Jump to content
IGNORED

Maybe a stupid question but


Williamevanl
Note: This thread is 5507 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Recommended Posts

Is it harder to score a decent score on a hard course or a awesome score on a really easy course? The reason I ask is that I used to play a collegiate course that was par ~72 and I started shooting about 85 there. Anyway now I play a course that is par 70 and rated a 65 with a 106 slope *if I remember correctly* and I feel like if I play really well I can shoot about 83 which puts me at an even higher handicap.

I still think it would be hard to shoot a say 79 there and if you did it consistently you would be a 14 handicap? The course also has the wierdest pin placements to make up for its lack of distance. I was with a few guys the other day and if a putt was missed from anywhere on the green it rolled off back on to the fareway. Although it was the funniest thing I have ever witnessed it reinforced my thought that a scratch golfer would still have a tough time shooting 5 under consistently on the course...

Thoughts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites


As far as I'm aware the stroke rating is calculated from the best half of scratch golfers' scores so they probably would struggle to consistently shoot five under. I think course ratings and slopes are a pretty fair indicator of the difficulty. I remember when I first got my handicap, when the 1 top score out of 5 was counted, my friend had shot a 92 at an easier rated course and I had shot a 95 at a harder one and my index came out 3 strokes lower than his.

I guess it really depends on how the course is set up, a tough course with easy pin placements or a easier one with nasty pin placements could produce the same result.

This question is probably better suited to those who can actually shoot decent and awesome scores though!
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Is it harder to score a decent score on a hard course or a awesome score on a really easy course?

For me, I find I can usually put up decent scores on hard courses much easier than putting up an awesome score on easy courses. In my experience, the hard courses are usually better maintained. They have great grass on the tees and fairways, the green areas are bigger and better, and they roll true. The easier courses have spotty fairways, smaller, slower greens.

I typically play better on the well maintained courses because the conditions are better so it makes it easier to do things that you might not be able to do on a bad course. When you get the small, slow greens it is harder to hit greens and putt well so the awesome score won't come. I know people that can shoot lights out on the 'easy' course, but when you get them on a 'hard' course they can't do anything. I am more likely to a shoot a great score on a hard, well maintained course, than I am on an easy, crappy course.

I will judge my rounds much more by the quality of my best shots than the acceptability of my worse ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Even on easy courses, you still have to chip and putt, and eventually get the ball in the hole......

.....and that cup is still only 4 1/4" round.

In David's bag....

Driver: Titleist 910 D-3;  9.5* Diamana Kai'li
3-Wood: Titleist 910F;  15* Diamana Kai'li
Hybrids: Titleist 910H 19* and 21* Diamana Kai'li
Irons: Titleist 695cb 5-Pw

Wedges: Scratch 51-11 TNC grind, Vokey SM-5's;  56-14 F grind and 60-11 K grind
Putter: Scotty Cameron Kombi S
Ball: ProV1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Put me in the harder to go really low on an easy course category.

I feel as though course length has a lot to do with ratings, though I could be wrong. If I play a wide-open 7500 yard course my score will be 10+ strokes better than a 5500 yard tight course. Even if I hit 9-irons off the tee all day, I will find trouble if I see it. If I can't see, piped down the middle 300+ all day. Mental midget.
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Moderator
I agree with descent scores on a harder course because of the maintenance differences. There is a small course where some of my friends play and it is really short but really tough because the greens are so small, have huge undulations, and they are very quick. Depending on pin placement, you could have a miserable putting day and that can ruin a score quickly!

Bryan A
"Your desire to change must be greater than your desire to stay the same"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

put me in the "harder to score on easier courses" bracket ... simpley because I tend to let my guard down on easier courses, I stop thinking and I stop playing "my game" ... on the harder courses I am always more focused. It's more mentally exhausting but usually worth the extra effort.
In my Bag:

Driver: Burner 10.5* Stiff shaft
3 WoodBurner 15* stiff shaft
5 WoodBurner 18* stiff ShaftHybrid3DX (18.5*)Irons: (4-LW):Putter: Rossa Indy SportBalls: Reds
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Even on easy courses, you still have to chip and putt, and eventually get the ball in the hole......

very, VERY true.

I second what many have said about conditions. There is a course in my area where if I don't break 80 (maybe 77 or so now) my handicap goes up... and I generally don't play it any better than other more difficult courses.
My Clubs: Callaway FT-i Tour LCG 9.5° w/ Matrix Ozik Xcon 6 stiff; Sonartec GS Tour 14° w/ Graphite Design Red Ice 70 stiff; Adams Idea Pro 2h(18°) & 3h(20°) w/ Aldila VS Proto 80 stiff; Adams Idea Pro Forged 4-PW w/ TT Black Gold stiff; Cleveland CG12 DSG RTG 52°-10° & 58°-10°; Odyssey...
Link to comment
Share on other sites


Note: This thread is 5507 days old. We appreciate that you found this thread instead of starting a new one, but if you plan to post here please make sure it's still relevant. If not, please start a new topic. Thank you!

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Want to join this community?

    We'd love to have you!

    Sign Up
  • TST Partners

    Golfer's Journal
    ShotScope
    The Stack System
    FlightScope Mevo
    Direct: Mevo, Mevo+, and Pro Package.

