't penalize wayward tee shots), making you think its rated too high.  Another player with different skills (maybe he's shorter and straighter) could go there and shoot consistently higher differentials, leading HIM to think its rated too low.  The Slope and Course Rating process has certainly been revised over the decades since its introduction in 1980s, and even then was based on mountains of actual scoring data.  

With the mountains of scoring data, I think there could be algorithms going through it going through it to find outliers, courses that are playing significantly higher or lower than they "should" based on their current rating and slope (not for an individual, but on the whole). This could signal that they should send a ratings team out there to conduct a reassessment instead of waiting 10 years or a course request like Kenny mentioned above. With (hopefully) more players reporting scores per hole instead of just front and back, this could also be applied to the handicap order of the holes.

Maybe this is already being done and I just don't see it publicized anywhere. That brings me to what I'd love to see most, make that course data open and public. Being a data nerd, I'd love to be able to dive into a data base and see how a course plays on average at different handicap levels, how many strokes difference the different tee boxes are really making, etc. It seems like the WHS is trying to collect more data (hole by hole scoring as mentioned, but also the option to add in statistics like penalty shots, bunkers, etc.), so even if this doesn't turn into (or show a need for) a more dynamic course ratings system, just putting the data out there for paying association members would be a huge plus for me.

Is there anything you think could be improved in the system? Honest question, just to make conversation.

  • Like 1

Driver: Honma TW747 460 VIZARD 50 S-flex
3 wood: GigaGolf TRX 15*  Grafalloy Pursuit M2T S-flex
Hybrids: GigaGolf TRX 18* and 22* UST HDX 70 S-flex
Irons: GigaGolf TRX PowerSlot 5-PW UST HDX 80 S-flex
Wedges: GigaGolf TRX 6.0 50*, 55*, 60* Dynamic Gold S-flex
Putter: Ray Cook M1 (2020) 34”

“Golf is a good walk enhanced”

Link to post

I am not a handicap data nerd by any stretch, but isn't there a handicap adjustment that is now made if most scores from the course on a particular day are higher than usual by a certain amount?  It seems to me if that type of data analysis can be made on a daily sample then it would be possible to analyze the scoring data over a longer period of time to see if the course rating is in line with the scores actually being submitted.   🤔

  • Like 1

Ping G410+ 9*, Accra TourZ X265 M5 

Ping i20 17* & 23* hybrids, stock stiff shafts

Mizuno JPX 919 HMP 4i, PX LZ 6.0

Mizuno JPX 900 Forged 5 - PW, PX LZ 6.0

Cleveland Tour Action 49*, 53*, 57*; PX LZ 6.5

Ping Heppler Fetch

Link to post
19 minutes ago, Shapotomous said:

I am not a handicap data nerd by any stretch, but isn't there a handicap adjustment that is now made if most scores from the course on a particular day are higher than usual by a certain amount?  It seems to me if that type of data analysis can be made on a daily sample then it would be possible to analyze the scoring data over a longer period of time to see if the course rating is in line with the scores actually being submitted.   🤔

That's one of the big features of the new WHS - the Playing Conditions Calculation (PCC). As long as there are enough scores submitted that day for the course to qualify, the PCC will make adjustments for assumed difficult conditions if scores were well above expected. I thinking stretching out this data over a longer period (maybe a year or two to get a strong sample?) to examine the overall rating is a great concept.

Quick addition - Just popped into my GHIN app and it turned out Woodley Lakes had a -1 PCC applied yesterday (basically meaning it was playing a stroke easier, probably because the tees were up a bit), so the round didn't wind up lowering my handicap. I guess the system works, sorry for wasting everyone's time on the thread! 😃 

Driver: Honma TW747 460 VIZARD 50 S-flex
3 wood: GigaGolf TRX 15*  Grafalloy Pursuit M2T S-flex
Hybrids: GigaGolf TRX 18* and 22* UST HDX 70 S-flex
Irons: GigaGolf TRX PowerSlot 5-PW UST HDX 80 S-flex
Wedges: GigaGolf TRX 6.0 50*, 55*, 60* Dynamic Gold S-flex
Putter: Ray Cook M1 (2020) 34”

