Scratch golf is course independent

[Deleted member 1147]

So if a longer hitter is likely to get a lower handicap on a harder course, as weighting is to length in the ratings, it suggests that handicaps are course dependent.

 

[wjemather]

So if a longer hitter is likely to get a lower handicap on a harder course, as weighting is to length in the ratings, it suggests that handicaps are course dependent.

As LS keeps on saying, length is always an advantage, and longer hitters are more likely to have lower handicaps - regardless of the course.

Anyway, what is a harder course? Is difficulty being measured relative to something fixed or is it just a perception? Or is it just the common misunderstanding of what Slope is?

 

[Birdie2]

To use a football analogy:

‘You can only play the team (or course in this case) in front of you’

We’re talking at the top end of the game amateur game here. If someone gets to scratch on a course that’s rated lower than a harder course it’s still scratch.

Otherwise it’s like saying, ‘yeah they won the champions league but they didn’t play the best team in Europe in the final so it counts less’

 

[Deleted member 1147]

As LS keeps on saying, length is always an advantage, and longer hitters are more likely to have lower handicaps - regardless of the course.

Anyway, what is a harder course? Is difficulty being measured relative to something fixed or is it just a perception? Or is it just the common misunderstanding of what Slope is?

Slope doesn’t measure difficulty

 

[wjemather]

Slope doesn’t measure difficulty

Correct, but for clarity...
Slope is not a measure of absolute difficulty, but it is a measure of relative difficulty.

 

[Backsticks]

I am stunned at the lack of understanding on this. It confirms to me that there is nothing wrong with WHS at all - any criticism is probably coming from people who dont know how it works in the first place. What authorities here got wrong was communication.

 

[Backsticks]

If a course has 6 par 5’s a good player is more likely to have birdies than one without any par 5’s.
Thus, course dependent .

Is this for real, or deliberately misleading ? (I may be missing the sarcasm)

 

[Lord Tyrion]

To use a football analogy:

‘You can only play the team (or course in this case) in front of you’

We’re talking at the top end of the game amateur game here. If someone gets to scratch on a course that’s rated lower than a harder course it’s still scratch.

Otherwise it’s like saying, ‘yeah they won the champions league but they didn’t play the best team in Europe in the final so it counts less’

You are right in your analogy, a very good one. When I read the question I saw it as the difference between theory and reality. If you are scratch at your course, you are a scratch golfer. If you go to a tougher course you may be 3-4 shots worse off, on a consistent basis. However, your handicap is based on your home course, so scratch you are.

 

[Deleted member 23270]

I know 2 guys that played off 1 and 2 who wanted to get down to scratch so they both moved to another 'easier' local course and both are now off +1.

 

[Backsticks]

I know 2 guys that played off 1 and 2 who wanted to get down to scratch so they both moved to another 'easier' local course and both are now off +1.

Which means nothing. Anecdotes the enemy of reason.

 

[fenwayrich]

I know a chap who plays off Scratch. Of his last 20 scores, 8 are General Play. These are his counting scores. If the best 8 competition scores counted, he'd have an index of 5.8.

 

[IanM]

It confirms to me that there is nothing wrong with WHS at all. What authorities here got wrong was communication.

They certainly did.

I know 2 guys that played off 1 and 2 who wanted to get down to scratch so they both moved to another 'easier' local course and both are now off +1.

Why would they do that? Did the pretty barmaid move there?

 

[Backache]

As LS keeps on saying, length is always an advantage, and longer hitters are more likely to have lower handicaps - regardless of the course.

Anyway, what is a harder course? Is difficulty being measured relative to something fixed or is it just a perception? Or is it just the common misunderstanding of what Slope is?

Stagner did not identify what a harder course was, I would imagine it was the CR but this was not stated

It remains true that he claims to have identified it through the Arrcos database.

Either he is lying, the database data is not representative, his calculations are wrong or there are courses which it is easier to get a given handicap on than other courses

 

[Deleted member 23270]

Which means nothing. Anecdotes the enemy of reason.

You are the gift that keeps giving

 

[Voyager EMH]

The theory of CR and SR is a notionally normal scratch player and a notionally normal 20-handicapper.
And the acceptance of there not being any such thing as a difficult or easy course once the CRs and SRs are set.

Our own personal views of courses will remain based on our own perceptions that may vary from the set CR and SR.
I have to shoot 1.9 shots lower from my yellow tees to score the same SD as from the white tees. Both courses have par 70.
My perception is that, for me, yellow tees give me an advantage of something around 0.5 but nowhere near 1.9.
Thus the yellow tees are "harder" for me.
Other players might take the opposite view which will depend on their particular strengths and weaknesses.

A search for a course for you to base your handicap on will so very likely to be one that you feel suits your game. It would be odd for it to be otherwise.

Two scratch players have played to scratch in their last 20 scores.
Two thousand scratch players have played to scratch in their last 20 scores.
How and where they have done it will be different - but they did it and that's that.

 

[Neilds]

If I ever get to scratch(never gonna happen) I would be saying I was a scratch golfer. I wouldn’t say ‘I am scratch playing of a par x course, slope y, CR z and 4 par 5s’

 

[Banchory Buddha]

If a course has 6 par 5’s a good player is more likely to have birdies than one without any par 5’s.
Thus, course dependent!

I agree with you both tbh.

The issue is, course ratings are not equitable, it was the issue with the old handicap system, and the only part of the new system retained. As has been discussed in other threads, far too much weight is placed on length alone, and not other factors making courses hard or otherwise. In the north east our better players gravitate towards three clubs in particular, Murcar, Newmacher & Meldrum House, as the high CR means better chance of lower handicap which is what they are chasing.

Now Murcar is as tough as they come for players not right at the top, it's narrow and windy, but for better players it not quite so tough, and the other two inland courses are just given a CR far too high for the difficulty of the course

 

[Banchory Buddha]

The course rating should reflect that and it SHOULD have a CR lower than par, I'm with Backsticks on this one.

Should and does are very different beasts. I agree with Backsticks in theory, but in practice the errors in CR mean I agree with JamesR

 

[srixon 1]

The theory of CR and SR is a notionally normal scratch player and a notionally normal 20-handicapper.
And the acceptance of there not being any such thing as a difficult or easy course once the CRs and SRs are set.

Our own personal views of courses will remain based on our own perceptions that may vary from the set CR and SR.
I have to shoot 1.9 shots lower from my yellow tees to score the same SD as from the white tees. Both courses have par 70.
My perception is that, for me, yellow tees give me an advantage of something around 0.5 but nowhere near 1.9.
Thus the yellow tees are "harder" for me.
Other players might take the opposite view which will depend on their particular strengths and weaknesses.

A search for a course for you to base your handicap on will so very likely to be one that you feel suits your game. It would be odd for it to be otherwise.

Two scratch players have played to scratch in their last 20 scores.
Two thousand scratch players have played to scratch in their last 20 scores.
How and where they have done it will be different - but they did it and that's that.

Same for me regarding back tees and the tee we generally use for our swindle games. Both par 70. Back tees CR is 70 but the forward tees have a CR of 1.7 less. Most of my counting scores are from competitive rounds.

 

[IanM]

I can see both sides of this and fail to get bothered by either argument.

1) If folk are putting in scores properly, their handicap is what the app says it is.

2) Notwithstanding Slope, CR, PCC, BBC, ITV, RAC etc etc, golfers have been debating the relative difficulties of courses since Old Tom was a nipper.

Are we back to the debate about "is it CH or HI" that determines scratch?