New Definition of Scratch Needed?

Hi everyone -

New poster/member here.  Like many of the lower handicap's here, would love to become scratch in a few years, but would be perfectly happy getting to a 2-3 index given real life time constraints (job, wife, future kids, etc).  Been thinking about and reading up on a lot of entertaining threads here with regards to the scratch subject.  Couldn't find too much feedback with regards to this specific idea so thought I'd start stir the pot a little and see what you all thought.

As most of you know, the USGA defines stratch as a player who 1) "can play to a course handicap of 0 on any and all rated courses and 2) "hits the tee shot an average of 250 yds and can reach a 470 yd par 4 in two shots at sea level."  More on the bolded part below:

Given the increasing length/difficulty on the modern golf course I feel that 1 & 2 above are now at least somewhat exclusive of each other, and thus a new, more contemporary definition of scratch is needed.  For example, I have trouble seeing how someone with that length could play to 0 handicap on say, Augusta National, or even your more difficult 75 course rating/140 slope, 7200 yd challenging local country club.  Modest breezes and or seasonally cold weather would only add to my argument.  That said, I do feel that this hypothetical golfer could play to a 0 index (i.e. shot the course rating on a "good day"), which is a few strokes easier.

Thus I would change the above in one of two ways:

A) "can play to a handicap index of 0 on any and all rated courses" while keeping 2) the same

or

B) "hits his driver an average of 270 yards and can reach a 500 yd par 4 in two shots at sea level" while keeping 1) the same

I choose to use the word driver just for a little more clarity, as tee shot could encompass other types of clubs.  The old definition, to me, seems more applicable to the game 30-40 years when courses were shorter, in line with less technologically advanced clubs.  Now, this is the opinion of a decent golfer (or good hack, if you will), and I am curious to see what the better golfers think.

Yes, this is probably nitpicking but just couldn't help myself - have a little free time this afternoon .

If you are playing a course with a rating of 75 (disregarding slope for this discussion) and you shoot 75 half the time, you would have a 0 handicap. You don't have to shoot it every day, only on your better days.

If I'm not mistaken, the USGA definition of a scratch player is used to determine individual hole ratings, and thus course ratings.  If someone else knows different, please chime in.

I think the USGA could just throw out the whole distance factor. You should just be scratch (or not) based on your scores. If someone got to a legit scratch, I don't care how far they hit the ball. It would probably be pretty hard to find many scratch scorers under 270 w/ the driver anyway, but look at a pro like Corey Pavin. Will he not be "scratch" anymore since he only hits it 260ish? His scores beg to differ.

@ Joepro -

That's a very fair point, and I had thought about that prior to posing the question.  You'll always have freak exceptions to the rule (Pavin is a perfect example), however at the same time the general benchmark should represent the majority of the typical scratch golfers, and not the exceptions.  Thinking about it some more, doing away with the distance metric seems the better option, as it seems antiquated anyway and just clouds the picture of what a scratch golfer should be.  I'll detail this a little more below.

@ Harmonius

I think I have confused myself by instinctively thinking that a 0 course handicap = par for that course, which is obviously not the case (and I should know better).  Yes, the slope does not matter for 0 index golfer since the x/113 * 0 will always be 0.  That said, I am still bothered by the definition, and will follow-up with another post on this tomorrow.

you are honestly thinking about this way too much...shoot right around the rating anywhere you go. i honestly just shoot for even par everywhere and take the birdies as they come. it doesnt matter how far you hit it because everyone knows it doesnt matter how far you hit the ball if you can chip and putt your going to score.

I've been close to scratch every since I turned 18.  I try to keep the game as simple as possible and use my natural talent to score.  It helps to have excellent hand-eye coordination as well.  Growing up I was always competitive.  I had lots of friends and we'd spend hours playing two-man wiffle ball games, ping pong, darts, horseshoes, basketball, etc.  It was in those early years that I became an expert on how to win.  So, let's just say that being a scratch golfer has a lot more to do with how you approach the game and how talented you are rather than some silly program for improvement.  Finally, I feel like I'd be leaving something out if I didn't mention the Ping Eye 2s.  Some of the best amateurs I've ever played with use the Eye 2s.  The ZZ-Lite shaft coupled with the perfectly-designed head provide performance and feedback that is unparallelled.   Well boys, I gotta go.  I've got 18 to play this morning followed by an hour at the spa.

Facial?

Ask those who know, and they will tell you that there is a huge difference between a 3 handicap (which you claim you are) and scratch. BTW, did Ping make an Eye 2 wiffle bat?

@cody

I concede your point and will stop worrying about it after this thread.  The KISS approach works well in a lot of sports for obvious reasons.  Here was my follow-up post…

Basically I was bothered by the feeling that one can carry a scratch index without necessarily being a scratch golfer.  The distance definition played into my thinking here.  For me, being a longer hitter, I feel it would be easier to get to 0 playing 6200 yd courses rated 71.0/115 at the local muni vs. 7200 yd, 75.0/140 tournament hosting courses.  Two reasons here – weather and the related mental factor.  When your bag is already stretched, that 20 mph wind (common here in TX), adds another dimension @ 7200 that doesn’t fully show up in the course/slope.  Mentally much tougher to deal with, sometimes to point where I think its becomes counterproductive to improvement - of course that’s just an opinion.

From the above, I’d say the USGA should tighten its definition somehow – for example, maybe only scores from the longest tees should be allowed in determining the handicap.  I am sure there is better way to phrase/define this.

Having now discussed this, can’t help but be a little tempted to start playing the whites J for a few months (normally alternate between blue and tips) to test my gut instinct.  It would be fun to see how much flak I catch out there from randoms trying to play the blue behind me, even if I let them know it is part of an “experiment “ J …

If I actually go through I’ll post a separate thread with results…

@goblue

I’ll agree to disagree with you on this one.  I’d much rather be the scratch golfer playing Oakmont any day of the week.  To me they are two different golfers, and one is particularly better suited to playing say, the US amateur qualifier.  I think the current definition allows for two different types of scratch golfers, and there really should only be one, since it is an important standard that dictates entry into certain tournaments.  The weather and mental factors also were a part of reasoning above.

OK, gotta make myself let this go, although I am getting more tempted to do that experiment…