“Golf is a good walk enhanced”

Link to post
That's one of the big features of the new WHS - the Playing Conditions Calculation (PCC). As long as there are enough scores submitted that day for the course to qualify, the PCC will make adjustments for assumed difficult conditions if scores were well above expected. I thinking stretching out this data over a longer period (maybe a year or two to get a strong sample?) to examine the overall rating is a great concept.
Quick addition - Just popped into my GHIN app and it turned out Woodley Lakes had a -1 PCC applied yesterday (basically meaning it was playing a stroke easier, probably because the tees were up a bit), so the round didn't wind up lowering my handicap. I guess the system works, sorry for wasting everyone's time on the thread!  
I agree that's a nice feature, but I don't see how it's going to help public course golfers. I need to hope that enough other people posted on the same day as me. And even then doesn't it only account for weather?

Take Dead Aim

Link to post
7 minutes ago, Tsmithjr9 said:

I agree that's a nice feature, but I don't see how it's going to help public course golfers. I need to hope that enough other people posted on the same day as me. And even then doesn't it only account for weather?

Take Dead Aim
 

The system itself doesn't really know about the weather. It just assumes that enough scores are coming in "too high" or "too low" then SOMETHING is up (weather being an easy example) and will adjust accordingly. I still would like for the USGA (once it has a couple of years worth of play in the new system) to look at courses that are consistently playing one direction or the other and use that as data for possible rating adjustments (for example, if my course that triggered me to post this thread almost always has a -1 PCC adjustment, then they should probably just take a stroke off the rating). That way we're not relying just on the PCC to "fix" things, but possibly getting stuck if not enough scores are posted.

Driver: Honma TW747 460 VIZARD 50 S-flex
3 wood: GigaGolf TRX 15*  Grafalloy Pursuit M2T S-flex
Hybrids: GigaGolf TRX 18* and 22* UST HDX 70 S-flex
Irons: GigaGolf TRX PowerSlot 5-PW UST HDX 80 S-flex
Wedges: GigaGolf TRX 6.0 50*, 55*, 60* Dynamic Gold S-flex
Putter: Ray Cook M1 (2020) 34”

“Golf is a good walk enhanced”

Link to post
5 hours ago, Cory O said:

Quick addition - Just popped into my GHIN app and it turned out Woodley Lakes had a -1 PCC applied yesterday (basically meaning it was playing a stroke easier, probably because the tees were up a bit), so the round didn't wind up lowering my handicap. I guess the system works, sorry for wasting everyone's time on the thread! 😃 

Chances are the course played 2 or 3 or even 4 strokes easier, the PCC isn't supposed to truly equalize things, just move them in that direction.  I'd be interested to see if there's a real PCC trend at some courses.  Since the handicaps are based on scores at the course, through all kinds of conditions, and the differentials are based on the handicaps, I expect that things would be pretty even over time.  This might not hold true where players distribute their rounds over a number of courses, and might give some interesting feedback to the Ruling Bodies.  

  • Like 1

:titelist-small: Irons Titleist AP2 714, KBS Tour S, 3 flat

:callaway-small: Rogue SubZero, GD YS-Six X

:vokey-small: 52, 56, and 60 wedges

:ping-small: B60 G5i putter

Right handed

Reston, Virginia

Link to post
  • 2 weeks later...

Just FWIW.

Over the past 50 years I have competed in two sports that use handicapping in an attempt to level the playing fields: 1) golf; 2) sailing. I used to race sailboats 80 to 100 days a year. Now I play 80 to 100 rounds of golf a year. 

I have deep respect for those who have invested enormous amounts of time and thought in formulating handicapping systems in the effort to level out competition. That said, I realized long ago that both sailing and golf handicapping are fundamentally flawed, mainly because of two factors: 1) the variability that exists among the parameters employed in the mathematically formulae handicapping involves; and, 2) flaws in the calculations. Within these categories, there are numerous factors in play - many of which are inherently dynamic. These factors introduce opportunities to improve both sailing and golf handicapping, but achieving improvements would demand so much effort that the payoff for doing it isn't there in the subjective sense that most humans employ. Most people simply wouldn't feel the "payoff" is worth the "effort required". Good enough, it seems, is actually good enough for most of us most of the time.