    Coupon Codes (save 10-15%): "IACAS" for Mevo/Stack, "IACASPLUS" for Mevo+/Pro Package, and "THESANDTRAP" for ShotScope.
  • Posts

    • Was that a low spinner from Viktor on 4 at Valhalla? From the first cut, I worries it would fly past the flag, then it stops dead.
    • Day 37: Played 18. Didn’t execute my piece every swing, but when I did the results were solid (8 GIR + 5 nGIR, 79). 
    • Iacas- Can you please post all the data behind field strengths? Thank you very much!
    • New 3W is pretty good  I hit a good drive actually but straight into a headwind so it left me far enough back from the trees to attempt something stupid. So naturally, with a new 3W in the bag, I wanted to see what it could do. Hit a high draw directly over the trees and couldn't see where it ended up from the fairway, but I knew I hit it well. I doubt that's the optimal play for scoring well in the long run but it felt good to do.
    • I'm sure you've read this, but I just have to post it, here, again, for everyone who hasn't. It changed my thinking forever and irrevocably on this exact topic:  "We don't say "the golfers are more talented" today. We say "there are more talented golfers today." "More" meaning they are far more numerous, not more talented. Talent is random. Only a small percentage of people win the talent lottery --- for world class golf, way less than 1%. And there's no telling whether the most talented player of any period, including this one, was more talented than Jack, or Jones, or Vardon. It's absolutely unknowable. What IS knowable, though, is that the base population is larger, so whatever percentage of people are born with golf talent, there are a lot more of them today than there were 50 years ago. What is knowable is that training and coaching is vastly improved. Hogan had to, in his words, "dig his swing out of the dirt" by hitting millions of golf balls. Today, they have radar and laser and the Minolta super duper high speed swing cam, and they know exactly how every little swing tweak affects their spin rate and launch angle and apex height -- stuff nobody had any clue about in Jack's day. So 50 years ago, if you had 100 guys born with golf talent take up golf, maybe 30 of them would find their optimal swing. Today, it's probably over 90. What is knowable is that the huge purses, and the fact that Tiger was the world's richest and most famous athlete, and not just the world #1 golfer, is making golf the first choice of more young athletes, rather than just the guys who couldn't make the "real" sports teams in school. So if you had 100 guys born with multi-sport talent 50 years ago, most of them played golf for fun, if at all. Today, a lot more of them concentrate on golf as their main sport. And what is knowable is that travel is much faster and cheaper now, so almost every world class player shows up for almost every major and WGC, and for many of the regular PGA events. 50 years ago, the second or third best player in, say, Australia, often didn't even play in the British Open, let alone a PGA event. So all the PGA events, and three of the four majors, had only a handful of international players, and the fourth major had only a handful of Americans. None of that is speculation. It is a verifiable fact that there are over twice as many people in the world today than there were 50 years ago. It's a verifiable fact that the purses today are hundreds of times as high as they were 50 years ago --- Tony Lema got about $4200 for winning the 1964 Open; today, it's about $3.5 million. It's a verifiable fact that virtually all the world top 100 play every major they are eligible for, instead of only a handful playing any events that require overseas travel. It's not knowable exactly how all of that combines, but a good indication is the number of entries in the US Open. To enter the US Open requires both top 1% talent for the game, and a serious commitment to it. There were about 2400 entrants per year 50 years ago. This century, it's consistently over 9000, well over three times as many. It's true that, mostly because of the time and expense, the number of duffers recreational players has declined, but they never had any influence on field strength, anyway. High school kids on the golf team still play all they want, for free. What do you have to counter that? Nothing but your belief that there were half a dozen golf phenoms all at the same time in the 60's, and none today, now that Tiger's past his prime. You're entitled to that opinion, but what facts do you have to back it up? Only the number of majors they won. But how many majors would Phil have won if the fields were like they were 50 years ago? Mickelson finished second in the US Open to Goosen in 2004, to Ogilvy in 2006, and to Rose last year. 50 years ago, odds are that none of those guys would have even tried to qualify for the US Open, since it required shutting down their schedule for a minimum of three weeks to travel to the US for sectional qualifying, with no guarantee that they would make it into the actual tournament. Michael Campbell, who beat Tiger with some amazing putting down the stretch in 2005, said that he would not have entered that year if the USGA hadn't established overseas qualifying sites, so he didn't have to travel to enter. How would Phil look next to Arnie with those three US Opens? Eight majors, and a career Grand Slam. And how would Tiger look if Michael Campbell, Trevor Immelman, Angel Cabrera, and YE Yang had stayed home, like most international players did in the Jack era? I'll make it even simpler for you, since you follow women's golf. How much better would the US women look today, if there were no Asians on tour? Or even just no Koreans? Well, it looks like you're going to crow about the lack of current talent every time a guy backs into a win for the foreseeable future, but come on. The Valero was a 40-point tournament, which makes it one of the weakest regular PGA events, barely above the John Deere Classic. And the tournament committee knows that most top players don't like to play right before a major, so they try to attract the few who do by making it as close to major conditions as possible, to help them fine tune their games. A weak field facing a tough setup is not a recipe for low scores, but you still insist on taking one bad week and comparing it to the majors of your hazy memory, even though you seem to have forgotten epic collapses by the likes of Arnie, who managed to lose a seven shot lead over the last 9 holes of the 1966 US Open. And who knows how often something like that happened in a low-rent event? I don't know if Tiger was more talented than Jack, or even Trevino. All I know is that there are many solid reasons to believe that in order to win a tournament, he had to beat around three times as many talented golfers, even in most of the regular tour events he's won, as Jack did in a major --- especially the Open, where Jack only had to beat as few as 8 other Americans, at a time when probably 60-70 of the world top 100 were Americans.  I don't say it's true by definition, as you claimed, but I say it's the way to bet, based on facts and logic."  
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...