Course rating just happens to be one of the greatest variables: from state to state, region to region, and country to country. From my observation  over many years, playing golf across the USA and a bit internationally, course rating is the biggest variable factors of all. Consider that my handicap in New Zealand is nearly 7 strokes higher than my handicap here in the States. I'm convinced it is because the approaches to course rating are so different. But that is another aspect that we don't need to divert to in this discussion.

Frankly, because I have observed the limitations of both sailing and golf handicapping for many years, I don't hold much hope for meaningful improvements in either. They are both "good enough", even though neither is truly great. We could spend thousands of hours talking about the strengths and weaknesses of handicapping in both sports and how to fix the flaws. If we did, we almost certainly wouldn't arrive at any major improvements or viable solutions to the basic flaws, but would have enjoyed a lot of beer and good company. Maybe that is the greatest value of handicapping. 

If one wanted to invest the time and effort, what tracks might be followed that hold the greatest promise. I my estimation data is the key. We have vastly more of it today and (thanks to computers) we have vastly more capability to pose hypotheses and qualitatively assess the influence of various factors. That is what "Money Ball" was all about, and statistical metrics continue to blossom in sport, business, and many other endeavors because some people see an opportunity to make it pay off economically.

So, I will continue to play golf knowing that the handicap measure of my potential (not my performance on a given day) is what will be used to compare me with other golfers. I will also recognize and accept its imperfections. When I was actively sailing, I had an alternative available: one-design sailing. That is what I chose to do most of the time, though I also sailing in handicapped events many times. In one-design competition, unlike handicap racing, there is no mathematical adjustment applied to correct for variabilities among hull shape, weight, sails, and even underwater appendages like folding or fixed blade props. By invoking strict physical design specifications and limitations on straying from them, everything is oriented to reducing the variables as much as possible. So, in theory (and almost in fact), it is the skills of the crew that determine who wins and loses one-design sailing races. It generally proves out. In one-design sailboat classes, in local fleets as well as at national-level competition, the same small group of individuals or crews usually win. They win most often because they are better than the other competitors. Every once in a while, someone who is usually in the middle of the fleet will break through, but if you hold enough individual races in a regatta (typically five to sever), the cream rises to the crop almost every time. That is demonstrated by the fact that the truly great sailors can move into a different one-design class than they usually sail in and compete right at the top immediately. They are extraordinary sailors.  

I've never done anything in my life as intensely competitive as one-design sailboat racing, and that includes very active participation in several sports in high school, in football in college, and in the competition of business. Nothing even comes close to high level one-design sailing competition. Imagine playing chess against a grand master while competing at the upper levels of a marathon or triathlon. You have two or three 1.5 to 2 hour long races in a single day where, if you lose focus or don't max out your physical effort for even a second, you fall behind and probably lose because someone else is maintaining their focus and effort at that level. Maybe that is why I am now golfing instead of competitively sailing <grin>. 

I suggest we accept golf handicaps for what they are, with all their warts and inequities. At the end of the round, does it really matter if we are buying the beer or the other guy is? 

Edited by Hecaviator
Clarity - plus, I realized someone would bring up the original topic - course rating.
  • Like 3
Link to post
Just FWIW.
Over the past 50 years I have competed in two sports that use handicapping in an attempt to level the playing fields: 1) golf; 2) sailing. I used to race sailboats 80 to 100 days a year. Now I play 80 to 100 rounds of golf a year. 
I have deep respect for those who have invested enormous amounts of time and thought in formulating handicapping systems in the effort to level out competition. That said, I realized long ago that both sailing and golf handicapping are fundamentally flawed, mainly because of two factors: 1) the variability that exists among the parameters employed in the mathematically formulae handicapping involves; and, 2) flaws in the calculations. Within these categories, there are numerous factors in play - many of which are inherently dynamic. These factors introduce opportunities to improve both sailing and golf handicapping, but achieving improvements would demand so much effort that the payoff for doing it isn't there in the subjective sense that most humans employ. Most people simply wouldn't feel the "payoff" is worth the "effort required". Good enough, it seems, is actually good enough for most of us most of the time.
Course rating just happens to be one of the greatest variables: from state to state, region to region, and country to country. From my observation  over many years, playing golf across the USA and a bit internationally, course rating is the biggest variable factors of all. Consider that my handicap in New Zealand is nearly 7 strokes higher than my handicap here in the States. I'm convinced it is because the approaches to course rating are so different. But that is another aspect that we don't need to divert to in this discussion.
Frankly, because I have observed the limitations of both sailing and golf handicapping for many years, I don't hold much hope for meaningful improvements in either. They are both "good enough", even though neither is truly great. We could spend thousands of hours talking about the strengths and weaknesses of handicapping in both sports and how to fix the flaws. If we did, we almost certainly wouldn't arrive at any major improvements or viable solutions to the basic flaws, but would have enjoyed a lot of beer and good company. Maybe that is the greatest value of handicapping. 
If one wanted to invest the time and effort, what tracks might be followed that hold the greatest promise. I my estimation data is the key. We have vastly more of it today and (thanks to computers) we have vastly more capability to pose hypotheses and qualitatively assess the influence of various factors. That is what "Money Ball" was all about, and statistical metrics continue to blossom in sport, business, and many other endeavors because some people see an opportunity to make it pay off economically.
So, I will continue to play golf knowing that the handicap measure of my potential (not my performance on a given day) is what will be used to compare me with other golfers. I will also recognize and accept its imperfections. When I was actively sailing, I had an alternative available: one-design sailing. That is what I chose to do most of the time, though I also sailing in handicapped events many times. In one-design competition, unlike handicap racing, there is no mathematical adjustment applied to correct for variabilities among hull shape, weight, sails, and even underwater appendages like folding or fixed blade props. By invoking strict physical design specifications and limitations on straying from them, everything is oriented to reducing the variables as much as possible. So, in theory (and almost in fact), it is the skills of the crew that determine who wins and loses one-design sailing races. It generally proves out. In one-design sailboat classes, in local fleets as well as at national-level competition, the same small group of individuals or crews usually win. They win most often because they are better than the other competitors. Every once in a while, someone who is usually in the middle of the fleet will break through, but if you hold enough individual races in a regatta (typically five to sever), the cream rises to the crop almost every time. That is demonstrated by the fact that the truly great sailors can move into a different one-design class than they usually sail in and compete right at the top immediately. They are extraordinary sailors.  
I've never done anything in my life as intensely competitive as one-design sailboat racing, and that includes very active participation in several sports in high school, in football in college, and in the competition of business. Nothing even comes close to high level one-design sailing competition. Imagine playing chess against a grand master while competing at the upper levels of a marathon or triathlon. You have two or three 1.5 to 2 hour long races in a single day where, if you lose focus or don't max out your physical effort for even a second, you fall behind and probably lose because someone else is maintaining their focus and effort at that level. Maybe that is why I am now golfing instead of competitively sailing
I suggest we accept golf handicaps for what they are, with all their warts and inequities. At the end of the round, does it really matter if we are buying the beer or the other guy is? 


A lot of words there, all of them good =)
Thanks!

Driver: Honma TW747 460 VIZARD 50 S-flex
3 wood: GigaGolf TRX 15*  Grafalloy Pursuit M2T S-flex
Hybrids: GigaGolf TRX 18* and 22* UST HDX 70 S-flex
Irons: GigaGolf TRX PowerSlot 5-PW UST HDX 80 S-flex
Wedges: GigaGolf TRX 6.0 50*, 55*, 60* Dynamic Gold S-flex
Putter: Ray Cook M1 (2020) 34”

“Golf is a good walk enhanced”

Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...